Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2007/09
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
September 1
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It was copy without authorization from http://www.jmarcano.com/mipais/historia/batallas/guerra1e.html 66.98.78.117 18:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete copyvio Finn Rindahl 18:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, clear copyviol, false licence. -- Infrogmation 22:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photo taken without authorization from http://www.jmarcano.com/mipais/historia/batallas/guerra1b.html 66.98.78.239 21:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Source clearly labeled "Copyright © 2006 José E. Marcano M". Speedy deleted as obvious copyright violation. -- Infrogmation 22:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Source is en:User:DBCaravan on en:Wikipedia who has made many uploads on en:Wikipedia with false claims of creation or ownership but which have been shown to have been copyviols yoinked from other websites. I haven't identified the source of this one, but have no reason to trust the supposed originator. (I have left a note at their en:Wikipedia talk page.) --Infrogmation 18:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Apparent source found: [1], full image at [2], clearly labeled "© 2007 Vidi-TO d.o.o. Sva prava pridržana. / All rights reserved." -- Infrogmation 22:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete seems to be a copyvio all right. Finn Rindahl 23:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
new version with correct name: Image:Aromia moschata.jpg Sjoehest 19:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Image:Käfer_sjoehest.jpg (no longer) used in any projects. Finn Rindahl 19:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Please use the {{badname}} tag for next time.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photo taken without authorization from http://www.jmarcano.com/mipais/historia/batallas/guerra1b.html 66.98.78.239 21:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Source clearly labeled "Copyright © 2006 José E. Marcano M". Speedy deleted as obvious copyright violation. -- Infrogmation 22:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dieses Bild stellt eine massive Beleidigung in Verbing mit Verunglimpfung einer lebenden Person dar. Die Assoziierung des Herrn Schäuble mit Mördern, Folterern und generell Schwerstverbrechern halte ich für unangebracht für eine Enzyklopädie. Ich bitte daher diese Geschmacklosigkeit zu entsorgen. Weissbier 09:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weissbier says it was libelling a living person (German politician Wolfgang Schäuble). This deletion request also covers the following derivate works of this image:
- Lupo 11:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a logo used in a current civil rights campaign and can be seen printed on thousands of shirts and posters in the public in Germany. So if Mr. Schäuble himself or the Ministry of the Interior don't object to the usage of this logo, why should we delete it? --91.65.124.74 16:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that this association of the german secretary of the interior with the former GDR secret police Stasi is covered by freedom of art and therefore irrelevant. But this picture seems to be a derivative work though since there is no feasible reason for assuming the uploader being the creator of the artwork itself. Finally, i think it has to be deleted since the CC licensing is not credible. (It might be true for the photographic reproduction but this isn't enough). --Wiggum 21:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why should it not be credible? The license is cc-by-sa - Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike - and that is perfectly credible for Wikipedia/Wikimedia. The license itself is included in the PNG image at the bottom. The uploader is not the creator, true, but has a permission from the creator, which can also be read in general form in clear text (German though) on the source web page, which is also referred to. Please explain what is wrong or what is missing here. --W-sky 22:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh i didn't see the png picture. The licence is fine, Keep.--Wiggum 09:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose This picture is a legal form of political protest sign against the very straight form of some ideas the described german secretary of the interior stands for. The license is cc-by-sa and absolutely correct. --Herrick 08:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, the license is OK. --Dezidor 09:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- delete die Lizenz der Quelle auf Flickr ist cc-by-nc und das ist inkompatibel. --Marcela 10:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ich seh da nirgendwo flickr. Oder hast du dich mit dem Link beim Tagging Anfang des Monats vertan?--Wiggum 11:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ich hab da im Chat nen Link bekommen, ich glaube von Smial - und dasw war eindeutig nc Ob es Flickr war - bin ich nicht mehr sicher. Beim Taggen hab ich mich vertan, richtig. --Marcela 14:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- The images are not from flickr. The original source is denoted. What might have lead to your confusion Marcela, is that the license was recently changed by the author. It was cc-by-nc before. --W-sky 12:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ich seh da nirgendwo flickr. Oder hast du dich mit dem Link beim Tagging Anfang des Monats vertan?--Wiggum 11:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This a a campaign against the article that uses this image. The article should be deletet and has now been restored. Its the second attempt to do delete this image. The license is cc 3.0 (because the older license was the reaseon for the first Deletion Request). The picture is part of an civil right campaign in germany and covered by freedom of speech. Best Regards Stefan.
- The licence of the picture is ok, and the picture is covered by the civil rights. So we should keep it. --87.123.115.204 21:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Es ist ein Armutszeugnis diese Verunglimpfung eines Behinderten hier zu verbreiten. Man muß mit dem Mann nicht einer Meinung sein, aber man kann es wenigstens mit Würde tun. Weissbier 12:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Wolfgang Schäuble muss hier vor keiner angeblichen "Beleidigung" geschützt werden, das Bild ist einfach nur ein Dokument. 84.159.38.181 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Wikimedia Commons has also images that are offensive to a person or a group of people, for educational purposes. Offensive content is no reason for deletion. See Category:Antisemitism if you want any examples of wikimedia commons images that are offensive. --Church of emacs 14:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the picture is widely used in general public demonstrations and is known to a broad mass of people, even outside germany. Wikipedia/Wikimedia even has a liability to provide information to the public, it can't close its eyes to actual political happening. Furthermore, there is no license violation as mentioned. --js 15:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: These pictures are covered by the Freedom of expression (Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights) and by the Freedom of the press (esp. for Wikipedia). --Liberal Freemason (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Everything Weissbier has written on this page is utter nonsense. "Verunglimpfung eines Behinderten" (Denigration of a handicapped person)? Come on. Mr. Schäuble is indeed handicapped (he needs a wheelchair since he was attacked several years ago), but this picture does in no way mention this fact, allude to it or show it. It does allude to Schäuble's political positions, which are questionable. --Rosenzweig 19:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the license: The picture was not taken from flickr or any other platform, but was shot by myself. So the license information (also given by myself) should be correct :-) ---Nicor 13:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep the user Weissbier was also using this argument to delete the article "stasi 2.0", but did fail in the last instance. Elvis 11:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep It's a correct description of the political problem. Also like Rosenzweig. -- Sozi 14:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- i just saw the following: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Stasi_2.0.JPG&diff=prev&oldid=7511387 this edit strikes me as quite strange. is ist allowed to delete a former deletion discussion without pointing to the old version? 194.76.29.2 15:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Most certainly not. I guess the only thing that should be deleted here is Weissbier's user account. I don't know how to handle his changes now. Anyway, the discussion seems to lead to the clear conclusion that none of the images must be deleted. The photograph was uploaded and/or licensed by the photographer, the others have suitable licenses too and do not contradict any lawful issues. Request for EOD... --W-sky 15:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- deleting him may be a bit harsh, but on de, he does nothing more than starting deletion requests and is "well loved" for it. 194.76.29.2 15:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Most certainly not. I guess the only thing that should be deleted here is Weissbier's user account. I don't know how to handle his changes now. Anyway, the discussion seems to lead to the clear conclusion that none of the images must be deleted. The photograph was uploaded and/or licensed by the photographer, the others have suitable licenses too and do not contradict any lawful issues. Request for EOD... --W-sky 15:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP the image is not free because of freedom of panorama. It was placed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 after being under CC-BY-NC-SA for some time [3]. It's also not inappropriate for Wikipedia according to my views, maybe cynical but it shouldn't be deleted because it doesn't fit in the actual political landscape of germany. --Yamavu 15:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep Ich wüsste keinen Grund warum man dieses Bild löschen sollte, meiner Meinung nach fällt es unter die "Redefreiheit".
- delete So einen Schwachsinn zu einem Artikel zu machen schaffen nur WIKIANDER! 84.153.72.118 18:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Was sind Wikiander? :) --Church of emacs 19:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- delete
- An offense is not defused by the fact that the insulted one does not undertake anything against it. Politicians don't want poor publicity.
- Last week a student was arrested, who has that sticker on his car. A newspaper summarizes: "Damit könnte die Anzeige [...] zu einem Fall werden, der Tausende von Webseitenbetreibern zu potentiellen Straftätern werden lässt."
- Not only Schäuble becomes insulted, but also the Stasi victims. Alauda 21:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- 1. I don't deny the fact that the picture is an offense. I just say that commons does not censor pictures which are offensive. If there is a rule that states, that no offensive pictures shall be uploaded, show it to me. But then, we'll have to delete all images in Category:Antisemitism, too.
- 2. Wikimedia Commons is in the USA, so German law doesn't apply there. If it is illegal in Germany, only the domain wikipedia.de (which is under control of the German Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.) can be blocked. However I don't think it is illegal to show the image for educational purposes, not even in Germany. See Image:Flag of Germany 1933.svg, it is not ok to use the flag to advocate 3. Reich, but it is ok to show it "for the purposes of education and information."
- 3. See 1. --Church of emacs 13:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep I think the Picture is no violation againt the Person Ich finde die persönlichkeitsrechte werden hier NICHt verletzt also behalten --84.136.3.85 21:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep das ist eine zulässige Karikatur. In jedem Karnevalsumzug finden sich schlimmere "Beleidigungen". Außerdem erinnert vieles, was Schäuble fordert, tatsächlich an die Stasi.
- keep Personen die zeitgeschichtlich so relevant sind dürfen karikiert werden. Damit müssen die betroffenen Personen leben; Kohl war auch eine Birne. Politiker sind immer im Fadenkreuz der Karikaturisten/Satiriker/politischen Gegner. Ganz abgesehen vom Lemma „Stasi 2.0“ verstößt das Bild gegen keine Urheberrechte - höchstens gegen den guten Geschmack, welcher wiederum subjektiv ist. --Poupée de chaussette 22:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep Dieses Bild ist allein schon wegen der hitzigen Diskussion in und um die Wikipedia ein wichtiges Zeitdokument. So wie es als Symbol für die Angst vor dem Überwachungsstaat steht, so ist es Sinnbild der hiesigen Kultur des Miteinander, des Lösung-Findens, der Wikipediademokratie. Abgesehen davon hat es in Magazinen wie der Titanic weit verletzendere Karrikaturen von Politikern und anderen Personen des öffentlichen Lebens gegeben (z.B. gegen den Papst) die sämtlich - sofern es überhaupt zu einem Prozess kam - nicht verboten wurden.
Kept, no persuasive reason. --Avatar 00:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I have uploaded the same image with another name (Kostel sv. Vavřince v Teplicích nad Metují.jpg). Koroner 17:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete case of bad name, same uploader Finn Rindahl 17:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Kostel sv. Vavřince v Teplicích nad Metují.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Taken from http://www.jmarcano.com/mipais/historia/batallas/guerra1b.html —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.98.78.117 (talk • contribs)
Deleted by Infrogmation: cv
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images uploaded in 2005, not used in any projects, appears to be corrupted. Finn Rindahl 18:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, corrupt. Wizardman 23:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Corrupt. --Boricuaeddie 03:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Works with higher resolution. --Polarlys 19:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Downscaling the image somewhat (3556 pixels at 72dpi is ridiculous anyway) solved the problem. Lupo 09:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)- Keep Problem solved ;) Finn Rindahl 09:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source says nothing about cc-by-sa-2.5 --201.53.23.207 18:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Website is under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5, and I am assuming so is the image. --Digon3 talk 01:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
all user contributions are copy violations from http://www.wittenannen.net/. JD {æ} 09:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This also applies to:
- Image:Garten_02.JPG
- Image:Im_Unterricht_1.jpg
- Image:Musik.jpg
- Image:Studium_2.jpg
- Image:Im Unterricht 2.jpg
- Image:Eurythmie.jpg
- Image:WittenAnnen Logo.jpg
- Image:Nachgebaute Tuer Studentenhaus.jpg
(Merged into one request by ALE! ¿…? 10:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
deleted, copyvio--Polarlys 11:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is not from a decision or a statement by an authority or a public body, but from a government web site. PD Norway Gov does not apply here. Finn Rindahl 10:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, as per Finnrind --Polarlys 11:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I posted it yesterday. But it should be deleted quickly. Date of date of death of artist is unknown! --Atomiccocktail 10:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, sculptor unknown, still alive or not dead for 70 years yet. --Polarlys 12:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is almost certainly a copyvio because the Flickr user has licensed several obvious copyvios under Creative Commons. --Spellcast 14:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Looks copyvio Imo too. so im with delete. --Football97 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.216.183.206 (talk • contribs) at 12:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, it is: http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity_interviews/50+Cent-13462.html. Spellcast 19:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. http://flickr.com/photos/7802918@N03/ should be renamed "copyvio city". :) — Jeff G. 05:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not used i articles, large .png file that does not show on screen og thumbsize. Finn Rindahl 11:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, not used, unencyclopedic Kameraad Pjotr 12:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(reason for deletion) --Michele Bassi 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no need for this page because there is a better specified duplicates:Palazzata di Messina (Camillo Autore, Raffaele Leone, Giuseppe Samonà and Guido Viola)--Michele Bassi 11:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I am Maria lo sposo, and also I think that the name with the architects and the whole name of the palaces is better --Maria lo sposo 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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? PatríciaR msg 15:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- This problem is apparantly solved, the del. req. was posted before this page was changed into a redirect.Finn Rindahl 16:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Er, then we keep the redirect for now, I guess. PatríciaR msg 21:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- This problem is apparantly solved, the del. req. was posted before this page was changed into a redirect.Finn Rindahl 16:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
BadGIF, there is Image:Disambig RTL.svg OsamaK 21:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- All instances of Image:Disambig_arabic.gif must be replaced with Image:Disambig RTL.svg, then Image:Disambig_arabic.gif can be tagged as {{duplicate}}. This is not a case for deletion requests. So the disambiguation templates including this image should be corrected before (using Checkusage, I see it's only on ar.wiki). So for now I close this keeping the image. PatríciaR msg 21:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence that the GKrellM logo itself is released under GFDL (or GPL) Fred J 15:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete until further clearing. I sent an e-mail to try to clear this issue up (and asking if it's possible to release the logo under a free license, just in case it is copyrighted... ;)). PatríciaR msg 14:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I got a reply!
This image was donated to me without any copyright claim or any explicit assignment of copyright. However, it was placed on my web page with the understanding that I was free to use it as I wished. So while I don't think under the current circumstances that I could claim copyright, I did receive the image at least under the condition of the freedom of public domain use.
- So, keepers? PatríciaR msg 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: In category Unknown as of 1 September 2007; no permission
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright violation from: http://flickr.com/photos/marcokraus/page11/
—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Secar one (talk • contribs)
- sorrie about that, i don`t have that much experience with these kind of work, secar one 12:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understant what's the problem with this photo. I uploaded this photo from the deutch wikipedia where the photo was originally uploaded by the the user MarcoKraus : it's the same pseudonym that on the flicker's page so it is likely they are the same person. Sayan 10:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Checking the de user page, it certainly seems to be the same person, and he's uploaded other images from the same event that he also has on flickr. You could suggest to him that he add a note to his flickr pages about the GFDL licensing. --Davepape 14:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Judging from the user's contributions on de.wiki, we can't expect a fast clering on this subject. Also, judging from this edit on his talk page, he has been informed about the meaning of releasing images under free licenses such as the GFDL. Since the picture is still copyrighted on Flickr and there was no Flickr review when it was uploaded on Commons, I think we can't assume that the user wants it under a free license. So I'm inclined to Delete.
- Secar one, when you nominate a page for deletion, please don't remove the page content or leave comments of this type (or at least use the discussion page). In a collaborative, voluntary project, we all do our best and many times it's not enough, unfortunately. Regards, PatríciaR msg 15:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Judging from the user's contributions on de.wiki, we can't expect a fast clering on this subject. Also, judging from this edit on his talk page, he has been informed about the meaning of releasing images under free licenses such as the GFDL. Since the picture is still copyrighted on Flickr and there was no Flickr review when it was uploaded on Commons, I think we can't assume that the user wants it under a free license. So I'm inclined to
- Checking the de user page, it certainly seems to be the same person, and he's uploaded other images from the same event that he also has on flickr. You could suggest to him that he add a note to his flickr pages about the GFDL licensing. --Davepape 14:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept Image was originally uploaded by the same user name as the flickr one. All uploads on de.wiki by this user was from the flickr site and licensed as GFDL on wikipedia, but All rights reserved on flickr. I've checked the user page links on de.wiki, flickr and his homepage, I've found no indication that the files was made by another person or that it is a copyvio. It seems to be his work and he released the image on wikipedia under GFDL. --GeorgHH • talk 20:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Template:Ifd top Deleted. Quadell (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This nomination includes all PNG Autoroute shields in Category:Road signs in Québec.
The stylized overpass is copyrighted, since the design was first used in the 1960s. I've made an SVG replacement without the overpass. NE2 03:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment It would be nice to see if there is some source for the claim that the overpass came into use in the 1960s, to make it clear (not that I don't believe in you ;)). PatríciaR msg 14:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have filled an official form at www.droitauteur.gouv.qc.ca to get permission and or clarification on that matter. J'ai rempli un formulaire auprès de l'éditeur officiel du Québec (www.droitauteur.gouv.qc.ca) afin d'obtenir des clarification sur le sujet et possiblement une permission plus large. Yanik Crépeau 2007-11-12
- Any updates? I think we can go ahead and delete the PNGs as superceded. Quadell (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Quadell: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:A-10.png
September 2
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
uploaded with wrong name, right name is Su-7-JH02.jpg Hrd10 17:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please use {{badname}} for those requests. I changed image to badname. --Denniss 11:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Badname
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Superseded by the correctly spelled Image:Ipswich_ma_highlight.png File Upload Bot (Petros63) 22:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've changed the category from delete to bad name as suggested. Since it is now listed for speedy deletion, please close this request with no action. Petros63 02:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
--Digon3 talk Tagged as badname
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Superseded by Image:Manchester-by-the-Sea_ma_highlight.png (corrected town name) Petros63 22:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've changed the category from delete to bad name as suggested. Since it is now listed for speedy deletion, please close this request with no action. Petros63 02:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
--Digon3 talk Tagged as badname
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I made an uploading mistake. Rhomylos 13:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Image does not have license and is probably not forthcoming if user marks it as an uploading mistake. Deadstar 14:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted /mistake uploaded， deletion apply by uploader--Fanghong 03:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
same as Image:Reynard-the-fox.jpg, but less info in the Summary Jonas kork 13:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted /redundant， less discription and only one used.--Fanghong 03:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image, which was originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 2006.10.17 by the administrator or trusted user Bastique, who found that it was currently available on Flickr under the license © All rights reserved. It seems to me that this is incompatible with Commons. Am I wrong? Lucasbfr 11:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's clearly incompatible with GFDL!--Londoneye 12:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the same template informs you of that "...which isn't compatible with the Commons." I'm afraid this happens often, and yes, the image should be deleted. Such images go into Category:Possibly unfree Flickr images, which has a deleting backlog. PatríciaR msg 21:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. PatríciaR msg 21:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bad quality and no particular subject --Moumou82 12:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Quality is usually avery bad reason for deletion. If the image is used it should be kept (checkusage does not work at the moment). --ALE! ¿…? 08:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Is the better photo free that I have of the center of Gafsa. Was take from bus and is low quality but we can see perfectly as is the center of Gafsa I believe and this is a particular subject because I created pages for all the tunisian delegations (263) that surely momou82 never heard before that exist.--jolle 02:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It is used at http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gafsa --jolle 02:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept, image is used. PatríciaR msg 21:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This whole category tree is empty and redundant --Tony Wills 09:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Info: this includes Category:Works by license, Category:PD-UN, Category:Public domain in the United States, Category:PD-US-no-notice --Tony Wills 09:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
because it is superseded by similar image of superior quality and resolution Monk 14:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
no valid reason for deletion --ALE! ¿…? 10:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
because it is superseded by similar image of superior quality and resolution Monk 14:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
no valid reason for deletion --ALE! ¿…? 10:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ugly blue map, only used on commons Arizona Michiel1972 14:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
doppelt Usellermann 16:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: duplicate or a scaled down version of Image:TiefenZeitDiagramm-BlueHole.png
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is doubt if this source stahl-online.de allows for derivative and commercial use. See preliminary discussion on my User talk. Finn Rindahl 11:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- no free license at all: http://www.stahl-online.de/english/legal_notes/legal_notes.asp --Polarlys 12:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
licensed {{cc-by-nc}} at source, see [4] ˉanetode╦╩ 08:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above en.wikipedia link could be accessed by en.wikipedia admins only... --Moonian 13:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No free license. --Siebrand 11:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
license unclear --Conny 16:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As far as I can perceive this, it's a copyvio. Material from the European Energy Agency is mostly in public domain but parts can be copyrighted, and EUNIS is such a part, unfortunately. PatríciaR msg 22:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission --Siebrand 11:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
An amateur's map, which, according to the Wikipedia's No Original Research shall not be used in Wikipedia's articles. Use maps of the occupied Europe seen in the valid and verifiable sources. Moreover, this map is just a misinterpretation of the historic facts. The previous unsigned comment was made on 2 September 2007 by User:4.249.0.58
- Template fix Deadstar 07:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep used in several articles on various Wikipedias (English, Spanish, Polish anyhow ...) Images are given wide bearth on English Wikipedia to include "minimal" original research - basically every user-produced image has some. Source data would be nice, but it's being used and is on an encyclopaedic topic. WilyD 20:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete This map is just a misinterpretation of the historic facts - compare the map of Serbia as seen in Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Israel Gutman, Editor in Chief, Vol. 3, Macmillan, New York - London, 1990 entry Serbia, page 1342.
Also, see
- The Destruction of the European Jews by Raul Hilberg Holmes & Meier 1985 entry Serbia, pages 725-738
- Karl-Heinz Schlarp, Wirtschaft and Besetzung, Serbien 1941-1944 (Wiesbaden and Stuttgart 1986)
Author of this (proposed for deletion) 'map' tried to sell an idea about 'autonomy' of Banat, then about 'region' ruled by German minority. The references above have no clue about Banat as an 'autonomy' or 'regon ruled by German minority'. See simply the 'map' description changes. Very bad thing is that this false map is posted on so many places - one reason more for speedy delete. --4.249.6.183 00:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete No point in having misleading maps.--Londoneye 12:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete The 'map' author falsely claims that the references 1. The "Times" History of Europe by Mark Almond and 2. The Times History of the 20th Century by Richard Overy support his 'map'--Standshown 14:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's used and has acceptable licensing. Simple as that. Common is for more than just Wikipedia and doesn't have an OR policy. We make no guarantee over the accuracy of the images we host. We simply host them. Rocket000 19:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Kept No one must use a misinterpreted or incorrect described file, but this is not a reason to delete it. You are free to use the image talk page to leave a notice about what you think is wrong with the image. --GeorgHH • talk 21:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Originally put in speedy deletion for the reason of "copyvio of magazine covers". Also in discussion on Commons:Village_pump#About_derivative_works. So, should we see this as a photo of magazine booth or a collection of magazine cover? Stewart~惡龍 14:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: while the magazine covers are clearly not incidental to the photo, being its main object, no single magazine cover, or picture to be found on it, is central to the photo. Therefore, even if freedom of panorama cannot be applied here, I think that the photo can be kept. See this. --rimshottalk 15:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Same as above. Originally put in speedy deletion for the reason of "easily reaches the threshold for copyrightability - indeed, even the pictorial logo down the right side of two of the cards does that". Also in discussion on Commons:Village_pump#About_derivative_works. Stewart~惡龍 16:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- It seems like the threshold of originality isn't very high in China [5]. Therefore, I think that the above statement about copyrightability is correct, and that this image should be deleted. --rimshottalk 15:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 12:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I found that Image:Camtek wafer-to-board flow.jpg was very similar to one found in this pdf document (page 7). It is possible that Kipflur took all his uploaded material from a source at Camtek. It is in my opinion unlikely that Kipflur is the copyright owner of the material he uploaded, as he claims. In any case, there is no evidence.
Other uploads include
etc. Where are these material from, and how are they "self-made"? Surely not self-photographed?
--Fred J 14:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I got a message on my talk page related to this discussion: [6]. But still not clear what the permission for the images are, and if the uploader/copyright holder understood our meaning of "free use".
- Fred J 19:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader was told on September 3, 2007 to comment here (see also [7]), but didn't do so. No evidence of free license. Lupo 12:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
September 3
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I uploaded the same image with a better name Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini 16:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
this image is clearly fair use, it's a logo. Fair use images are not allowed on commons --ACBest 21:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Lestath: Copyright violation
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Screenshot of copyrighted, non-free web site. Licensing not suitable for the Commons. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Copyright violation. Yann 15:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio of AP picture here Carcharoth (Commons) 03:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Is there a chance AP used the free flickr image (and tagged its AP as it does with everything it touches)? I wish this was true. Should we contact the flickr user? --Abu badali 14:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Dunno. What do you think? Anyone want to contact the Flickr user? Carcharoth (Commons) 03:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. Largest size available at Flickr is 289×384 pixels. IMO that means that it's highly likely that the Flickr user just copied this off the web somewhere. Lupo 08:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. --Abu badali 05:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, copyvio. --Polarlys 12:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not a photograph so tag is wrong, not from URL given, not a historical image, copyright violation of modern artist's work. 31 August 2007 User:71.203.223.65
- Deletion fix Deadstar 13:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- First, I don't see that image at the stated source. Second, a cropped version, together with many other images in the same style is here. That site doesn't give any indication where these drawings come from. Hence: no source, and therefore Delete. Lupo 15:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Lupo. — Jeff G. 16:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Image may be allowable if we had accurate sourcing information as the original is most likely old and in PD. But agree that the information is not accurate and seems unlikely that accurate information can be obtained. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oringinal most certainly is not old/PD, it's from a modern work. Late 20th century. Forget which one.
Deleted by --Digon3 talk No source
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Durch Karte Image:Karte Gemeinde Näfels.png ersetzt. 2 September 2007 User:Tschubby
- Deletion fix. Deadstar 12:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Now tagged as Badname. --Digon3 talk 22:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: Dupe of Image:Karte Gemeinde Näfels.png
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Durch Karte Image:Karte Gemeinde Schwändi.png ersetzt -- 2 September 2007 User:Tschubby
- Deletion fix Deadstar 12:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: Dupe of Image:Karte Gemeinde Schwändi.png
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope. No description given and looks like personal photo. --Deadstar 09:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope, no desription, author, or date. --Digon3 talk 23:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bad file name ShinePhantom 10:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please tag this as {{badname|image:"correct image name".jpg} }. --Digon3 talk 16:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
{{badname|image:Dog_monument,_back_view,_Togliatti,_Russia.JPG.jpg}}
image was tagged with {{rename image}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Durch Image:Karte_Gemeinde_Unterbözberg.png ersetzt. 20 July 2007 User:Tschubby
- Deletion fix Deadstar 12:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted (please use {{duplicate}} or {{bad name}}) --ALE! ¿…? 10:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bad name. New name Ugaki Matome final mission.jpg uploaded --MChew 15:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Please use the {{bad name}} tag for next time.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Claimed to be gfdl-self, but it's actually a software's screenshot. The software may be free, but this image contains non-free elements like the Firefox logo and the MS Window's windon's decorations. --Abu badali 16:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Contains clearly copyright elements.--Londoneye 12:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. copyvio --Siebrand 11:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unclear what is pictured in the image, a black shadow obscures half the view, the image is not taken straight on, and there is no description. To me that makes it out of scope and should be deleted. --Deadstar 09:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not used, not useful without description, out of scope. Finn Rindahl 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Unusable --Siebrand 11:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image description page says GFDL, but does not name the author, which in itself is a copyvio. The pl: listed as the only source has deleted the image as a copyright violation. Mormegil 12:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source/author --Siebrand 11:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Superseeded by Image:Asapa.svg and retired in all wikis. --] (discusión) 14:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Use {{superseded}} --Siebrand 11:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file has been superseded by Image:Bandera valladolid.svg and retired in every wiki. --] (discusión) 15:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Use {{superseded}} --Siebrand 11:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The own work claim is disputed per edit history, so comments are hereby requested as to whether to delete. Jusjih 13:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Since the uploader used many different author names for his uploads, agree that it is questionable that he holds the copyright for this image (or any of them). So delete unless accurate lic with permission is obtained. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No clear license/permission/source. --Siebrand 11:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio of picture in this document, cropped and horizontal-reversed.--202.177.115.128 14:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- oops sorry that was a simple image-on-file confusion. please go ahead and delet it. WTCA 06:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. copyvio --Siebrand 11:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
error in name JeanMi 17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Use {{bad name}} or {tl|duplicate}} --Siebrand 11:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Someone who apears there asked me to Mhpoars 21:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- What about blurring the faces? --Abu badali 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Personality rights not relevant. Correct license and used. --Siebrand 11:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image looks better cropped, and I have just uploaded one that is cropped, therefore this one is no longer nessecary. --Happyme22 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think there is no harm keeping both. Where is the new BTW? Yann 15:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Use {{bad name}} or {{duplicate}} --Siebrand 11:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No more used, the image is equivalent to Image:50°Stormo-Patch.svg --F l a n k e r 23:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Superseded PNGs are to be replaced but not deleted. --Digon3 talk 14:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Is a no more used duplicate. --F l a n k e r 00:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Use {{bad name}} or {tl|duplicate}} --Siebrand 11:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Es wird behauptet, dieses Bild sei "selbst gemacht", aber offenbar handelt es dabei nur um das Abfotografieren eines gedruckten Exemplars. Das Bild (ohne die Gebrauchsspuren vor dem Abfotografieren) findet sich z.B. auch bei auf der Seite des Stadions --87.180.174.140 13:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC) --87.180.174.140 13:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't find the image at the stadium's homepage, but at the ticket service. It is a pretty clear copyvio, unless it was photographed from a permanent public display of the plan. I have just asked the user at deWP, but if no answer is forthcoming, this will have to be deleted. --rimshottalk 16:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- The original foto is on [8] (Click on "Tipps für Gäste") --195.93.60.98 21:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Invalid claim of own work. (falsche Angabe, da eindeutig nicht selbst gemacht). -- Cecil 12:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- 2007-12-10T22:32:01 User:O stellte Seite File:Rosenau Stadionplan.JPG wieder her (3 revisions and 1 file restored: public sign, covered by FOP)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The own work claim is disputed per edit history. Jusjih 13:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. [9] uploader does not know the author, an IP added the "own work" information; no licence tag. -- Cecil 13:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Questionable own work claim. Jusjih 14:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom (see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:1956 Mistrz Polski na 100km.JPG too). Also missing licence tag. -- Cecil 13:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Questionable own work claim. Jusjih 14:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom (see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:1956 Mistrz Polski na 100km.JPG too). Also missing licence tag. -- Cecil 13:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Objection agains speedy deletion: Is this a piece of art? Copyrightable? lets have a discussion before eventual deletion h-stt !? 21:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Following a part of the discussion for the candidature to worth reading artikels Römische Villa Haselburg:
- Ist das Bild vom Modell lizenzkonform? Marcus Cyron in memoriam Volkmar Fritz 11:32, 2. Sep. 2007 (CEST)
- Warum nicht? Das Modell steht dauerhaft seit ca. 10 Jahren in freier Natur für jeden zugänglich ohne Zaun drumherum. Und als Kunstwerk kann man es wohl auch nicht bezeichnen, eher als Sichtbarmachen archäologischer Forschung.--presse03 12:44, 2. Sep. 2007 (CEST)
- Leider ist das nicht die Rechtsauffassung in Deutschland. Marcus Cyron in memoriam Volkmar Fritz 19:10, 2. Sep. 2007 (CEST)
- Ich habe das Bild durch ein anderes ersetzt und auf commons einen LA gestellt.--presse03 00:29, 3. Sep. 2007 (CEST)
- Danke. Leider ist das wohl die beste Wahl. Marcus Cyron in memoriam Volkmar Fritz 12:54, 3. Sep. 2007 (CEST)
- Ich habe das Bild durch ein anderes ersetzt und auf commons einen LA gestellt.--presse03 00:29, 3. Sep. 2007 (CEST)
- Leider ist das nicht die Rechtsauffassung in Deutschland. Marcus Cyron in memoriam Volkmar Fritz 19:10, 2. Sep. 2007 (CEST)
So far so bad. In my opinion this model is not a piece of art and therefore copyrightable. How do you think about it? Does there really exist a problem under german rights?--Presse03 07:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Even if this were a "work" and thus copyrightable, why would freedom of panorama not apply in Germany? Besides, even if this model were seen as a "work of architecture", would it be original? After all, it's intended to show as closely as possible how the ancient Roman building had looked like. I'm inclined to keep this. Lupo 08:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept, per Lupo MichaelMaggs 19:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright of pictures in the hall not really clear, I want to avoid problems. 2 September 2007 User:Netopyr
- User had put speedydelete template on it, I reverted as this is not a clear case of copyvio or other speedy reason. Deadstar 07:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Why delete? If it's your picture, the original license was OK - but you should add "own picture" to the description. Theres no copyrighted item to be seen in this picture! --Herbert Ortner 20:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- The pic is from inside the museum. Done by me and redone by me on the computer. That part of the copyright is obvious. It is with me alone. But I am really not sure, whether the content of the pic may be copyrighted. I contacted the museum, but didn't get an answer until now. So I ask again to delete the pic to avoid copyright infringement. I think I was too speedy in uploading because I liked that museum very much. If I cannot find a way to have my own pic deleted, the only consequence for me were not to make any other contribution to W-Commons in the future.
- Another Q for me is why there is still discussion about this and my other pics of this museum over weeks despite I refused to put a copyright information to the pics. They should have been deleted already.User:Netopyr
- Sometimes it takes some time, maybe they just don't see any reason to hurry (and imho there isn't any)...The content of the pictures is not copyrighted. There is no contemporary art but there are just some old tramcars. There's no copyright to them. You're obviously worrying about something completely different - the property rights inside the museum. You seem to speak german, so maybe you want to a take a closer look to this quite helpful page on de.wikipedia: [10]. Some in german wikipedia see it that way: There's nothing like a right to the image of one's property (as long as it's not protected by the artist's copyright). As long as taking pictures wasn't forbidden there, I wouldn't see any problems. (Besides that: Who would find some "Netopyr" when searching the phonebook?) By my own experience with some smaller railway museums in Austria and other places I think it's perfectly safe, museums like those are usually happy to get a bit more attention, they depend on each single visitor and pictures published might add some more. --Herbert Ortner 23:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Original photo of some trams is not derivative of any copyrighted work. Unless there is some indication that ALL photography is prohibited in the museum or some similar rule broken, I don't see a problem. -- Infrogmation 03:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Lupo 11:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I am quite disappointed. Within almost a whole year it was not possible to delete the pictures? They are still available to the public. They got even a copyright I never granted. I worked through the discussion[11] Herbert Ortner linked me to. There it seems quite obvious that according to German law the publication of these two fotos (002 and 003) from within the Czech museum is not allowed without the strict permission of the museum. Therefore these two pictures have to be deleted. User:Netopyr 19:39, 5 September 2008
copyright infringement netopyr 17:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. How is it an infringement? I see no issue here, and even if they did prohibit photography, we do not care since it doesn't effect the copyright status. Also, Trams are utilitarian objects, so they're exempt from copyright law. ViperSnake151 (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept Tried to delete it once for a silly reason, and now again. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 07:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright of pictures in the hall not really clear, I want to avoid problems. 2 September 2007 User:Netopyr
- User had put speedydelete template on it, I reverted as this is not a clear case of copyvio or other speedy reason. Deadstar 07:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is really silly. The fact that there are pictures sitting around, illegible, is not significant for copyright purposes. You can't even see what they are, let alone use this photo to reproduce them in any way at all. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 11:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure what Collard means. The pictures are clear enough. It's their copyright status that seems murky.--Londoneye 12:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- My point, rephrased, was that the amount of copyrighted material in this is no more a derivative work of these pictures than a photo of a street with litter sitting around is a derivative work of the design of that packaging. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 15:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure what Collard means. The pictures are clear enough. It's their copyright status that seems murky.--Londoneye 12:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The pic is from inside the museum. Done by me and redone by me on the computer. That part of the copyright is obvious. It is with me alone. But I am really not sure, whether the content of the pic may be copyrighted. I contacted the museum, but didn't get an answer until now. So I ask again to delete the pic to avoid copyright infringement. I think I was too speedy in uploading because I liked that museum very much. If I cannot find a way to have my own pic deleted, the only consequence for me were not to make any other contribution to W-Commons in the future.
- Another Q for me is why there is still discussion about this and my other pics of this museum over weeks despite I refused to put a copyright information to the pics. They should have been deleted already.User:Netopyr
Kept per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:OEPNVMuseumPrag003.jpg. Lupo 12:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
September 4
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not used and duplicate of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nikolai_Bobrikov.jpg Zache 00:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Duplicate
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Name is misspelt, superseded by Image:Nuvola Scottish flag.svg. --Orzetto 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
OK My mistake, I didn't verify the name. :) Min's - 愛 13:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk badname, please use the {{badname}} tag for next time.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
{{Bad name|Piloti Alfa Romeo 1.JPG}} [[User:Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini|Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini]] 08:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- There is not need to list this here. Please use the {{rename image}} tag. --ALE! ¿…? 09:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Jastrow: duplicate of Image:Piloti Alfa Romeo 1.JPG
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
{{Bad name|Image:Piloti Alfa Romeo 2.JPG}} 83.103.20.56 09:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- There is not need to list this here. Please use the {{rename image}} tag. --ALE! ¿…? 09:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Jastrow: duplicate of Image:Piloti Alfa Romeo 2.JPG
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Request from the uploader. Reason: bad name. WTCA 10:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Jastrow: duplicate of Image:Genji Matsuda and Hideo Kodama en route to Hayama 1935.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
{{Bad name|Image:Piloti_Alfa_Romeo_3.JPG}} Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini 10:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicate(I have uploaded it again under a more meaningfull name) Yair-haklai 18:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Use {{Duplicate}}. --Dezidor 12:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Yair-haklai 17:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, duplicate from Image:Antonio Canova-Orpheus-Hermitage.jpg Pimke 19:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unencyclopedic unused OsamaK 12:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - used on de:Alejandro Ramírez, even though CheckUsage fails to report this. --Davepape 13:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep If he is a noted chess player, image is encyclopedic. Deadstar 13:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence for PD. Who is the photographer who has been dead for over seventy years? William Avery 06:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete A search here (search for "hitler", direct link to search result page wouldn't last long enough because it uses session IDs) shows that the image was taken by en:Heinrich Hoffmann who died in 1957. So his photos become PD on January 1st 2028. --91.65.124.74 00:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There is no need for "evidence". The picture, is clearly an image from the 1920's, because it's a young Hitler. That means, it qualifies as PD. But if you want "evidence", do some Google search and try to find more information on this picture. Until then, this is clearly abuse of deletion requests. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:01 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- *ugh*... clearly an image from the 1920's, because it's a young Hitler. That means, it qualifies as PD. No it doesn't! Images only become PD 70 years after the author's death in Germany. And it seems you haven't read my comment above, which clearly states the author of the image, his date of death and the reason why this image can't be PD according to copyright law. --91.65.124.74 20:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Can't find any proof of your claims. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:48 08 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. Go to this site, enter "Hitler, Adolf" in the search field, select "Fotoarchiv Hoffmann" as the database on the right side of the page, click search, wait for the search results, then go to the page with images #201-250. Click on the photo and you will see that this image was taken by Heinrich Hoffmann. This is the page, but I don't know if the link will work for everybody due to the use of session IDs. --91.65.124.74 14:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, the link does not work anymore, but i redid the search and found the image as described. --Rotkraut 18:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I still see no proof of this being a copyvio. It sure seems to be more like speculations than actual copyvio. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:44 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- Then I would really suggest reading a bit about (international) copyright laws before you continue to contribute to this project. Author is not yet dead for 70 years → photo is therefore not in the public domain → we don't have any permission from his heirs → claiming this photo is PD = copyright violation. --91.65.124.74 22:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, I don't think you get. I still cannot see that this picture is taken by _someone_ and that it's not available as PD. I couldn't find anything when I searched that site you provided. I see no case of copyvio so far. — EliasAlucard|Talk 05:38 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- Then I would really suggest reading a bit about (international) copyright laws before you continue to contribute to this project. Author is not yet dead for 70 years → photo is therefore not in the public domain → we don't have any permission from his heirs → claiming this photo is PD = copyright violation. --91.65.124.74 22:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I still see no proof of this being a copyvio. It sure seems to be more like speculations than actual copyvio. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:44 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- No, the link does not work anymore, but i redid the search and found the image as described. --Rotkraut 18:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. Go to this site, enter "Hitler, Adolf" in the search field, select "Fotoarchiv Hoffmann" as the database on the right side of the page, click search, wait for the search results, then go to the page with images #201-250. Click on the photo and you will see that this image was taken by Heinrich Hoffmann. This is the page, but I don't know if the link will work for everybody due to the use of session IDs. --91.65.124.74 14:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Can't find any proof of your claims. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:48 08 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- *ugh*... clearly an image from the 1920's, because it's a young Hitler. That means, it qualifies as PD. No it doesn't! Images only become PD 70 years after the author's death in Germany. And it seems you haven't read my comment above, which clearly states the author of the image, his date of death and the reason why this image can't be PD according to copyright law. --91.65.124.74 20:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio per 91.65.124.74 --Rotkraut 18:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Yes, it is a Heinrich Hoffmann image. German postcard.[12] Following the instructions given above, it's the 232nd image in the search results using the advanced search on the Hoffmann collection. Searching for "Reichskanzler Adolf Hitler", it's the ninth result. Lupo 08:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As the tag on the source image at en points out, "This image is in the public domain in the United States but is NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN IN ITS COUNTRY OF ORIGIN." William Avery 12:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 14:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete again. We definitely need a PD-US-only tag over at en-WP. It needs to say in big capital bold flashing letters (and accompanied by a police officer-type voice speaking the text) "Do not copy this file to the Commons before 70 years since the author's death have passed." Lupo 15:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete is this a bad joke?--WerWil 19:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 22:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not PD in Germany, its country of origin. William Avery 12:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know what's the normal proceeding in this situation so I'll let the people with more experience to deal with it. --Alex:D 20:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete --Historiograf 20:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Can you actually prove that this image is not PD in Germany? If not, this entire AfD debate is pointless. The image is old enough to qualify as PD in Germany. And even if it isn't, it's PD in the US, and it's uploaded on a US server. Worst case scenario, this image should be available on Commons as GFDL. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:52 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- Delete --Fb78 08:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Heinrich Hoffmann photos are still copyrighted in Germany (until the end of 2027). As seized property, they may be PD in the U.S., but that's it. That doesn't make them PD in their source country. Lupo 08:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Macuarros de Durango Alx 91 23:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - the image appears to be a photo of paper ads for a Russian language computer training firm compcenter.fizmatclass.ru on a bulletin board with no apparent encyclopedic value, while the information template appears to be Spanish language information on who should live and who should die. — Jeff G. 23:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete speedy -- per above note the supposed image info is a vanity prank, and the nominator for deletion is the image uploader. -- Infrogmation 12:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Since nominator is the uploader and the image does not appear to meet the mission and scope of the project. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: Speedy per deletion requests discussion
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
replaced by a table in de:Zusammenhangsmaß, thus not required anymore. --Head 00:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete--OsamaK 12:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unencyclopedic unused OsamaK 12:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Seems rather useless, without any description about who this is. Further, apparently the source photo har been deleted from Flickr since upload here. Finn Rindahl 22:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Agree, without any description of the subject it does not fit the mission and scope of the project. And since the image has been deleted from Flickr and it is likely an image of a living person, I think we need to be extra cautious about keeping it and should delete promptly. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per FloNight.--Londoneye 14:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is a Category:Graves already. Does a Category:Rest in peace make any sense? --S[1] 17:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not needed + hard to define (whose grave would be allowed in this cat etc...) Deadstar 08:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Trying to think of how this category might be used within the scope of the project. Categorization of graves by inscription does not seem meaningful to me. I'm open to changing my mind if others can think of a use. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Makes no sense to me.--Londoneye 14:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Advertising: name of company visible. 4 September 2007 User:82.157.230.183
- Deletion fix Deadstar 13:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a reason for deletion. The logo of Tefal is not the main subject of the image and the image is licensed correctly. Siebrand 14:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Not a valid reason for deletion. --Boricuaeddie 03:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - No valid reason? It's forbidden! Fair use is not permitted! 82.157.230.183 15:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's GFDL; fair use is irrelevant.--Londoneye 14:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept --Digon3 talk 20:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unencyclopedic unuesd OsamaK 13:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Image used on pt wiki to illustrate Belchior article (a Brazilian singer), so both reasons given for deletion not valid. Deadstar 13:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - funny nomination! Dantadd✉ 08:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- lol, ok Kept--OsamaK 16:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept --Digon3 talk Nomination withdrawn?
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Request by the uploader. Reason: bad name. WTCA 10:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Jastrow as duplicate of Image:Gozen-kaigi 14 August 1945.jpg.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Apparently a copyvio. This is a store logo, taken from a copyrighted webpage, by a mostly-single-use account that does not appear to speak for the copyright owner, but who nevertheless asserts it is free to use for all purposes. Somehow I doubt that. The image was only used on enwiki for advertising. Radiant! 12:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Londoneye 14:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete has potential to qualify under a different license, but surely not pd. Komdori 17:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
suspect copyvio, the image has a watermark, and the website http://www.alyageen.org/
has a copyrighted sign on it. --Deadstar 12:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Seems to be copyvio.--Londoneye 14:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- حذف (deleted) -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio. See http://twub.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html, Copyright © 1999 – 2007 Google, see intellectual property rights under http://www.blogger.com/terms.g. Also, no indication of GFDL on page, no indication of creative comments, etc. Also see http://www.flickr.com/photos/lob2k/10292401/ Night Ranger 02:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep flickr and blogger images were uploaded after the Wikipedia image was first uploaded in Feb 2005. / Fred J 07:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Correct, those came out after my initial upload, and use the same filename as my original upload. Alkivar 23:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this looks like something useless and low resolution Madmax32 11:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why useless? It is used on necrophilia articles on four wikipedias, including en:Necrophilia / Fred J 23:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- 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 Madmax32 03:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- 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. / Fred J 16:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- 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 Madmax32 03:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why useless? It is used on necrophilia articles on four wikipedias, including en:Necrophilia / Fred J 23:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- 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. -- Infrogmation 20:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- Delete like Madmax32. Yann 22:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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 Ranger 19:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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. Alkivar 23:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- 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 Ranger 19:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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? Alkivar 00:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
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 Ranger 19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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 Ranger 19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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. Alkivar 23:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- 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. Alkivar 23:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh my, yes, I see Madmax32 mucked with it terribly. Why? -- Infrogmation 00:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- 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. Alkivar 23:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
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. --Gmaxwell 00:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
(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 Ranger 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep, as the previous request was settled two days ago. Rama 21:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Needs an OTRS ticket # as uploader does not own copyright per comments in summary Night Ranger 03:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, there is no reason to assume this is a copyright violation; I've asked the uploader to email OTRS. w:User talk:Alkivar#Image:Necromouse.jpg John Vandenberg (chat) 12:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
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 Ranger 00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- 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. -Nard 02:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept and ENOUGH OF THIS. You don't get to open a deletion request again and again (this is the fifth time by the same user) until you get the answer you want. Stop it. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is NOT from the website of the Argentine Presidency http://www.presidencia.gov.ar/ (see description of the image) ALE! ¿…? 09:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete ...if some Spanish reading preson can confirm that the actual source [13] does have an other free license Finn Rindahl 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is sufficient to be able to read English. Just go all the way down, there it says "Copyright". --ALE! ¿…? 15:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. --Siebrand 11:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unencyclopedic unused OsamaK 12:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Could be used for an article on face piercing.--Londoneye 14:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused, bad name. Try again. --Siebrand 11:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unencyclopedic unused OsamaK 12:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - someone had removed it from en:Andre Ethier, without giving a reason. --Davepape 13:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Image no longer available at Flickr (at least not at the URL given, and I can't find it elsewhere in this guys photos). This photographer also uses now CC-BY-NC-ND. Lupo 11:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Pic of notable person; if when it was uploaded the copyright was OK, surely it's still OK.--Londoneye 14:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Per above. --Siebrand 11:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
archivo erroneo. 06:59, 4 September 2007 User:CROS
- Deletion fix. User did upload a new version but did not take the (double) deletion template off the image. The image description also reads like a wikipedia page and does not mention a source. Deadstar 14:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Deadstar; anyway, unused.--Londoneye 14:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. --Siebrand 11:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Note: Original source is NOT the FBI. The Department of Justice uses local mugshots and images from other sources for their lists, so the image is not US Gov/Public Domain, and is currently missing its source. --Alkivar 19:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless source is established.--Londoneye 14:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. --Siebrand 11:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
NOTE: Original source is NOT the FBI. The Department of Justice uses local mugshots and images from other sources for their lists, so the image is not US Gov/Public Domain, and is currently missing its source. --Alkivar 19:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless source is established.--Londoneye 14:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. --Siebrand 11:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not usable for articles, not relevant, by unknown artist Kenmayer 20:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Is this a recognized Animal Liberation logo? Not according to a google image search, but I'm willing to be persuaded.--Kenmayer 20:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Isn't that part of the Adobe reader logo? Probable hoax.--Londoneye 14:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. --Siebrand 11:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm a creator. 27 August 2007 User:Sevela.p
- Fixed request. There are no images in this category, not even sure if Czech wiki has featured pictures? Deadstar 13:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per nom.--Londoneye 14:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- what about this: Template:Picture of week on the Czech Wikipedia? -- 85.179.102.231 16:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
empty category --ALE! ¿…? 07:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Crown copyright per original version on en.wiki / Lokal_Profil 13:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Design was adopted in 1909, Canadian Crown Copyright is 50 years from publication. It's unthinkable this design wasn't published within a year of adoption. WilyD 20:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 07:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Request created "on behalf of" IP user, who said in an edit summary emptying the page: "it´s a category without any relevant reason." (28 June 2007 User:192.188.52.58). There was some to-ing and fro-ing in the history so a deletion request will hopefully sort this. There's no point keeping empty pages/categories. Deadstar 15:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Deadstar.--Londoneye 14:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
empty categories --ALE! ¿…? 07:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
September 5
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No usable image but description of the user. Codeispoetry 12:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy-deleted as being out of scope. The picture was unused. The user, Jose Mariani, has an account on es: but only two contributions, all dating from September 2006 and related to his userpage. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
How can the image be GFDL when the author is unknown Rettetast 17:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC) It can't. Also the source website is ©2007 Geofysisk Institutt.
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Copvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Superseded by Image:Autonomous communities of Spain no names.svg. Not in use. --Rondador (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm the uploader--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 10:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted by the uploader, superseded by Image:Autonomous communities of Spain no names.svg--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 10:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
how nice! 83.51.57.119 21:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - invalid reason for deletion. I have updated the licensing. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep ...is there something like speedy keep? ;) Finn Rindahl 18:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept: Licensing problems solved. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Spam, Band doesn't have an article in any project. Codeispoetry 12:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted (out of scope) --ALE! ¿…? 13:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong uploading Sameboat - 同舟 12:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted (no license) --ALE! ¿…? 13:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong upload Sameboat - 同舟 12:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bad quality and no potential use for Wikimedia projects --Balbo 19:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- And potential libellous use. This image is the only contribution to Wikimedia of the uploader. --Balbo 19:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Deadstar 09:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE Dodo 19:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted per nom --ALE! ¿…? 13:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wordt niet gebruikt Monc 07:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: In category Unknown as of 4 September 2007; no license
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
replace with new image Jozo 09:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- which one is the new image? --ALE! ¿…? 13:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
no information abou the new image added, image kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong license --Conny 21:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment What's wrong about it? -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe that the image has been removed at Flickr? And that the image doesn't look like all the others this Flickr account has (black border)? Copyvio detected at Flickr? Lupo 13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I contacted original author via eMail - picture is not under this license. Linked Flickruser used wrong one and deleted the file after checking out maybe. Conny 17:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC).
Delete Seems reasonable to question the lic here based on the title of the image. We need credible evidence of specific permission I think. Unless we obtain it, delete. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request --Erik Baas 15:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC) This file is identical to a previous version of image:Colours.svg, has the same errors and no style-tag, and does not display properly. - Erik Baas 15:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Use {{duplicate}}. --Siebrand 11:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
September 6
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Diese Karte ist bestimmt nicht vom Autor erzeugt worden. Zu alt! Da keine weiterer Quelle genannt, lieber löschen. -- User:Stefan Kühn 07:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Early 18th century. It's {{PD-old}}. I've added the source info etc. on the image page. Lupo 11:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is not actually a free image, it's a copy of the image that was deleted from En.wikipedia as being unfree. Night Gyr 21:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yup, just came here to report the same thing. The source given at enwiki was [14], which is a colored photograph, so it is highly doubtful that the uploader created this image and chose to upload a resized version of the black and white copy that was formerly on enwiki. RockMFR 21:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I came here to nominate the image myself. Uploader did not write at which concert this thumbnail (175 x 233) was taken, which clearly suggests to me that this is a copyvio. Uploader's first contribution. Thuresson 21:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Same. I already deleted a couple of copyvio photos of Lucianino. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 13:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete clear copyvio. Dantadd✉ 10:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete really clear copyviol, it's pd-italy on it.wiki (open {{PD-Italy}} to see where it redirect ;)) --Filnik 20:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as copyvio. --MichaelMaggs 22:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
useless. 3 September 2007 User:Kilom691
- Deletion fix. Child's drawing, not sure if it'll be used. Deadstar 09:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep after reading Collard's comment + it is used. Deadstar (msg) 15:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I copy this message from the uploader from the talk page:
- This drawing is used here: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huvudfoting It's used to show how small children around the world pictate humans. A head with two legs and one och two eyes. I do not know what they are called in english but the word in swedish is "Huvudfoting" (~ headfooter).
- So it's not as useless as it might seem. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept --Digon3 talk In use, therfore not useless.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader marked image with "delete", did not give reason. In the description it says "testing my svg editor", so I assume it was a test. --Deadstar 08:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as image is marked as "test" and deletion is requested by uploader. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
user tests. 1 September 2007 User:Bigsus
- Deletion fix Deadstar 08:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work EugeneZelenko 14:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong file -- 6 September 2007 User:IPork
- Deletion fix Deadstar (msg) 13:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (wrong upload)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong version. 6 September 2007 User:IPork
- Deletion fix Deadstar (msg) 13:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (wrong upload)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this image was superseded by Image:Major events in mitosis.svg --201.19.243.86 18:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
kept (no reason for deletion) --ALE! ¿…? 09:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
i need to rename pic, so it can be found in the search Mondariz 15:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: In category Unknown as of 6 September 2007; no license
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Some years back, I hired a student to make some drawings of famous psychologists which we could put into the public domain. I've since forgotten the artist's name. She did the drawing from some existing photograph." Derivative work, no permission by the photographer nor the anonymous student.
Other images from this source:
- Image:Alfred Adler.jpg
- Image:Alfred Adler.gif
- Image:CarlJung-drawing.jpg
- Image:IvanPavlov.jpg
- Image:Carl Rogers.jpg
- Image:Jung.jpg
--Polarlys 21:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Derivative work
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is not in the public domain, this was an improper move. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.154.77.255 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 6 September 2007
- Delete Screenshot of copyrighted software. William Avery 06:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's not public domain, but it's still free. As they say themselves "we have released the source code (along with all necessary support files, graphics files, sound effects, etc.) for the Windows and Macintosh versions of Blades of Exile to the world. Do what you want with it (within the sensible legal guidelines described in the license), and have fun."[15] // Liftarn
- You're right. William Avery 11:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- We can read « we have released the source code (along with all necessary support files, graphics files, sound effects, etc.) » and « The Blades of Exile source code is now covered by the GNU General Public License, Version 2 », its not clear but graphics, sound may be GPL2. This screenshot is taken befor the release of the GPLed version, then can we tag this screenshot with GPL, or must we create new screenshot with the GPLed version? ~ bayo or talk 15:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Can we have a like about the CPL release ? ~ bayo or talk 15:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It was first released as CPL, but people in the forums complained about it so it was relicensed as GPL, but since you can't revoke licenses (I think) both are still valid. The GPL is for all the rlease (not just code). It's probably a slipup that it isn't explicitly mentioned. As for the screenshot, since it's the same code and the same graphics that shouldn't relly matter, but I was planning on donloading the Win32 version so I can take a new screenshot if that really is necessary. // Liftarn
Kept. Freely licensed. --Siebrand 11:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bad quality, unused. 1 September 2007 User:Broadbeer
- Fixed uploader's request for deletion. "Bad quality" and "Unused" are in general not reasons for deletion. Deadstar 08:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is not that bad. No copyright problems = no reason to delete. Valentinian (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. No reason for deletion. --Siebrand 11:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
i need to rename pic, so it can be found in the search Mondariz 15:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment When you do, tag this image with {{badname}}. Thanks. --Digon3 talk 13:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment upload the image again under the new name and tag the old one with {{bad name}} --ALE! ¿…? 09:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. See above. --Siebrand 11:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not PD-NASA. ESA seems to release some material as PD, but for this image all I've found is that it's at http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEM21TVJD1E_1.html, with non-free terms of use here. Davepape 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Shockingly, this may be correct. ESA claims copyright on NASA's public domain photos on occasion, but this seems to be genuine. WilyD 21:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. --Siebrand 11:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"zum allgemeinen Gebrauch bestimmt" is no license at all and doesn’t mean "for any purpose", there’s no such statement on the website btw, for copyright issues “contact the copyright holder” --Polarlys 21:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Some more:
- Delete pr nom Finn Rindahl 12:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission --Siebrand 11:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this is not Israel Schwartz, this is George Bernard Shaw, taken from the cover of Stephen P. Ryder's book and used by an anti-Mason website to depict Schwartz for some unknown reason (and if any other illustrations come from that same site they should also be deleted, as they took images willy nilly and put false captions on them). No known image of Schwartz exists.[16] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.203.223.65 (talk • contribs) at 17:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is Shaw. Ryder's book: [17]. Possible other (better) version of this photo here: [18] - very likely both are in the public domain as Shaw looks quite youthful (note the black beard - he died white bearded in 1950 at age 94). I vote to keep image, but under correct name. Deadstar 10:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I have uploaded Image:Shaw.jpg as a larger, better-quality, better-named replacement. — Jeff G. 16:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Great. Then this one needs to be deleted. How do we get it to happen? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.203.223.65 (talk • contribs) at 22:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- It was uploaded as SCHWARTZ -- wrong person entirely. Wrong year too. If you want it under the correct name, upload it as such, don;t keep the bad one around with bad, false history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.203.223.65 (talk • contribs) at 22:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Replaced with correctly named version. --MichaelMaggs 06:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work, see also Commons:Village_pump#Non-photograph_images. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The discussion Commons:Village_pump#Non-photograph_images I started was meant to clarify status of large portion of medical x-ray images in wiki commons, not to nominate all those images for deletion. I find it hard to believe that patients do not have copy rights to their own medical data, but I am not a lawyer. I would propose postponing deletion requests until the legal status is more clear. Jarekt 21:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This image lacks artistic creativity, so no copyright claim can be made. Yann 14:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- For once, I think Yann is right. Keep and tag all those X-rays as {{PD-ineligible}}. Lupo 22:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Besides, Bryan, derivative work of what? The chest (body)? Isn't copyrighted. Lupo 22:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Medical journals and online sites often have claimed copyright on the medical images that appear in them, so I think the image can be copyrighted. I think we need to think carefully before ignoring these claims as I think they are likely valid. And I do not think that patients automatically have copyright over their medical records. In the US by law, patients have a right to copies of their records in a timely manner for a fee if a request is made. The medical provider is the owner of the records, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I am a Paramedic, trained and certified in Connecticut in 1990. At that time, all "appropriate" medical personnel with a "reasonable" need to review, had unfettered access to ALL patient medical information, including images. I think that the greater good of having these images available outweighs any claim to a copy right. In particular, (I have three publications of my own) the journals with which I deal copyright the article as a single entity. I may use portions as I see fit, as long as I do not substantially reproduce the complete article. Until there is a legal decision, I hope these images remain. dunion 23:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Not a derivative work. Kept. O2 (息 • 吹) 01:03, 11 November 2007 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to de:MS Finnmarken, the ship was built 1912, so the painting was made even later. If the author is not known to be dead for 70 years, the photo is a derivative work and not free --schlendrian •λ• 11:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC) --schlendrian •λ• 11:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- “§ 41: If a work has been issued without stating the author's name, a generally known pseudonym, mark or symbol, the copyright shall subsist for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the work was first issued. If the work consists of several parts, the term of protection shall be calculated separately for each part. The copyright in works by an unknown author shall subsist for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the work was created, if the work is not issued during this period.” Fingalo 13:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- we don't know when this work was created, it may be only couple of years old. And we don't know if the autor's name is stated somewhere (back?). --schlendrian •λ• 13:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted because of unclear source. The uploader claims that he is the copyright owner, but it is unknown if that is because he actually painted it himself or because he owns the painting and made a foto of it (which is a common misunderstanding concerning paintings). 2.5 month are enough waiting for a clarification. If the uploader ever return he can make a request for undeletion in case of scenario one. -- Cecil 13:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
WTF? What does a template that, according to its own phrasing, does not apply in the European Union, the United States, Canada, Russia, China, India, countries of the Arab Law Group and others do on Commons? This is ridiculous. Even more so as there was a prior deletion discussion.
Besides, it's also utterly wrong. First, you should never base any tag on the Berne Convention (BC). The BC is not some kind of transnational super-law that would automatically take precedence over local laws.[19] Instead, signatory countries of the BC instead adapt their own laws such that they meet the minimum requirements of the BC. Second, many countries go beyond the BC minimums. Third, the rule in most countries for anonymous/pseudonymous works is that the copyright runs for X years since the creation of the image, but if the image is published within these X years, it runs until X years after the publication. (See e.g. here for the UK rules (left branch of that tree).) And additionally, some countries (e.g. Russia or Germany or indeed all EU countries) also have the rule that if the author's identity is revealed within that time, then the copyright runs until X years after that author's death. (See e.g. [20], article 1.) And finally, in many countries, X is 70, not 50. And in the U.S., it's completely different again (120 years since creation for unpublished works; for published works, normal rules unless created before 1978 but first published 1978-2002, in which case the work is copyrighted until 2047 at least).
This tag just serves as a fig leaf for images of unknown copyright status. Delete Lupo 07:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- The template has been messed around with so much that, indeed, it no longer makes any sense whatsoever. Fixing it up would be difficult as the rules on anonymous works differ by country, and it is a hopeless task to try to cover all by some generic template. Amongst other things, that allows people to flag as image as "anonymous work" when what they really mean is "the web site I copied this from doesn't say who the author is and I can't be bothered to find out".
- But simply deleting this template will inevitably mean losing vast numbers of images, a significant proportion of which may well be ok: sometimes users flag images with {{Anonymous work}} when its age would clearly make it eligible for {{PD-Old}}. Very old images don't need this tag, even if the author happens to be unknown.
- There is a strain of thought that we ought never to rely on the copyright rules relating to anonymous or unknown works, and I believe the last deletion request was based on that thinking - in other words it was an attempt to change policy about what images are allowed here. If anyone does indeed want to review the policy, by all means let's do so, but not here. On the other hand if the policy is to remain the same we can't simply delete this tag as we have little that's legally correct with which to replace it. Some time ago I created {{PD-UK-unknown}} in an effort to provide a proper legal basis for at least UK images (see the talk page for details). What we should do, I think, is to work on creating similar tags for other countries, and bring the instructions on how to use them together on a single page along the lines of the Freedom of Panorama page.
- --MichaelMaggs 08:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete but only once some replacements have been written, at least for the main countries. --MichaelMaggs 22:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just to be absolutely clear: this is a deletion request about the template, not about the images. As always when templates are up for deletion, the images concerned will need to be evaluated individually to see under what, if any, other tags they might fit. Lupo 11:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is false. Images were deleted, even without warning, because the template was deleted. Yann 15:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just to be absolutely clear: this is a deletion request about the template, not about the images. As always when templates are up for deletion, the images concerned will need to be evaluated individually to see under what, if any, other tags they might fit. Lupo 11:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I also don't like this template, but the reason to keep this template was "Kept, there are certainly cases where this tag is the most applicable. The fact that it is misused or badly phrased does not mean that the template itself is invalid. If you have a problem with images, fix them to have the real license (putting up a deletion req for the invalid ones)." I don't think anything changed so there is no reason for a new deletion request. -- Gorgo 10:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, then, help me clean up the images that currently use this tag. I've already re-tagged a a whole series to {{PD-Sweden-photo}}, which, although not undisputed either, makes at least more sense than this one. Lupo 16:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete: As long as the template is allowed to remain there will always be more images errously tagged with it. Isn't it better to delete it (i.e. not applicable to any images uploaded after DATE) and then try to retagg iamges using it. Any images for which this used to be the correct tag could be tagged with {{PD-because}} which would also give enough room to properly explain the circumstances for why this would apply. /Lokal_Profil 14:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion What if instead of deleting it now or waiting till all the images are retagged, we put a big disclaimer saying not to use it anymore and if you do the image will be deleted? If that doesn't work we can {{subst:}} all the ones in use, then delete the template. That way we prevent future use completely, while not deleting any of the older images' info. Rocket000 18:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep
First, from the formal point of view. This template was discussed in Commons in 2006 and finally kept (23 November 2006). As I remember, all of the participants of the present discussion was present in Commons at that time, but absent in the former discussion. No new arguments was put forward. Is this the proper way to make a permanent discussion , as long as the opponents will be tired and the expected result will be gained ? ( I propose Take 3, Take 4, Take 5 an so on). Paraphrasing Lupo – the right retagging of 30-40 images cannot be a fig leaf for mass unreasonable deletion of thousands images from Commons (by previously prepared bot – of course :) ) – as a final result of deleting {{Anonymous work}}.
Second – as for the subject. Berne Convention is a basic international treaty in subject of author rights and intellectual property. As an multilateral international treaty (like Hague Conventions, Geneva Conventions and so on) has its legal value (Amtsmacht) just after proper ratification, without implementation into internal jurisdiction of the parties. It is from its definition supreme over internal jurisdiction of the states – parties of treaty. It is in contrary to the legal status of EC directives ( like well known and often cited Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights ) which are not international treaties and for their legal value the implementation into internal jurisdiction of EU countries is necessary. They are living through ( and in form of) internal jurisdiction.
Berne Convention regulates every cases in doubt. For example – in the case of simultaneous publication of photo in various countries (by its owner – f. example international press agency) – Berne Convention is in effect. Also in the case of first publishing in former (non-existing at present) states without clear legal successors (such as Free City of Danzig or former en:Yugoslavia ( would anybody be so kind to explain to wikipedians what law should be in effect – this of Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia or en:FYROM – I will be very grateful) – Berne Convention ( which party was Yugoslavia) is in effect.
In every such case in doubt the template {{Anonymous work}} is the only one and fully justified.
Besides – in the proposal for request there are different cases – in Arabian countries f.ex. the term of securing copyright is sometimes significantly shorter than terms of Berne.
Treating any template as an possibility for abuse we should remove every templates with exception of {{PD-because}} forcing wikipedians in Commons for individual describing any particular case of image. It is not necessary, I hope to conclude, that it would be an absurd.
Best regards for everybody
Andros64 08:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- PS. I've just changed "the note" inside this template ( which was awkward in fact) such way :
Note:This template does not apply to images from countries that extended the Berne Convention or that did not sign it. This is the European Union, the United States,India,Russia particularly. Please use {{Anonymous-EU}}, {{PD-US}}, {{PD-India}},{{PD-Russia}}, etc. in such cases and check Commons:Licensing everytime, carefully!.
I think it is the best solution of the question.
Andros64 12:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There was nothing new happened after first take of Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Anonymous work, I see no new arguments. This template is useful in many specific cases and it is no reason to delete it. Julo 10:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing new since the last request. Please stop wasting our time with repeted requests. Yann 15:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
September 7
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- SPEEDY DELETE PLEASE: I have just realised I have uploaded the wrong image design, This particular version was not released PD and is still copyright - Sorry Richard Harvey 23:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. For such requests, please use {{copyvio}} and give the reason in the template. Cnyborg 17:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
jarrym 203.102.177.166 02:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Why requested for deletion this pic? please give the reason...you don't have give the reason why to delete. I have took it my own. --Sry85 11:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and close speedily: nonsensical nomination, seems self-taken. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 11:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep and close No explanation given. This was clearly take by Sry85, who has taken many good pictures of musicians :) Spellcast 18:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept --Digon3 talk Possible bad faith nom
I think Image:EtruscanX-01.svg is better and enough, it's BQ also OsamaK 18:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
kept (image is used) --ALE! ¿…? 12:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This looks very recent to me, surelly not older than 70 years. --User:G.dallorto 20:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted (no FOP in Italy) --12:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the flickr user obviously collects Beyonce knowles content without caring about copyright. --Polarlys 14:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Neutral/ Delete - I only uploaded the original version of the picture, and when I checked, I did find that there are some copyrighted images there. I wouldn't mind deleting the picture. Yuval Y § Chat § 16:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)- Delete Agree with Polarlys. Unfortunately this image is most likely a copyright vio and should not have been uploaded to Flickr and then uploaded here. :( [21] FloNight♥♥♥ 12:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. We have free images of Beyonce. Yuval Y § Chat § 22:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Old forecast maps
[edit]- Image:2007 11E 5-day track.gif
- Image:2007 Hurricane Henriette 5-days.gif
- Image:2007 Storm Tropycal Henriette Sep,2 2-00 AST 5-days.gif
- Image:2007 Tropical Storm Henriette 5-days.gif.gif
- Image:Tropical Storm Barry (2007) projected path.png
- Image:Tropical Storm Chantal (2007) projected path.gif
- Image:8amtrack.gif
- Image:Dean 180807.gif
- Image:Dean 180808-02.gif
- Image:Dean 190807-02.gif
- Image:Dean 190807-03.gif
- Image:Dean 190807.gif
- Image:Dean 200807.gif
- Image:Hurricane Dean Coastal Watches 18 Aug 2007 11pm edt.gif
- Image:Hurricane Dean Coastal Watches 18 Aug 2007 2am EDT.gif
- Image:TS Dean august 15 2007.gif
- Image:2007 Hurricane Felix 5-day track Sep02 5PM.gif
- Image:2007 Hurricane Felix 5-day track.gif
These forecast images are out-of-date and unused by any wikipedia projects. They also present serious clutter. Good kitty 13:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not really, e.g Image:2007 06L 5-day track.gif is used both Spanish Wikinews + Wikipedia. --Matthiasb 13:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep They represent the forecast at that time, which may be of use in several ways. They are not useful for reporting current events but there are many potential uses beyond that. Unused is not a deletion reason. "Clutter" is a matter of perspective in my opinion, and is also not a deletion reason. If they are freely licensed and potentially useful we should keep them. Carl Lindberg 15:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
All kept. We're building a media database and Carl Lindberg summarized it pretty well. PatríciaR msg 22:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong name, sorry Niabot 16:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
wrong name, sorry Niabot 16:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Siebrand 10:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
architect en:Victor Horta died in 1947, (unfortunately) no panorama freedom in Belgium. 7 September 2007 User:Donarreiskoffer
- Delete unfortunately... Siebrand 20:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
architect en:Victor Horta died in 1947, (unfortunately) no panorama freedom in Belgium. 7 September 2007 User:Donarreiskoffer
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
architect en:Victor Horta died in 1947, (unfortunately) no panorama freedom in Belgium --7 September 2007 User:Donarreiskoffer
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
watermarked. --7 September 2007 User:Sarvagnya
- Keep According to the source, the image is published under GNU FDL. The presence of a watermark is not enough reason to delete, one can remove the watermark anyway. PatríciaR msg 23:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. No reason for deletion. --Siebrand 11:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. Own upload, but not my own photo. When the file was uploaded it was belived that it fell under the licence PD-art. It doesn't. Jorunn 08:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Author is dead for more than 70 years. Yann 13:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. PD. --Siebrand 11:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Was tagged {{copyvio}} by 84.145.106.168 but needs discussion. It's a French topo map published 1880-1914 by the Ministre de l'Intérieur. (See fr:Carte du service vicinal). Lupo 09:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Gouvernment works are PD 70 years after creation in France. Yann 12:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. PD --Siebrand 11:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
False version. :) And duplicate --Min's - 愛 14:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. No reason for deletion. Use {{duplicate}}/{{superseded}} --Siebrand 11:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a copyrighted images that has not been released under PD by the author --Steinninn 17:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- According to kirkjan.net the church name is Vídalínskirkja and the photographer was Þorsteinn H. Ingibergsson.
- Delete Not PD-inelligeble (as claimed), not released in Public Domain Finn Rindahl 10:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. --Siebrand 11:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The person on the picture does no longer agree that this portait can be seen in the web. She asked me to inform Wikipedia about this fact. 7 September 2007 User:Gerbil
- I've been informed that this picture shall be deleted. It's ok. My German nick is Inforadio. 195.246.180.206 08:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- (template fix with comment from talkpage) Deadstar 08:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- The foto already has been taken out of its only article in december 2006 [22] --Gerbil 08:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Aka: deletion request
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Misspelling of Category:Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium. 7 September 2007 User:Corpx
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Coats of arms and flags claimed to be licensed by Željko Heimer
[edit]All imagese are taged with {{Template:FAME}}. That template is proposed for deletion because author gave wikipedia only permission. See list of images below. --Suradnik13 15:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Virovitičko-podravska županija (grb).gif
- Image:Zastava viroviticko podravske zupanije.gif
- Image:Zastava splitsko dalmatinske zupanije.gif
- Image:Zastava sisacko moslavacke zupanije.gif
- Image:Zastava primorsko goranske zupanije.gif
- Image:Zastava varazdinske zupanije.gif
- Image:Varaždinska županija (grb).gif
- Image:Zastava viroviticko podravske zupanije.gif
- Image:Virovitičko-podravska županija (grb).gif
- Image:Zastava zadarske zupanije.gif
- Image:Zadarska županija (grb).gif
- Image:Zagrebačka županija (grb).gif
- Image:Zastava zagrebacka zupanja.gif
- Image:Zastava pozesko slavonske zupanije.gif
- Image:Požeško-slavonska županija (grb).gif
- Image:Međimurska županija (grb).gif
- Image:Ličko-senjska županija (grb).gif
- Image:Zastava licko senjske zupanije.gif
- Image:Zastava koprivnicko krizevacke zupanije.gif
- Image:Zastava krapinsko zagorske županije.gif
- Image:Koprivničko-križevačka županija (grb).gif
- Image:Zastava karlovacke zupanije.gif
- Image:Zastava istarske zupanije.gif
- Image:Istarska županija (grb).gif
- Image:Brodsko-posavska županija (grb).gif
- Image:Zastava brodsko posavske zupanije.gif
done --ALE! ¿…? 07:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Paul Brandenburg is a living artist, this is an interieur, so we can’t apply freedom of panorama (Panoramafreiheit). :-( --Polarlys 12:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's a two-dimension foto of a three-dimensioned work. I never knew that this might hurt copyrights. Rabanus Flavus 12:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 09:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Michael Vogler (the artist) isn’t dead for 70 years yet (maybe he is still alive, i don’t know, the painting was created 1989/90) --Polarlys 12:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 09:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not conform to w:en:Template:Bilateral, I have uploaded one that is under Image:Iran France Locator.png 6 September 2007 User:ChrisDHDR
- deletion fix Deadstar 09:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: speedy by uploader
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Higher-rez version uploaded at Image:Czol photo 1900 - found in effects.jpg --Sherurcij 00:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Inclined to Keep under {{PD-1923}} if this template is kept. With an unknown photographer, The work is in PD because of its publication date (bu I'm not an expert on fine details of copyright, I'm afraid). PatríciaR msg 23:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Subject died in USA in 1901; clearly PD-US. Used. -- Infrogmation 03:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Kept; subject died in 1901. PD. O2 (息 • 吹) 01:06, 11 November 2007 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Czol following day.jpg is higher-rez image of same photo --Sherurcij 00:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Inclined to Keep under {{PD-1923}} if this template is kept. With an unknown photographer, The work is in PD because of its publication date (bu I'm not an expert on fine details of copyright, I'm afraid). PatríciaR msg 23:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept; published before 1923. O2 (息 • 吹) 01:08, 11 November 2007 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not every content from the National Library of Medicine is in the public domain, as stated on their website (Government information at NLM Web sites is in the public domain. Public domain information may be freely distributed and copied, but it is requested that in any subsequent use the National Library of Medicine (NLM) be given appropriate acknowledgement. When using NLM Web sites, you may encounter documents, illustrations, photographs, or other information resources contributed or licensed by private individuals, companies, or organizations that may be protected by U.S. and foreign copyright laws. Transmission or reproduction of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use (PDF) as defined in the copyright laws requires the written permission of the copyright owners. Specific NLM Web sites containing protected information provide additional notification of conditions associated with its use.) --Polarlys 13:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Same here:
Image:Charles Armstrong.jpg and Image:Charles Armstrong lab2.jpg. --Polarlys 13:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have an email from Douglas Atkins saying this:
- Dear Hans,
- Upon checking National Library of Medicine's Images in the History of Medicine Website, I found two photograph portraits of Charles Armstrong MD that you could be referring to in terms of downloading them. (Frame Numbers b01918 and b01920) I've checked the MARC records on both images, and they appear to be in the public domain as there is no corresponding 540 field that would otherwise warn you against use because of copyright restrictions. Keep in mind, I cannot officially grant you permission to use anything from the History of Medicine Website, but both of these images have already been used by Dr. Beeman previously in his PDF version of Charles Armstrong. Notice, how Dr. Beeman included the line under the caption that reads "Courtesy of the National Library of Medicine". Please do likewise when you publish either of these pictures of Dr. Armstrong in your Wikepedia article.
- Yours truly
- Douglas R. Atkins
- atkinsdo@mail.nlm.nih.gov
- 301-402-8807
--Hans555 11:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Close as kept. -- Infrogmation 05:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
only way to prevent revert war -- 5 September 2007 User:HandigeHarry
- Please do not delete this file: the current version is technically correct, and in use on Dutch WP. There is also a discussion still going on here. - Erik Baas 20:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. No reason to delete it. The current version by Erik Baas works, so the obvious solution is that HandigeHarry please will refrain from reverting the picture to his erroneous version. -- Cecil 13:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Only (?) used on en:Gloria Irwin, a deleted article; uploader is blocked on English Wikipedia because of this offer (see en:WP:ANI for a lengthy discussion). - MikeRosoft 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope. -- Cecil 13:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I don't believe that the Australian sign looks like this (with the last 0 over the edge of the sign). Can someone fix this or is it for the bin as being out of scope (incorrect and will not be used)? Deadstar 13:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 13:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
September 8
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a private glamour shot of w:Vanessa Anne Hudgens intended to be for her boyfriend, recently part of a controversy documented on this article[23]. If she took the photo then she holds the copyright, and it is extremely unlikely that she then posted this image to the commons herself. It is being hosted in lots of places[24], --Jayvdb 23:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Not free, possible libel. Yann 14:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Creator requesting: I duplicated an SVG image that existed beforehand, but I'd not been able to find. — OwenBlacker 20:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Majorly: user request
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I screwed up the name of the file (my first upload ever) - have already uploaded it a second time, properly -- please delete. Lisasmall 01:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Info: You can just mark such images with {{duplicate}} in the future. grendel|khan 17:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Grendelkhan. I'm having a very hard time getting into the groove here. Looks like {{Bad name}} (which I found by checking {{duplicate}}) would have been most appropriate since I'm the one who made the mistake. :( Thanks again for the guidance. -- Lisasmall 04:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, per request then (image is not in use). Do use {{Bad name}} next time :). --PatríciaR msg 17:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks to Grendel and Patricia for the guidance. -- Lisasmall 19:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Because I accidentally uploaded it as an incorrect filename, and I had to re-create it under a different one, so there are two copies of it posted and I don't want to waste space. --Knucktwo 02:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Duplicate file is Image:BichonFrise8Weeks.jpg Deadstar (msg) 11:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nominator's request. Giggy\Talk 00:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Done - a simple case of {{bad name}} Yuval Y § Chat § 16:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Error. A wrong image was uploaded -- 8 September 2007 User:PatagoniaArgentina
- Deletion fix Deadstar (msg) 15:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Avatar 23:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a picture of a TV screen or the like; the photographer does not own this picture. grendel|khan 17:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Screenshot. --Digon3 talk 13:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Photographer doesn't own image, therefore it's not free. Giggy\Talk 00:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I checked the Flickr user's pictures - it seems that he was in the Comic-Con, and took pictures with his Sony camera. The problem is that this picture and some others look too flat, so it seems as he took picture of the screen... Yuval Y § Chat § 16:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted (we discussed this before) --ALE! ¿…? 07:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio from http://www.fender.com/products//search.php?partno=0137502306 - 'Permission' section is from an old version of the image which was overwritten and is unavailable Bewildebeast 02:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Current version is nonfree, and rv to old version doesn't appear to be available. Giggy\Talk 21:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No free license. --Siebrand 12:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This was a test image with geotag exif information. The test has now been completed and the image now is of zero value to the wiki community.However, feel free to keep it if desired.--Trounce 10:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Per request. --Siebrand 12:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright still at Orell Füssli Verlag--Ullipurwin 13:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC) --Ullipurwin 13:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission --Siebrand 12:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It was self made for my wiki home page, I no longer want it on wiki commons or my wiki personal page. --Hetoum I 17:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Correct license and used. Not deleting. --Siebrand 12:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
AfD-ed, now orphan. 116.14.112.177 11:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- What means AfD-ed? Orphan is no reason for deletion. --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Orphaned isn't a reason for deletion. Alpta 17:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep AfD = Articles for Deletion on the English Wikipedia. Having an article deleted on one of the other projects does not affect it here. Royalbroil 15:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Though uploaded in good faith, this image does not appear to actually be a work of the federal government. The same image is used on the University of Tennessee's site (http://web.utk.edu/~icehocky/recruiting.htm, scroll about halfway down) and on ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/listranker?id=499) so it's probably just a random stock promo photo, not something in the public domain.--BigDT 00:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm confused (but I'm new, too). I see your point about it probably being a stock promo photo, but wouldn't that suffice to put it in the public domain? Even though it is not a government work? -- Lisasmall 01:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Using someone else's photo on your website doesn't give you rights to it. Nor does the government's use of your photo take away your rights to it. --BigDT 20:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Other than appearing on those websites (which in itself constitutes nothing), is there any evidence that the image isn't in the public domain? -- Huntster T • @ • C 11:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's obviously a promo photo. Look around at some of the other pages on that site. Sometimes when they use someone else's photo, they attribute it, other times they do not. For example, [25] has a photo at the bottom from a real estate seminar. I doubt there was an army photographer there. I don't see any reason whatsoever to believe this photo is PD. --BigDT 20:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. It has to be proofed that a picture is PD, not the other way round. In case of this picture no proof was provided. -- Cecil 13:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Oops, just uploaded this image from English Wikipedia, then discovered that the flickr part of this image has "all rights reserved" on flickr. [26] Now what? Fred J 17:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fred, as you saw yourself in the Flickr page for this picture, 13 months ago I left the following comment to its author : "Chouby, I used this picture as part of a composite to illustrate why Hippocrates called malignant tumours "cancer" (crab, in latin). You can see the result in the Wikipedia page on Cancer: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer. Thanks, manny.canada." Chouby never answered, so I consider that he has no problem with my using his picture. I have no time to redo it. Please leave the picture alone. Signed : Emmanuelm (Wikipedia user name), Sept 10th 2007 (I also have no time to create a new account for Wikipedia Commons: what's this joke?).
- Fred, note that I also am concerned with the quality of images in Wikipedia. I flagged this picture a while ago for a possible mis-identification of the subject. I am not sure the case is closed, but it should be interesting. Emmanuelm.
- Emmanuelm, thanks for your answer.
- You should know that most likely the assumption that the users lack of objection means he approves of it being released for free use is not accepted on Commons because such an assumption is not legally binding. Sorry -- that's the way it works. Delete
- Fred J 22:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, the image Image:Maabarah camp city.jpg is not hosted on Commons as has never been. / Fred J 22:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Just because the author doesn't react, nobody has the right to take his work and just decide for him about a licence the author obviously has not agreed to. After all he stated "all rights reserved" and not "go take it and choose a licence of your liking" -- Cecil 14:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Why nobdoy pays attention to this request? No a simple comment, why? Next time I will try a speedy deletion. The person that uploaded that picture has stolen many other pictures and even texts. Some of his texts has been erased because copyright violation after I requested for deletion. Why, in this case, is not so? --66.98.78.51 03:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Should I put this request for a speedy deletion? I didn´t use that option to allow some comments but this is clear case a copyright violation. --66.98.79.98 01:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Taken without authorization from http://marcano.freeservers.com/fotos/fauna/solenodon.jpg 66.98.78.240 18:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC) The first time I forgot to say that the owner of the photo is Jose A. Ottenwalder, as seen in http://marcano.freeservers.com/areas/imagen_soleno.html and also in the book The National Parks of the Dominican Republic by Jurgen Hoppe, dated 1989, with credits to Ottenwalder. --66.98.79.242 22:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. @IP: in case of an obvious violation of copyright you can ask for a speedy deletion. Just write {{copyvio|reason}}. There are only few admins working through the requests here. -- Cecil 14:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bookstore Images by Wars
[edit]- Image:Virginia Woolf mural FLG AZ USA 6871.jpg
- Image:Raymond Chandler mural FLG AZ USA 6381.jpg
- Image:Franz Kafka mural FLG AZ USA 6441.jpg
- Image:Rudyard Kipling mural FLG AZ USA 6641.jpg
- Image:Carl Sandburg mural FLG AZ USA 6851.jpg
- Image:Isaac Bashevis Singer mural FLG AZ USA 6921.jpg
- Image:Walt Whitman mural FLG AZ USA 6701.jpg
User:War's bookstore images are unfortunately all copyright violations. Similar to the Herman Melville image already deleted, they are photographs of a mural in a bookstore chain; the copyright is likely owned by the chain, and an individual bookseller saying User:War is free to take photos is unlikely to have the right to release the material into the public domain. Komdori 01:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete clearly derivative. (I notice I asked Wars about a similar since delted image over a month ago without response.) -- Infrogmation 17:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 06:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Jorunn (uploaders request)
[edit]- Image:I haven - G. Munthe 1885.jpg
- Image:Blaaveis - G. Munthe 1891.jpg
- Image:Lars Hertervig-Fra Borgoya.jpg
- Image:Sohlberg-Storgaten Røros 1904.jpg
- Image:Vinternatt i fjellene III.jpg
- Image:Vinternatt i fjellene 1914.jpg
- Image:Sohlberg-selvportrett.jpg
- Image:Sohlberg-Etter snestorm. Lillegaten Røros.jpg
- Image:Ulfsten-Stranding på Jæren.jpg
- Image:Ulsten-Fra Jæren.jpg
- Image:Sohlberg-Natt.jpg
- Image:Sohlberg-Fiskerens stue.jpg
- Image:Blomstereng nordpå.jpg
- Image:Sohlberg-Høstlandskap.jpg
- Image:Sohlberg-Gate i Røros.jpg
- Image:Sohlberg-Solgløtt.jpg
- Image:Sohlberg-vinternatt 1901.jpg
- Image:Sohlberg-Sommerenatt.jpg
- Image:Sohlberg-Natteglød.jpg
- Image:Sohlberg-Modne jorder.jpg
- Image:Peter-nicolai-arbo-olav-haraldsson-dead.jpg
- Image:Peter-nicolai-arbo-skjalgsson.jpg
- Image:Peter-nicolai-arbo-stord.jpg
- Image:Peter-nicolai-arbo-svolder.jpg
- Image:Peter-nicolai-arbo-magnus-den-gode.jpg
- Image:Watzmann 1835.jpg
- Image:Vesuv sett fra Castellammare 1920.jpg
- Image:Vesuv fra stranden ved Castellammare.jpg
- Image:Trolltindene 1823.jpg
- Image:Skipbrudd ved Caprikysten 1822.jpg
- Image:Quisisana og Napolibukten 1825.jpg
- Image:Plauenscher Grund, naturstudie 1819.jpg
- Image:Norsk landskap, Rogna vannfall.jpg
- Image:Norsk landskap med bro 1815.jpg
- Image:Labrofossen 1929.jpg
- Image:Kirkeruiner, Avaldsnes.jpg
- Image:Julie Vogel i hagen 1825-1828.jpg
- Image:Elbe sett fra Brühlsche Terrasse 1824.jpg
- Image:Avaldsnes på Karmøy 1920.jpg
- Image:Harriet Backer-Storebror spiller.jpg
- Image:Harriet Backer-På Bleikevollen.jpg
- Image:Harriet Backer-To barn og tregruppe.jpg
- Image:Harriet Backer-Pike ved vinduet.jpg
- Image:Harriet Backer-Kone som syr.jpg
- Image:Harriet Backer-Kolbotnstua.jpg
- Image:Harriet Backer-Interiør med figurer.jpg
- Image:Harriet Backer-Fra Trefoldighetskirken.jpg
- Image:Harriet Backer-Chez moi.jpg
- Image:Harriet Backer-Alteret i Uvdal kirke.jpg
- Image:Harriet Backer-Alteret i Tanum kirke.jpg
- Image:Christian Krohg-Harriet Backer.jpg
- Image:Olav Rusti-Kitty Kielland.jpg
- Image:Kielland-Vaskeplass i Bretagne.jpg
- Image:Kielland-Tunet på Kvalbein.jpg
- Image:Kielland-Torvmyr.jpg
- Image:Kielland-Parisinteriør.jpg
- Image:Kielland-Landskap fra C-l-V.jpg
- Image:Kielland-Fra Jæren 1878.jpg
- Image:Kielland-Kornåker.jpg
- Image:Kielland-Fra jæren.jpg
- Image:Kielland-Blått interiør.jpg
- Image:Kielland-Blomstrende tre i Cernay-la-Ville.jpg
- Image:Arbo-Olav den helliges fall i slaget på Stiklestad.jpg
- Image:Arbo-Ingeborg.jpg
- Image:Arbo-Syende pike i hagen.jpg
- Image:Arbo-Valkyrien.jpg
- Image:Arbo-Utsikt mot Frognerslottet.jpg
- Image:Arbo-Signe Alette Arbo.jpg
- Image:Arbo-Portrett av Harald Platou.jpg
- Image:Arbo-Liden Gunvor og Havmanden.jpg
- Image:Arbo-Jaktstykke far 1700-tallet.jpg
- Image:Arbo-Fra Meudon.jpg
- Image:Arbo-Fra Gulskogen.jpg
- Image:Arbo-En høstpige.jpg
- Image:Arbo-Eliza Arbo med spansk hatt.jpg
- Image:A Tidemand-Haugianerne.jpg
- Image:Dahl-Stalheim.jpg
- Image:Dahl-Bjerk i storm.jpg
- Image:Peder Balke-Tromsø.jpg
- Image:Peder Balke-Vardøhus festning.jpg
- Image:Peder Balke-Nordlys.jpg
- Image:Peder Balke-Nordkapp.jpg
- Image:Peder Balke-Fyr på den norske kyst.jpg
- Image:Peder Balke-Stetind i tåke.jpg
- Image:Nils Bergslien-Under paraplyen.jpg
- Image:Nils Bergslien-Kven er størst måtru.jpg
- Image:Anders Askevold-Dampbåten anløper Bakka i Nerøyfjorden.jpg
- Image:Nikolai Astrup-Gammel fisker.jpg
- Image:Nils Bergslien-Dans på lemmen.jpg
- Image:Anders Askevold-Bakka i Nærøyfjorden.jpg
- Image:Adelsteen Normann-Munken gård i Esefjorden.jpg
- Image:Peter-nicolai-arbo-gudtorm-sindre.jpg
- Image:Peter-nicolai-arbo-dale-gudbrand.jpg
- Image:Arbopeternicolai.jpg
- Image:Sverrir by Arbo.jpg
- Image:Fornalder, peter nicolai arbo.jpg
- Image:Gizur and the Huns.jpg
- Image:Aasgaardreien peter nicolai arbo mindre.jpg
- Image:Kitty Kielland-Sommernatt.jpg
- Image:Kitty Kielland-Efter solnedgang.jpg
- Image:Harriet Backer-Ved lampelys.jpg
- Image:Harriet Backer-Inngangskoner.jpg
- Image:Harriet Backer-Barnedåp i Tanum kirke.jpg
- Image:Eilif Peterssen-Arne Garborg.jpg
- Image:N Astrup-Vårnatt og seljekall.jpg
- Image:N Astrup-Vårnatt i hagen.jpg
- Image:N Astrup-Vinternatt.jpg
- Image:N Astrup-Svanøybukta.jpg
- Image:N Astrup-St. Hansbål ved Jølstervatnet.jpg
- Image:N Astrup-St. Hans-bål.jpg
- Image:N Astrup-Sjølvportrett.jpg
- Image:N Astrup-Rabarbra.jpg
- Image:N Astrup-Prestegårdshagen.jpg
- Image:N Astrup-Plognatten.jpg
- Image:N Astrup-Natt.jpg
- Image:N Astrup-Martzmorgen.jpg
- Image:N Astrup-Maimåne.jpg
- Image:N Astrup-Liten kornstaur.jpg
- Image:N Astrup-Kornstaur.jpg
- Image:N Astrup-Klar juninatt.jpg
- Image:N Astrup-Kl 2 juninat.jpg
- Image:N Astrup-Kjerringa med lykta.jpg
- Image:N Astrup-Fugl på sten.jpg
- Image:N Astrup-Foss og bre.jpg
- Image:N Astrup-Fjøsfrieri.jpg
- Image:Wilhelm Wetlesen-Moder hekler 1890.jpg
- Image:Wilhelm Peters-Fiskerens kone.jpg
- Image:Kitty Kielland-Kystlandskap.jpg
- Image:JC Dahl-Kystpati med gravhauger og bautasteiner.jpg
- Image:Hans Gude-Solgangsbris.jpg
- Image:Gunnar Berg-Sjekter ved Nordlandskysten.jpg
- Image:Frants Bøe-Stilleben med rose.jpg
- Image:Frants Bøe-Sandviksfjellet.jpg
- Image:C Krogh-Er det land.jpg
- Image:Anders Askevold-Vetlefjord.jpg
- Image:A Tidemand-Parti fra Oslo Strandgate.jpg
- Image:Ole Juul-Kvinne på landevei.jpg
- Image:M Stoltenberg-Hans Michelsen.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-N, L & C Forseth.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-Ukjent mann.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-Utsikt fra nordbyen i Tønsberg mot Jarlsberg.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-Ukjent prest.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-Ukjent kvinne.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-Tynset.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-Torshaug i Vang, utsikt fra annen etasje mot låven.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-Strømsø med den gamle kirke på Tangen.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-SA Rode m datteren Wilhelmine.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-Tollkasserer GM Døderlein.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-Mor med barn.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-M Zeier, f Gram.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-Reinholdine Gram, f Boll.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-PP Flor.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-M og F Debes.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-Ludvig Ludvigsen Daae.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-Landskap.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-Gerhard Gunerus Bergh.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-CP Stoltenberg.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-Kopi etter Van Dyck.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-C&AE Glückstad.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-C Bull Stoltenberg.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-B D Thaulow, f. Møinichen.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-A H Torshaug.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-Calmeyer Rode.jpg
- Image:Stoltenberg-Rode.jpg
- Image:M Stoltenberg-Ole Haagenstad.jpg
- Image:M Stoltenberg-Jacob Lerche.jpg
- Image:M Stoltenberg K.M. Stoltenberg 1820-årene.jpg
- Image:N Bergslien-I skogen skjer det ting.jpg
- Image:N Bergslien-Etter slaget på Stiklestad.jpg
- Image:N Bergslien-Byttet vises frem.jpg
- Image:JC Dahl-Bjerk i høstlandskap.jpg
- Image:Hans gude-Frisk bris ved den norske kyst.jpg
- Image:C Krohg-Trett.jpg
- Image:C Krohg-Kone som skjærer brød.jpg
- Image:Gerhard Mercator-Svecia et Norvegia cum confinys 1595.jpg
- Image:Abraham Ortelius-Septentrionalium Regionum Descrip.jpg
- Image:Joan Blaeu-Insula Qvæ Ioanne Mayen nomen sortita est.JPG
- Image:Joan Blaeu-Norvegia Regnum ca. 1662.jpg
- Image:Michael G. Anckarsvärd-Burgunds Kyrka 1830-37.jpg
- Image:Christian Krohg-I baljen.jpg
- Image:Christian Krohg-Selvportrett med staffeli 1912.jpg
- Image:Christian Krohg-Selvportrett i kurvstol 1917.jpg
- Image:Christian Krohg-Sovende mor med barn 1883.jpg
- Image:Christian Krohg-Kampen for tilværelsen 1889.jpg
- Image:Christian Krogh-Albertine i politilægens venteværelse.jpg
- Image:Olav Rusti-Gutt med eple.jpg
- Image:Frants Bøe-Blomsterstilleben.jpg
- Image:Jacob Mathias Calmeyer-Fra Sunhordland.jpg
- Image:Knud Bergslien-Fjordbunn.jpg
- Image:Knud Bergslien-Nordnorsk fjordidyll.jpg
- Image:Theodor Laureng-Olav Kringren.jpg
- Image:Carl Sundt-Hansen-Gutt.jpg
- Image:Nils Bergslien-Afrodite.jpg
- Image:Nils Bergslien-Frieriet.jpg
- Image:Anders Askevold-Utsikt fra Stalheim.jpg
- Image:Wilhelm Otto Peters-Bergen havn.jpg
- Image:Gustav Wentzel-Grænt gress 1890.jpg
- Image:Ragnhild Thrane-Bøketrær, parti fra Dyrehaven i København 1892.jpg
- Image:Hans Gude-Fra Kristianiafjorden 1896.jpg
- Image:Frederik Collett-Kystlandskap med robåt 1884.jpg
- Image:Gustav Wentzel-Festningsmur.jpg
- Image:Gustav Wentzel-Høyfjell med to figurer på sti.jpg
- Image:Christian Krohg-Modellen 1886.jpg
- Image:Frits Thaulow-Norsk vinterlandskap 1890.jpg
- Image:Vincent Stoltenberg Lerche-Katolsk prosesjon i kirkeinteriør 1876.jpg
- Image:Morten Müller-Norsk kystlandskap med folkeliv 1857.jpg
- Image:Axel Ender-Sledekjøring på isen.jpg
- Image:Nikolai Ulfsten-Fra Jæren.jpg
- Image:Nikolai Ulfsten-Folkeliv ved brygge.jpg
- Image:Hans Heyerdahl-Landeveien, Åsgårdstrand 1890.jpg
- Image:Morten Müller-Innsjø med robåt og mennesker 1876.jpg
- Image:Anders Askevold-Skogsstudie fra Eide 1868.jpg
- Image:Anders Askevold-Landskap med innsjø 1853.jpg
- Image:Otto Sinding-Fiskerjente på strand 1883.jpg
- Image:Frithjof Smith-Hald-Fiskerkone med barn.jpg
- Image:Nils Hansteen-Fjordabåt stevner ut Trondheim havn 1893.jpg
- Image:Carl Wilhelm Barth-Seilskuter og glitrende sjø 1893.jpg
- Image:Adelsteen Normann-Fjordlandskap med båt.jpg
- Image:Ludvig Skramstad-Skogsvann med ender.jpg
- Image:Nikolai Astrup-Akt tresnitt.jpg
- Image:Ludvig Skramstad-Høybåt på fjorden. 1878 OPL.jpg
- Image:Ivar Arosenius-Spionerande på kärlekspar. 1902.jpg
- Image:Hans Andreas Dahl-Fjordlandskap.jpg
- Image:Gustav Wentzel-Vinterlandskap OPL.jpg
- Image:Gerhard Munthe-Budeia 1890 Hallingdal.jpg
- Image:Georg Anton Rasmussen-Norsk fjordlandskap OPL.jpg
- Image:Carl Wilhelm Barth-Før regnbygen. 1889 OPL.jpg
- Image:Carl Wilhelm Barth-Aften ved Grundesund..jpg
- Image:Albert Edelfelt-Ung kvinna i sin boudoir 1879.jpg
- Image:Akseli Gallen-Kallela.Stockflotte.jpg
- Image:Albert Edelfelt-Gata i Borgå.jpg
- Image:Albert Edelfelt-Självporträtt.jpg
- Image:Albert Edelfelt - Sven Duva.jpg
- Image:Döbeln vid Jutas - teckning av Albert Edelfelt.jpg
- Image:Gustav IV Adolf - teckning av Albert Edelfelt.jpg
- Image:Sandels han satt i Pardala by, Åt frukost i allsköns ro - teckning av Albert Edelfelt.jpg
- Image:Georg Carl von Döbeln, teckning av Albert Edelfelt från 1903.jpg
- Image:Wilhelm von Schwerins död, målning av Albert Edelfelt från 1900.jpg
- Image:Hertig Karl skymfande Klaus Flemings lik, målning av Albert Edelfelt från 1878.jpg
- Image:Kvinnlig modellstudie, målning av Albert Edelfelt från 1874.jpg
- Image:Albert Edelfetl-Strandstenar på Haiko.jpeg
- Image:Albert Edelfelt-I vattnet .jpeg
- Image:Albert Edelfelt-Per Brahe.jpeg
- Image:Björneborgarnas marsch, akvarell av Albert Edelfelt från 1900.jpg
- Image:Drottning Blanka, målning av Albert Edelfelt från 1877.jpg
- Image:Självporträtt, teckning av Albert Edelfelt från 1902.jpg
- Image:Albert Edelfelt-Smultron.jpeg
- Image:Akseli Gallen-Kallela-MYRSKY.jpeg
- Image:Akseli Gallen-Kallela-TAPIOLAN NEITO.jpeg
- Image:Akseli Gallen-Kallela-HEIJASTUKSIA.jpeg
- Image:Akseli Gallen-Kallela-TULIPALON KATSELIJAT PITKÄNSILLAN RANNASSA.jpeg
- Image:Akseli Gallen-Kallela-Auringonlasku.jpeg
- Image:Albert Edelfelt-Den första snön.jpeg
- Image:Akseli Gallen-Kallela-Tyttö ja kukko.jpeg
- Image:Hans Gude-Kystlandskap med båt.jpg
- Image:Frits Thaulow-Vaskerkoner ved Quimperle.jpg
- Image:Frits Thaulow-Kanal med vannmølle.jpg
- Image:Frits Thaulow-Marmortrappen.jpg
- Image:Amaldus Nielsen-Aftenstemning over havet.jpg
- Image:Anders Askevold-Sommerlandskap med kuer.jpg
- Image:Anders Askvold-Norsk fjordlandskap.jpg
- Image:Frits Thaulow-Paysage et rivière.jpg
- Image:Frithjof Smith Hald-Til lands med fangsten.jpg
- Image:Vincent Stoltenberg Lerche-Oldsaksgranskeren.jpg
- Image:Frits Thaulow-Fra Dieppe med elven Arques.jpg
- Image:Frits Thaulow-La Dordogne.jpg
- Image:Adelsteen Normann-Norsk fjordlandskap.jpg
- Image:Christian August Printz-Rapphøne med kyllinger.jpg
- Image:Peder Balke-Gaustadtoppen.jpg
- Image:Peder Balke-Fra Hammerfest.jpg
- Image:Harald Sohlberg-Solskin (Nordre Langø).jpg
- Image:Theodor Kittelsen-En uheldig bjørnejakt.jpg
- Image:Harald Sohlberg Vinternatt i Rondane 1917.jpg
- Image:Harald Sohlberg Fra Akershusvollen, aften 1926.jpg
discussion (edit heading)
[edit]At the time of uploading these images were thought to be free because they are photographic copies of paintings that are PD due to age. According to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Nordic_countries this is wrong, and the images are violating the copyright of the photographers. --Jorunn 18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have tried similar deletion requests and they have fallen on deaf ears but, yes, clearly - either delete the images or change the rules so that they only require compliance with US copyright law. Haukurth 21:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I should say transwiki to English Wikipedia rather than delete, I suppose. Haukurth 21:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Are you saying that this not a copyright infringement? Then why transfer? Or are you saying it is--and trying to breach it solely the US? Transfering imaging is hardly ever a solution. Here it clearly isn't!! --Ibn Battuta 16:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the idea is: In en-Wikipedia, the images have to comply with the US law only. There we can use Bridgeman Art Library vs. Corel Corporation, as the photographs do not enjoy copyright protection. Here, on the Commons, we require that the images are PD in the source country, too. --MPorciusCato 20:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Are you saying that this not a copyright infringement? Then why transfer? Or are you saying it is--and trying to breach it solely the US? Transfering imaging is hardly ever a solution. Here it clearly isn't!! --Ibn Battuta 16:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep When the author is dead for more than 70 years. Delete when the author is dead for less than 70 years (it doesn't seem the case anywhere here?). Some images should be renamed: Image:Avaldsnes på Karmøy 1920.jpg (1820), Image:Vesuv sett fra Castellammare 1920.jpg (1820), Image:Labrofossen 1929.jpg (1829). Yann 12:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yann, this is the third time in a few weeks where you opine on a deletion request on this type and you never present any argument for why you think the images in question should be kept. Could you please do so? Haukurth 16:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Can you read what I have written above? I can understand that my arguments do not please you, but you cannot say that I do not have arguments, if you can read. Beside that, I am not alone here. You should also do some more research, as on the case you mention, the final decision was most of the time to keep the images. Yann 13:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've read what you wrote. I've also read what you wrote in the other cases. In no case have you presented any argument as to why reproductive photography would not be protected by copyright in the relevant jurisdiction. Haukurth 20:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Can you read what I have written above? I can understand that my arguments do not please you, but you cannot say that I do not have arguments, if you can read. Beside that, I am not alone here. You should also do some more research, as on the case you mention, the final decision was most of the time to keep the images. Yann 13:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yann, this is the third time in a few weeks where you opine on a deletion request on this type and you never present any argument for why you think the images in question should be kept. Could you please do so? Haukurth 16:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep see my (and other) comments on Commons_talk:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Nordic_countries Finn Rindahl 14:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep ---Nina- 18:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Arguments please?
- The paintings have unknown photograph, we dont know who has taken the pictures and when and the art are in PD.---Nina- 17:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- It always goes the other way, if we don't know the source, we assume that it is not ok. Kjetil r 21:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nina: Yes I also considered that some of the paintings might be of photos that are at least 50 years old. But several images are from a book published in the 1980's, for example Image:Blaaveis - G. Munthe 1891.jpg. I think that since the uploader nominated all his images, he should know where he got them from. Any photographical reproductions that can be proven to be more than 50 years old can of course stay on Wikipedia. / Fred J 22:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, Image:Blaaveis - G. Munthe 1891.jpg is a photo by O. Væring. Their terms & conditions are here, they charge NOK 1500 ($250) per year for low resolution web usage. --Kjetil r 09:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nina: Yes I also considered that some of the paintings might be of photos that are at least 50 years old. But several images are from a book published in the 1980's, for example Image:Blaaveis - G. Munthe 1891.jpg. I think that since the uploader nominated all his images, he should know where he got them from. Any photographical reproductions that can be proven to be more than 50 years old can of course stay on Wikipedia. / Fred J 22:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- It always goes the other way, if we don't know the source, we assume that it is not ok. Kjetil r 21:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The paintings have unknown photograph, we dont know who has taken the pictures and when and the art are in PD.---Nina- 17:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Arguments please?
- Keep -- I believe this is based on an incorrect interpretation of Norwegian copyright law, see Commons_talk:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Nordic_countries. Cnyborg 18:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, because the photos are digital reproductions of paintings that are now in the free. There are some people in Norway who claims that all photos are work of art but I strongly believe such claims are without any real substance. The paintings are known, so there are no first publications after a redescovery, the work of art are the main motive. and the main motive are now in the free. Jeblad 20:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- No-one is claiming that these photographs are works of art, just that they are photographs. Even non-artistic photographs get a copyright term of at least 50 years in Norway. Haukurth 05:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Haukurth, Photographic pictures ("fotografiske bilder" in Norwegian) are indeed copyright protected in Norway, regardless of what they depict. We're all clear that the original works of art are PD here, and the question here is whether these files represent "photographic pictures" or simply "digital reproductions" of the PD-works they depict. The term photographic picture has not (to my knowledge) been precisly defined legally. I'm arguing that a copy made via a camera (at that's what these images are) isn't a photographic picture any more than a photoscan is. It can't be the medium of processing that defines copyright.Finn Rindahl 11:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Jeblad: Please refer to authoritative sources supporting your claims that photos are «digital reproductions» (I suppose you mean «eksemplarfremstilling»), as this view is rather unusual. --Kjetil r 08:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- No-one is claiming that these photographs are works of art, just that they are photographs. Even non-artistic photographs get a copyright term of at least 50 years in Norway. Haukurth 05:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete . In any case, please do not close this request yet as a keep. According to latest posts at Commons_talk:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Nordic_countries (by myself and Samulii), it is more likely than not that they are indeed copyright violations. / Fred J 22:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Johan Krabbe-Knudsen: Fotografiske verk og fotografiske bilder, åndsverkloven § 1 og § 43a (CompLex 1/98, ISBN 82-518-3786-3), side 64:
Om man tar et fotografi av et maleri, vil dette være et fotografisk bilde etter åndsverkloven § 43a. Fotografiet har vern, men utnyttelsen av det vil avhenge av om maleriet er vernet. Uansett kan ingen anvende fotografiet selv om maleriet er falt i det fri. Vil en annen utnytte det, må han ha samtykke av fotografen. Alternativt kan han fotografere maleriet selv.
Ole-Andreas Rognstad i samarbeid med Birger Stuevold Lassen skriver i «Fragementer til en lærebok i opphavsrett» (Institutt for privatrett, UiO, stensilserie nr. 165 (2004)) side 146:
Dersom det er et åndsverk som f.eks. et maleri eller en tegning som er fotografert, vil resultatet være et eksemplar av både åndsverket og av det fotografiske bildet, og bruk av bildet kan bare skje dersom det er lovlig etter begge regelsett.
Therefore: A clear Delete. --Kjetil r 08:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Next to certain probability: To scan, and make other use of another persons photograph is only legal for 50+ of photographic age. Art-photograps: 70+ after dying of artist. Photographic repro of paintings etc. goes on the 50yrs rule max. (dying and 70+ does not apply. This is craft, not art.)
- Worst-case-scenario: Any work of art, where owner and photographer conspires, will be protected against PD-use for more than 120 years. (Law-makers may have made an oversight when making the rules, and we will need a Supreme Court (Høyesterett) sentencing to find out what is the law.)
- Best case: To take a photograph of a well known picture is in itself a kind of mechanical procedure - yes, skill, knowledge and advancet technical apparatuses helps - but these are now more and more built-in features, of which we see no clear end - so this is like putting a graphic or draftsman work on a scanner. (Result improves with newer updates.) Scanner-copies cannot be considered photographs, since it is possible to robotize the process from putting a stack in the machine, via internal quality-control to receiving the finished copy. Main point: Scanners are sold without specific rules to what is "art" or not, and what use to put them.
- I am afraid that the pessimistic wiew is the safer. But I seem to see no problem scanning art-work from books being 120 years or more. 70+ years seems also to be safe, exept with illustrations made specificly by long-living artists (death+70 rules). Repro-quality being what it was, we will have some pictures, but of worse resolution.
- On the other hand: To take ones own photographs of PD-artworks can only be forbidden based on rules outside of the copyright-domain. Many museums say the flashlight may damage the paintings - so ok, use cameraprogram for available light and shoot away. Pics may need a good photo-editing-program to become acceptable, though. (Own experiences at home: It is possible even for fumblers.) My heart says to keep what we have, or move to safe storage, but my head says alas - lost case, and what do we do now? --Bjørn som tegner 11:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep A reproduction is not a photographic work in legal sense, as far as I can see. Grrahnbahr 16:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that it's not a work it's sufficient that it's a photograph. Above we have a quote from a Norwegian handbook on copyright law, written by a lawyer. It says plainly that photographs of paintings are protected. Do you have a quote from an authoritative source saying something else? Haukurth 17:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Lars G. Norheim: FOTO- OG OPPHAVSRETTSLIGE SPØRSMÅL VED MUSEENE (.pdf) is pretty clear about how photos of works of art are protected as simple photographs (and some even as works of art[!]). See section 3.6.2 "Fotografier av kunstverk", page 53-54. --Kjetil r 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note that he deals with photographs of paintings and sculptures under the same heading. Previously he says: "Som et generelt holdepunkt – men heller ikke mer – kan det således sies at desto nærmere gjengivelsen ligger virkeligheten, desto lettere må fotografiet bedømmes som et bilde og ikke som et verk." Since we are most interested in photographs which closely represent reality I think we will be mostly dealing with simple photographs. Haukurth 10:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is when the book you use have no photocredit. Before 1995 there was spesial rules «Fotoloven» and this new «Åndsverksloven» have new rules regarding Photos. (lov 23 juni 1995 nr. 37 (se dens II, i kraft 30 juni 1995 iflg. res. 23 juni 1995 nr. 572 - som opphevet den tidligere lov om rett til fotografi av 17 juni 1960 nr 1)[27] I have books made before 1995 with no Photocredit what about them? ---Nina- 13:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- As always at Wikipedia/Commons: If you don't know, assume that they are © all rights reserved. It is anyways completely irrelevant that there were different rules prior to 1995, the new law works retroactively. --Kjetil r 13:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is when the book you use have no photocredit. Before 1995 there was spesial rules «Fotoloven» and this new «Åndsverksloven» have new rules regarding Photos. (lov 23 juni 1995 nr. 37 (se dens II, i kraft 30 juni 1995 iflg. res. 23 juni 1995 nr. 572 - som opphevet den tidligere lov om rett til fotografi av 17 juni 1960 nr 1)[27] I have books made before 1995 with no Photocredit what about them? ---Nina- 13:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- No law is normally allowed to work retroactively, so why this? --Bjørn som tegner 18:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there's retroactive and there's retroactive. A copyright law that criminalized behavior which happened in the past would run foul of normal legal standards but this doesn't. (It's still v. annoying, of course.) Haukurth 19:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- The Norwegian copyright law -- unlike for example the Swedish -- specifically applies to "åndsverk og andre arbeider fra før lovens ikrafttredelse." §60. / Fred J 20:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- The photography law was revised 1995, and pics taken before revision follows older rules (e.g. to be freed 15 yrs after death, but no less than 25 yrs from date of taking). There seems to be no retroactivity there. I quote the treatise Kjetil r cites somewhere further up (Lars G Norheim). I only suffered through the first chapter, and may have missed something, but it seemed very clear on that point. It seems to me that the law-makers, with the provision "fra før lovens ikrafttreden" are hedging, so that works still under protection, are to enjoy the prolongation - but that, ladies & gents, is as far as a lawmaker can go and still follow the words of the Constitution. I don't remember which paragraph, but: "No Law is to be made to work retroactively" has been there since 1814. The honoured Guild of Legalese-speakers had quite a job interpreting our tax-decisions (often coming a little late) into being non-retroactive, but I seriously doubt their ability do manage that miracle more than once. --Bjørn som tegner 09:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Norheim does not say that the law does not work retroactively, it says that simple photos that were already free are not put under copyright again. Simple photos that were still copyrighted in 1995 got thair copyright terms extended. --Kjetil r 12:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The photography law was revised 1995, and pics taken before revision follows older rules (e.g. to be freed 15 yrs after death, but no less than 25 yrs from date of taking). There seems to be no retroactivity there. I quote the treatise Kjetil r cites somewhere further up (Lars G Norheim). I only suffered through the first chapter, and may have missed something, but it seemed very clear on that point. It seems to me that the law-makers, with the provision "fra før lovens ikrafttreden" are hedging, so that works still under protection, are to enjoy the prolongation - but that, ladies & gents, is as far as a lawmaker can go and still follow the words of the Constitution. I don't remember which paragraph, but: "No Law is to be made to work retroactively" has been there since 1814. The honoured Guild of Legalese-speakers had quite a job interpreting our tax-decisions (often coming a little late) into being non-retroactive, but I seriously doubt their ability do manage that miracle more than once. --Bjørn som tegner 09:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The Norwegian copyright law -- unlike for example the Swedish -- specifically applies to "åndsverk og andre arbeider fra før lovens ikrafttredelse." §60. / Fred J 20:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there's retroactive and there's retroactive. A copyright law that criminalized behavior which happened in the past would run foul of normal legal standards but this doesn't. (It's still v. annoying, of course.) Haukurth 19:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- No law is normally allowed to work retroactively, so why this? --Bjørn som tegner 18:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep The Albert Edelfelt drawing Image:Albert Edelfelt - Sven Duva.jpg was first published in the 1890s and I made the digital reproduction with my own scanner. Jorunn, why have I not been notified of this deletion request? Which other contributors have not been notified? Thuresson 05:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- And what do you think about the rest of the images, which are mostly unsourced? --Kjetil r 08:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- We'll have to go through all of them. Scans of drawings are fine. Since earlier reproductions of paper drawings most likely were also made by a photomechanical process (doesn't get this "photo right"), I think those could be kept. E.g. Image:Döbeln vid Jutas - teckning av Albert Edelfelt.jpg and Image:Gustav IV Adolf - teckning av Albert Edelfelt.jpg. However, paintings typically are reproduced by first photographing them (this gets a "photo right") and then reproducing that photo (this doesn't get a new protection). For example Image:Albert Edelfelt-Självporträtt.jpg or Image:Albert Edelfelt-Gata i Borgå.jpg. Such images should go, unless it can be shown that the photograph must have been made so long ago that this "photo right" has expired. If the photographer or the year the photo was taken cannot be found, assume that the photo was taken in the year of the original publication of the reproduction of the photo. Lupo 13:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- For Norway, we may have a small bolthole in the law, by using the "right of quotation". A serious purpose (like us?) is granted the right to quote what is considered necessary to support whatever subject is tabled. Now we want to illustrate articles, but may have inadverently have stepped upon someone elses protected rights. So what we do is to reduce the number of pixels to the minimum necessary to illustrate the PD-ed work in a general way and delete the sinful ones. Some text about original autor may be at good thing, though. Alternatively, a razzia with cameras on available light-programs. Always assuming the paintings being in the free.--Bjørn som tegner 08:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - for a while. The amount of work involved in going through each and every picture is enormous. However, it must be done. Those images that are unsourced must be nominated individually and their uploaders notified. At least all the drawings by Albert Edelfelt that were made to illustrate Fänrik Ståhls sågner are PD, because they are most likely scanned. If not, PD versions may be found from Doria database where the works are definitely scans. Then, when we have completed the work of sourcing the images, we move all the unusable images to En-wikipedia where we can apply Bridgeman vs. Corel. --MPorciusCato 09:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment In Finland, the simple photographs are copyrighted for 50 years if they have been published after 1966. All simple photographs before that date are free. Therefore, the photographs taken in Finland of any paintings and published before 1966 are free. A photograph of a painting is not a "photographic work" because it has no originality. --MPorciusCato 09:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Finnish law seems to be somewhat different from the other three given that the Finnish copyright council has stated that Image:Paavo Nurmi sytyttää olympiatulen 1952.jpg isn't covered by copyright (see: former debate), so perhaps the Finnish case should be split off into a separate debate? Swedish, Norwegian and Danish law is to a large extent inspired by each other. Peter Schønning's Ophavsretten med kommentarer specifically mentions that Danish copyright law is supposed to function in sync with the other Scandinavian states. IANAL, but as I read the Danish law, §70, 2 covers anything below the threshold of originality. Mere mechanical scans are probably free. Valentinian (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Try to find out who took the photographs. If impossible or if photographers don't consent to publish the photographs: delete. (And stop whining about deleting images that are copyrighted. It sometimes feels like thieves are whining because they have to return their loot.) --Ibn Battuta 16:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Its complicated. To day I bougt a book Gløersen, Nikolai Astrup, Oslo 1954. Inside it tells «tekst Inger Alver Gløersen 12 Fargeplansjer etter Malerier og tresnitt». No photograf. This book are more than 50 years old and pictures inside I think will be PD. In a new book those pictures may be used, and no one knows who have made them. My point is we often dont know who and when pictures in a book have been made. I think that if the art are in PD and there are no names of a photograf we are not thieves.---Nina- 00:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Section break October
[edit] Keep This is a reproduction. Jakro64 05:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Today, after the event of digital photography, developed mainly during the last 10 years, there is hardly any difference between electronic scanning (like on a Xerox machine) and a digital photography (like a picture taken with a Cannon or Nikon SLR camera). Now it is claimed in the above discussion that photography is an "art", and thus comes under a special law. But surely electronic scanning is not an art, for it is only a standard automatized industrial or office procedure. Now both electronic scanning as well as digital photography produce jpeg images as standard output. And it is not possible to tell whether a jpeg image was produced by an SLR camera or an electronic scanner: I, for example, often use a small digital camera to copy documents, and the images are no different from scanned images. Hence I'd say that whether you call an image a scan or a photo is immaterial: From a technical point of view, exactly the same technologies are used (optical lens system, rasterized CCD chip, digital memory chips for temporary storage and magnetic media (harddrives) or optical media (CD/DVD) for permanent storage.
But a scan is something that needs to be done to ANY 2-D image stored as an analogue image on some medium, whether canvas, paper or plastic, in order to put it on the internet. For scanning merely means a technology that changes an analogue image into a digital one. And all images accessible via the internet are digital images (which includes the so called vector images). Therefore, reason tells us that the copyright applies to the ORIGINAL image: Is it protected by any copyright? Then you can't copy it. Is it not protected by copyright, then you can copy it digitally and put the digital image on the internet, it is as simple as that. (People are copyrighted, right?) User: gangdagr, October 8, 2007.
- Indeed the laws in these modern times are often lagging behind new technology. However, photography is expressly covered by the copyright law, and all the references me and others have found and mentioned on Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag agree that these kind of photographs are protected. The law in Scandinavian countries give protection for photographs -- period. All Scandinavian judicial experts agree.
- Fred J 16:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Especially Finnish law is different in this case; there is no point discussing images from four different countries at once, it doesn't make sense to discuss / delete them at once. In this comment I'm not saying all images should be kept, but it's ridiculous to request all images uploaded by some user to be deleted as they are under different legislation. Waste of work and time, really. If not anything else, split the Finnish images to a different nom. --Pudeo 21:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment (moved from Village Pump) It is noted that many of 'Jorunn's" images including that of the Wild Hunt (Aasgaardreinen peter nicolai arbo mindre.jpg) and numerous others are set for deletion. It is hoped that the decision for deletion will be reconsidered as many of these images are both Artistically and Historically significant, to delete them would be akin to burning books.
Profs. Lawrence A. Starr—the preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.42.13 (talk • contribs)
- This is a copyright issue. If a book is copyrighted, one may not claim it is public domain.
- Perhaps the images are not copyrighted on English Wikipedia? Then please transfer them there. It should also be possible to use them there claiming "fair use". Commons, on the other hand, is for free contents.
- Fred J 16:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good comparision, Professor. However, as many times seen here, deletionists have no shame. It just needs to fit their agenda, no matter whether the issue is ridiculous or waste of time, or just stupid copyright paranoia. Again the rules are original research of laws, the Finnish law atleast does not mention photos of art at all. There isn't a single case in courts changing the status quo, so here we go with the deletionists again.. --Pudeo 10:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- What does Finnish copyright law § 49 say? And if you had read Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag#Nordic countries you would have noticed Samulili 19:55, 8 September 2007 Pirkko-Liisa Haarmann (2006, pp. 281) writes: "Also he who slavishly strives to follow a certain model receives protection for his images." ("Suojaa saa niin ikään se, joka orjallisesti pyrkii valokuvissaan seuraamaan tiettyä esikuvaa.")
- Fred J 10:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- It says a photographer has the rights to the photo, as modified or unmodified, to publish or distribute his/her photo. This right lasts for 50 years. It doesn't say a thing about the question whether photo of someone's else work is copyrighted. That is 2D art, requires no originality for the photographes. Can Samulili link a court case here? Otherwise it seems bit funny to remove such paintings, thinking Wikimedia would be first one to be sued. Talk about copyright paranoia. I never even had thought one could claim an image of painting could be copyrighted to the photographer, this is not recognised. We are not lawyers, why we should research some law articles, when there isn't a single court case deciding them? --Pudeo 11:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, to me it seems to be a very bad idea to go against both the juridical experts and the written law, just because there is no legal case. Maybe you want Commons to be the first legal case? / Fred J 15:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- It says a photographer has the rights to the photo, as modified or unmodified, to publish or distribute his/her photo. This right lasts for 50 years. It doesn't say a thing about the question whether photo of someone's else work is copyrighted. That is 2D art, requires no originality for the photographes. Can Samulili link a court case here? Otherwise it seems bit funny to remove such paintings, thinking Wikimedia would be first one to be sued. Talk about copyright paranoia. I never even had thought one could claim an image of painting could be copyrighted to the photographer, this is not recognised. We are not lawyers, why we should research some law articles, when there isn't a single court case deciding them? --Pudeo 11:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete 1) To my mind, Wikimedia Commons should be the lowest common denominator of all laws of all countries, and not a United-States-centered place. 2) We should avoid Jorunn any trouble, and comply with his request 3) The people who favor keeping should at least allow the pictures to be deleted in a first time to comply with Jorunn's request, and re-upload them themselves in a subsequent time. 4) This is somewhat similar to my own request Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bonnat21.jpg (France). Teofilo 09:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Wikimedia's servers are located in the U.S., and in the U.S., these images are PD. BrianSmithson 02:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Is not the issue of copyright down to if, or not, the original painting is in the public domain. If the original is in a private collection or in a private display seen only by payment and can only be photographed with special permission and /or payment, then any subsequent photograph is copyrighted. If however the original is in the public domain then any photograph made of it is considered a derivative work and also therefore public domain. Richard Harvey 12:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I notice that nobody who can read Scandinavian and voted keep has commented on my previous post, so I'll post it again, translated into English:
Johan Krabbe-Knudsen: Photographic woks and photographic images, the Norwegian Copyright Act §1 and §43a (CompLex 1/98, ISBN 82-518-3786-3), page 64:
“If one takes a photograph of a painting, it would be a photographic image as defined in the Norwegian Copyright Act §43a. The photograph is protected [by copyright], but how it is used depends on whether the image is protected [by copyright]. In any case, nobody may use the photograph even though the painting is public domain. If somebody wants to use it, he has to get consent from the photographer. He may alternatively photograph the painting himself.”
Ole-Andreas Rognstad in cooperation with Birger Stuevold Lassen: Fragments of a textbook in copyright law, Institute of Private Law, the University of Oslo (2004), page 146:
“If it is a work of art as for example a painting or a drawing that is photographed, the result will be a copy of both the work of art and the photographic image, and use of the image can only happen if it is legal in both sets of rules.”
Maybe some of the users who are voting keep can comment on these authoritative sources? --Kjetil r 00:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Individual images that are not photographs but scans
[edit]- Image:Albert Edelfelt - Sven Duva.jpg is not a painting but a drawing, most likely scanned from a book. This image has been reproduced without photography: thus it should be kept. Keep for this image
- Image:Gustav IV Adolf - teckning av Albert Edelfelt.jpg, Image:Döbeln vid Jutas - teckning av Albert Edelfelt.jpg, Image:Sandels han satt i Pardala by, Åt frukost i allsköns ro - teckning av Albert Edelfelt.jpg, Image:Georg Carl von Döbeln, teckning av Albert Edelfelt från 1903.jpg are also all drawings, originally made for illustrating the 1903 edition of Fänriks Ståhls Sågner. They have been scanned from the book, so no photography has been applied. The drawings themselves have been made into printing plates in a process other than photography, so no copyright applies. Keep —the preceding unsigned comment was added by MPorciusCato (talk • contribs)
- I am okay with keeping these images. / Fred J 11:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, with all my heart! If, for some reason these people, that in plain Finnish generally are addressed as "point fuckers", manage to have these pictures deleted, I happen to have in my possession a specimen of Fänrik Ståls sägner from 1883, illustrated by another, not so well known artist. I believe that those illustrations without doubt are in public domain, so please give me a hint in that case! -Islander 22:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry I didn't read through all of this, but these seem perfectly PD as far as the U.S. and our servers go. What if I make new copies of these images and upload them? Would this hypothetically change anything since I'm in the U.S.? According to my government the photographer doesn't own the copyright - the original artist does (which is now expired). My copy could be treated as a direct copy of the original work meaning PD for everyone. Yeah, I know logic and copyright laws don't mix. Rocket000 18:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- All kept. The author has died 70 years prior and hence these images are all in the public domain. I have restored a few images that were deleted. -- Cat ちぃ？ 22:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Reopened. Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Nordic countries. Regardless of when the painter died, photographers have an exclusive right to their photographs for 50 years. Thuresson 04:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- U.S. copies can be supplied if you want to get technical, but a copy is a copy as far as I'm concerned. Maybe the uploader was wrong to upload these in the first place by violating their country's laws, but it's not wrong to keep these. Because the image is now on our severs, only the painter has (had) the copyright. We can't change that. It would be copyfraud to say any different. Rocket000 13:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- BTW Thuresson, this is not a legal issue (clearly PD in the U.S.), but a Commons policy issue and thus should be decided by consensus. I think it was wrong to reopen this just because you disagreed. Even if you feel there's enough reason to renominate these, it's way too soon. Deleting some of the images (which I restored) was also wrong. You did this twice now. Please wait for discussions to be closed before acting. Rocket000 14:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- This closure was a complete non-sequitur which didn't address any of the actual concerns. It doesn't even give the impression that the admin read the page. As for deleting images, I think it is preferable to transwiki them to English Wikipedia. Haukurth 23:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why? That diminishes Commons' role. If they're PD, they belong on Commons. The closure was in-line with consensus. Rocket000 23:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- This closure was a complete non-sequitur which didn't address any of the actual concerns. It doesn't even give the impression that the admin read the page. As for deleting images, I think it is preferable to transwiki them to English Wikipedia. Haukurth 23:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If we are keeping these photos, we should make some changes to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Nordic countries. My suggestions are in bold below:
Nordic countries
Generally 
Not OK. In Denmark (Article 70), Finland (Article 49 a), Norway (Article 43 a), Sweden (Article 49 a), and Iceland (§49), anyone who has produced a photographic picture has an exclusive right to reproduce the picture and to make it available to the public. This right subsists until 50 years have elapsed from the year in which the picture was produced (15 years p.m.a. but at least 50 years in Norway). However, the Wikimedia Commons community has decided that American laws shall be applied to Norwegian photos, so all Norwegian PD-art images are 
OK per Bridgeman Art Library -v- Corel Corporation<ref>[[Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Jorunn (uploaders request)]]</ref>
Photographic reproductions from these countries enter the public domain when both the copyrights on the original and this neighboring right on the photograph have expired. Recent photos are thus never OK (apart from Norwegian photos), but older ones may be (if the original is in the public domain). These countries had until the 1990s shorter terms for this photography right.
- Iceland: OK before January 1, 1957. Iceland has a term of 50 years since creation.
- Norway: Always OK
before January 1, 1970 if the photographer died before January 1, 1980 Norway had a term of 25 years since creation (but at least 15 years p.m.a.) until 1995. If the photographer died later or the picture was taken later, the current terms apply.[28] - Sweden: OK before January 1, 1969. Sweden had a term of 25 years until 1994.
- Finland: OK before January 1, 1966. Finland had a term of 25 years until 1991.
- Denmark: OK before January 1, 1970. Denmark had a term of 25 years until 1995. (§91, 5 in the current law).[29]
However, mechanical reproduction such as photocopying and scanning are not mentioned in the laws, and are probably OK. Similarly, reprints using old etchings and copper-plates should not be protected.
Kjetil r 02:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Um.. we could, but that's there to inform users what they can and can't upload (and possible reuse) depending on where they live, not what we host. Two different things. And U.S. laws don't apply to Norwegian photos, it's just once they're in the U.S., we have to follow our laws. Legally we make no distinction between the original paintings and these copies. We can not give say others hold the copyright, when they don't. It doesn't matter where these copies are made (they're currently being made in the U.S. every time someone downloads the image from our servers). It only matters where copyrighted material is created. These are PD and cannot be re-copyrighted. BTW, I know you were being facetious, but maybe we should make the policy a little clearer. Rocket000 03:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not being facetious. Have you actually read Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag? It specifically says that "If you want to upload to Commons a copy of a photograph originally taken by somebody else, you have to be able to demonstrate [...] that under local law and that of the U.S., the photograph is not original enough to qualify for copyright protection." Norwegian copyright law does give photos of 2D art protection as simple photographs. None of the users voting “keep” has given a reliable source that claims that they are not. The same users have not addressed the arguments of the sources I have have presented. We can therefore not both keep these photos and have a policy saying that such photos are against policy. That is why I suggest that we amend our policy, so that these images do not violate it. --Kjetil r 07:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
From Commons:Licensing:
- "When uploading material from a country outside the US, the copyright laws of that country and the US apply. If material that has been saved from a third-party website is uploaded to Commons, the copyright laws of the US, the country of residence of the uploader, and the country of location of the web servers of the website apply. Thus, any licence to use the material should apply in all relevant jurisdictions; if the material is in the public domain, it must be in the public domain in all these jurisdictions (plus in the country of origin of the work) for it to be allowable on Commons.
Upload the disputed photos to English Wikipedia and tag them with "Template:Do not move to Commons":
Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons.
This image is in the public domain in the United States but is NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN IN ITS COUNTRY OF ORIGIN. Commons only accepts files that are public domain in both country of origin and the United States. See en:Template talk:PD-US, Commons:Licensing, Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details.
It has always been standard practice at WikiCommons that photos that are not public domain in the country of origin can not be uploaded to WikiCommons. Innumerable images that are public domain in the US have been deleted before, see for example:
- Pablo Picasso
- Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2005/06#All images of Henri Matisse
- Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Edvard Munch - Madonna (1894-1895).jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Train station Berlin Anhalter Bahnhof.jpg
Thuresson 07:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- That doesn't apply here because there is nothing copyrightable in making a copy in the first place. If the paintings were PD here but not in another country then it would apply and we should delete them, but that's not the case. You can't tell one copy apart from another so technically anyone anywhere can make the exact same thing and release under their county's laws. Since these copies are originating from the U.S. (severs), so they are now PD. (sorry, if that doesn't make sense, I need sleep) Rocket000 10:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Have you ever tried taking a photo of a painting? One can certainly tell one copy apart from the other. Compare Image:Leonardo da Vinci 042.jpg to Image:La gioconda.jpg, for example. --Kjetil r 12:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have taken photos of paintings, and you are able to change it in photoshop. The real question is who have taken the picture of the painting, and are we able to read this in the book we are scanning from ? If not who have the rights? I have books that are more than 50 years old with no name of the photografer and the pictures are named «plansjer». I think I am free too use them and noone can tell whitch picture is from this book because the modern scanners are able to scan without «raster» (I dont know the english word] ---Nina- 22:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh yes, if those photographs are from a book that old, the copyright (of "simple photographs") has expired. The rastering of the images is not a creative process, so I do not think it creates any further copyrights. If you scan from the book, those images are very clearly PD. --MPorciusCato 06:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)--MPorciusCato 06:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, Kjetil r. Upon rereading this discussion, I think I was misinterpreting what you were saying. You're right the policy and the conclusion here don't appear to really line up, so either one or the other should change. However, just like for copies of PD-art made in Germany, I don't interpret these as copyrighted in their country of origin. The confusion was not over countries' PD but countries' definition (and our personal interpretations) of "copy" and "derivative". That being, I don't know of any country that gives rights to someone simply for making a copy. If they did, I can make a copy of these copies (all rights would transfer to me as they supposedly did for these photographers), then the country of origin would be the U.S. and it would be PD for everyone. In countries where it wouldn't be PD, and they actually would give me the rights, I would release them all. Of course I wouldn't recognize (nor care about) the original photographer's copyright, as that's copyfraud in my country. Those two images you mentioned above could have been the exact same photo at one point. It's not logical (nor possible) to assign new rights to these. If you did, whoever makes a copy first would then own the copyright. Any other copies other people made would be too similar and they couldn't prove they didn't use the copy instead of the painting itself. We have to be logical here no matter how you might interpret the policy. Rocket000 08:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio? Copyvio? It certainly is!
- I really really doubt that those two Mona Lisas could be from the same photograph, there is certainly no reason to assume so or to base any conclusion on the idea that they "could" have been. As for "all rights would transfer to me as they supposedly did for these photographers", that's confused. There are no rights to Mona Lisa to begin with - but photographs of Mona Lisa can still have rights associated with them. Certainly no country will grant you a copyright monopoly for merely copying a file, as you are clearly aware of. Your argument seems to rest on the idea that two photographs of the same painting are always indistinguishable and that's just clearly not true. Try comparing the two pictures Kjetil pointed out in an image manipulation program. Or if you're still not convinced, what about Image:Mona Lisa detail hands.jpg? What would be your case for public domain status of that picture? Haukurth 10:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't talking about Mona Lisa, but all the images listed on this deletion request (along with any thing else that's in the same boat). Yes, they did have rights to begin with - the painters had those rights.
- Ok, so what is my Mona Lisa a derivative of? Which of the above photos did I use? What photographer's rights am I violating? (For the sake of argument, let's pretend both where taken by Norwegian photographers (all rights reserved) in the last five years). BTW, I suck photoshop and never use it. Someone that knows what they're doing can really make this hard. Rocket000 11:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Another thing, I didn't say "indistinguishable", I said close enough. Slight alterations don't transfer rights. Rocket000 11:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, so which photo is my Royal Palace a derivative of? Which of the photos in Category:Slottet did I use (please do not look at the metadata)? Are you seriously claiming that just because it is hard to find the original photo, the photographer's rights are null and void? --Kjetil r 13:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Before I play this game ;) I just want to point out I wasn't claiming that photographer's rights are null and void because it is hard to find the original photo, I was claiming that a copy is copy, what you have done is made a derivative work, not a copy. Rocket000 14:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, my guess is Image:Det Kongelige Slott.jpg, though it could be from a couple others. (I can see how this could actually be a game :-) Proving a copyvio in this case would be pretty hard. Maybe it wasn't distorted enough, but there may be no copyvio here at all. I don't want to argue this because we're talking about the derivative threshold. Let's stay focused on defining a "copy" like I claim my Mona Lisa is. Please argue why it's not. Rocket000 14:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why? Is anyone arguing that it's not a copy? The whole point is that we have good reason to believe that reproductive photography (which deals in the production of 'copies', right?) is protected by neighboring rights in Norway (and some other places). Personally I'm happy to change policy so that we require only compliance with US law - but that doesn't seem to be the current order of things. Haukurth 16:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, kudos to both of you for making me laugh with this little game of yours :) Haukurth 16:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why? Is anyone arguing that it's not a copy? The whole point is that we have good reason to believe that reproductive photography (which deals in the production of 'copies', right?) is protected by neighboring rights in Norway (and some other places). Personally I'm happy to change policy so that we require only compliance with US law - but that doesn't seem to be the current order of things. Haukurth 16:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, so which photo is my Royal Palace a derivative of? Which of the photos in Category:Slottet did I use (please do not look at the metadata)? Are you seriously claiming that just because it is hard to find the original photo, the photographer's rights are null and void? --Kjetil r 13:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
(←)So it's only copies that are made a certain way, (i.e. photographing) that get protection? I'm sorry this really doesn't make sense to me. I did think you guys were arguing that these photographs weren't copies. You did say "no country will grant you a copyright monopoly for merely copying a file", but now your saying by copying a image with a camera some countries grant you that right. If this is true, I'm sorry, but that's a silly law (or our interpretation of it), and our policy should change. (I feel bad for the people that live there.) What makes a camera so special? There's a lot more creative input when creating a copy with say Photoshop. Rocket000 17:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can only refer you to the quotations above. Some countries, Norway included, grant a blanket neighboring rights monopoly for photographs. Legal scholarship says that this applies even to reproductive photography. I, too, would prefer not to have this law but there you go. Haukurth 23:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- So I guess I've been arguing against some country's laws. Well, there's no point in that so I'll stop. Thanks for clarifying that for me. Rocket000 02:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment I would like to note that still, the deletion request lists images which have not been copied using photograhpic process. I have listed them a few screens upwards, and Fred J has concurred with my suggestion. I suggest we Keep those and Delete the rest. --MPorciusCato 12:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- For those interested in redefining (or not) our policy on this issue, comments are welcome here. As for these specific images, I still think we should keep them, but I may change my mind depending on the responses my comment at the Village Pump gets. Regardless of what I think, we have to make sure there's no discrepancy between our decision here and our policy. Even if there isn't, we have some things to clarify. Rocket000 00:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Closed as delete per FredJ and MPorciusCato. There are ample citations here and at Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag that show that these images are indeed copyrighted in their source country. The files will be deleted once a bot has moved them to the English Wikipedia. The few files that have been listed above as plain scans will be kept. Lupo 08:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Busy deleting & transfering. Don't hold your breath, I'll post here once it is done. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but this is nonsense. A photo of a building is not a copyvio in Norway, nor is a photo of art on a building. The comparison done in a previous photo is a wild guess and in error. A photo of art like a painting will not renew the copyright status, not in Norway and most countries. A photo with an unknown source is not based upon a "guess when he will die" -method, it is based upon when it is made and possibly when it is made public. And finaly, the norwegian laws on this matter has changed several times in the time frame discussed. Also there are several cases where there are made no distiction between scanning and "mechanical photograping". Perhaps you guys should try to read the actual laws before you starts wild guessing. 87.248.13.41 20:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should find some authoritative sources supporting your view, or respond to the sources I have provided which clearly says that photos of PD-art get protection as simple photographs. --Kjetil r 22:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Undelete everything in the list because of the policy on {{PD-Art}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Restored all images : The PD-art policy changed since this deletion request was started. Multichill (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Comments at Commons talk:Fan art and here indicate that regardless of whether we can keep the images themselves, the template is potentially misleading (and only used for 2 images). Deleted. Quadell (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems that is a category with derivative works: Commons:Derivative worksAlx 91
- Comment -- we are discussing something relating to the existance of this template at Commons talk:Fan art. That discussion should first come to a conclusion, which this deletion request ought to follow. / Fred J 21:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - trademark law is separate from copyright law. We can use a company's trademark without creating any GFDL issues, so long as we comply with its copyright. I'll comment there. Quadell (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
PD-Old does not apply, Georg Buschan died in 1942. Rotkraut 15:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Additional infos: According to the description page the image was taken from the book Die Sitten der Völker by Dr. Georg Buschan. This book appeared in 1910. Georg Buschan died in 1942. See for instance [30]. So if the image was taken by Georg Buschan himself, it will enter into PD at January 1rst 2013. Btw. PD-Art is wrong in any case, PD-Old would be appropriate if the author would have died more then 70 years ago. --Rotkraut 15:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Book from before 1925 is PD in USA where wikimedia have home. All images from Die Sitten der Völker is also printed in English books, from before 1925. Have you any knowledge about copyright or pay for copyright ever? If yes also for German images from before 1945? The German state is a union, by only the name and language common by the earlier German states. haabet 18:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- It may be PD in the US, but it is copyrighted in Germany, the country of the first publication, and as a result is also copyrighted in most countries in the world. --Rotkraut 23:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright is law in USA and after this law is all images printed before 1925 PD, in USA, and the rest of the world is unimportant because Commons is in USA.
- Germany is a new state from 1945 and have no Copyright, but have artists privilege, on art work created of the artist. The photographer have/had the artists privilege of a photo, and a artist of whole book. But some photo is not a whole book. And if the successors or a artist still claim about money your can delete, and that is the end. The judicial system of USA is sick. A great part of your production go up in justice and insurance against proceedings. But remaining is more rational. Georg Buschan dead without intestate successor and print before the law of the artists privilege. Both cause give PD haabet 00:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- A gallery from Die Sitten der Völker, only a selection. Many had discuss the copyright but every time the image had survive. haabet 08:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- It may be PD in the US, but it is copyrighted in Germany, the country of the first publication, and as a result is also copyrighted in most countries in the world. --Rotkraut 23:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There's no photographer given for this image, so indeed we have no way of knowing whether the copyright on this image has really expired. (It's unclear whether Buschan was the photographer. Note that the copyright, whoever holds or held it, runs until 70 years after the photographer's death. So, if Buschan did not take the photo, his year of death is irrelevant.) I also don't understand why we would need this image given that we have e.g. Image:Kayan woman with neck rings.jpg. Lupo 21:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Just a stupid question: were these images taken in either Malaysia or Indonesia, or is German law the relevant code to resort to given the place of publication? Indonesian law seems to be relatively lax regarding photographs. {{PD-IDOld-Art30}} Valentinian (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- (comment) -- Would be inclined to vote to keep the images if it can be verified that the book is out of copyright in the United States. Churchh 10:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: These images are absolutely PD in the U.S. If these images were on the English Wikipedia, we would keep them and tag them {{PD-US}}. But on Commons, our standard is usually that the images must be PD in their country of origin. If these images were first published in Malaysia, then we can keep them, since Malaysia honors copyright for 50 years after the creator's death. But if they were first published in Germany, we can't. Quadell (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- And according to this, the first edition of the book was published in "Stuttgart-Berlin-Leipzig", which is Germany. Germany (retroactively) honors copyright for life+70, so it's copyrighted in it's country of origin. Quadell (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Stuttgart, Berlin and Leipzig", is to day the Federal Republic of Germany. And the Federal Republic of Germany is from 1957. All laws before 1957 is canceled. All new laws start from the date of carry of the new laws.haabet 15:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, that's not true. Copyright held by organizations before 1957 are still in effect now. As a signitory to the Berne Convention, Germany retroactively applied "life plus 70" to all works created by residents of the Third Reich, DDR, and BRD. Quadell (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Image is copyrighted and non-free. It will be in the public domain worldwide on January 1, 2013. Quadell (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image may be subject to copyright; need help in uploading to other wikis for use as non-free media Paul_012 (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I could not upload the image to the English Wikipedia because it still existed on Commons. However, this was the description I had:
The seal of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration shows the god Indra riding in the clouds on Erawan, a mythological elephant-shaped creature. In his hand Indra holds Vajra (a lightning bolt), which is his weapon to drive away drought. This seal which is based on a painting done by Prince Narisara Nuvativongse is designed by Fine Arts Department of Thailand.
Source: From Royal Thai Government Gazette[http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/2516/A/070/218.PDF]
Date: 31 May 1973
Author: Fine Arts Department, Thailand
===Licensing===
{{Non-free symbol}}
{{Non-free logo}}
=== Fair use rationale ===
Though this image may be subject to copyright, it is believed that its use falls under fair use according to U.S. copyright laws because:
# An emblem can only exist in one design, and therefore cannot be replaced with an uncopyrighted or freely licensed alternative.
# Use of the emblem is restricted by law, and its use for educational purposes on the English Wikipedia is unlikely to affect the parties which own copyright to the image.
# The image itself is a primary subject of discussion in the article [[Bangkok]].
--Paul_012 (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Somebody needs to check Thai law, since this image is only part of an entire collection. See: Category:Provincial seals of Thailand. Valentinian (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- They are covered by different decrees, as Bangkok is technically a special administrative area rather than a province, but I am discussing the issue with the uploader on En: Paul_012 (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- According to th:ตราประจำจังหวัดของไทย, Most of the other provinces' seals have been in use since 1941, and were designed by the Fine Arts Department (now under the Ministry of Culture) of Thailand. Thai copyright law grants a copyright term of 50 years after publication for works of art by legal entities (governmental agencies included), so they would appear to be in the Public Domain. The Bangkok seal, however, would still be copyrighted, so it needs to be migrated. Paul_012 (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Provincial seals are what the government กำหนด. Therefore section 7 - (3) must be applicable.--Ananda 05:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The Thai Wikipedia refers to the aforementioned Section 7 to describe government logos as public domain. For your benefit th:s:พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๗#มาตรา ๗ is a link for the Thai version of the 1995 law added by Paul_012. Erzengel 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am familiar with the Act. Section 7, however, refers to the bodies of governmental documents and not specific images themselves. Paul_012 (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, section 7 - (3) does not apply to seals created by the Thai government. Quadell (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted and non-free. Quadell (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
September 9
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am a gay homo -- Drini 01:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Seems to be obvious copyvio ----Benhello! 01:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete no source; seems to be a copyvio. --Boricuaeddie 02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Obvious copyright violation. Yann 11:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
seems to be obvious copyvio --Benhello! 01:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete no source; seems to be a copyvio. --Boricuaeddie 02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong filename; Broekhoff.jpg is correct name and that file is already uploaded Robotje 11:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, duplicate from Image:Broekhoff.jpg, Pimke 06:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source or author specified for more than a week. --Boricuaeddie 20:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MECU: In category Unknown as of 31 August 2007; no source
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source not specified. NSD got reverted by uploader. It doesn't matter that the uploader owns (a copy of) this image; we need to know who this "John Bachelor" is or was. Lupo 11:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence that permission has been obtained to copy this image. --MichaelMaggs 12:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I have the strong feeling it's actually from History of Artillery by John Batchelor.[31] Lupo 12:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I own the image, I purchased it at EBay. Canuck 18:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ownership of a physical copy or original of a work does not mean that you owned the copyrights on the work. Lupo 07:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
reproduction of unfree painting (most likely done with unfree photos ...) --Polarlys 12:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk reproduction of unfree painting
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrongly labeled PD-US-Gov. Taken from here: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=mg2terminal&L=7&L0=Home&L1=State+Government&L2=About+Massachusetts&L3=Interactive+State+House&L4=History+Resources&L5=Governors+of+Massachusetts&L6=Commonwealth+of+Massachusetts+(1950-present)&sid=massgov2&b=terminalcontent&f=interactive_statehouse_govs_dukakis&csid=massgov2, where it says "Painting by Gardner Cox, 1983". I do not see ANY evidence that this is a work of the federal US Government. Rosenzweig 14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, until 70 years pma for artist/author Gardner Cox, which will be in 2058[32]. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Speedy; copyright violation with incorrect licence. Source has clear copyright notice. -- Infrogmation 01:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyright vio. Per web site notice], site makes no claims of free content for work featured on its site. This image has a author noted who is not currently eligible for US-PD lic. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Cpoyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Usage of PD-tag is definatle not plausible. Even usage of PD-US would be questionable. Dr. Shaggeman 12:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Poorly sourced yoinked from web with no evidence of PD status. (There are a number of other photos of Morton known to predate '23 and thus of PD-US status; this one appears to be a bit later from his Chicago recording period of the mid '20s-- no reason to just assume some PD status unless evidence of such is presented.) -- Infrogmation 01:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete due to unclear date.--Londoneye 14:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a copyright violation. It's a photograph of an illustration published by the Church of Scientology, who owns the copyright for it. 83.177.12.41 17:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be copyvio.--Londoneye 14:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Cadenamado1
[edit]All photos of User:Cadenamado1 are suspected copyvios --Edub 14:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think he is uploading images obviously copyvio like Image:Gwen-Aviator-Gwen.jpg to Flickr, then he is uploading the same images to Commons with source flickr. Sorry for my english. --Edub 14:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, you are right. We need a flickr blacklist for the bot. --Polarlys 16:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Also Image:SchindlerHouse00001a.gif Image:SchindlerHouse00002a.png Image:SchindlerHouse00003a.png Image:SchindlerHouse00004a.png Image:SchindlerHouse00005a.png PNGs and GIFs this large do not work. I've replaced them all with Image:SchindlerHouse_plans.djvu which contains all the pages. Djvu is a much better format for this material. It's much smaller, transfers faster, and the viewer is excellent. Integration with Mediawiki is good... and they actually work unlike PNGs and GIFs. --Gmaxwell 15:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - No need to retain these images. Nick 22:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Won't display anyway.--Londoneye 14:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: Don't display, superceded. WjBscribe 18:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I know, it used in many pages ,but it's flag should be SVG. it easy replace using the bot! OsamaK 16:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; SVG is superior.--Londoneye 14:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Which bot are you talking about..? Yuval Y § Chat § 23:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
kept (we do not delete superseded images any more) --ALE! ¿…? 07:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright infringement Doo-dle-doo 18:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete if it can be shown to be a copyvio.--Londoneye 14:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I am really sorry to say that but since the name of the author is not given PD70+ is not a suitable license for this image. Dr. Shaggeman 10:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- And I think so is PD-US. Dr. Shaggeman 13:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I uploaded this photo early in my "wiki-career", and at the time I was under the impression that the rule that photos that had been published in Sweden before 1944 were all PD. Since then I've realized that this is probably only true for photos that are also of Swedish origin, so I assume it's tecjhnically correct to delete this picture (though it's a pity and I find it hard to believe that anyone would be offended by its presence). /FredrikT 17:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- You can believe me, I believe it too. Maybe you should check the rules on sv.WP. Dr. Shaggeman 17:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Original photo no doubt taken in USA; I don't believe Henderson's band toured internationally in this era (IIRC they had a regular residency in NYC at the time). Alas not quite old enough to be clearly PD-US. Many US photos of this era are PD as laws of the time required filing and renewals, but alas unless we have any specific info that copyright was not renewed or that it is PD for any other reason, Delete -- Infrogmation 00:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I uploaded this photo early in my "wiki-career", and at the time I was under the impression that the rule that photos that had been published in Sweden before 1944 were all PD. Since then I've realized that this is probably only true for photos that are also of Swedish origin, so I assume it's tecjhnically correct to delete this picture (though it's a pity and I find it hard to believe that anyone would be offended by its presence). /FredrikT 17:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete On the basis of the above, seems to be copyvio.--Londoneye 14:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Sorry. -- Cecil 14:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It was written by a person, who wanted to post this here. It is possible to share this because this is a letter not an article
- Keep but only if evidence is provided that copyright holder has given permission.--Londoneye 14:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No proof of permission. -- Cecil 14:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader blanked the description twice without any explanation. Need comments. Jusjih 18:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Without a really good explanation, the revocation of contributed material is not allowed. Since the uploader brought no reason at all, revoking not allowed. Should he not refrain from blanking the page, the image can and will be protected (it's on my watchlist). -- Cecil 15:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The coat of arms is incorrect. The cross in the center is the Cross of Victory (an Asturian symbol), but it should be the Cross of Angels (a symbol of Oviedo) instead. Correct (and older) version here: Uvieu flag.svg--Mikel 00:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Better image available.--Londoneye 14:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Replaced and deleted. Cecil 12:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
September 10
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete Unsourced copyright statement, image with uncleared copyright on the Slovak Wikipedia AtonX 08:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- This image is under copyrighted free use, so it cannot be deleted. --Wizzard 08:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- There is no proof about the alleged copyrighted free use. --AtonX 09:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as AtonX --Maros 22:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Wizzard 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Under what justification? We are missing your arguments, except that you are the uploader, who faked the license. --AtonX 07:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand your "arguments", image is copyrighted free use, the author allowed to use the images from his page, it is written here.
- Under what justification? We are missing your arguments, except that you are the uploader, who faked the license. --AtonX 07:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Slovenčina: Práve mi došiel mail od Eduarda Veleckého, ktorým uvoľňuje ktorúkoľvek z jeho fotografií zverejnených na stránke SBZ na voľné použitie.
- English: I just got an e-mail from Eduard Velecký, that he allows to free use any of his pictures from SBZ website.
- Additionally, you deleted correct license and nominated the image to delete with no proper reason. --Wizzard 11:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I dont see any proper reason to delete this image. --Liso 11:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep To sk.wikipedia i upload image and author Eduard Velecky know about this. --Otm 12:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Can we, please, see a proof (e-mail from the author) about the licensing conditions, as stated by the author himself? We have not seen any yet. Thank you. --AtonX 13:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
kept. An email from author was recieved in OTRS, where he grants a free license. ~~helix84 21:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
spelling error in file name. The previous unsigned comment was made on 10 September 2007 by User:Luis Fernández García
- Delete {{duplicate}} Image:Thysanoptera1.jpg Deadstar (msg) 10:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Badname, please use the {{badname}} tag for next time.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrtong rirle: re-uploaded as Image:Metropolitana Milanese M3 Cantiene Affori centro 080807.jpg Guam 13:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Badname, please use the {{badname}} tag for next time.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Camera shake; we have other good images in Category:Immanuel Lutheran Church (Seattle); I didn't look closely enough at this picture before I uploaded. - Jmabel | talk 16:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I had initially tagged this with a speedydelete notice, which User:Jusjih reverted. Its a bad image. I accidentally uploaded it. We have plenty of good images of the same place. I noticed my mistake and requested removal within two minutes of the upload. I would think that surely this accidentally uploaded useless image can be removed speedily. However, User:Jusjih insists a normal deletion process, so I have listed it. - Jmabel | talk 16:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: on my user talk page, Jusjih informs me "Images with bad quality can be deleted only by posting to Commons:Deletion requests per Commons:Deletion guidelines, so I cannot speedily delete for you unless you have a better replacement ready." It seems crazy that if I accidentally upload a bad image (and, clearly, since I just uploaded it no one is using it) I have to go through all this rigamarole to undo my mistake. I have been uploading several dozen (often over 100) pictures a week, and no one is perfect. - Jmabel | talk 16:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as uploader requests it for a good reason. It is a poor quality image and Commons has others of the same location. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Requested by uploader, poor quality
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Stupid file name. Who is that guy? And, as noted below on the page, no source information. --KAMiKAZOW 21:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC) --KAMiKAZOW 21:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedily deleted. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Google Earth image, claimed as USGS public domain Fehrgo 02:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- At the time of uploading I requested copyright advice from a US Wiki Admin, I was advised that the original satellite image was provided through USGS from NASA. Which meant that as it was from a US Federal Dept it was public domain. There is also this section in Wikipedia on the Google Earth article under the section:- Copyright - Currently, every image created from Google Earth using satellite data provided by Google Earth is a copyrighted map. Any derivative from Google Earth is made from copyrighted data which, under United States Copyright Law, may not be used except under the licenses Google provides. Google allows non-commercial personal use of the images (e.g. on a personal website or blog) as long as copyrights and attributions are preserved[29]. By contrast, images created with NASA's globe software World Wind using Blue Marble, Landsat or USGS layer, each of which is a terrain layer in the public domain. Works created by an agency of the United States government are public domain at the moment of creation. This means that those images can be freely modified, re-distributed and used for commercial purposes. If it is not PD, as I was advised, then it should be deleted. Richard Harvey 23:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- If I go to the same location in GE, I get an image attribute of DigitalGlobe, with a copyright of Europa Technologies. That implies DigitalGlobe was responsible for the initial imaging, and that imaging was licensed to Google by Europa. Long story short, the Wiki admin likely unfortunately gave bad advice. I wish that Google licensing was more open when it comes to non-commercial use, but that probably won't happen until we see a Googlepedia... Fehrgo 17:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 15:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a picture of a TV screen or the like; the photographer does not own this picture. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
(Reply = So What!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.38.125.254 (talk • contribs) at 01:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, derivative work of the TV recording --ALE! ¿…? 09:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
whoops, found duplicate image Image:David Denman.jpg as I was uploading this one from Flickr --RG2 06:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This one and Delete Image:David Denman.jpg as it is a scaled down version of the other one. --Digon3 talk 13:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
kept and the other one deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
dublette to Image:Audie Murphy's Tombstone.jpg --Herrick 14:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC) --Herrick 07:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per uploaders request. Image is duplicate of Image:Audie Murphy's Tombstone.jpg, both uploaded to Commons from Flickr. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
better version: Image:Tustna Aure komm.svg -- User:KönigAlex 17:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Disagree to deleting it — please see Commons:Transition to SVG. -- Olve 10:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
kept, image is in use --ALE! ¿…? 11:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wikimedia Commons are not a repository for personal images, sorry. 21:14, 6 September 2007 User:Gryffindor
- Keep, since it's in use on user pages on three different Wikimedia projects. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 15:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, yes, it is in used. --El Viajero Paisa 12:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Durch Image:Karte Gemeinden des Kantons Tessin 2007.png ersetzt The previous unsigned deletion request was made on 17:45, 9 September 2007 by User:Tschubby
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Durch Image:Karte Gemeinden des Kantons Wallis 2007.png ersetzt. The previous unsigned deletion request was made on 9 September 2007 by User:Tschubby
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I think, this work is not free software. Dr. Shaggeman 13:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No source information, license tag is misleading, and since we have no date on this photo, we don't know if it's old enough to be PD. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 15:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, incorrect license --ALE! ¿…? 11:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I see no indication that this work is free. Dr. Shaggeman 13:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete And no evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder, or otherwise has permission to upload, as the {{attribution}} tag would suggest. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probably copyright Metro Pieter Kuiper 14:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think so, as it's not a copy but an edited photo taken from a distance of the object. /Leos vän 17:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is still a derivative work. Unless you can show that Metro released this in the public domain, it is copyright Metro (and the photographer). /Pieter Kuiper 18:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am the photographer, and the image is just a detail of a larger photo. Can you show a rule that says that it's not allowed to publish photo's of news paper ads, I'll agree to delete the image. /Leos vän 19:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- As I tried to explain, your photograph is a derivative work of a (presumably) copyrighted item. /Pieter Kuiper 22:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Delete it. It´s not the photographer that holds the copyright, it´s the newspaper. It´s the same question as whether a person who sneaks into a movie theater and shoots the entire film there has the copyright on the movie, or the movie company. The answer should be rather obvious.//Hannibal 07:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Clear copyright violation; the only subject and point of the photo is showing the copyrighted material. -- Infrogmation 02:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Stupid file name. I notified the uploader to re-upload the file with a meaningful file name. --KAMiKAZOW 21:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC) --KAMiKAZOW 21:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
no reason for deletion, please use the {{rename image|new image name}} tag. --ALE! ¿…? 11:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Stupid file name. I notified the uploader to re-upload the file with a meaningful file name. --KAMiKAZOW 21:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC) --KAMiKAZOW 21:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Insufficient reason for deletion. I do suggest that the uploader rename it, however. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted (out of project scope) --ALE! ¿…? 11:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Stupid file name. I notified the uploader to re-upload the file with a meaningful file name. --KAMiKAZOW 21:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC) --KAMiKAZOW 21:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
no reason for deletion, please use the {{rename image|new image name}} tag. --ALE! ¿…? 11:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Stupid file name. I notified the uploader to re-upload the file with a meaningful file name. --KAMiKAZOW 21:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC) --KAMiKAZOW 21:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Insufficient reason for deletion. I do suggest that the uploader rename it, however. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
no reason for deletion, please use the {{rename image|new image name}} tag. --ALE! ¿…? 11:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Stupid file name. I notified the uploader to re-upload the file with a meaningful file name. --KAMiKAZOW 21:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC) --KAMiKAZOW 21:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Re-upload Again under a good name Alx 91 23:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Copyvio. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 12:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
no reason for deletion, please use the {{rename image|new image name}} tag. --ALE! ¿…? 11:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possible copyright violation. No source other than a mention that it was taken from an English Wikipedia article -- and there, it was deleted as a possibly unfree image. --RG2 23:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Same image is used on the IMDB, and I don't think they would have gotten it from here. Unclear copyright status. Deadstar (msg) 10:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 15:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am the author this file please delete because exist other file Image:Saint Theodore of Amasea.jpg
Thank you! --EuroLuca 11:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Badname, please use the {{badname}} tag for next time.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a featured picture but also a duplicate of Image:QingMingShangHeTu Big.jpg. I found they are both exactly a copy of this image of National Palace Museum, but used different compression ratios to reproduce. After some pixel-sampling and comparing, I can say the color of Image:QingMingShangHeTu Big.jpg is closer to the image of National Palace Museum than the feathured picture Image:Along the River 7-119-3.jpg. It means Image:QingMingShangHeTu Big.jpg is closer to the original version of National Palace Museum than Image:Along the River 7-119-3.jpg.--
05:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just some questions: why did you put a "speedy delete (duplicate)" on the one picture you want to keep especially after it was just restored. And why do you put a "speedy delete" on a picture and then ask the admin not to speedily delete it or am I allowed to delete it now after I read your input here? And why do you use the "speedy delete (duplicate)" if the pictures are no duplicates but just show the same motif. Otherwise Neutral to this request, the picture seems to have a little bit more vibrant colours but I couldn't really say if i makes a difference. -- Cecil 05:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, "speedy delete (duplicate)" on Image:QingMingShangHeTu Big.jpg was not put by me.--
08:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, "speedy delete (duplicate)" on Image:QingMingShangHeTu Big.jpg was not put by me.--
- Speedy keep Image:Along the River 7-119-3.jpg is a featured picture on en.wiki, Image:QingMingShangHeTu Big.jpg was listed as an alternative version. Per protocol both versions are kept separate. This is a frivolous nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 06:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- A question: Where did you get the picture?-- 06:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's a montage of the tiles from the National Palace Museum, with increased contrast and saturation. ~ trialsanderrors 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Is this allowed by Commons policy? I am just confused, not despiteful, because the National Palace Museum said any usage of images of the site should get their permission (paid or free) first.-- 02:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- If an 2D artwork has expired copyright, we accept it on Commons, regardless of the claims of any libraries or museums. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Is this allowed by Commons policy? I am just confused, not despiteful, because the National Palace Museum said any usage of images of the site should get their permission (paid or free) first.--
- It's a montage of the tiles from the National Palace Museum, with increased contrast and saturation. ~ trialsanderrors 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- A question: Where did you get the picture?--
- The two files have the same dimensions but the QingMing one adds another 5mb. Is information lost in this version? Can anyone give a concrete example of the difference between these two files? If the QingMing one is better, we can upload that version over this one and delete that file, if that's easier than changing links etc. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- The original tiles were smaller than the 7MB of the edited version, so there is no loss of information. The extra 5MB is ballast. ~ trialsanderrors 08:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, I say keep the Along the River picture, it was nominated and voted in as a featured picture for a reason. Let it stay. Besides, it violates no copyright, since it is 2D artwork, and therefore is public domain.--PericlesofAthens 06:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
12:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the difference between those two pictures, it is hard to say which one is better. I just can say they come from the same source, but QingMing one is closer to the source than another. Along the River one is more bright the the source. And a smaller file size means it used higher compression ratio. In JPEG format, it doomed to lose more information from the source.-- 12:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Even so, there is a link in the "Along the River" page that links to the alternative image. Even if you disliked this image and wanted the other image to be shown, there is no strong rationale for deleting this one, since the other image is just as easily accessible.--72.196.253.3 03:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- No. The reason of deletion request is "Duplicae", not "I dislike it".-- 12:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- They are not duplicates. They are two different versions, one original, one edited. Both were nominated at en.wiki for featured picture status, the edited version was promoted. Both versions are being kept for archival reasons. The community has already reached a consensus on this, so why is this discussion still open? ~ trialsanderrors 08:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- No. The reason of deletion request is "Duplicae", not "I dislike it".--
Kept for the reason trialsanderrors gave. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
voir photo 85.69.215.137 10:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you expand on that?Geni 13:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm the author of the original scan and I used photo editing software.
My original photo : http://img31.picoodle.com/img/img31/9/9/15/f_DSC0017redim_f4cbe90.jpg
There is no copyright infringement. You are free to use my work under the conditions of the Creative Commons license that I have specified. Christophe Marcheux 20:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- That seems very acceptable. Did you every specify which version of the Creative Commons license?Geni 17:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I've chosen the CC-BY-SA license... It's clearly specified... Quite frankly, I don't understand the deletion request ! Christophe Marcheux 18:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept: valid licence, no problem. Rama 15:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Publication date of 1925 and death of photographer en:Arnold Genthe in 1942 do not make this a free use image under US law BrokenSphere 06:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Presumably copyvio.--Londoneye 11:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Source page states, "No known restrictions on publication." Is there some reason to disbelieve this? Most likely, this was published either with no copyright notice or the copyright was not renewed. howcheng {chat} 16:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I have usually interpreted "no known restrictions on publication" to mean that the image may be published but may not necessarily be free use depending on the dates of publication or life of the author, but it may be fair use, playing it safe. The LoC's classification can be read both ways re. this. The Rights & Restricitons Info for Genthe photos is here. BrokenSphere 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep "PD-US" seems correct. Material from that era became PD-US unless it was specifically renewed. The Library of Congress is the US repository of copyrights, and they say they know of no restrictions. -- Infrogmation 01:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep If we're going to believe anyone about copyright status, we should believe the library of congress. If they think the copyright has expired, that's good enough for me. Calliopejen 05:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - LOC is as close as we get to authoritative. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uncertain publication date of 1932 and death of photographer en:Arnold Genthe in 1942 do not make this a free use image under US law BrokenSphere 06:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep First, it's this image: "No known restrictions on reproduction", which is the LoC's way of saying it's (highly likely) PD. (They never commit themselves to say "it's PD".) I'm not going to second-guess the LoC on U.S. photos. Second, although their Rights & Restrictions page on the Genthe photos is a bit unclear (how do we know which photos he took for his own use?), I guess this gives the reason why they don't put the "Publication may be restricted" on this image, like they did on the other Genthe photos of her.[33][34][35] Probably this blurry shot (the hi-res TIFF is only slightly better) was never registered for copyright. Lupo 08:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I have usually interpreted "no known restrictions on publication" to mean that the image may be published but may not necessarily be free use depending on the dates of publication or life of the author, but it may be fair use, playing it safe. The LoC's classification can be read both ways re. this. Thus I would personally passing on uploading an image like this, where another editor would not. BrokenSphere 16:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep LOC is US copyright repository of record; no reason to second guess them over a US copyright (unless some evidence is presented suggesting they are mistaken). -- Infrogmation 02:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - LOC is as close as we get to authoritative. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
i have uploaded a higher quality image with a correct/sourced thread count. here Image:Arbuthnott tartan.png. --Celtus 08:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The image is being replace by the CommonsDelinker at the moment. When it is done I will delete the image. --ALE! ¿…? 11:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Replaced and Deleted. -- Cecil 15:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bad quality, no real rail station identified on the image. The previous unsigned deletion request was made on 8 September 2007 byUser:AndreyA
- Looks like uploader uploaded the picture with a deletion request on it? Deadstar (msg) 10:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
User also nominated the following images with the same reason:
- Image:Kapitolovo Rail Station-6 way.jpg
- Image:Kapitolovo Rail Station-full.jpg
- Image:Kapitolovo Rail Station-name.jpg
- Image:Kapitolovo rail station-cross-over.JPG
- Image:Kapitolovo rail station-kassa.jpg
Deadstar (msg) 10:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Likely a cut&paste error. Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 21:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Suspected derivative work, raised after speedy deletion request tag added by User:Dodo --AshleyVH 17:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. The only thing on the Jar under copyright would be the logo and this is already in wp under [36]. The Canderel typeface is not copyrighted. -- AshleyVH 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree, legal protection in relation to derivative works applies to artistic works and software. In this case a jar of sweetener is neither. -- AshleyVH 17:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree, does this mean the Commons can not have any photographs of any sort of named product? Similar examples include:
- Note that I have created a version with no logo Image:Canderel Jar no logo.jpg if the logo is the whole of the objection to this image.--AshleyVH 18:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look to Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dietcokecherry.jpg and similar deletion requests. The artistic designs printed onto bottles, cans and such are usually copyrighted, so a photo of it is an unauthorized derivative work. I mean, the drawings printed onto a product are considered works of art, and hence copyrighted. --Dodo 10:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC) PS. The given examples have the same problem, except maybe the third one, which has been heavily "cleaned up".
- Thanks for the reference which does help explain your viewpoint. I have changed the wp Canderel page to point to Image:Canderel Jar no logo.jpg but I am thinking of only blanking out the logo rather than the Canderel name above the logo taking the advice that "text in a general typeface is not copyrighted" and "Simple geometric shapes are also not protected" as per template:PD-text-logo. I'm assuming this would be a fair interpretation to take care of the "derivative" issue; unless you have another counter-example?.-- AshleyVH 06:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really feel confortable about this. Why do you only remove the logo? Is that logo copyrighted, but not the rest of the artwork of the bottle? How could we check that? Are we allowed to decide whether that artwork is copyrighteable or not?
- I mean: IANAL, and of course I'm not a judge. So I cannot decide which interpretation of the law is the best. I just follow the current policies: so the art of bottles, cans and such are copyrighteable, and usually they are copyrighted, so we need permission for out derivative photo. --Dodo 16:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I get your point. I have now written off to Merisant using the advice given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Example_requests_for_permission for official permission to use their own website download-able media packs which give product example photos. Hopefully they will reply. AshleyVH 18:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 21:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I made an error. Copyright violation. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Pacionet (talk • contribs)
kept, image seems to be ok at source (Flickr) --ALE! ¿…? 01:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I want to see an OTRS release for this advertisement. Lupo 20:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I uploaded the image on behalf of Osho International Foundation, the copyright owner of the work, with their knowledge and authorisation. Such an image was specifically requested by English-Wikipedia admin/bureaucrat Nichalp for inclusion in the English WP Osho page (see his review comments for the page). Will provide OIF e-mail address for verification, if required. Cheers, Jayen466 21:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please forward their e-mail release to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org. Thank you. Lupo 06:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done (e-mail header is "Re: pic/neosannyas.org"). Jayen466 09:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've received a cc of a confirmation sent by Osho International to permissions-commons, authorising the upload. Jayen466 13:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done (e-mail header is "Re: pic/neosannyas.org"). Jayen466 09:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please forward their e-mail release to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org. Thank you. Lupo 06:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can we close this? Quadell (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No such email appears to exist in the OTRS system. The image could be restored if the promised email eventually arrives. MichaelMaggs 17:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.Kept Gnangarra 10:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
This map does not show the France on 1791. Juiced lemon 21:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Carte des prêtres assermentés en France en 1791.svg, decision should be the same for both. le Korrigan →bla 17:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.Kept. Quadell (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This map doesn't show the france on 1791. Juiced lemon 23:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Scuse me for my bad english... I have doing this map to show the repartition of the "sworn priest" during the French Revolution. Yes, we don't have here the true limits of french in 1791, but the sourcebook whence I have construct this map take the same limits. It is more important to show the total effect. It is more difficult to do a map with the limit in 1791. Books in French ( for exemple) are doing like me. You can do a better map if you want, but I can't !! --Serein 07:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please go to Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Carte des prêtres assermentés en France en 1791.svg for the main discussion, decision should be the same for this image. le Korrigan →bla 17:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- And that one was closed as keep. Quadell (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This map does not show the France on 1791. Juiced lemon 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I notice that you have marked Image:Carte des prêtres assermentés en France en 1791.png for deletion as well, but not Image:Carte des prêtres assermentés en France en 1791.jpeg. Is the latter one correct? If so, maybe a better plan would be to update the newer versions? Marmelad 22:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The 3 maps show the France after the Treaty of Versailles on 1919. It's a pity that some users have spent time to improve the work of an amateur. --Juiced lemon 23:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Scuse me for my bad english... I have doing this map to show the repartition of the "sworn priest" during the French Revolution. Yes, we don't have here the true limits of french in 1791, but the sourcebook whence I have construct this map take the same limits. It is more important to show the total effect. It is more difficult to do a map with the limit in 1791. Books in French ( for exemple) are doing like me. You can do a better map if you want, but I can't !! --Serein 07:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I want to add that the archives are classified departement by departement. The historians make their recherche with this limit. And France in revolution had impose the troth in all the territory who are conquered. --Serein 07:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Scuse me for my bad english... I have doing this map to show the repartition of the "sworn priest" during the French Revolution. Yes, we don't have here the true limits of french in 1791, but the sourcebook whence I have construct this map take the same limits. It is more important to show the total effect. It is more difficult to do a map with the limit in 1791. Books in French ( for exemple) are doing like me. You can do a better map if you want, but I can't !! --Serein 07:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The 3 maps show the France after the Treaty of Versailles on 1919. It's a pity that some users have spent time to improve the work of an amateur. --Juiced lemon 23:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- This map shows France on 1791. In my opinion, the only acceptable solution is to add the data about the “sworn” priests on 1791 to a map of France on 1791. --Juiced lemon 09:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- could you do it ? I can't... sorry... --Serein 10:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- This map shows France on 1791. In my opinion, the only acceptable solution is to add the data about the “sworn” priests on 1791 to a map of France on 1791. --Juiced lemon 09:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't draw maps. Image:Carte_des_prêtres_assermentés_en_France_en_1791.svg is not credible, that is why I request the deletion of this image. --Juiced lemon 11:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The data are only available for the current departments boundaries. Why the gatherer of these data (Michel Vovelle) has done this ? As Serein said, it's because the data sources can be find department by department, and also may be because it gives this map more easy to read for contemporaries French people.
- This map is used on 5 pages in 3 projects ; if you cannot replace it, it shouldn't be deleted. But I suggest to add a mention which says that the boundaries of the departments are not the same than in 1791, and are only there as an indication. Sémhur ·✉·✍·
- You can keep the data mapping, but you must use a 1791 map of France with 1791 international borders and departments boundaries. Note also the erroneous caption in the current map. --Juiced lemon 12:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- As we said, data with 1791's borders are not available. But, don't focus on the departments boundaries: the subject of this map is not borders, it is the geographical distribution of the "sworn" priests (in 1791, so). With that map, we can see that there is a high percentage in center-north and south-east of priests whose accepted Revolutionary laws and power, and at contrary, this power was rejected in west, east and middle-south. That is the meaning of this map. Sémhur ·✉·✍· 16:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree Sémhur. More studies are based with this type of map. It is more important to see the global effect than concentrate to the borders of the departements. --Serein 16:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- This map is confusing, and gives very poor information. If you cannot use a 1791 map, I prefer the deletion of this map, even if it is not replaced. --Juiced lemon 16:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Very poor information ? I don't understand... all books who talk about religion in French revolution have this map ! I would'nt take a map with copyvio, so I have crate this map. If you prefer no information, it is for me a curious POV... --Serein 17:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Very poor information is your point of view. I have my own. I prefer this map, with an explicative note, to none. (comment by Sémhur)
- As we said, data with 1791's borders are not available. But, don't focus on the departments boundaries: the subject of this map is not borders, it is the geographical distribution of the "sworn" priests (in 1791, so). With that map, we can see that there is a high percentage in center-north and south-east of priests whose accepted Revolutionary laws and power, and at contrary, this power was rejected in west, east and middle-south. That is the meaning of this map. Sémhur ·✉·✍· 16:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, of course : I have added a note regarding the difference between 1791 and 2007 borders. This note can be improved, like the image with better data (which is however hard to get), but deletion is not the answer to this kind of problem. le Korrigan →bla 17:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, see my arguments above. Sémhur ·✉·✍· 18:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and ameliorate if it is possible (with a note for exemple) --Serein 18:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC) J'ai cru voir que Juiced Lemon parle français... Peut-on continuer dans cette langue ?
- Delete If 1791 data come from departmental archives, they remain 1791 data, so they can be displayed as well on a 1791 map. The current map and its wrong caption mislead the reader, so I vote its deletion. --Juiced lemon 20:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep STyx 13:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As long as it's clearly noted on the image page (and in the image caption) that the map is done for illustrative purposes using the 2007 borders rather then the 1791 borders. It's not as though the map isn't usefull just because it uses 2007 borders. Yes ideally there would be a map with 1791 borders but untill that map (with this data) exists I don't see why this one can't be used. /Lokal_Profil 11:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]Si vous ne savez pas comment représenter vos données sur une carte de 1791, je peux vous expliquer comment faire (à condition de disposer d'une carte de 1791). --Juiced lemon 20:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Il me semble que tu n'as pas trop saisi le problème (il faut dire que je parle très mal anglais ;-) La carte donne le pourcentage de prêtres ayant prêté le serment de fidélité à la Constitution civile du Clergé, serment qui a été institué en 1791. Cependant, au fur et à mesure de ses guerres révolutionnaires, le "gouvernement" français de l'époque a exigé des prêtres des territoires qu'il soumettait la soumission à ce même serment. Il y a donc des données pour tous les départements français, comme il y en a aussi en Italie, en Belgique etc... De plus, en France les archives sont regroupées par département, même si les limites ne sont plus les mêmes qu'en 1791. Les chercheurs (et j'en suis une) se plient à cette contrainte sans trop de problèmes, car les limites ont changé mais la répartition des archives s'est assez bien faite. L'important dans cette carte n'est pas le découpage département par département mais les tendances générales. Insérer les données actuelles sur une carte de 1791 serait une erreur historique et reprendre toutes les données avec les anciens départements exigerait des années de travail. Les informations données sur cette carte sont présentes dans la plupart des ouvrages traitant de la Révolution française et servent également à l'analyse politique sur la longue durée des tendances de vote des français, puisque curieusement les 2 correspondent. C'est un grand classique de l'historiographie de la Révolution française. De plus, il me semble préférable d'avoir une carte, même un peu imparfaite, que pas de carte du tout. Cordialement, --Serein 21:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Je comprends en lisant ta réponse que les données ne datent pas de 1791, et que cette carte est donc encore plus fausse que je ne le pensais. Une petite référence utile pour ceux qui découvrent le problème: [37].
- Mon avis est qu'une telle carte ne vaut rien sans explication sur la manière dont les données ont été recueillies, traitées, puis représentées. Parmi les informations essentielles, il y a la date de référence pour la compilation des données, et la définition de la base 100%, c'est-à-dire le nombre de prêtres de référence (quelles religions, quand). Car je pense que le nombre de prêtres a pu fortement évoluer, notamment au gré d'élections de nouveaux prêtres ou des déportations ou éliminations de prêtres réfractaires.
- Dans tous les cas les données peuvent toujours être représentées sur un fond de carte correspondant à l'année de référence pour la compilation des données. --Juiced lemon 21:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Je me suis peut-être mal exprimée : les données en tant que telle datent de l'époque, leur recueil est contemporain (fait par les historiens, pas par moi). On peut supprimer les départements non français en 1791 (la Savoie par exemple), ça ne changerait rien au problème. La base 100 est la totalité des prêtres présents quand on leur a demandé de prêter le serment. Il n'y a pas de question de religion, il ne s'agit que de prêtres catholiques. Les déportations ou éliminations de prêtres ont été faites après ce serment donc ça ne change rien. Il n'y a pas d'élection de prêtres, mais des ordinations. Pour être honnête, je crois que tu te poses plus de questions que ne s'en posent les historiens qui ont fait ces cartes. Une fois encore, je pense que l'important est l'effet global, pas le rendu minutieux commune par commune (car on pourrait aller jusque-là !). Le recueil de ces informations et leur traitement me sont inconnus a priori. Je pense que les historiens qui ont travaillé là-dessus ont fouillé dans les archives départementales. En tous cas je leur fait confiance, j'ai pris mes chiffres dans des ouvrages incontestables. --Serein 21:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Je pense qu'en tout cas nous sommes d'accord sur le fait qu'il faut davantage d'informations dans la légende, sur le mode d'obtention de ces données et leur utilisation actuelle. Si Serein (ou quelqu'un d'autre) donne des précisions en français, je les traduirais en anglais. le Korrigan →bla 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Cette carte est précisément le genre de choses qui fait dire que les informations de Wikipedia ne sont pas fiables, et que les articles sont rédigés par des personnes incompétentes. Si un historien réputé peut se permettre quelques libertés sur le choix de ses modes de représentation sans que cela nuise à sa crédibilité, Wikipedia ne le peut pas. Cela d'autant plus que l'évolution des techniques graphiques n'autorise plus la moindre excuse à des erreurs qui crèvent les yeux à toute personne s'intéressant quelque peu à l'histoire de France.
- En particulier, le Comtat Venaissin n'a été réuni à la France que le 14 septembre 1791, et je doute fort que des prêtres de ce territoire sous la dépendance du page aient pu prêter serment avant cette date. --Juiced lemon 11:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- J'ai retrouvé comment a été construite cette carte. Les recherches ont été faites par , dans son ouvrage La révolution, l'Église et la France. Le serment de 1791 (1985). Je l'ai trouvée dans , La Révolution française, (2003). En vertu du principe refusant le travail inédit sur WP, je me vois mal ne pas utiliser les travaux publiés déjà existants ! On peut si tu veux représenter la proportion de jureurs par des aires de couleur sur une carte de 1791 et préciser d'où viennent les données. Mais à mon sens la représentation par aires est moins précise que par départements. Encore une fois, tes remarques me semblent un peu exagérées et je pense qu'une bonne explication dans la légende vaut mieux qu'un travail qui sacrifie la précision géographique. La carte de M. Vovelle reprend les départements actuels, Savoie, Comtat Venaissin et Alsace compris. S'il est précisé que cette carte est tirée d'un ouvrage de M. Vovelle reprenant les conclusions de T. Tackett, où est le problème ? Les personnes s'intéressant au sujet connaissent forcément ces auteurs et ne crieront donc pas au scandale ! --Serein 13:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Je ne vois pas en quoi l'utilisation d'une carte départementale correspondant à la date de référence pour la compilation des données sacrifierait quoi que ce soit à la précision géographique. La carte utilisée ne change pas les données. Il s'agit juste de nettoyer les zones qui se trouvent en dehors du territoire de l'époque, et dont la représentation constitue une aberration. --Juiced lemon 13:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
September 11
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright violation Doo-dle-doo 22:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: cv false licence & creation claim
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright violationn Doo-dle-doo 22:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: cv, false licence
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright violation, also, user is uploading multiple copy-vios, is a block possible? Doo-dle-doo 22:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: cv false licence
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright violation. user uploads lots of harry potter copy-vios... block? Doo-dle-doo 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: cv
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright is wrong (three-image composite is (C) National Geographic, shark image is (C) Charles Maxwell, Helicopter Shark itself is (C) unattributed mail hoax). Thumperward 09:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as an obvious copyvio. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk 00:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(The owner of the building has threatened to sue me if I do not remove the image. So I comply.) --ErikJanHeart 16:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Question: On what basis would he sue you, are buildings copyrightprotected in Dutch law?? Finn Rindahl 19:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. As in many other copyright laws, actually. Lupo 11:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarification. No objection to delete at uploaders request from me. Finn Rindahl 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. As in many other copyright laws, actually. Lupo 11:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It appears that this request also applies to Image:Binnenplaats boerderij Schipborg.JPG here at the Commons. (See the history of nl:Schipborg.) Strictly speaking, I would think the owner of that building has no leg to stand on for a copyright suit. The farm complex was built in 1914, and I don't think farm houses (even if a true manor) qualify as "artistic". Even if it did, the architect, en:Hendrik Petrus Berlage, died in 1934. (See this Dutch article for some info—that could be incorporated into the article on nl:Schipborg, BTW.) But Erik probably knows what the owner has threatend to sue for... Lupo 21:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Privacy rights? / Fred J 10:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- if there is no legal reason for deletion, why should we delete. Not every person understand copyright laws. / Fred J 14:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
14.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_at_Perth_Royal_Show.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://www.vidiauto.com/spopup.php?id=/slike_novosti/0.818325001090918118_de_lorean_v.jpg){kind=link}
-2007-09-02T22:20:00.000Z-Image:Ipswitch_ma_highlight.png){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Image:Y-NL400b.gif×tamp=20050518014927){kind=link}
-2007-09-03T03:25:00.000Z-Image:Robert_Fischer_-_March_2005.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:1956_Mistrz_Polski_na_100km.JPG&diff=next&oldid=3967151){kind=link}
![[12]](http://fachkataloge.bsb-muenchen.de/img/hoff-1823.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Schartz1888.jpg&diff=7314247&oldid=6734975){kind=link}
![[17]](http://www.casebook.org/images/ltte.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](http://home.c2i.net/w-206240/shaw.jpg){kind=link}
_projected_path.png){kind=link}
_projected_path.gif){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[24]](http://ninjadude.com/ximg/index.php/Vanessa-Hudgens/vanessa-anne-hudgens-nude-pic.jpg?action=big&size=original){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[36]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Logo-canderel.png){kind=link}
Despite the general consensus to keep the image, I have deleted it. I have had private communication with the photographer about this issue. While their are no valid legal reasons to delete this image, the owner of the building has some quite severe privacy concerns. I therefore think that it is not ethical for Wikimedia Commons to keep the image. If you want more information, please ask me privately. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Brian. I'd appreciate it if this photo was deleted. ErikJanHeart 08:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Licensing claimed is {{PD-old}} for a photograph taken by someone unknown c.1927. Ian Spackman 00:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless uploader adds additional sourcing information clarifying that the current lic is correct since current lic may or may not apply depending on who holds the original copyright. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete possible copyright violation. Calibas 01:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [38]. Yann (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
![[38]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=728731713#File:Bishop-Bossilkov.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Permission was received from a fan site. The fan site doesn't state where the image came from. It's high quality tells me that it's a promotional image and not free use. --Mshake3 04:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Email verification was pasted onto the talk page of the image. The fansite uses photographs from all over, there is no source specified here. Image quality makes me wonder about free use too. Deadstar (msg) 08:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Avatar 23:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Direct rip from site: http://getbutch.com/flotation_device_tshirt 128.239.169.104 04:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 06:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyrighted http://www.gaynboston.com/images/swim/swim34/swim34f.html Lemon-lime 04:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 15:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE. Dodo 06:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 15:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Effectively a duplicate of Image:Gabrielle 09 sept 2007 1625Z.jpg. 11 September 2007, User:Keith Edkins
- Comment Then please use the {{duplicate}} tag. However, in this case the two images are not identical because one is a crop of the other. So Keep. --ALE! ¿…? 06:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept, no reason to delete. --Avatar 23:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
aquasoft logo.png Jobinok 10:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 06:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
image is broken, replaced by image:Redbullczech.jpeg Phormis 18:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
kept (the image works fine) --ALE! ¿…? 07:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- But deleted 2010-06-22T11:41:32 by User:Bidgee as "(Copyright violation: derivative work)" --JuTa 04:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
new better upload with better colors and correct name at Philippines 25 Piso 1981 back.jpg both pics are from myself --NobbiP 20:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC) any problems to delete this picture? NobbiP 17:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
kept (A better version is normaly no reason for deletion. Maybe someone prefers this version.) --ALE! ¿…? 07:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
violates copyright of www.abbywinters.com - picture not taken by poster --80.129.97.215 21:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: http://www.abbywinters.com
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- I have replaced this image with Image:US9.45inchTrenchMortarBreechDiagram.png. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcbutcher (talk • contribs) . Fixed Request. --Digon3 talk 13:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep One uses colors, the other one does not. --ALE! ¿…? 07:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept, both are fine. --Avatar 23:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is a duplicate of :Image:US9.45inchTrenchMortarBreechDiagram.png Rcbutcher 03:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It seems the images are not duplicates. As per the previous discussion, I think both should be kept. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
September 12
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
test --F3rn4nd0 15:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Please use {{speedy}} next time. --EugeneZelenko 14:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
test --F3rn4nd0 14:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Please use {{speedy}} next time. --EugeneZelenko 14:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm author. 10 September 2007 User:Sevela.p
- Deletion fix. Empty category. Deadstar (msg) 14:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Cat seems to have been deleted. Request can be closed. Deadstar (msg) 15:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by user:Cat? --Digon3 talk
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The PDF says "no commercial use" at the very bottom of the page CBM 01:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I created this image and published it to Wikipedia with a Creative Commons license. I was under the impression that I could restrict it's use commercial, while still making it available for private, educational, or not-for-profit use.
I see that my restrictions aren't allowed. I'll happily replace it with a PDF and SVG under a more open license. Thanks for pointing this out. Grundlebug 12 Sept. 2007
- Keep Looks ok to me now. --ALE! ¿…? 12:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why does it need to be in a Pdf? You should have made it in a wiki page. Platonides 12:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept, license is ok now. --Avatar 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright violation -- this is a crop from Merryn Redux at AbbyWinters.com. 12 September 2007 User:195.64.92.25
- Deletion fix. Image is actually tagged as copyvio making this request redundant. Deadstar (msg) 13:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image was originally uploaded to en as en:Image:Kenan stadium.jpg. A lower-resolution version was copied to fr and that French version was uploaded here. The en version was deleted (en undelete, en log) as not having source information. The image description page contained only {{GFDL}} and no assertion of authorship, but it was uploaded in 2005 so you can't really conclude anything from that. But the uploader, en:User:Jcmurphy, was banned from en for copyright violations and faking OTRS permissions. (en block log). So without even a statement of authorship, I suggest we err on the side of caution and remove this image as having inadequate sourcing information. --BigDT 03:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Was a speedy delete on Wikipedia-en for lack of sourcing. Since we have no accurate sourcing info, unfortunately need to delete. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I should point out that en did not have separate GFDL and GFDL-self templates in wide use until mid-2005 so I wouldn't be overly inclined to delete something that was obviously a user-authored image where the only problem was that it used an old template ... but in this case, this is an image uploaded by a user who was banned for copyright violations and faking OTRS submissions, so there's no reason to believe that he authored the image as opposed to just pulling it off of a message board or webshots or something. --BigDT 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, no source given. --Avatar 23:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is almost certainly a news media photo. The flickr image page has now been deleted (in other words, flickr or the uploader probably removed it as a copyvio). This flickr user has 1,877 flickr uploads. All of them use a Canon PowerShot SD400. All of them are 1600x1200 or 1280x960. This photo is smaller, was taken from somewhere that only credentialed media would have been, has no camera information, etc. It bears no resemblance to this flickr user's other uploads, looks a heckuva lot like a news media photo, and has been removed from flickr. It is almost certainly a copyvio. --BigDT 04:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per BigDT's thinking unless we can verify the sourcing is correct and lic is correct. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Any difference between this photo and the other photos by this user is not consequential. Plenty of people own multiple cameras, or may borrow one if theirs is broken or not available. Plenty of people also have a camera and a cell phone with camera also.
- I seriously doubt this is a photo taken by professional media. It is low quality both in terms of image size and image quality. Professional media shoot better photos than this.
- As far as the location of the photo, there are many plausible explanations. Lots of other people are on the field besides the media. Trainers, for instance, or security guards, or even a fan that may have rushed out onto the field. Here is an article talking about a coach that even took an on-field photo with his cell phone camera. That could easily be the explanation here.
- In short, we have nothing solid to justify deleting this photo. Johntex 23:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- We have to have a good faith expectation that the guy actually took the photo. There is none here. It doesn't at all match his other photos. Looking at his other photos right around that day [39], his cell phone takes 640x480 pictures, not 390x312 ones. He obviously is not a coach or a security guard - he has an office job and lives in Bullhead City, Arizona - a 17 hour drive from the bowl game in San Antonio, Texas. The bowl game was on the night of December 28. On December 29, he shot three pictures of his morning commute ([40] + two others) They are timestamped at 10:00 pm, but if you look at the timestamps of some of his other photos, they look a little over 12 hours off and the photo looks like more of a sunrise than a sunset. In other words, after leaving a game in San Antonio, Texas around midnight, he drove to work in Bullhead City, Arizona the next morning. That's some amazing dedication to the job - he flew home over night so that he could go into the office the next day. It's especially amazing since Laughlin/Bullhead International Airport has no direct flights to San Antonio, so he would have either had to drive four hours to Phoenix or have a layover. --BigDT 06:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete In addition to BigDT's comments, the photo appears to have been removed at Flickr... Lupo 09:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Avatar 23:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I created this image yesterday as a straight copy of Image:BSicon WBRÜCKE.svg, but using a filename without the umlaut over the U. Recent changes at Wikipedia had modified the way that SVG files were rendered, and any of these icons containing a Ü would not display. That problem has now been resolved, and this file may now be deleted, as it was only created as an experiment to test a hypothesis, and has now served its purpose.
PeterJewell 08:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per uploader's request and explanation. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Avatar 23:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyrigth: http://spanish.imdb.com/gallery/hh/1408663/HH/1408663/iid_1309518.jpg.html?hint=group Aadrover 10:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be promotional picture so does not have free lic for Commons purposes. Delete unless uploader can clarify lic and make clear that they can give permission for a free lic. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Avatar 23:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright of Bernardo Doral: http://spanish.imdb.com/gallery/hh/1408663/HH/1408663/iid_1309521.jpg.html?hint=group Aadrover 10:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be promotional picture so does not have free lic for Commons purposes. Delete unless uploader can clarify lic and make clear that they can give permission for a free lic. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Avatar 23:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I posted this - not the right image Kaplansa 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Avatar 23:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
exists already --6 May 2006 User:Servien
- This has been sitting in Incomplete deletion requests for a while. I can't check if it's in use anywhere, perhaps someone else can tell? Deadstar (msg) 13:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
the only image I could find was an image on the se-Wikipedia: se:Image:Wiki.png. So the image was kept here. --ALE! ¿…? 08:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Error. A wrong image was uploaded -- 8 September 2007 User:PatagoniaArgentina
- Deletion fix Deadstar (msg) 15:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Avatar 23:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work. Also marked as non-commercial EugeneZelenko 15:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Permission given only for non-commercial use so not compatible with Commons lic requirement. Other issues likely as well. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Avatar 00:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bad file. wanna start over. .:. Sarazyn 17:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC) --.:. Sarazyn 18:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --DaB. 16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No free license ← Körnerbrötchen - @ 20:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete non-free promotional. Deadstar (msg) 15:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Avatar 00:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it own work or not? The watermark indicate it's from an online auction. --Liftarn 13:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Own work? Looks like a promo shot. --Liftarn 13:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, looks like a promo, resolution is as it would be if someone saved it off some random webpage, and it shows up here and here and other places where mainly promo images are used. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 18:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Agree that image appears to be promo photo as does this one the the user uploaded. Without more information clarifying the source and the uploaders understanding of lic, we need to delete as the image is likely not free per Commons policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
programa de musica alterlatina, creado por Andres Moncada. The previous unsigned comment was made on 12 September 2007 by User:Andres Moncada
- Deletion fix. Deadstar (msg) 13:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not used --30 August 2007 User:Anynobody
- Delete Personal image, if not used on userpages, then out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 14:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is part of the commons as Image:Wappen Weißenstadt.png --User:Vodeg 00:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- This image is larger than the one mentioned. Deadstar (msg) 14:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- But quality of Image:Wappen Weißenstadt.png is better. --Vodeg 20:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bad quality, no real rail station on the image --9 September 2007 User:AndreyA
- deletion fix Deadstar (msg) 15:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
kept (image is in use) --ALE! ¿…? 13:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
at request of -- 1 August 2007 User:Alensha
- Deletion fix Deadstar (msg) 15:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
kept, possible vandal / false request --ALE! ¿…? 13:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Esta bandeira não serve para uso em nenhum artigo. --9 September 2007 User:Trojan
- Deletion fix Deadstar (msg) 15:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Filmed persons consent? EugeneZelenko 15:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- They are some porn scarlets. The pictures were taken at the party were they were teasing the audience. Pic were allowed to take. --سندباد 02:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Did they allow to distribute it under free license? Please forward confirmation to permissions-commons at wikimedia dot org. --EugeneZelenko 14:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
kept: we discuss copyright here not {{personality rights}}! I have tagged the image accordingly. Consent of persons shown is not needed here. --ALE! ¿…? 13:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE. Dodo 15:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE. Dodo 16:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Deadstar (msg) 09:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Seems rather useless. --勇壯 13:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Looks like someone's using the image in their signature (which is evil). Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, this image is used by zh:User:Πrate as a signature. --Littlebtc 13:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
PD-US claim requires an indication that it actually was published in the US prior to 1923. As it is not a US work it will still be covered by copyright in France, where the artist lived. William Avery 11:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, so for it to be PD-US it would have to have been made in US. Makes sense. I'll be more careful on checking the "Copy to Wikipedia Commons" candidates on enwiki. Wizardman 18:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Yo Picasso.jpg. NIE is here. Lupo 07:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 11:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
PD-US claim requires an indication that it actually was published in the US prior to 1923. As it is not a US work it will still be covered by copyright in the EU. William Avery 12:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, so for it to be PD-US it would have to have been made in US. Makes sense, I'll be more careful on checking the "Copy to Wikipedia Commons" candidates on enwiki. Wizardman 18:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Furthermore Picasso's estate has filed NIEs for basically all his works. The NIE for "Yo" is here as "Autoportrait yo" and "Yo Picasso-self portrait". Unless you can prove publication before 1909, this wouldn't be PD in the U.S. at all. (That the painting was created in 1901 doesn't matter; you'd need a proven publication date. "Publication" meaning "distribution of copies to the general public". Exhibition, sale, or auction don't count, but a photo printed in an exhibition catalog or in a newspaper or periodical does.) The image should thus remain deleted even at the en-WP. Lupo 07:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 11:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The user will again upload the image under the correct name --10 September 2007 User:Janezdrilc
- Keep Deletion fix. I can't see the renamed image. Deadstar (msg) 13:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- This Image and Image:Karte Podcetrtek si.png have to have exchanged names, so the correct name of:
- Image:Karte Bistrica ob Sotli si.png is Image:Karte Podcetrtek si.png and
- Image:Karte Podcetrtek si.png is Image:Karte Bistrica ob Sotli si.png
- Comment So please upload the images under the correct name and tag the old versions with {{bad name}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Seems like he uploaded the correct versions over the incorrect versions. -- Cecil 16:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The user will again upload the image under the correct name --10 September 2007 User:Janezdrilc
- Keep Deletion fix. I can't see the renamed file. Deadstar (msg) 13:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- This Image and Image:Karte Bistrica ob Sotli si.png have to have exchanged names, so the correct name of:
- Image:Karte Bistrica ob Sotli si.png is Image:Karte Podcetrtek si.png and
- Image:Karte Podcetrtek si.png is Image:Karte Bistrica ob Sotli si.png
- Comment So please upload the images under the correct name and tag the old versions with {{bad name}}. --ALE! ¿…? 15:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Seems like he uploaded the correct versions over the incorrect versions. -- Cecil 16:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
estaba errado el mapa, ya fue reemplazado por uno correcto. 8 September 2007 User:Jesús Rincón
- Deletion fix Deadstar (msg) 13:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Which is the correct file? Why don't you just upload the correct version over the old one? --ALE! ¿…? 08:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, found it at Image:Proyecto leon de caracas.svg --Cecil 00:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Changed speedy into regular deletion request, because I don't think there is a reason to delete the picture. I would recommend to cancel the deletion request. – For more information and arguments see the undeletion discussion on User_talk:Majorly#Image:Citalopram_numbered.png and (for german speaking users) de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Markus_Prokott#Citalopram. – The original reason for speedy deletion stated by User:Hoffmeier can be found in the former version of the page. --Markus Prokott 16:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Have uploaded a better version of the picture. Updated the description. —Markus Prokott 17:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete After discussion here: de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Chemie#Nummerierung in Strukturformeln. There is no need for locants in skeletal formula. --Hoffmeier 23:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As a matter of fact, the discussion de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Chemie#Nummerierung in Strukturformeln concludes, that there is no need for locants in skeletal formulae only in so-called Chemoboxes. This doesn't mean that there may be no other uses. Furthermore, the discussion explicitely includes the use of locants in skeletal formulae for purposes of explaining chemical nomenclature. And, actually, there are many images of skeletal formulae with many locants in all Wikipediae. —Markus Prokott 03:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Opinions and even decisions on :de like the one (correct iw [41]) mentioned by User:Hoffmeier are not at all binding here on Commons. Also, nobody is obliged to use this image in articles about citalopram, you are free to use the formula without numbering. Independant from the numbering, Image:Citalopram numbered.png is interesting (and should be kept therefore) because the conformation (?) of the amino- and the fluorophenyl-substituent here differ from the one in Image:Citalopram structure.svg. Besides, the file has just 38 kB, one reason less to delete is. -- Túrelio 15:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- conformation? It is the same structure! --Hoffmeier 22:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
September 13
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Mistake in the name Lohen11 12:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Correctly named at Image:Foradada.JPG. Please use {{badname}} for such requests. Lupo 13:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a fake picture. No way it is Greenland. 24.240.182.64 11:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Licensing is ok, and of course it doesn't show Greenland but some small island just off the coast of Greenland. It's badly named, that's all. Lupo 15:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Keep. Image is ok, but the name is rather bad. Valentinian (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept --Digon3 talk Resolved, consider using the {{rename}} template
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Excuse me, because the wiew exist as 'Image:SperlongaSpiaggiaLevante.jpg'. Thank you --10 September 2007 User:Aldo Ardetti
- Keep the image mentioned is not the same. Deadstar (msg) 09:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Not the same photo. Carl Lindberg 07:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. --Avatar 00:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dieses Bild stellt eine massive Beleidigung in Verbing mit Verunglimpfung einer lebenden Person dar. Die Assoziierung des Herrn Schäuble mit Mördern, Folterern und generell Schwerstverbrechern halte ich für unangebracht für eine Enzyklopädie. Ich bitte daher diese Geschmacklosigkeit zu entsorgen. Weissbier 09:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weissbier says it was libelling a living person (German politician Wolfgang Schäuble). This deletion request also covers the following derivate works of this image:
- Lupo 11:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a logo used in a current civil rights campaign and can be seen printed on thousands of shirts and posters in the public in Germany. So if Mr. Schäuble himself or the Ministry of the Interior don't object to the usage of this logo, why should we delete it? --91.65.124.74 16:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that this association of the german secretary of the interior with the former GDR secret police Stasi is covered by freedom of art and therefore irrelevant. But this picture seems to be a derivative work though since there is no feasible reason for assuming the uploader being the creator of the artwork itself. Finally, i think it has to be deleted since the CC licensing is not credible. (It might be true for the photographic reproduction but this isn't enough). --Wiggum 21:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why should it not be credible? The license is cc-by-sa - Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike - and that is perfectly credible for Wikipedia/Wikimedia. The license itself is included in the PNG image at the bottom. The uploader is not the creator, true, but has a permission from the creator, which can also be read in general form in clear text (German though) on the source web page, which is also referred to. Please explain what is wrong or what is missing here. --W-sky 22:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh i didn't see the png picture. The licence is fine, Keep.--Wiggum 09:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This picture is a legal form of political protest sign against the very straight form of some ideas the described german secretary of the interior stands for. The license is cc-by-sa and absolutely correct. --Herrick 08:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, the license is OK. --Dezidor 09:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- delete die Lizenz der Quelle auf Flickr ist cc-by-nc und das ist inkompatibel. --Marcela 10:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ich seh da nirgendwo flickr. Oder hast du dich mit dem Link beim Tagging Anfang des Monats vertan?--Wiggum 11:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ich hab da im Chat nen Link bekommen, ich glaube von Smial - und dasw war eindeutig nc Ob es Flickr war - bin ich nicht mehr sicher. Beim Taggen hab ich mich vertan, richtig. --Marcela 14:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- The images are not from flickr. The original source is denoted. What might have lead to your confusion Marcela, is that the license was recently changed by the author. It was cc-by-nc before. --W-sky 12:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ich seh da nirgendwo flickr. Oder hast du dich mit dem Link beim Tagging Anfang des Monats vertan?--Wiggum 11:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This a a campaign against the article that uses this image. The article should be deletet and has now been restored. Its the second attempt to do delete this image. The license is cc 3.0 (because the older license was the reaseon for the first Deletion Request). The picture is part of an civil right campaign in germany and covered by freedom of speech. Best Regards Stefan.
- The licence of the picture is ok, and the picture is covered by the civil rights. So we should keep it. --87.123.115.204 21:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Es ist ein Armutszeugnis diese Verunglimpfung eines Behinderten hier zu verbreiten. Man muß mit dem Mann nicht einer Meinung sein, aber man kann es wenigstens mit Würde tun. Weissbier 12:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Wolfgang Schäuble muss hier vor keiner angeblichen "Beleidigung" geschützt werden, das Bild ist einfach nur ein Dokument. 84.159.38.181 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Wikimedia Commons has also images that are offensive to a person or a group of people, for educational purposes. Offensive content is no reason for deletion. See Category:Antisemitism if you want any examples of wikimedia commons images that are offensive. --Church of emacs 14:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the picture is widely used in general public demonstrations and is known to a broad mass of people, even outside germany. Wikipedia/Wikimedia even has a liability to provide information to the public, it can't close its eyes to actual political happening. Furthermore, there is no license violation as mentioned. --js 15:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: These pictures are covered by the Freedom of expression (Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights) and by the Freedom of the press (esp. for Wikipedia). --Liberal Freemason (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Everything Weissbier has written on this page is utter nonsense. "Verunglimpfung eines Behinderten" (Denigration of a handicapped person)? Come on. Mr. Schäuble is indeed handicapped (he needs a wheelchair since he was attacked several years ago), but this picture does in no way mention this fact, allude to it or show it. It does allude to Schäuble's political positions, which are questionable. --Rosenzweig 19:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the license: The picture was not taken from flickr or any other platform, but was shot by myself. So the license information (also given by myself) should be correct :-) ---Nicor 13:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep the user Weissbier was also using this argument to delete the article "stasi 2.0", but did fail in the last instance. Elvis 11:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep It's a correct description of the political problem. Also like Rosenzweig. -- Sozi 14:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- i just saw the following: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Stasi_2.0.JPG&diff=prev&oldid=7511387 this edit strikes me as quite strange. is ist allowed to delete a former deletion discussion without pointing to the old version? 194.76.29.2 15:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Most certainly not. I guess the only thing that should be deleted here is Weissbier's user account. I don't know how to handle his changes now. Anyway, the discussion seems to lead to the clear conclusion that none of the images must be deleted. The photograph was uploaded and/or licensed by the photographer, the others have suitable licenses too and do not contradict any lawful issues. Request for EOD... --W-sky 15:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- deleting him may be a bit harsh, but on de, he does nothing more than starting deletion requests and is "well loved" for it. 194.76.29.2 15:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Most certainly not. I guess the only thing that should be deleted here is Weissbier's user account. I don't know how to handle his changes now. Anyway, the discussion seems to lead to the clear conclusion that none of the images must be deleted. The photograph was uploaded and/or licensed by the photographer, the others have suitable licenses too and do not contradict any lawful issues. Request for EOD... --W-sky 15:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP the image is not free because of freedom of panorama. It was placed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 after being under CC-BY-NC-SA for some time [42]. It's also not inappropriate for Wikipedia according to my views, maybe cynical but it shouldn't be deleted because it doesn't fit in the actual political landscape of germany. --Yamavu 15:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep Ich wüsste keinen Grund warum man dieses Bild löschen sollte, meiner Meinung nach fällt es unter die "Redefreiheit".
- delete So einen Schwachsinn zu einem Artikel zu machen schaffen nur WIKIANDER! 84.153.72.118 18:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Was sind Wikiander? :) --Church of emacs 19:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- delete
- An offense is not defused by the fact that the insulted one does not undertake anything against it. Politicians don't want poor publicity.
- Last week a student was arrested, who has that sticker on his car. A newspaper summarizes: "Damit könnte die Anzeige [...] zu einem Fall werden, der Tausende von Webseitenbetreibern zu potentiellen Straftätern werden lässt."
- Not only Schäuble becomes insulted, but also the Stasi victims. Alauda 21:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- 1. I don't deny the fact that the picture is an offense. I just say that commons does not censor pictures which are offensive. If there is a rule that states, that no offensive pictures shall be uploaded, show it to me. But then, we'll have to delete all images in Category:Antisemitism, too.
- 2. Wikimedia Commons is in the USA, so German law doesn't apply there. If it is illegal in Germany, only the domain wikipedia.de (which is under control of the German Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.) can be blocked. However I don't think it is illegal to show the image for educational purposes, not even in Germany. See Image:Flag of Germany 1933.svg, it is not ok to use the flag to advocate 3. Reich, but it is ok to show it "for the purposes of education and information."
- 3. See 1. --Church of emacs 13:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep I think the Picture is no violation againt the Person Ich finde die persönlichkeitsrechte werden hier NICHt verletzt also behalten --84.136.3.85 21:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep das ist eine zulässige Karikatur. In jedem Karnevalsumzug finden sich schlimmere "Beleidigungen". Außerdem erinnert vieles, was Schäuble fordert, tatsächlich an die Stasi.
- keep Personen die zeitgeschichtlich so relevant sind dürfen karikiert werden. Damit müssen die betroffenen Personen leben; Kohl war auch eine Birne. Politiker sind immer im Fadenkreuz der Karikaturisten/Satiriker/politischen Gegner. Ganz abgesehen vom Lemma „Stasi 2.0“ verstößt das Bild gegen keine Urheberrechte - höchstens gegen den guten Geschmack, welcher wiederum subjektiv ist. --Poupée de chaussette 22:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep Dieses Bild ist allein schon wegen der hitzigen Diskussion in und um die Wikipedia ein wichtiges Zeitdokument. So wie es als Symbol für die Angst vor dem Überwachungsstaat steht, so ist es Sinnbild der hiesigen Kultur des Miteinander, des Lösung-Findens, der Wikipediademokratie. Abgesehen davon hat es in Magazinen wie der Titanic weit verletzendere Karrikaturen von Politikern und anderen Personen des öffentlichen Lebens gegeben (z.B. gegen den Papst) die sämtlich - sofern es überhaupt zu einem Prozess kam - nicht verboten wurden.
Kept, no persuasive reason. --Avatar 00:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image title is wrong (1969 instead of 1968). Image is uploaded with correct description here: Image:East Germany 5 mark 1968 Robert Koch.jpg Alfons Åberg 10:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Avatar 00:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The name of page is mistaken. BezPRUzyn 13:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- The name is Wrong and have now uploaded under correct name. (New image is Image:Het'man_Sahaydachnyy.jpg.)--BezPRUzyn 10:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Avatar 00:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
License says: "editorial and personal use." which is not enough for commons. Deadstar (msg) 15:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Source says that images can not be used except for "editorial and personal use" so can not retain in Commons per free license policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Avatar 00:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
License says "editorial and personal use" which is not free enough for commons Deadstar (msg) 15:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Avatar 00:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
License says "editorial and personal use" which is not free enough for commons Deadstar (msg) 15:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Avatar 00:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
License says "editorial and personal use" which is not free enough for commons Deadstar (msg) 15:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Source says that images can not be used except for "editorial and personal use" so can not retain in Commons per free license policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Avatar 00:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
German FOP states that no derivatives of the image can be made without getting permission from the owner of the copyrights to what the photo is made of 84.108.245.222 17:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep this has no merit. Provide a solid reference if you can find one, otherwise there is certainly no way we just overthrow the long accepted FOP on commons. Such a precedence could lead to a completely pointless mass deletion of images. --Dschwen 22:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Zwei Sachen kurz auf Deutsch: es handelt sich um aufgedrängte Kunst und das Werk ist nicht erkennbar signiert. Damit entfällt eine Verpflichtung sich beim Künstler zu melden ohnehin schonmal. (imposed and unsigned art, thus no obligation to contact the creator, thus bogus deletion request) --Dschwen 22:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Tagged now with {{PD-FOP-DE}} in addition to the CC-BY-2.0. Lupo 22:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep And please read all sections of the law:
- It is possible by § 59 of the Copyright Law Act to take pictures of publicly visible works of art as defined in § 2 and publish them, even commercially. Still, as defined in § 62, especially § 62(1), the right to modify these works of art and to produce derivative works of them where German law applies, requires the permission of the original copyright holder. § 62(3) states, that changes of the scale of the depicted unaltered work of art, are permissable in the bounds made necessary by the medium of reproduction. (i.e. the picture taken can be scaled, cropped, enhanced etc., as the medium of reproduction makes necessary. The medium of reproduction can be a printed page, a computer screen etc.).
- Since the original work of art has not been altered, §62(3) applies. --Wuselig 01:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This deletion request is quite a nonsense:
- At first this is not a pure artwork image: It is an image of a house with an artwork and its surroundings which gives you a lot of additional freedom even in nations where there is no freedom of panorama (such as France). Additionally the points named by Dschwen give you even more freedom totally independent from Freedom of Panorama (I can imagine, that a photo of an illegal graffiti in France would be free enough as well).
- Furthermore Freedom of panorama doesn't mean you are not allowed to modify your photo. You're not allowed to destroy the work and the artists reputation. It is approximately the same as modifying a free picture of a famous person in a harmfull way. You are not allowed to do so cause of personality rights. So these are mere moral rights beyond copyright. Copyright doesn't exist in free space.
- So in summary I'd even say that we even don't need the Freedom of panorama rule in this case. This photo is as free as a photo can be. Arnomane 17:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Arnomane. This photo of Czech politician is also under the free license but Marek Benda could defend himself in court against someone who would use it for defamative photomontage. Personality rights doesn´t mean that photo is not under free license. --Dezidor 22:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Your vote is well meant, but your case has nothing to do with "freedom of panorama", but with personality rights. The question in your case is: Is it a public figure or not. If yes, you can publish the picture. And yes, you are then not allowed to alter the size of his nose. So your example can only serve as an analogy. But the general misunderstanding in freedom of panorama is with regards to what shall not be modified. It is the work of art (the original or in the image) that shall not be modified. The image itself can be modified, ie.cropped, enlarged, whatever, but not distorted, because that would alter the image of the work of art. And Arnomane is wrong. A weaker kind of copyright does exist in free spaces. A kind of personality right of the work of art, which forbids us to distort it, but still allows us to publish it. And let us just assume we were not talking about imposed art, because then, as Dschwen noted we could have cut short the discussion already.--Wuselig 23:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- It was an analogy. --Dezidor 00:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I only see a black rectangle and no photo. --ALE! ¿…? 14:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
dumbshit 87.177.245.165 19:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Avatar 00:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong name; have now uploaded under correct name --Londoneye 21:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete {{duplicate}} - New image is Image:Southend pier from end.jpg Deadstar (msg) 08:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Avatar 00:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Esta equivocado --7 September 2007 User:Piratapirata8
- Deletion fix. User has a duplicate uploaded here: Image:Aeropuertodeburgos05dscxx2.jpg - could have been {{duplicate}}. Deadstar (msg) 09:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
this one kept and the other deleted because the other file did not have a license --ALE! ¿…? 16:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Extremely low quality image. The coin is impossible to even identify (probably Roman). We have plenty of Roman coins already. Alfons Åberg 10:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Despite horrendously shitty quality, in use on Spanish Wikipedia. WilyD 17:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete usually I say that quality is no reason for deletion when an image is in use. But this one is that bad that it shoudl be deleted because it is of no encyclopedic value. --ALE! ¿…? 16:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll just provide some background info. The image is used in an article about a fictional character to illustrate the currency used by that character. The image was uploaded by the same user who wrote the article in question. Perhaps the image is intentionally out of focus to leave something for the imagination. Alfons Åberg 18:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, worst picture ever seen on commons, hopelessly out of focus --Polarlys 09:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader removed all contents including license. Need comments. Jusjih 13:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment He very likely blanked the page because he uploaded Image:Wapen Driesum.svg. The .png is not used, however this is not a reason for deletion. Deadstar (msg) 15:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted (the file never had a license) --ALE! ¿…? 16:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"All images in this Electronic Press Kit have been approved for public release, distribution unlimited, TACOM 12 Sep 2006, case 06-197." is not a "free license". The page where this image originates does not have a copyright statement clearly marked. Deadstar (msg) 15:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Appears that original source does not give a free lic and agree that being "approved for public release, distribution unlimited" as stated is not compatible with Commons licensing policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
August 1923 is not before January 1, 1923. http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3b06876 says "Rights status not evaluated". Davepape 15:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/npcc.09134 (same photo, from the National Photo Company Collection at the Library of Congress; "no known restrictions"). Upload this better and larger version over the current small thumbnail. There's also http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3c32074 ("No known restrictions...") from that same collection, and a whole batch more when you search fro "harding funeral" at the LoC. Lupo 08:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Lupo info above. -- Infrogmation 13:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Somehow I missed that other copy when searching P&P. Thanks for pointing it out. I've updated the image. --Davepape 14:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Poor quality. 13 September 2007 User:Happyme22
- Not in use. WilyD 17:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I took this picture myself and uploaded it to commons thinking it could be used somewhere, but I now see that it is of awful quality. Delete, please. Happyme22 23:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Unused is not a reason for deletion. It's not the best quality to be sure, but it's not useless either. Do we have a better picture of the same scene? If not, since it's licensed correctly and potentially useful, Keep. Carl Lindberg 07:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Happyme22, thank you for contributing the image. Can be useful for research purposes as historical images often are, if not publication. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The page nominated for deletion is irrelevant to wrestling. It has no photos at all. The previous unsigned comment was made on 10 September 2007 by User:128.135.96.15
- Delete
Could have been {{speedydelete}} as it is an empty page. Deadstar (msg) 09:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC) - Comment the page had many pictures in older revisions, worth checking into... 84.108.245.222 17:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Hm. How did I miss that one? I retract my delete vote. Page probably just needs reinstatement. Deadstar (msg) 15:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request : I've created a better qual pic of this money at Turkey 1500 Lira 1981 back.jpg - both are from myself --NobbiP 18:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
kept (no reason for deletion) --ALE! ¿…? 12:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture has become obselete and replaced by Image:Reagan delivers inaugural address 1981.jpg, a photo of better quality Happyme22 23:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Replaced by a higher quality but not duplicate version. --Digon3 talk 15:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
borders - new loading done PRA 16:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Where can I find your new version of the image ? --Christian NurtschTM 14:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, alright --Christian NurtschTM 10:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete universal replacement via CommonsDelinker is running --ALE! ¿…? 11:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per above.--Londoneye 13:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Majorly: Universally replaced by Image:Commedia_dell'arte_-_troupe_Gelosi.JPG. Reason was "will be deleted as a near duplicate"
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image summary refers to a release that I cannot find on the apparent source website (although I cannot read arabic). It is not clear whether the source website is the actual owner of the copyright in the image. Also, after the statement that all rights are released, there are several limitations that conflict with the GFDL. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete "Copyright: Haramain Recordings © 2007 All rights released. Foreign persons can duplicate, copy or reproduce any material content from this website without consent of the author, for notificational, informational or promotional purposes." Clearly not compatible with GFDL.--Londoneye 13:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Per above discussion. --Siebrand 10:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image has been tagged for missing source information. This is not true, the required information is covered by the description page. Since there might be the question of the credibility of USHMM's PD licensing of the picture i would like to discuss the issue here.--Wiggum 21:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- The USHMM page is here (it does help to put the links in the image page). They do say public domain, courtesy of Archiv der KZ-Gedenkstaette Mauthausen. The latter's page on it is here, which I think says it was an SS photo. I'm not sure how the public domain claim was arrived at to be honest. They may be relying on U.S.-only law, but I'm not sure about that either. Presumably the Archiv der KZ-Gedenkstaette Mauthausen has no problem with the claim, but they are likely not the copyright owners. Carl Lindberg 06:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I have so far seen no good reason for this to be PD-anything. The photo was only taken 67 years ago, it cannot possibly be PD-Old. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete most WW II images are not free yet. --ALE! ¿…? 12:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - I feel the image is strongly needed to convey the people. - 72.229.48.178 05:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment If it is an SS photo, the copyright presumably belongs to the German government. Is this archive an arm of the German government? If so, they are probably the de facto copyright owners.--Londoneye 13:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- IMHO the copyright belongs to the author of the photo. --ALE! ¿…? 14:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure in those times anything done by the SS (or other elements of the government of the time) would have then been owned by the NSDAP, and thus now owned by the German government (a German court ruled that way for Triumph of the Will). This archive is in Austria though (it is a museum for the Mauthausen concentration camp). The photo was taken at the camp (in Austria). The archive and memorial is an arm of the Austrian government, it does appear (I didn't notice that before). I have no idea if SS photos taken in Austria would be considered property of the German or Austrian governments though. If the latter, this one may be all right. Carl Lindberg 16:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - This image is either PD or fair use for historic value like anything related to the SS.--Arugia 02:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is no proof for PD and 'fair use' is not accepted on commons. -- Cecil 05:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Per above discussion. --Siebrand 10:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
If it was published once without a copyright notice (ie. the trailer) and subsequently with a copyright notice (ie. in the film itself, unless this footage was excluded from the film, which I doubt) - does that mean it is copyrighted or that it isn't? Yonatan talk 21:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that means it isn't copyrighted since it was published first. The trailer is in the public domain, and the related scenes from the film are also since they have the same copyright as when they were first published in the trailer. All other scenes from the film should be copyrighted since they had not been published before and were published with a copyright notice. ShadowHalo 04:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- This seems to be right.--Londoneye 13:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay in replying - I have been absent. I think User:ShadowHalo is right, and it is certainly the interpretation by which I have uploaded film trailer images. this link explains it better than I could possibly, but basically the individual frames of a film trailer were released without a copyright notice and the fact that the same frames appear in a later copyrighted work, does not mean that the copyright is extended to them. Where possible (and in this case) I keep the text on the frame so as to clearly distinguish that it is from the trailer. Rossrs 07:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept, from a trailer published without copyright notice before 1977. --rimshottalk 16:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
September 14
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unfree, bien sur __ ABF __ ▼☺☻▲ 14:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- DeleteScreenshot of game Deadstar (msg) 15:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Bryan: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The same image was uploaded as Image:Rihanna.jpg and was deleted as owned by Getty Images, not the uploader on Flickr. --ShadowHalo 04:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have no way of knowing this image is from Getty Images but I do believe you so you may delete it. Also perhaps you should consider asking Flickr to correct the license so that someone else doesn't upload it again. --Kudret abi 05:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright Getty Images 2006. Taken by a staff photographer so it is definitely theirs. Carl Lindberg 05:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as obvious copyright vio. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope as it is a personal picture. As the description says "it's all about me". Deadstar (msg) 13:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Out of scope
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation 217.227.19.209 05:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It comes from Erwin Nadolny, Der deutsche Osten und Europa, German school book from the 1960s. Lupo 07:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No it did not. I made the photo in the church of the Stift Heiligenkreuz, where it was on display on a wall. JoJan 05:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't change anything. Read the text at the bottom of the image itself. They put a page from a schoolbook on that wall. Lupo 20:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete if it actually comes from a school book. There's not FOP in Churches, I'm afraid. --Fb78 09:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Main subject is the statue of Churchill by fr:Jean Cardot (b. 1930), made in 1996-1998. France has no freedom of panorama. --Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The statue is not the main subject. --Dezidor 09:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - The status is the main subject. -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 15:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I also think the statue is the main subject. Deadstar (msg) 15:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, statue obviously main subject. --Polarlys 09:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I suspect this image came from: http://www.annettevantrigt.com/ Site is copyrighted. The description says that this image is an official press photograph for Annette van Trigt (Dutch newsreader), this does not mean it is released under GFDL. --Deadstar (msg) 08:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Superceded by .jpg version (Image:Kennedy greeting Peace Corps volunteers, 1961.jpg) --BrianSmithson 09:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The image shows copyrighted works Phrood 12:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
deleted, --Polarlys 09:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not needed any more 84.155.166.108 15:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to login. This is my deletion request... --Der fette mo
- It appears this was just used on a User page. If it's no longer needed there, it probably can't be used for anything else, so Delete. Carl Lindberg 03:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The game w:Operation Wolf is copyright w:Taito Corporation William Avery 21:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image was made my me, I uploaded it as .svg in a better version and there are no links to that file! --Red Rooster 21:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image belongs to www.djjv.de and not to Benutzer:Konny1979. The website of origin claims copyright! --77.128.191.38 09:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC) The orgin-website claims: All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2004 by Deutscher Ju-Jutsu Verband e.V. / Enno Häberlein
13:29, 20 September 2007 Maire (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Logo Ju-Jutsu.gif" (copyvio, logo)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probably unfree because [43] says "No known restrictions on publication," but that must be interpreted within the context of [44] which says "The Prints & Photographs Division attempts to provide known information about the rights to images ... and rights to many images ... have not been individually evaluated." It is very unlikely that the U.S. News & World Report Magazine Photograph Collection would relinquish rights. BenB4 04:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. See U.S. News & World Report Magazine Collection Rights and Restrictions Information: "Per the deed of gift, the U.S. News & World Report, Inc., dedicated to the public all rights it held for the photographs in this collection upon its donation to the Library. The majority of the photographs in this collection were done for hire by U.S. News & World Report staff photographers, primarily Warren K. Leffler, Thomas J. O'Halloran, Marion S. Trikosko, John Bledsoe, and Chick Harrity identified on photographic captions by their initials --WKL, TOH, MST, JTB, and CWH. There are no known restrictions on their photographs." This particular photo was by Leffler, so it is in the public domain per the gift to the Library. --Tom (talk - email) 12:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The U.S. News & World Report Magazine did indeed relinquish their rights. This was taken by one of their employees, so they originally owned the rights to it. There are a number of photos from this collection on Commons (maybe we should have an explicit license tag which links to the rights information page). The LoC would have added the "No known restrictions on publication" tag to only those photos known to be taken by U.S. News & World Report employees. The existing license tag is correct. Carl Lindberg 03:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per the already existing {{PD-U.S. News & World Report}}. Lupo 08:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Public Domain.--Londoneye 13:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
it is a copyrighted image by Scot ANderson and not a NOAA product 205.156.36.31 16:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as obvious copyright vio. Noaa Web site say it is copyrighted. --FloNight♥♥♥ 21:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted Copyvio Finn Rindahl 12:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
dupicated (Image:Haifa_sea.jpg) RonAlmog 16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, unused duplicate. Please use {{Duplicate}} or {{Badname}} for such cases. Finn Rindahl 12:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file (meaning the logo of Rugby team) is very similar to the logo of other rugby team,( which I didn't know when I was uploading the file) To avoid any troubles I would like this file to be deleted. I emphasize that I was the one who uploaded it. We'll come up with better idea for our logo and than we will upload it.Thanks Skibabiba 17:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted pr uploaders request. Finn Rindahl 12:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not in use. Image:OpenOffice.org2.2 TextDiretion RTL.png is better. Mintz l 10:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think that the alternative is sufficiently similar to replace it.--Londoneye 13:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep These are not the same image, not even close. The newer one may be better for use on a Wikipedia article, but on commons we keep both images. We generally only delete exact duplicates, or lower-resolution versions of the same image. Carl Lindberg 16:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept --Digon3 talk Not a exact duplicate
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not in use. This one is a better version. Mintz l 10:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think that the alternative is sufficiently similar to replace it.--Londoneye 13:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep These are not the same image, not even close. The newer one may be better for use on a Wikipedia article, but on commons we keep both images. We generally only delete exact duplicates, or lower-resolution versions of the same image. Carl Lindberg 16:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept --Digon3 talk Not a exact duplicate
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No clear consent for use of this picture under the license given "Mention data of a photographer of this image and the photographed date and time" is hard to do when it is not clearly marked on the photograph itself. I did a little research and although this particular picture isn't on the http://www.hermanleonard.com page, he does not seem the kind of photographer to give good shots away. However, I might be mistaken and I hope someone else can shed light on this. Deadstar (msg) 12:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of a free lic. I looked at both sites and did see any indication that this image is available for our use. Needs to be deleted now. In the unlikely circumstance that clear permission from the copyright holder is given for a license that is compatible with Commons policy, then we can re-add it. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Speedy. Herman Leonard is still alive and active. I know he has sometimes donated individual prints of his famous photos for charitable purposes, but I agree we should presume this is fully copyrighted unless we have specific information showing the contrary. -- Infrogmation 00:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- As I could find no evidence on the source supporting the supposed free licence, I have Speedy deleted this apparent copyright violation. -- Infrogmation 00:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: cv
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this has the wrong license on it + license is not filled out properly. From the page mentioned (http://www.photopit.com) it is not clear that the images are released under any type of license. I suspect copyvio. It also has a watermark. Deadstar (msg) 14:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I had it from en:Image:MatsLeven.jpg, but since it had an original source I didn't mentioned the intermediate step at en.WP. I will ask Caroline if she knows about it and if she could write a email if it's ok with her, but the next time I most likely will have a chance to meet her will be at the Kataklysm-concert (29.09.). -- Cecil 14:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- It'd be good if we could keep it :) Deadstar (msg) 15:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom pending better info from Caroline. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission --Siebrand 10:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Nominated on 3 June 2006 by User:Tatoute as "patent vandalism". Request was never finished, be warned, explicit content. Deadstar (msg) 15:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope Finn Rindahl 12:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep potential usage and assume good faith --Alverawa 13:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Any good reason for deletion, image is not vandalism. --Dezidor 11:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Per above (although I think we have enough penis images already) --Siebrand 10:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Originally requested for deletion on 3 June 2006 by User:Tatoute saying "patent vandalism". Request was never finished. Be warned, explicit content (once again) same uploader as previous request. Deadstar (msg) 15:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's a naked man without an erection. I've seen more explicit things on prime-time television. --Fb78 09:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Certainly not very shocking (yawn) and not "patent vandalism" but out of scope Finn Rindahl 12:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep potential usage and assume good faith --Alverawa 13:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Any good reason for deletion. --Dezidor 11:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Per above. --Siebrand 10:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate, worse variant -- 14 September 2007 User:Szilas
- Keep I presume user is talking about Image:Signac - La Calanque edit.jpg - I prefer this version rather than the edit. Deadstar (msg) 15:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC) (But then again, the edit was updated to a quality image). Deadstar (msg) 15:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Deadstar. --Alverawa 13:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Not quite the exact same; should keep the original for reference at the very least. Carl Lindberg 16:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Per above --Siebrand 10:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the author wants to delete it R2d2 battlefront2 18:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It looks like this is a copyvio of Ouest France property; we would need an OTRS ticket to keep it anyways. Carl Lindberg 16:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission --Siebrand 10:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the author wants to delete it R2d2 battlefront2 18:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It looks like this is a copyvio of Lycée Bellevue property; we would need an OTRS ticket to keep it anyways. Carl Lindberg 17:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission --Siebrand 10:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the author wants to delete it R2d2 battlefront2 18:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It looks like this is a copyvio of Office du tourisme du Mans property; we would need an OTRS ticket to keep it anyways. Carl Lindberg 16:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission --Siebrand 10:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the author wants to delete it R2d2 battlefront2 18:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It looks like this is a copyvio of Office du tourisme du Mans property; we would need an OTRS ticket to keep it anyways. Carl Lindberg 16:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission --Siebrand 10:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the author wants to delete it R2d2 battlefront2 18:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It looks like this is a copyvio of Office du tourisme du Mans property; we would need an OTRS ticket to keep it anyways. Carl Lindberg 16:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission --Siebrand 10:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
christian 84.220.121.81 18:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I have no idea what the reason to delete could be... it's certainly not explained. I don't think this image is even copyrightable in the first place, so no issues there. Carl Lindberg 03:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source --Siebrand 10:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
An image of en:Mathias Rust released by himself as GFDL? This looks much more like a press photo and I don't think he has the copyright for it. 32X 19:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep How far should we go? We have the ok from Rust. No press photograph notified until now, and what you say are only speculations. So I don't what delete the only image of a important person. --Kolossos 08:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Where do you see Rust's okay to release the picture under GFDL?
- There is an article on you there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust). To that article, I'd like to add a picture from your site [...]. I request permission from you to release this picture to us under the GNU free documentation license.
- you are free to add the picture.
- He just said that it is okay to use it in that article, nothing more. Permission granted to Wikipedia, woo-hoo! --32X 19:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Where do you see Rust's okay to release the picture under GFDL?
- Delete The person on the picture is obviously not the author, but the photographer is the copyright holder. The photo was done during the trial, maybe by a professional press photographer. See http://www.repubblica.it/2007/05/sezioni/esteri/rust-piazza-rossa/rust-piazza-rossa/este_10335969_31430.jpg for example (clothing, hair cut, glasses, head phone). --Polarlys
- Delete No free license permission given by photographer --Fb78 09:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Kolossos. --Alverawa 13:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- You know, that the photographer is the author, not the displayed person? ––Polarlys 16:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Owner of the website released this image under free licence (he could be licence holder, not photographer). --Dezidor 11:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- A wrong copyright claim doesn't makes you the "license holder" (whatever this is). The photographer is the author and copyright holder. ––Polarlys 13:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission from copyright holder. Rust is not the copyright holder. --Siebrand 10:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
On the description it states that the file has some rights reserved, but then the uploader has added a PD-self license. I don't think the two match. If the user IS "El Agora Productions", the wording on the description needs to change. Also is this a company? --Deadstar (msg) 10:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- This image was done by me, but, this file includes information about Magaso, of which I am administrating, for what there isn't problem as for the copyright. El Ágora 21:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Copyright holder assents.--Londoneye 13:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - "Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org)." Yuval Y § Chat § 14:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Still no proof (after two month). OTRS does not work that slowly. -- Cecil 16:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Debian logos
[edit]Debian logos are not free - [45] states (even for the "Open Use Logo License"): This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the Debian project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project. This is in conflict with out "for any purpose" requirement (I think "does not indicate endorsement" would be ok as a requirement, but the restriction that it can only be used to refer to the Debian project is clearly incompatible to Commons).
We have deleted Debian logos for this reason before, see Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives08#Debian_logos for instance.
So, several images from Category:Debian should be deleted:
- Image:Debian Open Logo.png
- Image:Debian distrowatch.png
- Image:Debian-logo-notext.svg
- Image:Debian-logo.svg
- Image:Horned logo.jpeg
- Image:Horned logo.svg
- Image:Logo Debian 50x61.jpg
- Image:Debian logo.svg (sucky derivative)
- Image:Skolelinux logo.png
- Image:No Logo de Debian FreeBSD.JPG
- Image:TheDebianLogo.jpg (not in category)
Screenshots & wallpapers:
- Image:Debian-4.0.png
- Image:Debian-installer boot.png
- Image:Debian4fr.jpg
- Image:Screenshot-debian_40_etch-gnome-ja.png
- Image:Screenshot-debian_etch20060417.png
- Image:Slx-wallpaper.png
- Image:Debian Desktop.png
Icons & etc:
Free licenses are sadly lacking a good way to protect logos against abuse while still allowing free use. It really sucks that projects that are all about free code/content should not have really free logos - besides Debian, the Wikimedia Foundation is a prime example for this. It's sad, but true. We can't have debian logos (or, for that matter, Firefox, etc). The matter seems pretty clear, but since this is likely to cause some wailing and gnashing of teeth, and it comes up time and time again, I didn't speedy them. -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 10:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unless somebody gets them licensing their images under a free license. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--Londoneye 13:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not free for some uses == not free Komdori 12:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- How does this differ from {{trademarked}} which we allow as long as there is no actual copyright protection (or it's under a free license) on the logo. /Lokal_Profil 13:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep See Category:Copyrighted free use provided that. The Commons has many images that are "free provided that." and the Debian image without the text is by far not the most restrictive of these. SteveSims 07:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Grotte 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Debian Open Use Logo License
[edit]（日本語版） Debian オープンユーズロゴ・ライセンス Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
「このロゴもしくはその派生版は、Debian プロジェクトに関連する文脈で誰でも自由に利用できるが、それらは本プロジェクトによる保証を示すものではない。 」 http://www.jp.debian.org/logos/#official-use
(In English Version) Debian Open Use Logo License Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
"This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the Debian project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project." http://www.jp.debian.org/logos/index.en.html
Please see the above and its link for further information. -Green 06:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
For further understanding
[edit]"Debian has decided to create two logos: one logo is for official Debian use; the other logo falls under an open use type license." from http://www.debian.org/logos/index.en.html
- Debian Open Use Logo License
- Debian Official Use Logo License
As for Open Use Logo,you can easily understand that its usage is is permitted to anyone as mantioned. -Green 07:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- By anyone, yes. But not for any purpose. Which is a requirement. -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 21:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- In common sense, people use the logos in order to refer to the Debian project, for example in the articke :fr:Debian. Is'nt it very hard to imagine to use them in order NOT to refer to the Debian project? All images in Commons, including Debian logos, are expected to use in the same way in reality. ---Green 22:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- You are wrong. Sure, it's main use for wikipedia would be to refer to the debian project. But Commons is a repostiory of free media, usable by anyone, for any purpose. So, if i simply like the design and want to print & sell t-shirts showing it, i should be allowed to, for example.
- The "for any purpose" thing is part of the "free content" requirement, which in turn is one of the fundamental rules layed down by the wikimedia foundation. It's not negotiable.
- Logos are generally problematic, and I have always argued that we should not have any "plain logos" at all, because the rules governing use of trademarked logos are even more confusing than the mess that copyright law is. Logos with usage restrictions (beyond trademark protection - and even that might be an issue) are out of the question. We require free licenses (or public domain), period. Ask debian if they consider their open logo license to be a "free license". I'm pretty sure the answer is "no". -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 11:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- You kindly presented one example for not refering to the Debian project. ---"if i simply like the design and want to print & sell t-shirts showing it, i should be allowed to, for example." But this is not likely a proper case: You may know the origine of the logo, and at the same time, people who wear t-shirts showing it would result in contributing the promotion of the Debian project. So, in this sense it is quite clear that printing and selling t-shirts showing it is meant to refer the Debian project. Imagine what if any logo made by yourself is abused for illegal purpose on the web, you would feel like to delete it by yourself from the Commons or prohibit its usage, because it is out of purpose in common sense. --Green 13:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- In common sense, people use the logos in order to refer to the Debian project, for example in the articke :fr:Debian. Is'nt it very hard to imagine to use them in order NOT to refer to the Debian project? All images in Commons, including Debian logos, are expected to use in the same way in reality. ---Green 22:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
"the way we use it is ok" is not a valid argument. "we can get away with it" is not a valid argument. "no one is going to sue us" is not a valid argument. Is it a Free license? no? delete. -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 09:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Proposed Trademark Policy
[edit]I have found a keen discussion afterwards at http://wiki.debian.org/ProposedTrademarkPolicy . In this page, someone pointed out in Consequences as saying: "Essentially, we will be donating the swirl-only version of the Open Use Logo to the community. To a significant degree, I think this simply recognizes an existing fact; the Debian Open Use swirl has been popular and successful. The association between it and the Debian Project is established; people know it as "the Debian swirl". It has appeared on stickers, T-shirts, and even tattoos."
A draft proposals by Nathanael Nerode say that: We grant blanket permission to anyone to use the trademark (or derivative marks) in any way, but you may not use it as the logo for your entirely independent, unrelated software project.
Above all is what people related to Debian project think, and I am convinced myself now. Thank you. --Green 11:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Got a link for that? If this is the official position of the copyright (and trademark) holder, I would agree that it's ok to keep it. It would be good though if it would mention a specific free license - so we don't have to make new new template :) -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 21:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- It would be okay even though it is not usable in commercial activities (at least several of them)? Komdori 12:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think it would be OK if the restriction is trademark-based, and not copyright-based. Interesting situation though. Carl Lindberg 16:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Conditions are not equivalent to those listed in {{copyrighted fre use provided that}} Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 21:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why do not delete such a screenshot from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian also, so far? Green 05:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Debian Open Use Logo Relicensed
[edit]See Debian Project News - November 19th, 2008 - "Open Use Logo" relicensed: .
You are NOT allowed to delete those "Open Use Logo", as it has been relicensed. Restore the pages in which Open Use Logos have been deleted. --Green (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
We restored them now. How efficient we are… Special:Permalink/95712728#Files deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Debian logos -- Rillke(q?) 22:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
September 15
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unclear status harum 20:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, computer game screenshot. Don't upload these if they're not coming from free licensed games, please. PatríciaR msg 21:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Commons is not a private webspace Alx 91 04:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. I believe that User:Cobaes04's images (visible in gallery form here) are all inappropriate here because they are unencyclopedic personal photos, they are unlinked, and Commons is not a free webhost. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Cobaes04. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Commons is not a private webspace Alx 91 04:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. I believe that User:Cobaes04's images (visible in gallery form here) are all inappropriate here because they are unencyclopedic personal photos, they are unlinked, and Commons is not a free webhost. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Cobaes04. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Commons is not a private webspace Alx 91 04:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 09:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. I believe that User:Cobaes04's images (visible in gallery form here) are all inappropriate here because they are unencyclopedic personal photos, they are unlinked, and Commons is not a free webhost. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Cobaes04. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The user use Commons as a Private Webspace Alx 91 04:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC) rescued by Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. I believe that User:Cobaes04's images (visible in gallery form here) are all inappropriate here because they are unencyclopedic personal photos, they are unlinked, and Commons is not a free webhost. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Cobaes04. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Commons is not a private webspace Alx 91 04:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. I believe that User:Cobaes04's images (visible in gallery form here) are all inappropriate here because they are unencyclopedic personal photos, they are unlinked, and Commons is not a free webhost. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Cobaes04. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Cobaes04 uses Commons as a Private Webspace Alx 91 04:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. I believe that User:Cobaes04's images (visible in gallery form here) are all inappropriate here because they are unencyclopedic personal photos, they are unlinked, and Commons is not a free webhost. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Cobaes04. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Commons is not a private webspace Alx 91 04:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. I believe that User:Cobaes04's images (visible in gallery form here) are all inappropriate here because they are unencyclopedic personal photos, they are unlinked, and Commons is not a free webhost. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Cobaes04. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Commons is NOT a private webspace Alx 91 04:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. I believe that User:Cobaes04's images (visible in gallery form here) are all inappropriate here because they are unencyclopedic personal photos, they are unlinked, and Commons is not a free webhost. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Cobaes04. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Commons is not a private webspace, aditionally is a possible copyvio Alx 91 04:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. I believe that User:Cobaes04's images (visible in gallery form here) are all inappropriate here because they are unencyclopedic personal photos, they are unlinked, and Commons is not a free webhost. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Cobaes04. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Commons is not a private webspace and is a possible copyvio Alx 91 04:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. I believe that User:Cobaes04's images (visible in gallery form here) are all inappropriate here because they are unencyclopedic personal photos, they are unlinked, and Commons is not a free webhost. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Cobaes04. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Commons is not a private webspace, and is a possible copyvio Alx 91 04:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete all. I believe that User:Cobaes04's images (visible in gallery form here) are all inappropriate here because they are unencyclopedic personal photos, they are unlinked, and Commons is not a free webhost. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Cobaes04. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Commons is not a private webspace Alx 91 04:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. I believe that User:Cobaes04's images (visible in gallery form here) are all inappropriate here because they are unencyclopedic personal photos, they are unlinked, and Commons is not a free webhost. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Cobaes04. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Commons is NOT a private webspace, and possible copyvio Alx 91 04:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. I believe that User:Cobaes04's images (visible in gallery form here) are all inappropriate here because they are unencyclopedic personal photos, they are unlinked, and Commons is not a free webhost. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Cobaes04. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Commons is NOT a private webspace Alx 91 04:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all - no reason to delete the images, especially NO reason to block the user. Yuval Y § Chat § 20:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. I believe that User:Cobaes04's images (visible in gallery form here) are all inappropriate here because they are unencyclopedic personal photos, they are unlinked, and Commons is not a free webhost. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Cobaes04. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(reason for deletion) --Applebee 13:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Empty category, request for deletion by creator. Deadstar (msg) 15:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
image uploaded again with correct file name image:ICE-2 Steuerwagen Fahrgastraum 0295.JPG --L.Willms 16:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted Please use {{Badname}} for files like this. Finn Rindahl 12:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I created it for my userspace, changed my name and so i no longer need this image. Jordanhatch 17:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Requested by uploader. Out of the scope of project if no longer used by editor on user page. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted pr request, Finn Rindahl 12:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Irrelevant subject, article deleted on nl.wp .Koen 07:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Valentinian (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Commons:Scope. -- Cecil 11:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Cited user on malay wikipedia does not claim to be the author. Appears to have been taken from www.placidodomingo.com. See w:ms:Imej:Domingo.jpg. William Avery 10:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright vio per notice on placidodomingo.com. Unable to see where uploader obtained permission to license this image under a free lic. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio from [46]. -- Cecil 11:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Some countries are missing, e.g. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Germany etc. Refer to en:Wendy's#Countries with Wendy's restaurants for the correct information. 158.182.155.31 06:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete it. Correct info should be added to the image description, and an updated version uploaded. Finn Rindahl 08:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
kept (just upload a corrected version over this one) --ALE! ¿…? 15:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work, window created in 2007, interior, so no panoramafreiheit h-stt !? 17:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
DeleteACK H-stt --Fb78 09:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. copyvio --Siebrand 11:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is an image of a recent (and therefore copyrighted) work of art. Butseriouslyfolks 18:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
No, sir! First, I took the photo, so the photo is my own and I was following the rules as I understood them. Secondly, the work is not recent, if you had read about the mural you would know that it was painted in 1970. It is a work of public art, anyone can go and take a photo. So, please someone tell me what licence I should use?--Hanska99 00:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Recent meaning post 1923, which is the relevant date for copyright. The fact that anyone can take a photo of something doesn't override the author's copyright. --Butseriouslyfolks 15:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, if it was published in 1970 without a copyright notice, it's PD art. WilyD 22:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I now understand what "recent" means. However, I have looked at public art on wikipedia, which this mural is, and the photos are licensed by the photo takers. So please give me an answer as to how to list the photo of this public art mural appropriately and I will be happy to do so. Thank you!--Hanska99 23:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've told Hanska99 that it is fine as a fair use rationale for the Knox Martin page, and that he just needs to change the licensing information. Once he does that, he should be able to remove the deletion tag. --DavidShankbone 17:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Er, although, a Knox Martin page should probably exist. Perhaps Hanska99 wants to create it? --DavidShankbone 17:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you DavidShankbone. A Knox Martin page does exist on wikipedia. Thank you for all your help in this!Very kind and patient!--Hanska99 21:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Per above --Siebrand 11:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image does not appear to be self made. It looks like a professional shot, and it's strangely cropped. It also appears on the subject's website at http://www.knoxmartin.com/about.html. Butseriouslyfolks 18:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello again! This shot is explained as follows: the photo is not a professional shot, it is a personal photo, belonging to the artist. It was used for his website and he authorized me to use it for the wikipedia page, since I contacted him to get a photo as the talk page advised. Since he authorized it and told me to put as my own, I did. Sorry about any confusion, how shall I classify it? Please advise ASAP. I am new to wikipedia commons and downloading images. Learning a lot! Thanks.--Hanska99 00:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete You say you have permission "to use it for the wikipedia page", that's not a free license. We need a CC-BY or GFDL permission by the PHOTOGRAPHER mailed to OTRS. --Fb78 09:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. The photographer is dead. The artist has authorized use of this personal photo. I would love to do what you ask, don't understand "We need a CC-BY or GFDL permission by the PHOTOGRAPHER mailed to OTRS." Help please. --Hanska99 16:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Assuming good faith here. --Siebrand 11:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The owner's permission is irrelevant. We need a free license given by the owner of the copyright, i. e. Wilhelm Kimmich or his heirs. AndreasPraefcke 19:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wilhelm Kimmich's paintings are part of his legacy to the municipality of Lauterbach. The mayor of Lauterbach, Norbert Swoboda, who is chairman of the Kunstverein Wilhelm Kimmich, has consented to the publication.He will mail his permission to wikimedia.org in the coming week. --Hans555 10:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Norbert Swoboda, Mayor of Lauterbach has sent an email to permissions-de@wikimedia.org on 27 September 2007. His permission is valid for this and two other Kimmich paintings on Commons. --Hans555 13:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed the deletion request and added the OTRS-ticket. --Lyzzy 17:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Deleted, copyrighted and non-free. Quadell (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thai provincial seals
[edit]- Image:Seal Phayao.png
- Image:Seal Phitsanulok.png
- Image:Seal Uthai Thani.png
- Image:Seal Mukdahan.png
- Image:Seal Yasothon.png
- Image:Seal Sisaket.png
- Image:Seal Nongbua Lamphu.png
- Image:Seal Amnat Charoen.png
- Image:Seal Singburi.png
- Image:Seal Chonburi.png
- Image:Seal Trat.png
- Image:Seal Sa Kaeo.png
- Image:Seal Ratchaburi.png
- Image:Seal Narathiwat.png
- Image:Seal Phuket.png
According to th:ตราประจำจังหวัดของไทย, most of the Thai provincial seals have been in use since 1941 and their terms of copyright have expired. The listed provinces' seals, however, have undergone modification or replacement since then, (Yasothon's and Sisaket's in 1972; Mukdahan's in 1982; Phuket's in 1985; Amnat Charoen, Nongbua Lamphu and Sa Kaeo became provinces in 1993; the rest's date of modification are unknown) and they may still be under copyright.
Requesting assistance in migration to language-specific Wikis where they may be used as non-free (fair use) content.
See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Seal Bangkok.png
Paul_012 (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The government publications or government materials are basically not copyrighted in Thailand.--Ananda 09:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that the Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 (1995) states in Section 7 that
The followings are not deemed copyright work by virtue of this Act : (1)news of the day and facts having the character of mere information which is not a work in literary, scientific or artistic domain, (2)constitution and legislations, (3)regulations, by-laws, notifications, orders, explanations and official correspondence of the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units, (4)judicial decisions, orders, decisions and official reports, (5)translation and collection of those in (1) to (4) made by the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units.
- Section 14 also states that
The Ministries, Departments or other government or local units are the owners of copyright in the works created in the course of employment, order or control unless it is otherwise agreed in writing.
- These seals are by themselves works of art, which governmental agencies may own copyright to according to section 14, and don't fall under any of the exceptions of section 7. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Your note does not clearly meantions that provincial seals are applicable to Section 14. As far as I see th:ตราประจำจังหวัดของไทย provincial seals theirself seems applicable to section 7 - (3) because provincial seals are what the government กำหนด, not created in the course of employment in theory.--Ananda 07:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- That they are chosen by the government does not mean they form governmental documents. Paul_012 (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Even if the seals are copyrighted, which is questionable, I have looked at a few of the wikipedia sites that link to these seals, and the useage seems fair. Maybe the appropriate thing to do is adjust the copyright tag rather than delete them?--Kevin
- Then they would need to be moved from the Commons anyway, which is what the original request asked. Paul_012 (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, this looks to me like a clear case where an image maybe shouldn't be copyrighted, where people don't want it to be copyrighted, but where it nonetheless is copyrighted. Quadell (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thai provincial seals
[edit]It seems that these were deleted in 2008, uploaded locally to English Wikipedia and then moved back here in 2010. As I can see, no one has given any new explanation to the public domain claim, so the problems above still seem to apply. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
It is the fact that all Thai provincial seals are public domain under Thai law because they are shown in the Royal Gazette; anything that published in the Royal Gazette has to be PD, given as PD-TH-exempt licence. They are not related with whoever has uploaded; they can legally exist on Commons. See link in their descriptions. FYI: Royal Gazette = Thai official proclamation that enforce the law. Everything becomimg effective originates from it. I am Thai people I know this clearly. --Octahedron80 (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- The English text at {{PD-TH-exempt}} suggests that the template only applies to certain legal texts, but these seals are not text, so they don't seem to be covered by the template. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- The means of the act already cover everything including images such as signatures, garuda seals, provincial seals, flags, etc. I suggest the English text of the template must be re-translate clearer. (The act is printed in Thai language only; it really has no official translation.) --Octahedron80 (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'll contact some lawyer to explain this and he may also revise the template. --Octahedron80 (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Be careful to get it right. Many countries have provisions which state that legal texts are in the public domain but these provisions often exclude images included in those texts. See for example {{PD-Sweden-URL9}} and {{PD-GermanGov}} which only apply to text. The discovery that the German tag only applies to text caused a lot of trouble (see Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review). --Stefan4 (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think your sample situation may not apply to Thailand jurisdiction. If it's true, every images in Category:PD-TH-exempt will collapse, not even seals. Please wait for him (maybe a week).
- PS. Remember that the law is more effective than user-defined tag; the tag is just information how the law affects. --Octahedron80 (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Be careful to get it right. Many countries have provisions which state that legal texts are in the public domain but these provisions often exclude images included in those texts. See for example {{PD-Sweden-URL9}} and {{PD-GermanGov}} which only apply to text. The discovery that the German tag only applies to text caused a lot of trouble (see Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review). --Stefan4 (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted those created (according dscription page) 1943 and later but kept those created earlier. --JuTa 01:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- One restored, as per [47]. Yann (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
![[47]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=625342255#File:Seal_Narathiwat.png){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. No consensus to delete. Quadell (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Hallo,
also nochmal. Es handelt sich bei der gezeigten Welsart nicht um "Glyptoperichthys gibbiceps" (Segelschilderwels auch Garachama -o. Wabenschilderwels genannt. Sondern um "Ancistrus dolichopterus" (Blauer Antennenwels). Diese beiden, gut bekannten, Arten lassen sich eindeutig unterscheiden. G. gibbiceps besitzt eine sehr große segelartige (Name) Rückenflosse, zudem sind alle anderen Flossen ebenfalls sehr groß ausgebildet. Die Farbgebung ist ein weiteres markantes Unterscheidungsmerkmal. Der gesamte Körper ist mit großen dunkelbraunen, ungleichförmigen Punkten auf hellbraunen Grund überzogen, dies erzeugt eine "wabenartige Optik" (Name). A.dolichopterus hingegen trägt kleine sandfarbene Flecken auf dunklem grau/bräunlichem Grund, die Schwanzflosse ist hell gesäumt. Die Beflossung im allgemeinen "normalgroß" ausgeprägt. Die Statur und Größe (<15cm) ist wesentlich zierlicher als bei G.gibbiceps (>50cm).
Ich denke das ich nun, die Unterschiede klar aufgezeigt zu haben.
PS: Ich würde mich nicht auf die Angaben, welche Wo auch immer gemacht werden, verlassen. Sondern mir immer auch weitere Quellen, zu Bestätigung dieser, zu Rate ziehen.
Gruß/EERO84.190.124.66 11:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC) --84.190.124.66 11:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- User says that this is not Glyptoperichthys gibbiceps but Ancistrus dolichopterus and from what I can see with my untrained eye he is right. Image thus needs renaming. Deadstar (msg) 15:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Aka, the author, says on his talk page at german WP that he has the name of the fish from the label on the aquarium. I don't know much about fish (especially when it doesn't look tasty) but the owner probably knows what swims in his water tank. -- Cecil 11:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- User:84.190.124.66 most likely is right. I'll upload a renamed version and delete this one soon. -- aka 17:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- This doesn't seem to have been done yet. Quadell (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep IMO, the fish looks more like what it's currently called. I suggest closing this DR up and putting something on the talk page (or even desc. page) about the name. The info. on the page (along with all its uses) would need to be updated anyway. COM:DEL isn't really the place to discuss renames. Rocket000 07:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I replaced it by Image:Ancistrus dolichopterus (aka).jpg and deleted this one. -- aka 14:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
September 16
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Incorrect license - should be PD-Old; faithful reproduction of PD-Old 2D work does not attract copyright per Bridgeman v. Corel. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, as you say, it is an old document and therefore there is no copyright anymore linked to it but, in Europe, it does well exist a copyright on the photographic reproduction. It could be that an additional licence should be added for the author of the originals (I say L.Da Vinci) for documents felt under public domain. If it is only a question to add a licence for L.Da Vinci's work than no problem you may do it. --Luc Viatour 08:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I added a licence that agrees to you? --Luc Viatour 10:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Franckly speach that would be a pity to delete this picture. Luc have changed the licence, now the document is under PD-Old and the picture which where shot by him is under his usual licence. That's sound good to me. Romary 11:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept : no reason to delete it now that the license has been changed. le Korrigan →bla 11:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
because Permission is nonsense 89.49.249.149 12:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep because the reason for deletion is er ... inadequate! --Simonxag 22:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused, no encyclopedic value, no license. Rosenzweig 10:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 16:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Originally nommed here, but that nom was stuffed up, so I'm fixing it up. Giggy\Talk 21:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Possibly incorrect filenaming and description is not a valid reason for a deletion request, fix the description and add {{badname}} if you are sure it is incorrectly named. --Tony Wills 22:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- hm....not Thirsty Merc eh? I will have to do some digging to see if I can find out who it actually is. When I find out I will delete this one and reupload with the correct name. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, now at Image:67 Special 2006 Australian Open.JPG. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Summary states "Image captured by uploader." Uploader has used this terminology in other image summaries and explained that those images were "captured" from printed materials. Butseriouslyfolks 05:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
See above. Butseriouslyfolks 05:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, scan from broschure --Polarlys 13:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unused + misleading name --85.179.102.231 16:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, unused, misnamed category. Deadstar (msg) 15:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
See this --The Evil Spartan 04:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Watermark is obvious --Fb78 09:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted Copyvio Finn Rindahl 12:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Un-used, UE OsamaK 19:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a personal picture with some added Paintshop detail... Out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 08:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is a screenshot of a website. --Keb25 21:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is obviously not a screenshot of a webpage, looks more like a picture of the sreen of a Walmart or Walgreen digital photo kiosk, look at these pictures [48] [49] [50] 趙里昱 15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work. --Moonian 15:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Picture taken when the author order stamps on drugstore kioisk is not derivative work —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.50.108.11 (talk • contribs)
- DeleteAck Keb25, the intent is to depict the screen content, so it's a derivative work. --Fb78 09:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Screen content is cameraman's own work, so it is not derivative work, more pictures taken yesterday at the store where the original shot was made, see Image:Digitalphotokiosk.JPG and [51] --趙里昱 09:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- There is something else in the image (i.e. things on the screen other than that stamp design) isn't the work of the photographer. In fact, the software used in that kiosk is probably copyrighted too, so unless you have proof that it's released under a free license, this image is considered as a derivative work. --Moonian 15:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- And I think Image:Digitalphotokiosk.JPG is OK, since it isn't showing the content of the screen(s) specifically. --Moonian 15:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry to lose the image but per my understanding of Commons policy, I agree that this image likely violates Commons inclusion policy as the close up image of the screen are made to show the screen content which is likely copyrighted. Unless, we have evidence that the screen shot depicts content that is free per Commons' policy, the image needs to be deleted. I also agree that Image:Digitalphotokiosk.JPG is okay to use since it does not focus on the details of the images on the screen but is a broad shot of the area. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - The picture is taken from a very short distance, it appears to be a screen shot. To be considered as Freedom of panorama it should have been from longer distance. Yuval Y § Chat § 22:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
![[49]](http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/380/pmda_award_photo_kiosk.jpg){kind=link}
![[50]](http://archives.imaginginfo.com/article/photos/1125675526843_0405_mini_5.jpg){kind=link}
![[51]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/damahuayi/DSC00661.jpg){kind=link}
- BTW, http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/damahuayi/DSC00661.jpg also won't fit in the Commons rules. Yuval Y § Chat § 22:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk screenshot
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Licene not suitable for commons, GNU allows reworked images what was denied by the uploader (see comment in file-history) --Andreas 06 18:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete & all other images of this user, unless he allows the cropping of his image. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Bryan. Home brewed copyright mess. You can't be half pregnant. Valentinian (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- All photo is my work. I want photo with frame. Please Check the license, all is OK! Heartshade (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The license give us the right "to Remix — to adapt the work" as long as the resulting work is under the same license as the original. So cropping the image is allowed, if you don't want this to happen you should not license it under CC-BY-SA. --Digon3 talk 15:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Why' Andreas" it wants to remove my frame boxes? How do to place graphic art so as remaining would by now?Heartshade (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete If he doesn't allow cropping, he doesn't understand the license. Heartshade, see Commons:Watermarks - Platonides 12:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, all uploads with frames since it's “illegal” to remove them. --Polarlys 21:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source, as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eight Romanians.jpg OsamaK 20:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Crop of the collage "Eight Romanians" which has a picture at en.WP as source. But there it was deleted as unfree image. -- Cecil 10:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It looks PD-old, but no date in its source (en.wp) OsamaK 20:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please note file history in the original page at [52] stating it as PD-self. I would say it's enough. Don't you reckonOride 00:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- But no date in image's page at English Wikipedia, I think it's very important. Thanks--OsamaK 19:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I realy can't see the problem. This ia a PD-self image of the prisident of Turkey while being a general. He bacame president in 1961 and took his uniforms off at that time. He passed away in 1966. What else is needed? Oride 05:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I can't also see the date or understand what does {{PD-self}} mean. Did you take this photo Oride?.--OsamaK 19:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Of course I didn't. He died before I was born... The PD-Self was in the original. It is not 70 years old anyhow. It was taken before 1961 but not before the early 50s. Oride 16:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- I can't also see the date or understand what does {{PD-self}} mean. Did you take this photo Oride?.--OsamaK 19:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I realy can't see the problem. This ia a PD-self image of the prisident of Turkey while being a general. He bacame president in 1961 and took his uniforms off at that time. He passed away in 1966. What else is needed? Oride 05:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- But no date in image's page at English Wikipedia, I think it's very important. Thanks--OsamaK 19:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
![[52]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ArmyCommand.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Wrong licence. It can't be PD-self, cause that would mean that the uploader made the picture. The real author (and owner) was not named but looking at the time frame it is to assume that he did not pass away 70 years ago or more (since the picture was made somewhere between 1946 and 1961). Thus he still owns the rights to this picture and must allow its publication under the PD-licence. Since there is no proof that he did that the picture can't be kept. -- Cecil 10:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Already in Category:Cabo de Creus --Friviere 10:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: empty category
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It looks old, so it's not PD-self. No PD-old information OsamaK 20:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Kameraad Pjotr: In category Unknown as of 16 September 2007; no source
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bust surely sculpted after 1930, but I don't know who the sculptor is, so I am not positive about is being still copyrighted (if sculptor died between 1930 and 1936, the bust would be in the PD). --User:G.dallorto 02:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC) --User:G.dallorto 02:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission/source/info --Siebrand 11:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
See above. Butseriouslyfolks 05:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- "See above" presumably refers to Summary states "Image captured by uploader." Uploader has used this terminology in other image summaries and explained that those images were "captured" from printed materials. in this this request (now closed, deleted as copyvio by Polarlys) Finn Rindahl 08:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission/source --Siebrand 11:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
See above. Butseriouslyfolks 05:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- "See above" presumably refers to Summary states "Image captured by uploader." Uploader has used this terminology in other image summaries and explained that those images were "captured" from printed materials. in this this request (now closed, deleted as copyvio by Polarlys) Finn Rindahl 08:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. --Siebrand 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
See above. Butseriouslyfolks 05:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- "See above" presumably refers to Summary states "Image captured by uploader." Uploader has used this terminology in other image summaries and explained that those images were "captured" from printed materials. in this this request (now closed, deleted as copyvio by Polarlys) Finn Rindahl 08:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission/source --Siebrand 11:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image tag claims creation. This NASA image may or may not be PD, but it definitely cannot be released into PD by the uploader. Butseriouslyfolks 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. --Siebrand 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
See above for interpretation of "captured". Butseriouslyfolks 05:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- "See above" presumably refers to Summary states "Image captured by uploader." Uploader has used this terminology in other image summaries and explained that those images were "captured" from printed materials. in this this request (now closed, deleted as copyvio by Polarlys) Finn Rindahl 08:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission/source --Siebrand 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Edited" by the author and uploader, but what is source of map and what is source of background? Butseriouslyfolks 05:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source(s). --Siebrand 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
See above. Butseriouslyfolks 05:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- "See above" presumably refers to Summary states "Image captured by uploader." Uploader has used this terminology in other image summaries and explained that those images were "captured" from printed materials. in this this request (now closed, deleted as copyvio by Polarlys) Finn Rindahl 08:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. --Siebrand 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
See above re "captured". Butseriouslyfolks 05:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- "See above" presumably refers to Summary states "Image captured by uploader." Uploader has used this terminology in other image summaries and explained that those images were "captured" from printed materials. in this this request (now closed, deleted as copyvio by Polarlys) Finn Rindahl 08:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission/source --Siebrand 11:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
there is an another image in SVG format Flrn 07:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep We still keep the bitmap versions for reference, if nothing else. Carl Lindberg 17:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Use {{SupersededSVG}}. --Siebrand 11:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
contains NASA logo -- Prince Kassad 15:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep 1) the logo can be removed if desired; 2) as a U.S. Government work, the logo is copyright-free (although other federal laws cause it to have trademark-like restrictions); and 3) it is being used to mark an official NASA photo, which is one of the allowed uses of the logo/seal. Carl Lindberg 16:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding 1), it can be removed, but as long as that's not done, it cannot be kept here. 2) No, the NASA logo is copyrighted (read the NASA Photo Guidelines), and 3) all parts of the photo need to be allowed to be used for all purposes, not just the major part minus the logo. -- Prince Kassad 18:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- The NASA logo and seal are not copyrighted. They cannot be, since as far as I can tell there is no exemption from 17 U.S.C. 105, so as a work of the U.S. Government there is no copyright protection on it. However, other laws (18 U.S.C. 701, and possibly some others specific to NASA) heavily restrict the use of the seal or logo, requiring people to obtain permission for almost any use -- that is what they are referring to; while technically copyright-free there are other significant restrictions. In this case though, the "use" is to mark an official NASA photo, something which is quite permitted per NASA guidelines (since it was done by the agency itself). The "use" is legal, and we are also quite free to make copies. We however cannot attach the logo ourselves to a photo, even if we know it is from NASA -- only the agency itself can do that, unless we get specific permission. Carl Lindberg 06:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding 1), it can be removed, but as long as that's not done, it cannot be kept here. 2) No, the NASA logo is copyrighted (read the NASA Photo Guidelines), and 3) all parts of the photo need to be allowed to be used for all purposes, not just the major part minus the logo. -- Prince Kassad 18:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Per above. --Siebrand 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work EugeneZelenko 16:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep freedom of panorama --ALE! ¿…? 08:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Per above. --Siebrand 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It looks old, so it's not ineligible for copyright. No PD-old information OsamaK 20:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source/dating. --Siebrand 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No date, We should know the date to know is it PD-old or not OsamaK 20:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source/info --Siebrand 11:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The author asked me help about deleting this image, since he discovered that in it, unwilling, appears the corpse (covered by a sheet) of a man who had drowned that day. He did not know about the thing when he shot the picture, and he thinks it is not appropiate to keep it. You can read his request in Italian here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G.dallorto#Cancellazione_foto. --User:G.dallorto 21:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete --User:G.dallorto 21:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Per above. --Siebrand 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The source page http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~bowen/owainglyndwrseal.html marks this photo as copyrighted material. PD-art doesn't apply in Britain. --Valentinian (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- The author of the image told me by e-mail:
- [...]I make no claim to any copyright on the seal or the images.[...] /Feb 11, 2005
- so this image _is_ in PD. --Rdb 16:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- p.s.: By the way, exactly this phrase is already on the image's description page, should have read this.
- I already read that line. Do you have a copy of this e-mail, and are you prepared to forward a copy of it to the ORTS system? If you don't then the image must be considered unfree since this position is the one stated on the source page. Valentinian (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- The source page expressly marks this image as "image © by Ben Bowen" so if he didn't mean this, it just sounds very odd that the webpage should continue to present this material with a copyright statement 2½ years later. The copyright statement can't refer to any other image(s). There is only one on the page. Valentinian (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I forwarded the message to OTRS. Why he marks it as (C) - dunno. I can't remember how the page looked like 2 years ago when I found the images and whether the (C) mark was already on the page in this time... --Rdb 21:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- OTRS received an email with the above quote. This is not a complete authorization for OTRS procedure though, he would need to license the image under some free license etc. This process usually takes a long time and we are backlogged so I thought I would let you know. I am not advocating any particular course of action :) ticket- cohesion 00:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- For what it is worth, Ben Bowen seems to have added the copyright symbol in late 2003 or early 2004, see http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~bowen/owainglyndwrseal.html Perhaps he forgot to update the page again? Valentinian (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, if you contact him again Rdb, if he could add something to the page saying it's PD or cc-by-sa or something that would be ideal :D - cohesion 12:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I forwarded the message to OTRS. Why he marks it as (C) - dunno. I can't remember how the page looked like 2 years ago when I found the images and whether the (C) mark was already on the page in this time... --Rdb 21:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- The source page expressly marks this image as "image © by Ben Bowen" so if he didn't mean this, it just sounds very odd that the webpage should continue to present this material with a copyright statement 2½ years later. The copyright statement can't refer to any other image(s). There is only one on the page. Valentinian (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I already read that line. Do you have a copy of this e-mail, and are you prepared to forward a copy of it to the ORTS system? If you don't then the image must be considered unfree since this position is the one stated on the source page. Valentinian (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why I should contact him again after 2 years and discuss the various image licences. He clearly and undoubtedly stated the image is in PD. What he writes on his website does not affect this statement and the use of this image and Image:Owain Glyndwr Siegel 2.jpg on commons and the other WM-wikis. --Rdb 16:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Did he take the original photos himself? Otherwise, he can't release these images into PD since the UK doesn't have something similar to PD-art. Valentinian (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. This photo attracts copyright under UK law, and PD-Art cannot be used. OTRS permission is needed from the copyright owner (probably the photographer, not the website owner unless they are one and the same, which appears unlikely from the wording of the OTRS correpondence). The existing release is restricted to Wikipedia use and it's by no means clear that the website owner was authorised by the photographer to provide any release in the first place. It's a shame a proper permission was not obtained originally, but without it we simply can't host this image, no matter for how long we may have incorrectly hosted it in the past - sorry. MichaelMaggs 18:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
all contents were moved to Category:Lotte World. Seoul has just only one amusement park. --Applebee 15:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 02:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
September 17
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unused --85.179.103.191 07:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Historic road signs. --GeorgHH 14:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
{{Delete |reason=I uploaded it by mistake. It is a duplicate of :Image:Positioning18pdrSommeSpring1917.jpg |subpage=Image:Positioning18pdrSommeSpring1917Quality100.jpg |day=17 |month=September |year=2007 }}
- Speedily deleted as obvious duplicate. -- Cecil 11:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
request from the uploader. my mistake - i was going to upload this on en:Wikipedia. please delete immediately. WTCA 12:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, Non-free film screenshot. --GeorgHH 14:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
request from the uploader. my mistake - i was going to upload this on en:Wikipedia. please delete immediately. WTCA 12:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, Non-free film screenshot. --GeorgHH 14:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
request from the uploader. my mistake - i was going to upload this on en:Wikipedia. please delete immediately. WTCA 12:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, Non-free film screenshot. --GeorgHH 14:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
request from the uploader. my mistake - i was going to upload this on en:Wikipedia. please delete immediately. WTCA 12:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, Non-free film screenshot. --GeorgHH 14:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
request from the uploader. my mistake - i was going to upload this on en:Wikipedia. please delete immediately. WTCA 12:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, Non-free film screenshot. --GeorgHH 14:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
request from the uploader. my mistake - i was going to upload this on en:Wikipedia. please delete immediately. WTCA 12:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, Non-free film screenshot. --GeorgHH 14:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
request from the uploader. my mistake - i was going to upload this on en:Wikipedia. please delete immediately. WTCA 12:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, Non-free film screenshot. --GeorgHH 14:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
request from the uploader. my mistake - i was going to upload this on en:Wikipedia. please delete immediately. WTCA 12:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, Non-free film screenshot. --GeorgHH 14:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Created in error when intending to create Category:Ultima vehicles --DeFacto 16:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedily deleted as an obvious error. -- Cecil 08:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Misleading name (not the flag of Argentina), colors are wrong, for correct image look here --Denniss 03:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC) I am aware of the other version. My research seems to indicate that that blue-white-green version was not the original banner flown in Argentina. (It is true that the blue-white-green version is more heraldically correct, and can still be seen on some car stickers in France.)
Information sources:
- El Reino de Araucania y Patagonia by Armando Braun Menández (Editorial Francisco de Aguirre, Buenos Aires and Santiago de Chile)
- article by Lucien Phillipe in The Flag Bulletin (published by The Flag Research Center), ISSN:0015-3370.
Thank you kindly, account owner
- Strong delete This user is making bizzare uploads using phony licenses and/or misleading file names. This image is yet another example, see also: Commons:Village_pump#Strange_filenames_and_licenses Regarding this image: It is not a "Flag of Argentina", it is a flag of the unrecognized "Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia" which somebody tried to create on Argentine soil. [53] Btw, FOTW expressly forbids uploads to Wikipedia from their website. I'm aware that this image doesn't have the exact same
heightwidth, but it does have the same colours andwidthheight. 216px isn't the most common size around. Valentinian (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC) - Agree with Valentinian completely. —Nightstallion (?) 20:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete pr Valentinian, but I'm leaving the closing of this to someone else Finn Rindahl 21:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Insufficient licensing. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete commercial use for "wikipedia only" Finn Rindahl 18:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC).
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wurde aus einer Zeitschrift rauskopiert. No PD! Bitte löschen -- Stefan Kühn 08:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Da steht, die Karte basiert auf einer Katasterkarte von 1872? --Fb78 09:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Das ist richtig, aber der Urheber dieser Zeichnung, die auf der alten Karte basiert, hat das scheinbar erst irgendwann im 20ten Jahrhundert gemacht. Und dann in einem Buch/Zeitschrift veröffentlicht. So geht es aus der Diskussion im deutschen Artikel de:Lohra hervor. -- Stefan Kühn 11:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- hmm. ok, ich löschs mal --Fb78 14:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Fb78: user request
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
vague -- 202.14.85.241 (deletion request completed by Avenue 01:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC))
- Keep. I uploaded the image, so maybe I'm biased, but I can't see what's vague about the image or its description. It dates from 1864, so is clearly out of copyright, and it illustrates the Auckland volcanic field article nicely. -- Avenue 01:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. As per Avenue. The deletion request seems to make no sense. Not to belabor the point, but using 'vague' as a reason is itself ridiculously vague. Ingolfson 11:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The deletion request is also from an anonymous IP. So much for that. Ingolfson 11:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Если повод для смывания это то что изображение не ясное, это не повод. Оно сделано в 1859 году, конечно он будет несколько неясное. Если информация неясня, её можно исправить. Maximr 22:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- EN: If the reason for deletion is the fact that the image is vague, that's not a good reason; it's created in 1859. If the information is vague, it can be corrected Maxim(talk) 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept, since result of discussion is unambiguous -- Cecil 08:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image is from 1935. It is stated, that it is PD-old. But the author and his lifedates are not given, thus we don't know for sure, that he died until 1937. Obviously the 100-years-rule doesn't fit. Thus the picture should be deleted. --Denis Barthel 06:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No attempt was made to proof that either the author is really unknown or that he died before 1937. Thus we can't be sure that it is PD-old (70 years). -- Cecil 09:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
porn, free advertisement, no interest for Wikipédia --Tognopop 09:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Used in the es.wikipedia article on what appears to be breasts (I don't speak it). Probably should be added to the naughty image list. WilyD 22:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is no porn; No reason for deleting. --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 23:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Nolanus. --Dezidor 23:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Nolanus; see also Commons:Nudity. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept, since result of discussion is unambiguous -- Cecil 08:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Invented concept. The only painter is going to be deleted in the English WP and has already been deleted in the German WP. --Jón 12:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - His pictures could be potentially used, but this category is useless. --Dezidor 08:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
--- Deleted. Moved painter-category to parent-category realism. -- Cecil 09:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong name, not that church. It's Valjala church (et:Valjala kirik) --Raul6 15:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC) --Matt314 19:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- The image then needs to be uploaded with the correct name, at which point this one can be marked with {{duplicate}} or {{badname}} and deleted. However, we would keep this one until that happens (and references in Wikimedia projects, if any, are also switched). The image is already marked with {{rename}} to indicate this, so the deletion request should be removed. I.e., this is not a candidate for regular deletion; it should either be speedily deleted if an exact duplicate exists, or otherwise should be kept. Carl Lindberg 17:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
not handled here, there is also the tag {{rename image|new image name}} --ALE! ¿…? 08:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's a poor resolution picture of an image projected on a screen Yuval Y § Chat § 01:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The original - http://www.flickr.com/photos/51035657958@N01/72720179/ Yuval Y § Chat § 01:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is one of the cases where I think that no picture is better than the existing one. It has a poor resolution and is totally unsharp. Nobody would be able to recognize the guy seeing him on a stage between his musicians after looking at this pic of him. -- Cecil 09:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I upload the picture, trying to illustate the article. I agree that the picture is not optimal because of its unshapness, but I think he is regonizible on the picture (maybe I'm the only one?). And I do think it's better than no picture at all. Pardy 16:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, this picture is terrible. It isn't often, but I think that, in this occasion, no picture is better than this one. Surely someone has a free alternative. Aren't promo photos acceptable for musicians? (I'm on wikipedia as Ka5hmir). 220.240.138.77 10:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Promo photos would be acceptable for the musicians, but those pictures hardly ever have a free licence and are thus not useable for this project. -- Cecil 07:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Yes, he's recognisable if you know who he is, but most people don't (the purpose of an article about him), so we could really do with a better image/no image at all. Giggy\Talk 06:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted as derivative of the video recording --ALE! ¿…? 12:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Redundant with Image:Friedrich August II of Saxony.jpg; also misidentifies its subject. --76.204.96.136 07:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, please use {{duplicate}} next time --ALE! ¿…? 14:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I can't see any reason why this picture should be usable by any Wikimedia project. For me it looks like the uploader used Commons as a opportunity for private advertising. -- Cecil 11:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Deadstar (msg) 15:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- @Deadstar: You are an admin now, you are free to close the request and delete the image --ALE! ¿…? 14:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image does not appear to be self made. It looks like a professional shot, and it's strangely cropped. It also appears on the subject's website at http://www.knoxmartin.com/about.html. Butseriouslyfolks 18:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello again! This shot is explained as follows: the photo is not a professional shot, it is a personal photo, belonging to the artist. It was used for his website and he authorized me to use it for the wikipedia page, since I contacted him to get a photo as the talk page advised. Since he authorized it and told me to put as my own, I did. Sorry about any confusion, how shall I classify it? Please advise ASAP. I am new to wikipedia commons and downloading images. Learning a lot! Thanks.--Hanska99 00:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete You say you have permission "to use it for the wikipedia page", that's not a free license. We need a CC-BY or GFDL permission by the PHOTOGRAPHER mailed to OTRS. --Fb78 09:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. The photographer is dead. The artist has authorized use of this personal photo. I would love to do what you ask, don't understand "We need a CC-BY or GFDL permission by the PHOTOGRAPHER mailed to OTRS." Help please. --Hanska99 16:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Assuming good faith here. --Siebrand 11:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
1950 photograph, no evidence that it was published without a copyright notice. --Calliopejen 21:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete The uploader says they have an 8 * 10 glossy of this picture - in which case they may be able to supply details of publication. However, just because their copy didn't have a copyright notice doesn't mean other copies didn't, so the story needs to be reasonably convincing. Otherwise it's got to go. --Simonxag 00:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
What possible proof could I provide that could satisfy? What if there is no source I can provide that is on the web or something any of you can have easy access to? The photo is a standard mid-century promo photo that entertainers of that time (and maybe some still do this today) released into the PD in the event that some situation arose where a photo of the person was needed by press, etc. - say perhaps, a reporter decided to write an article on the person and needed a photo.
The print I have is an original, taken in Havana, Cuba. --Mrlopez2681 04:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment That sounds quite good so far. On the Commons we assume good faith: nobody expects an editor to prove they did their own work or prove anything else unprovable. But uploaders have a habit of not understanding copyright and of assuming too much about images. "It doesn't have a copyright notice" does not mean the same as "It was published without copyright", but enthusiastic contributors just want to upload good images. How do you know the things that you say about the picture? --Simonxag 21:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I found the image reproduced in a book in french Memoirs de Josephine (the release was of a second edition released in 1979 of a book released in 1937). The image was credited as "promotional photo in the pubic domain, courtesy Bibliotheque nationale de France". --Mrlopez2681 01:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Kept. If the BNF states it as PD, it should be okay. Cecil 12:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probable copyviolation. According to the description it is taken in 1950. i.e.: less than 70 years old. No convincing evidence is presented to show that it has been released in the public domain JdH 02:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per previous delete vote. A published source credits it as PD. -Nard 03:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Kept, as by previous discusion. --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 06:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this image not rendering correctly --YassineMrabet 22:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Then fix it! Is there a replacement already available? If not, upload it over this one. If there is, please tell us which one. --ALE! ¿…? 08:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this image not rendering correctly --YassineMrabet 22:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Then fix it! Is there a replacement already available? If not, upload it over this one. If there is, please tell us which one. --ALE! ¿…? 08:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
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. --Steff 17:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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). --Steff 16:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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).
Other pictures to delete:
- Image:Borloo - De Villepin anpe madeleine1 500.jpg
- Image:Gouvernement De Villepin.jpg
- Image:De Villepin - Vautrin 500 2 MatBG.jpg
- Image:Dominique de Villepin et Muhammad Yunus 500 2 DMMat.jpg
- Image:Veil - Fillon veldhiv1 500 matignon pierre chabaud.jpg
- Image:Fillon - Woerth.jpg
- Image:Alliot-Marie - Fillon -Borloo - mat pc 500.jpg
- Image:François Fillon - cinq 500-2.jpg
- Image:Kroes- Fillon - Barroso une 500-2.jpg
- Image:Fillon gaston tong sang mat BG 500 1.jpg
- Image:Boutin - Fillon Une 500-2.jpg
- Image:Kouchner - Mindaoudou 20070730-----.jpg
- Image:Tymochenko - Douste-Blazy D6BT9505-2.jpg
- Image:Michelle Demessine65.jpg
- Image:Michel Sapin98.gif
- Image:Nicolas Forissier04057 003-2.jpg
- Image:Louis Besson67.jpg
- Image:Alain Richard59.jpg
- Image:Christian Pierret78.jpg
- Image:Nicole Péry98.gif
- Image:Pierre Moscovici62.jpg
- Image:Dominique Gillot90.gif
- Image:François Huwart89.gif
- Image:Charles Josselin76.jpg
- Image:Marylise Lebranchu71.jpg
- 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. -- Cecil 09:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- 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 [54], premier-ministre.gouv.fr [55] or agriculture.gouv.fr [56] and none of them can be accepted here. --Steff 17:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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 →bla 10:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As per Korrigan. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not free for commercial use :[ Greudin 15:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Nuked; commercial use is not allowed. 哦，是吗？(User:O) 22:14, 20 December 2007 (GMT)
September 18
[edit]
Fan art, not usable for the encyclopedia -> out of project scope--Wiggum 07:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's being used on various Wikipedias (like WP-de and WP-en) as a the heading depiction. I don't see a problem here. --Yamavu 11:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep - useful as illustration of the w:en:Invisible Pink Unicorn. The problems of accuracy and authenticity are due to the well known discrepancy of being pink and invisible in the same time and unavoidable. --h-stt !? 20:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: plainly useful on the subject of the satirical "Invisible Pink Unicorn" as well as pleasantly evocative and potentially usable in other ways. Kalki 14:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is not more useful than de:Bild:Strichmaennchen.gif for the article about the IPU. The other way round and a bit exaggerated: Both pictures could be used in articles like God, Flying Spaghetti Monster or Allah when such self-made and subjective pictures are accepted.--Wiggum 16:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ich glaube, daß dieses Bild für w:en:Invisible Pink Unicorn eine vernünftigere Illustration darstellt als es ein Strichmännchen für de:Gott wäre. Dazu hatte sich bereits jemand eine Illustration einfallen lassen, die auch sehr subjektiv geprägt ist und trotzdem irgendwie akzeptabel ist.--Yamavu 09:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep If the licensing is OK, I see no reason to delete it. Seems potentially useful in several ways. The outline seems like a decent general depiction of a unicorn, so for example a derivative work could be made with different coloring. Carl Lindberg 17:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Fan art? I haven't seen a better rendition of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. This image is in use in an article. The article w:en:Invisible Pink Unicorn clearly benefits from a picture of a unicorn that is both pink and invisible. Unless User:Wiggum has a better, less "fan-arty" picture of an Invisible Pink Unicorn that he/she would like to upload, this image should be kept. -Diego Gravez 05:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Oh please...same arguments as above. Giggy\Talk 06:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no permission from artist, label, or manager for use, picture was taken at a concert, which may not be used for such purposes without proper permission --17 September 2007 User:Alankc
- Keep That's not grounds for deletion. The photogrpaher has the copyright to the image. There's no evidence the image was taken "secretly". The Foundation requires images be used that are free in terms *copyright*, not publicity rights. We just put a standard template warning about publicity rights. If you want to radically change policy, and start requiring publicity rights clearance, this is not the forum to do it. If you have evidence the copyright holder gave up his rights prior to taking the picture (e.g. signed a contract with the label or manager before being able to take photos), let us know, but I doubt that. --Rob 09:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. You seem to be trying to impose rules that will make it absolutely impossible to have images of singers or other celebrities at all. Dtobias 17:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Rob. Image should be marked with {{personality rights}}, which it is. Carl Lindberg 17:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, per Rob's reasoning above. The nominator's argument is not based in any existing policy, and that it can be illegal to use images of a person to defame them is always true. --tjstrf talk 06:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Deletion reason not based on policy (nor law, it appears). Many concerts and venues permit amateur photography these days. You do not need permission from artist, label, or manager to take a photograph. Morven 06:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept - whether the picture was taken in a legal manner or not isn't really our problem. Mark it with {{personality rights}}. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
requested removal, becasue a high-res version's been uploaded to commons under a different name here
- Delete per nom. worse duplicate of Image:Yanni 2006 Michelle Amato.jpg. Deadstar (msg) 09:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
(But see "Images from Yanni Live! The Concert Event" above, of which the duplicate is a part too.) Deadstar (msg) 09:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted /Redundent and no used. --Fanghong 00:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I think, that this template is not align with the Commons license policy. It is only used by one image. --ALE! ¿…? 09:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:EuroparlTag --Polarlys 15:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images from the European Parliament Website
[edit]The following images are from the Website of the European Parliament ([57] and its subsites. The legal statement of the Website ( http://www.europarl.europa.eu/tools/disclaimer/default_en.htm ) does not state that the images can be used freely as defined in the license policy of Commons.
The files in question are:
- Image:Jacek Saryusz-Wolski.jpg
- Image:Anna Fotyga.jpg
- Image:Viviane Reding.jpg
- Image:Verheugen.jpg
- Image:Spidla.jpg
- Image:Jacques Barrot.jpg
- Image:Almunia.jpg
- Image:SiimKallas.jpg
- Image:DanutaHübner.jpg
- Image:Ján Figel'.jpg
- Image:Olli Rehn.jpg
- Image:Dalia Grybauskaitė.jpg
- Image:Stavros Dimas.jpg
- Image:László Kovács.jpg
- Image:Janez Potocnik.jpg
- Image:Peter Mandelson.jpg
- Image:Louis Michel.jpg
- Image:Ingrida Udre.jpg
- Image:Charlie McCreevy.jpg
- Image:Markos Kyprianou.jpg
- Image:Franco Frattini.jpg
- Image:Andris Piebalgs.jpg
- Image:Joe Borg.jpg
- Image:Joseph Borg.jpg
- Image:Mariann Fischer Boel (EP).jpg
- Image:AnibalCavacoSilva Berlin0101.jpg
- Image:Benita Ferrero-Waldner.jpg
- Image:Rocco Buttiglione.jpg
- Image:Neelie Kroes (2004).jpg
- Image:EU commissioner Margot Wallström September 30 2004.jpg
- Image:Jean-Luc Dehaene.jpg
- Image:Stockmann1.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
That's all for the moment. --ALE! ¿…? 09:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It would be great if someone with a bot could tag the images and inform the uploaders. --ALE! ¿…? 09:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, not compliant with out policy, the template was deleted before (Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:EuroparlTag) --Polarlys 15:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A municipality cannot be author of a picture. The permission to use the license is not documented, too. --STBR 10:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Site is copyrighted. http://www.vg-baunach.bnv-bamberg.de/1r-index.html Deadstar (msg) 08:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A municipality cannot be author of a picture. The permission to use the license is not documented, too. --STBR 10:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Site is copyrighted. http://www.vg-baunach.bnv-bamberg.de/1r-index.html Deadstar (msg) 08:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Atomium is copyrighted artwork Fransvannes 12:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted - per nom. Deadstar (msg) 08:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Atomium is copyrighted artwork Fransvannes 12:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Deadstar (msg) 08:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Deadstar (msg) 08:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/User:Steven lek
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wurde aus einem Buch rauskopiert. No PD! Bitte löschen -- Stefan Kühn 08:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Deletion fix. "Copied from a book. Not PD. Please delete." Deadstar (msg) 13:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is duplicate of 1865 Uden.gif, which has the correct date --Guadalajara 13:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Florent Pécassou --ALE! ¿…? 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Category duplicated, exist La Seu de Lleida)-- 17 September 2007 User:Indibil
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
SPAM --Bonas 14:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 15:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
moved to Category:Greek legislative election, 2007 --Geraki 15:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Misnamed category, empty Deadstar (msg) 09:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
i want to delete my own pic SerbianPride 15:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
'deleted by Florent Pécassou (user request) Deadstar (msg) 09:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo is not in GFDL. It actually comes from a local newspaper in Macau. We can even see the Chinese characters of its name "澳門日報"(Macao Daily News) on the picture. --CDIP No.150 (repair) 16:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted by Infrogmation (cv) Deadstar (msg) 09:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this version is invisible. Is it possible to delete it for my new version .svg){kind=small}
--HeRV 16:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted 19 September 2007 Florent Pécassou (error) Deadstar (msg) 09:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo is not in GFDL. It actually comes from a local newspaper in Macau. We can even see the Chinese characters of its name "澳門日報"(Macao Daily News) on the picture. --CDIP No.150 (repair) 16:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted 19 September 2007 Infrogmation (cv) Deadstar (msg) 09:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
TV screen shot, not in GFDL. --CDIP No.150 (repair) 16:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete speedy Clear copyviol, false licence. -- Infrogmation 00:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, also someone should check out his other uploads. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 00:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. I'm also checking all of his pictures Yuval Y § Chat § 23:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio - derivative work h-stt !? 17:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree, my fault, please delete --Flickodelius 07:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio Deadstar (msg) 09:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Copy of book cover. --MichaelMaggs 06:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio - derivative work h-stt !? 20:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree, my fault, please delete --Flickodelius 07:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Copy of book cover. --MichaelMaggs 06:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not in the public domain (see Article L123-9 of Le Code de La Propriété intellectuelle) Jackaranga 04:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC) This is the text: Les droits accordés par la loi du 14 juillet 1866 précitée et l'article L. 123-8 aux héritiers et ayants cause des auteurs, compositeurs ou artistes sont prorogés d'un temps égal à celui qui s'est écoulé entre le 3 septembre 1939 et le 1er janvier 1948, pour toutes les oeuvres publiées avant cette date et non tombées dans le domaine public à la date du 13 août 1941.
- Translation: (from official website): The rights afforded by the above mentioned Act of July 14, 1866, and by Article L123-8 to the heirs and successors in title of the authors, composers and artists shall be extended for a period equal to that which elapsed between September 3, 1939, and January 1, 1948, for all works published before that date and which did not fall into the public domain on August 13, 1941.
- The author died in 1935. 1935+70+9= 2014. That is when it will be released into the public domain. Jackaranga 04:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Translation: (from official website): The rights afforded by the above mentioned Act of July 14, 1866, and by Article L123-8 to the heirs and successors in title of the authors, composers and artists shall be extended for a period equal to that which elapsed between September 3, 1939, and January 1, 1948, for all works published before that date and which did not fall into the public domain on August 13, 1941.
- The "war year prolongation" is added to the "right given by the law of 14 july 1866", which was 50 years at that time. The 20 years prolongation has been added by a separate law in the eighties. It has long been uncertain and disputed whether the war years and the twenty years could cumulate; it has been judged recently (3 months?) that they couldn't: war years prolongations are considered "dead" by the French jurisprudence. So the French rule is actually now 1935 + 70 = free on January 1, 2006. (Therefore, Keep) Michelet-密是力 05:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep AFAIK Commons is hosted in de US. Therefore, what counts here are the rules that apply in the US. Which is: copyrights expire 70 years after the author died. Fernande 13:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. Please recheck the policy, and the laws, it's the laws of the country the copyright was contracted in that count. Jackaranga 01:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Have a look at the France section of the Commons:Licensing page. It seems that the question of whether the war extensions are now French law, is uncertain. There are a large number of images in Category:Lucien Walery: the issue of whether they should be kept needs a more general discussion than we will have for this one image. Also "Lucien Walery" is a pseudonym (and one used by a number of artists). The European rules (which France is meant to have adopted) give copyright protection for 70 years after publication, for anonymous or pseudonymous works, not after the death of the (supposed) author. This whole issue needs the attention of an expert. --Simonxag 21:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- "70 years after publication, for anonymous or pseudonymous works" - unless the author is known afterward, which is obviously the case, since his death date seems to be known... Michelet-密是力 05:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately there is a lot of confusion about Stanislaus Walery/Lucien Waléry. I have searched the web, and what I found is that most everybody assumes that those are pseudonyms of one and the same person. One notable exception is tallulahs.com who claim they are two different people. At one point they claimed that Lucien Walery is a pseudonym of Charles Auguste Varsavaux, but that claim has been removed. Searching the web for either "Lucien Waléry" or "Charles Auguste Varsavaux" leaves me empty handed. At this point I have to agree with Simonxag "70 years after publication, for anonymous or pseudonymous works" Fernande 08:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- See [58] (indeed), it seems that Charles Auguste Varsavaux was a nickname of the artist, died 1935. And anyway, the other one identified died the same year, so that PD limits are the same. Michelet-密是力 21:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your biographical informations. So the whole world can now enjoy this beautiful pics without any troubles. Greetings to Fernande. Mutter Erde 12:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- "70 years after publication, for anonymous or pseudonymous works" - unless the author is known afterward, which is obviously the case, since his death date seems to be known... Michelet-密是力 05:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per all of the above except Jackaranga. No matter which artist took this picture, it became PD on January 1, 2006. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Same as Image:Seneque-Lettres_a_Lucilius_003.ogg (but whithout the capital letters). Augustin B. 08:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
tagged with {{duplicate}} --ALE! ¿…? 07:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This page doesn't really need to be here. There is already a category named "Sport wrestling." --10 September 2007 User:128.135.96.15
- Not a reason for deletion. Categories and pages can exist side by side. Plus the addition of "(Mundja)" suggests that it is more specific than just "Sport wrestling". Deadstar (msg) 13:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Dearstar. A link to a Commons gallery page from a Wikipedia article often is the best way to display images. I reverted the removal of the images from the article/gallery as no reason was given for doing it. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As uploader, I contributed this image to commons by mistake. I intend to add it to en:Wikipedia with other images of its type. Gene93k 15:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing wrong with licensing etc. Deadstar (msg) 09:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep seems ok to mme --ALE! ¿…? 15:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image is listed as GFDL and was uploaded by a sleeper account. This page[59] lists the claimed photographer having all the copyrights reserved, and shows a lot of similar images. Deleted at en.wiki for unclear copyright status. --Calliopejen 21:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. 'All rights reserved' is not PD. Cecil 12:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no longer used on any page; not a very good image --Lisa 02:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Neither of those is a deletion reason. The quality would need to be exceedingly poor (i.e. useless) to be deleted; this one has definite potential uses. If it was used, it can also be of help for people looking at old revisions of articles, for example. If the licensing is correct, we should keep it. Carl Lindberg 17:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. The only reason I deleted this picture is that there is doubt that the uploader made this picture/had the right to publish it. The source is missing. Cecil 13:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images from Yanni Live! The Concert Event
[edit]The angles, close-ups, lack of EXIF data, and quality of these images make me believe that they've been grabbed from the commercial video release, not photographed by a wikimedian in the audience. Browsing rips of the video on YouTube, I see pretty similar shots. --Davepape 03:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Gallery with everything in it is Yanni Live! The Concert Event; currently the images are:
- Image:Yanni 2006 Yanni.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Pedro Eustache.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Samvel Yervinyan.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Armen Movsessian.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Sayaka Katsuki.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Zachary Carrettin.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Alexander Zhiroff.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Michelle Amato.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Alfreda Gerald.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Dan Landrum.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Ming Freeman.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Charlie Adams.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Walter Rodriguez.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Victor Espinola.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Ramon Flores.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 April Cap.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 David Hudson.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 David Hudson Closeup.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Hussain Jiffry.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Sarah O'Brien.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Eugene Mechtovich.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Kristin Morrison.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 James Dean Mattos.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Samvel Yervinyan 2.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Samvel Yervinyan Closeup.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Ilona Geller.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Erika Walczak.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Erika Walczak 2.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Vocalists Alfreda Gerald & Michelle Amato.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Cellists Alexander Zhiroff & Sarah O'Brien.jpg
- Image:Yanni 2006 Violists Eugene Mechtovich & Ilona Geller.jpg
- Tell me, what consumer's video source has a 800x600 resolution or more? A Blue-ray? Yanni is not available on BD! The best consumer's quality chance for this specific video, is its widescreen 16:9 DVD, which is originally 720x480, that will be rendered 853x480 on PC 1:1 screen. Of course they're NOT taken by an SLR Canon. They're from an official ProDATA video taken by on-the-scene official Sony XDCAMs, something you might call a "master", which I OWN. --Komeil Bahmanpour 03:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- You may own a copy of the master tape, but the important question is who owns the copyright - only they can release images such as this under a free license. --Davepape 15:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I completely agree that these pictures are directly taken from the "Live Event" Yanni concert DVD, thus in flagrant © violation --pedroflute 07:32. 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep If it was from youtube, it would have been with less image value no sufficient evidence or reason for deletion. --Yegoyan 02:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I was not suggesting that the images were from YouTube. I merely used YouTube as a reference, as I do not own a copy of the video that the images come from (the source which was confirmed by the uploader). --Davepape 02:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. There is no proof that the uploader had the right to take this pictures (OTRS-Ticket). I don't know who the copyright owner is (Yanni? his label? the producer?) but just having a master tape does not make you copyright owner. Cecil 13:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ernst Cassirer appears to have died on April 13, 1945 per Ernst Cassirer. Assuming, for argument's sake, that this photograph was taken on that day, that the photographer died that same day, and that this photograph was taken in Europe or the US, this photograph would not become PD-old until the end of 2015. In addition, the source webpage http://www.pensament.com/filoxarxa/filoxarxa/mito.htm is licensed "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/es/", which prohibits commercial use and is thus incompatible with Wikimedia Commons. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, probably a copyvio, and NC licenses mean we can't use it here. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 00:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Cecil 13:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
From an untrustworthy Flickr account. In particular, it is part of a set entitled 'Admiration' , which all seem to be pro shots of celebrities. William Avery 20:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps he is a famous' photographer. However, the licence is ok on commons. Stef48 16:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- He is a web designer. He has produced a product called atompad. See also http://flickr.com/photos/indieflickr/1378190059/ and http://red91.emurse.com/. William Avery 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Donc, je n'ai rien d'autre à dire, l'image doit pouvoir être supprimé : John Griffits a menti sur la licence de ces photographies ! Stef48 19:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- He is a web designer. He has produced a product called atompad. See also http://flickr.com/photos/indieflickr/1378190059/ and http://red91.emurse.com/. William Avery 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Ainsi que ceci et ceci renforce ton idée ! Stef48 19:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. That does not even look like a celebrity shot, but more like a screenshot of the movie, which is definitely copyrighted. That's the problem with Flickr: people just upload what they like und give them the licence they like. There is hardly any control mechanism. -- Cecil 13:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:St maurice statue
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Encrypted / DRMed PDF file with embedded advertisement. Replaced by Image:Latin for Beginners.djvu --14 September 2007 User:Gmaxwell
- Deletion fix Deadstar (msg) 09:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The plaque may not be copyrighted, but the bronze relief may, and 70 years did not elapse since 1956, so the relief is surely still in the PD. What can we do? Perhaps we could just cut the relief away from the picture and keep the inscription? --User:G.dallorto 14:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Crop or delete, derivative work. Quadell (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No FOP for sculptures in Italy. MichaelMaggs 19:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
September 19
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the source also is a copyright violation OTRS --Steschke 18:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Rights holder complained on OTRS (ticket #2007091910004361). The image used in the PLoS article was not licensed for further distribution to third parties and should thus not have been licensed as CC-BY at PLoS. It may have been a copyright violation already in the PLoS paper. Lupo 20:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Extremely annoying watermarks *all over the photo*; no hope of this ever being fixed, which puts it eternally out of scope. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 00:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this and all similar images by this uploader. User's uploads seem to have mostly or all been either copyviols or lousy images with such dreadful watermarks like this one. -- Infrogmation 01:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with the above. The other images with watermarks all over the pictures are:
- none of which will ever be usable. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 14:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. I'm also checking all that user's pictures. Yuval Y § Chat § 23:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio/fair use claim of a screenshot of a video game. -- AllynJ 20:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Like I said go ahead and delete it. Would have done it myself, but I didnt know how. Kampy 04:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Florent Pécassou: Obvious copyright violation
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Accidently uploaded twice Achates 01:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Majorly: user request
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
false naming --Applebee 21:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete empty category. Deadstar (msg) 08:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted - empty category. Deadstar (msg) 09:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Every contents in the category are moved to Category:Dance of Korea --Applebee 13:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted - empty cat. Deadstar (msg) 09:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contents are moved to South Korea category --Applebee 13:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Misnamed category, empty. Deadstar (msg) 09:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Website states: "These images are for use in CERN Web pages. They are in http://www.cern.ch/CommonImages/. Most are GIF format or JPEG." So no "free use provided that reproduction" (which in itself isn't enough for commons). Deadstar (msg) 14:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Copyright logo . Source has copyright notice and says "These images are for use in CERN Web pages". Unfree. --MichaelMaggs 06:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I believe that is an official picture 90.28.222.216 16:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, it is. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - 99% sure it's fair use, a source would help though. Giggy\Talk 06:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious promo shot --Fb78 14:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I question that this commerically published book cover has been released into the public domain as claimed. Uploader on nl:Wikipedia apparently uploaded some other images which were deleted as copyviols. --Infrogmation 18:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Deadstar (msg) 15:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. copyright book cover. --MichaelMaggs 06:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No authorship information Dantadd✉ 01:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
non-free image from english wikipedia, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PhilipDick.jpg Zache 06:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Already in category:Art of Catalonia --Friviere 14:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I've moved the one image in that cat to Category:Art of Catalonia. Giggy\Talk 06:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Misspellled title---pic is being re-uploaded using the desired title. Deletion requested by uploader. The title I intended for the same pic is correct at image title: Image:Academy Bus Lines 1855.jpg --04:36, 17 September 2007 User:AEMoreira042281
- Delete Duplicate Deadstar (msg) 08:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
tagged as {{duplicate}} (checkusage is not working) --ALE! ¿…? 11:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Weird behaviour with svg format. Replaced by png --6 September 2007 User:Chusete
- Comment How so? Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 14:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep After purging the page, i don't see any problem with it. Platonides 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't see a problem with it...explain? Giggy\Talk 06:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
we do not need something like that as an image, sorry __ ABF __ ▼☺☻▲ 12:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep in use on DE. User:Collard
- is we w:Pluralis majestatis? we don't need xy is very pov and is not a valid reason for deletion. Commons:Project_scope states that a small quantity of private images is ok. (private images are images which can't be used in an article of a wikimedia project.) As Collard mentioned the image is used on de.wikipedia. --77.133.42.189 01:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- KeepImage related to the project, use in internal discussions on de-wikipedia. --213.39.142.116 10:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Suspect copyvio. On the webpage, I cannot find where it says it's "only reproduction" which in itself is not enough to be allowed on commons. The website itself is copyrighted. Deadstar (msg) 13:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is not used on any Wikipedia, it seems unusable for an encyclopedia. --Yamavu 14:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a copyvio to me. Deadstar (msg) 15:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The logo of V-Day is non-commercial use. See here for more information. ----ßøuñçêY2K 22:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Kelly Madison 9.JPG
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Cobaes04
[edit]- Image:Maten al paparatzi jajajaja.JPG
- Image:GEMELI6.jpg
- Image:Jairo , luis, piter, diego.JPG
- Image:Gemeli (gemela jiji).jpg
- Image:Gemeli3.jpg
- Image:Gemeli2.jpg
- Image:Profesor teodoro y familia2.jpg
- Image:Piter limpiando.JPG
- Image:Labores de limpieza de la asociacion underground en cobaes 04 -4.JPG
- Image:Labores de limpieza de la asociacion underground en cobaes 04 -3.JPG
- Image:Labores de limpieza de la asociacion underground en cobaes 04 -2.JPG
- Image:Labores de limpieza de la asociacion underground en cobaes 04.JPG
- Image:Simbolos patrios jaja.JPG
- Image:Chisos fashions's.JPG
- Image:Integrantes de la asociacion underground.JPG
I believe that User:Cobaes04's images (visible in gallery form here) are all inappropriate here because they are unencyclopedic personal photos, they are unlinked, and Commons is not a free webhost. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- While a few might be of some potential use if properly described and/or categorized, I agree that these seem to have been uploaded here for personal use only. Delete -- Infrogmation 18:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I say - Keep all of them - Alx 91 (talk • contribs) had harassed Cobaes04 times and times again, as you can see in User talk:Cobaes04 and User talk:LX. It seems that Cobaes04 (talk • contribs) didn't have a chance to write the details of his pictures - which aren't that bad - I agree, they seem to be personal pictures, but they are in good quality, they look interesting (not to mention that some of the photographed people look cute). 15 pictures are definitely not a reason to threaten a user and demand his blocking. After All, Cobaes04 is quite new in commons, and I'm afraid that we've lost him. What bothers me more, is that Alx is not that clean, as he often uploaded copyrighted images, and some other stuff. I really was about to block him for a while, after I warned him several times about Etiquette and he was warned about Copyright violations. It said that one of the principles of the Wikipedia is Assume good faith - is that the case? Yuval Y § Chat § 20:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, COM:SCOPE. Deleted them all (requests from 15 september) after checking the content of every single file. No proper description and/or source information, no potential usage indicated. No encyclopedic content. --Polarlys 09:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. Like he had a chance to add the description or anything. Yuval Y § Chat § 19:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Those images could have been described and categorized any time since upload in November of 2006. They were not. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No panorama freedom for statues in USA EugeneZelenko 15:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I can't tell-- is this an actual individual artwork, or a piece of folk art of items informally assembled by various people in tribute? If the latter, I am unsure there'd be any copyright violation. -- Infrogmation 18:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Now why would you want to delete this photograph which I took myself? This monument is located at the site of the plane crash and is a collection of items left by fans. Over time, as fans come and go, other items may appear and some may disappear. But this collection is a tribute to those who died. --Dennis Fernkes 01:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep then. No violation of any artist's copyright. -- Infrogmation 03:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Dennis, do you have a higher resolution version available? --Flominator 06:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I do. I have the original photo before being scaled down. But uploading has become a bit more complicated and I'm not sure how to upload it so it replaces the current photo. --Dennis Fernkes 12:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- On the image page, towards the bottom, there is a link labeled "Upload a new version of this file". Click that, and you should get an upload screen. You should be able to select your new version and upload (in the description area, just put "higher resolution version"; for re-uploads that is just the revision comment). You will get a warning that you are replacing an existing image, which is fine, so just continue. Carl Lindberg 18:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I do. I have the original photo before being scaled down. But uploading has become a bit more complicated and I'm not sure how to upload it so it replaces the current photo. --Dennis Fernkes 12:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I gave it a try but was presented with this: "A file with this name exists at the Wikimedia Commons. Please go back and upload this file under a new name."--Dennis Fernkes 20:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well that's annoying. It sure seems like this bug but it is marked fixed... new users should at least be able to modify their own uploads. In any event, I think this is a "new user" restriction. Once four days have passed from account registration, you should no longer be a "new user" and things should work as expected. It looks like you still had a few hours to go when you just tried, but it should work now if you try again. Carl Lindberg 07:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Carl, thanks for encouraging me to stick with this. These wiki sites have evolved so much over the years that I don't even try to keep up. The new image is now uploaded and is a big improvement in quality. --Dennis Fernkes 11:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sure thing, and thanks a bunch for the improved version. I didn't see before that another user originally uploaded the commons version; that would indeed mean you need to wait four days to re-upload it. That was done I believe to avoid new users vandalizing photos which are used across many wikis (as this one is). So everything worked like it should, and thanks for waiting the four days. Oh, and this photo is definitely a Keep. Carl Lindberg 18:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sure thing, and thanks a bunch for the improved version. I didn't see before that another user originally uploaded the commons version; that would indeed mean you need to wait four days to re-upload it. That was done I believe to avoid new users vandalizing photos which are used across many wikis (as this one is). So everything worked like it should, and thanks for waiting the four days. Oh, and this photo is definitely a
- Carl, thanks for encouraging me to stick with this. These wiki sites have evolved so much over the years that I don't even try to keep up. The new image is now uploaded and is a big improvement in quality. --Dennis Fernkes 11:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well that's annoying. It sure seems like this bug but it is marked fixed... new users should at least be able to modify their own uploads. In any event, I think this is a "new user" restriction. Once four days have passed from account registration, you should no longer be a "new user" and things should work as expected. It looks like you still had a few hours to go when you just tried, but it should work now if you try again. Carl Lindberg 07:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Now why would you want to delete this photograph which I took myself? This monument is located at the site of the plane crash and is a collection of items left by fans. Over time, as fans come and go, other items may appear and some may disappear. But this collection is a tribute to those who died. --Dennis Fernkes 01:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like someone to close this Deletion Request. Does anyone really know what the originator meant by "No panorama freedom for statues in USA." --Dennis Fernkes 21:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- The originator meant that artworks displayed in public in the United States may be under copyrights (unlike European countries with "Freedom of panorama" laws). However as the subject of the photo is a group "folk art" tribute rather than a copyrighted artwork, such concern seems not relevent. -- Infrogmation 21:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Closed, kept. -- Infrogmation 21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative, copyright violence? --Beyond silence 15:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I also not understand the deletion request. Should there be a copyright from adidas for adiadas shoes? If this would be we can delete also all images in Category:Nikon_cameras. Kolossos 09:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Lycaon took it to speeddeletion, he wrote it this reason: "It depicts a copyrighted logo (see Derivative works)." --Beyond silence 11:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- For the image with the great logo his argumentation is ok. But for the shoes I read Commons:Derivative_works#Isn't every product copyrighted by someone? What about cars? Or kitchen chairs? My computer case? and I can't find a difference between a car and shoes. --Kolossos 11:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for help! --Beyond silence 14:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Shoes are a utilitarian object and can't be copyrighted. The logo is incidental here. Carl Lindberg 17:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
When file was uploaded, it had deletion request attached. It was requested for deletion on en: wiki, but cannot find the discussion there. I presume that the discussion would be around the permission for use of this image, but "permission given" is generally not enough for it to appear here anyway. Deadstar (msg) 09:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No satisfactory proof of licence. I got a look at the discussion on enwiki here. It doesn't seem to have been properly closed. William Avery 12:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Cecil 13:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Better Image:Tampon inserted.svg uploaded. I already requested it once but it was canceled with a strange reason ("the other image is very different") which is not true. --31 August 2007 User:Miraceti
- deletion fix Deadstar (msg) 09:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The two images are not the same. In addition, we do not (or at least no longer) delete the original reference bitmap version. The SVG should be used on the Wikipedia article to be sure, but commons should keep both. Carl Lindberg 17:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept and added the "superseded" (which is the usual template for png->svg pics). First of all there is a difference, not only looking at it, but also the file format. Second, deleting it would mean to delete the source of the svg-file, which without a source would have to be deleted too. Therefor the superseded-template exists (see the numerous discussion to this thema if you have lots and lots of time) Cecil 13:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploaded with incorrect filename --Hmallett 10:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Where is the version with the right filename? Finn Rindahl 23:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- upload a correctly named version and tag this one with {{bad name|new file name}} --ALE! ¿…? 11:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Found the dupe at Image:BSicon gwhfKBFg.svg Cecil 14:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Personal image, out of scope Deadstar (msg) 14:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Cecil 14:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Personal image, out of scope Deadstar (msg) 14:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Cecil 14:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Personal image, out of scope Deadstar (msg) 14:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Cecil 14:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Personal image, out of scope Deadstar (msg) 14:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Cecil 14:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As far as I know airliners.net does not have a CC license policy. ALE! ¿…? 15:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless we receive permission and more specific information telling us which lic. Needs to write to OTRS with it. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I have been authorized by Sam Chui in an email, he is the copyright holder of this photo, so airliners.net has no relation with this upload. i have to say that the photo was downloaded from airliners.net and then sam gave me the authorization to use it. with this kind of license. you can email him to be sure about what i'm telling. thank you. --Lu1g1-ktupq 03:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please send the permission to OTRS. (In reality it would be even better if the author could send the permission himself.) The copyright holder has to choose a free license and allow free use of his images. Permission for Wikipedia only are not good enough. --ALE! ¿…? 07:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission and "WP only". Cecil 14:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source, date or author OsamaK 19:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Information might be better, but as reproduction of mosaic that was already old in the 19th century (whatever its original date might be), I don't see any copyright violation so lean to keep. -- Infrogmation 20:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- How did you know? Source must be given in this case.--OsamaK 20:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- The image description says "Details of Barada Mosaic on the Wall of Umayyad Mosque". The artwork is not of recent generations; maybe more than 1,000 years [60]? In any case, old enough for the original mosaics not to be copyrighted. Might your concern be about the photo-- does the PD-Art tag apply under Syrian law? -- Infrogmation 21:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- mmm, I can't find this image in your source--OsamaK 10:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- The image description says "Details of Barada Mosaic on the Wall of Umayyad Mosque". The artwork is not of recent generations; maybe more than 1,000 years [60]? In any case, old enough for the original mosaics not to be copyrighted. Might your concern be about the photo-- does the PD-Art tag apply under Syrian law? -- Infrogmation 21:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- How did you know? Source must be given in this case.--OsamaK 20:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
PD-Art is included in syrian rights law .. actualy any picture is considered Pd after just 10 years of its production ... no one knows the original painter or the dact date but it si certainl dates back to the mamluk or ottoman period ... in this case .. i wonder why Osama insists to get a source --Chaos 10:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's not Wikimedia Commnos law, SOURCE MUST BE INCLUDED. Some users think source isn't very important in PD-art, but they say: at lest the author and date. That's it! :)--OsamaK 15:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Cecil 15:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is the Russian flag, never was bulgarian one. --Петър Петров 08:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Category:Flags of Bulgaria shows it's clearly not what it says it is. Giggy\Talk 06:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by S1: bad name
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
My image; awful quality; other much better pictures exist of same item from same angle; not used by any Wikimedia project --Redvers 08:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Per nom. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I have strong doubts, that the uploader is also actually the author of this image. ALE! ¿…? 15:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not the author of this image but this is in the public domain of Argentina because it's a coat of arms so it has no copyright, okay maybe the type of license i chose isn't right... i should change it, but please do not erase this image.--Lu1g1-ktupq 03:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I have just change the kind of license to GFDL, i suppose this will be better. Thanks a lot. --Lu1g1-ktupq 03:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Still not good enough. Probably you do not understand how Commons and licensing works. Your image is most probably not licensed under GFDL by the author of the original work. So please have a look at:
- --ALE! ¿…? 07:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Now i changed the license again, i suppose this is correct because it's the same used in the flag of Argentina, and as this is an official insignia of the Municipalidad the Neuquén, it has the same official copyright policies.--Lu1g1-ktupq 05:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Even if the design is in the public domain, uploader hasn't proven that s/he is the author of the coat. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Deleted. Non-free. Quadell (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Dubious GFDL licence. Book title may or may not be old, but cover artwork seen here is clearly more recent than early 20th century. --Infrogmation 18:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Do you recognise anything artistic in it? --Immanuel Giel 10:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep PD-ineligible. --Fb78 09:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- The logo maybe? --ALE! ¿…? 11:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, in Germany fonts are copyrightable. The choice of colors could be also copyrighted in the U.S., although I don't know about Germany. Quadell (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have evidence that fonts are copyrightable in German? It is often described how German has a high treshold for originality. So as far as I understand it, the image could be Keep. / Fred J (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have evidence that fonts are copyrightable in German? It is often described how German has a high treshold for originality. So as far as I understand it, the image could be
September 20
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- I have replaced this image with Image:US9.45inchTrenchMortarBreechDiagram.png. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcbutcher (talk • contribs) . Fixed Request. --Digon3 talk 13:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep One uses colors, the other one does not. --ALE! ¿…? 07:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept, both are fine. --Avatar 23:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is a duplicate of :Image:US9.45inchTrenchMortarBreechDiagram.png Rcbutcher 03:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It seems the images are not duplicates. As per the previous discussion, I think both should be kept. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unused --78.48.48.181 18:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: empty category
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Public domain" but the accepted uses are non-commercial / fair use Platonides 11:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hello Platonides. Please read Article 31 of the Law, which states that the uploaded files can be used in: "A copyright work shall be in free use for the purpose of acquiring informations of general significance, for teaching purposes, for private and other individual reproduction, quotation and other cases, according to this Law.". Please tell me what is wrong with the template, and if there is something you don't agree on, please help me improve the template. Revizionist 13:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- free use for the purpose of acquiring informations of general significance, for teaching purposes, for private and other individual reproduction, quotation and other cases, according to this Law." is not enough for commons. I must be able to sell that image, for example. Public domains usually means that anyone may use or exploit it as it fits. See en:Public domain, which is very different as what you quote. Whare did you take it was Public Domain? I don't see such expression in the document. Platonides 12:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The "license" is not free enough, works marked with this template are not in the public domain but can only be used under certain conditions (see articles 32ff). Commons does not necessary meet these requirements and requires to have a broader freedem for reuse (see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses). --Matt314 20:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is a fair-use template. Begone! Lupo 20:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete With a short reading of the law, it seems to be in line with the European Union copyright directive, at least as far as free uses are concerned. Unfortunately, we cannot keep this material here on the Commons or even in the Wikiprojects. If we moved the European-language Wikipedias to Europe and changed from "total freedom" to "free for education", we could add about anything to Wikipedia. Now we don't do that for some reasons which are probably rather good. (I think that it's good thing to require total PD, then we have much less interpretation than with different European formulations of "free for education" etc. However, If I could, I'd move the Commons to Europe and quit thinking about U.S law.) --MPorciusCato 10:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, non-free license tag. --Siebrand 17:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is a duplicate of [Image:English electric canberra PR.3 WF992 at MAM.JPG] with a wrong name (camberra instead of canberra). See comment on the other image. Groumfy 19:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Florent Pécassou: Duplicate Image:English electric canberra PR.3 WF992 at MAM.JPG
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
14.jpg){kind=link}
14.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
(reason for deletion) --Simon Praud 08:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
14.jpg){kind=link}
- Pasted from user's talkpage reason for this request: "In italia non esiste la it:Libertà di panorama, perciò l'immagine Image:Palazzo dell'INA(Giuseppe Samonà)14.jpg è (assurdamente) una violazione di copyright (giuseppe samonà, infatti, è morto da meno di 70 anni). --Lucas 04:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)" Deadstar (msg) 08:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It's self-made and Public domain. Please don't delete it. Thank you --Simon Praud 15:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
14.jpg){kind=link}
- As I always say, our MPs care much more about their right to have ice cream at the Senate bar than the citizens' right to spread the Italian culture through the Net. How can we put on a WikiGolpe and build a WikiRepublic up? --Frank87 18:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Majorly: unfree
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is only used on a userpage on the spanish Wikipedia. It might be a case of fairuse/copyvio. --Yamavu 09:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No lic. Possible copyright vio. Uploader was notified of need to provide more information on their talk page on Aug 11 2007. [61] Delete unless evidence of a free lic and adequate sourcing is provided promptly. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
![[61]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hinoiri#Image:Hinoiri.gif){kind=link}
deleted, no license --ALE! ¿…? 12:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Moved category to Ichthyologists from Germany --Sdornan 14:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted 28 September 2007 by ALE!Deadstar (msg) 12:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work EugeneZelenko 15:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for now as derivative work. The uploader was notified of this deletion discussion on Sept 20th and no additional information was provided to show that this image is proper lic and sourced per Commons policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not a mugshot; no evidence that this was actually taken by a government employee in the course of their duties. grendel|khan 19:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately, just appearing on the DEA web site does not make an image free for our purposes. The lic and sourcing are not from the original source as the DEA was using it per fair use. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photo of Thorbjörn Fälldin, Swedish primeminister 1976-1982, and leader of the Centerpartiet. I have written extensively about Fälldin and Centerpartiet for Swedish Wikipedia and I claim that this is a photo from the 1970s. I think it is unlikely that User:TROF is the copyright holder of this photo. This is uploader's only contribution. Thuresson 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete pr nom Finn Rindahl 00:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image shows children and teenagers. It may only be published having admission of their parents. --Revolus 20:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Under which law? Thuresson 20:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- German. There, where this picture was taken. --Revolus 20:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Which German law? I can't find any provision in German copyright law. Thuresson 21:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Did I say there is a copyvio? --Revolus 22:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- You didn't say anything. Which German law? Thuresson 11:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- delete Recht am eigenen Bild nach deutschem Recht verletzt, weil die Erziehungsberechtigten nicht zugestimmt haben. --Marcela 20:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Falsch. Wer auf Demonstrationen geht stimmt der veröffentlichung seines Bildes implizit zu. Da Kinder nur unter Vorbehalt ihrer Eltern Demonstrationen aufsuchen dürfen, kann daraus in zweiter Linie die implizite erlaubis zur veröffentlichung gschlossen werden. Behalten. Gruß 84.147.228.219 13:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- delete Even if it is legal correct: Not everything have to be published here, only because it is permitted. Alauda 20:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- The picture was used (recently deleted by Revolus) in the german Wikipedia article about "Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung". Thus, the picture has enough relevance by this article, until there are no substantially better pictures available. --HeikoStamer 15:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep there are exceptions by the law [62] § 23 KUK 2 & 3 Bunnyfrosch 21:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- That is not correct. Children and young people have a special protection: Federal Constitutional Court. Alauda 21:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep - nom and support are essentially FUD motivated by a political agenda and have no real legal basis to argue with. --Melanom 04:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- i would say: "freeze the discussion here and move it to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bildrechte" Elvis 07:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- This picture was taken in Germany. In Germany are two laws: a. one for copyright (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte), b. one for the right for ones own portraiture (Gesetz betreffend das Urheberrecht an Werken der bildenden Künste und der Photographie, short name KUG).
§ 23 Abs. 1 KUG says: "Bilder von Versammlungen, Aufzügen und ähnlichen Vorgängen, an denen die dargestellten Personen teilgenommen haben;" It means that you can take pictures of persons taking part in public events such as demonstrations in Germany.
Theoretically this could harm the right of demonstration but its purpose is to guarantee a freedom of press.
There is just one exception known for children who joined their prominent parents onto an awards show (decision BVerfG, 1 BvR 456/04 vom 6.6.2006).
So Keep and I hope this explanation was in detail. Simplicius 08:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- The mentioned decision of the german Federal Constitutional Court was about a case where specific persons where portrayed within a crowd during a public event. Under german law people are not allowed to pick certain persons in a crowd when making a photo. It is allowed to make a picture of the crowd - this will not harm personal rights of the people in the crowd. Following this line i think the picture is not focused on a specific person, therefore keep.--Wiggum 08:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. AFAIK is the above exposition of Simplicius correct. The mentioned decision of the german "Bundesverfassungsgericht" does not fit in the situation here. However, I am not a lawyer. --HeikoStamer 14:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the explanation given by Simplicius is correct.
- Keep No reason given. --Jodo 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I've never seen a demonstration in Germany where children and teenagers did NOT constitute a large share of the participants, so this supposed rule would make all media coverage of such demonstrations illegal. Nonsense, there is no such law. PDD 13:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Wenn in einem Bild Gruppen ab 20 Personen abgebildetet sind, ist kein einzelnes Einverständnis einzuholen. Das gilt für Kinder wie für Erwachsene. Zudem o.g. gründe meiner Vorredner. --AlphaSky 16:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Last time I checked, germans didn't rule the world. Reason given is inappropriate. German law, as Italian one, allows photographs taken in public events, so keep.--Jollyroger 08:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
kept, we check of copyright violations here not for personality rights violations. The image was tagged with {{personality rights}} to make clear that additional legal limitations might apply apart from the copyright status. --ALE! ¿…? 12:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Likely copyvio. if this image was created by the uploader in 2007 then how come a higher resolution image was uploaded to sv:Bild:RegionHuancavelicaEscudo.jpg (as fair use) in 2005? Lokal_Profil 23:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Image also available here along with many other Peruvian coats of arms uploaded by the same user. /Lokal_Profil 23:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source to support claim that photo is pre-1909 (a claim recently added by an anon). No evidence that it's PD in its source country (presumably Germany). Davepape 03:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- This image was moved to commons and deleted from en. Now it gets deleted in commons after 8 days and no comments, and no notification to en. This is a travesty of a process. I no longer consider commons to be a worthwhile venture. And yes, I know I am editing an archive. 81.156.79.119 00:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong filename - Image has been uploaded under the right one 34er 21:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please tag the "wrong" images with {{duplicate|new file}} or better {{bad name|new file}} and close the requests here. --ALE! ¿…? 10:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for giving me this clue.
- I have changed the Deletion request into a bad name request. --34er 13:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong filename - Image has been uploaded under the right one. 34er 21:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have changed the Deletion request into a bad name request. --34er 13:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong filename - Image has been uploaded under the right one. 34er 21:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have changed the Deletion request into a bad name request. --34er 13:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong filename - Image has been uploaded under the right one. 34er 21:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have changed the Deletion request into a bad name request. --34er 13:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong filename - Image has been uploaded under the right one. 34er 21:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have changed the Deletion request into a bad name request. --34er 13:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Hasanovic26
[edit]- Image:Tughra2.JPG
- Image:Tughra.JPG
- Image:UniverselAltar2.jpg
- Image:Universel.jpg
- Image:Sufiuniversal.JPG
- Image:Cherag ordination.JPG
- Image:Chjmt.jpg
- Image:Kabuljk1.jpg
- Image:Kampala Jamatkhana.jpg
- Image:Kharadhar Jamatkhana Karachi, Pakistan.jpg
- Image:Mashhad Jamatkhana, Iran.jpg
- Image:Burnaby Jamatkhana.jpg
- Image:Salamia.jpg
- Image:Cs)sandz.JPG
- Image:Normal tupangjinjet.JPG
- Image:Wbsunset wideweb 430x249.jpg
- Image:Sunetlije-sh-1.jpg
- Image:Balkan1.jpg
- Image:IMG 4590.jpg
- Image:Sunetlije-sh-1.jpg
- Image:Orcusa zima.JPG
- Image:Osce23.jpg
- Image:Svadba3.jpg
- Image:Orcusa.jpg
- Image:Sistejec.JPG
- Image:Svadba 3 klub flamurof nov.JPG
- Image:Ora ke Komuna.JPG
sandz.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
I discovered that several of Hasanovic26's images are copyvios taken from existing websites and claimed to be his own. Based on numerous discoveries I believe this to be the case with all of this user's uploaded images. Dumtar 17:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 09:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The user who uploaded it, w:User:Blytonite, has been constantly uploading non-free images of Amal, his favourite singer, at en:wiki, and then protesting that he is fifteen years old, that he doesn't understand copyright policy, that he loves this singer. I am doubtful about his claim that this image has been released into the public domain. ElinorD 17:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Amal-hijazi.jpg and Blytonite's en:wiki upload log. At en:wiki, he has continued to reupload and reinsert the images, after warnings. ElinorD 17:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless actual permission is shown. -- Infrogmation 17:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have sent a mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with a copy of the AUTHENTIC written permission. I swear my God, I really am NOT lying. The image HAS been released to domain and the creater of the image has allowed me to use the picture anywhere I want. You can see the permission if you want - but I am NOT lying. I want to upload at least ONE picture at the article of Amal Hijazi - and I don't want to squabble or quarrel with anyone. Now, many I upload the picture at Wikipedia? Please. I beg you. -- User: Mohamed-H (aka Blytonite in Wikipedia)
- Begging and swearing are unnecessary -- if proper licencing permission from the copyright holder is recieved, it will be good. A question: Why did you just add a GFDL licence to this image when you say it is public domain? Please note the distinction. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 12:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The received message OTRS#2007092310005986 is not a sufficient release. --Para 10:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted - No followup within three weeks to clarification request: no permission. --Para 11:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Likely copyvio. A higher resolution version of this image was uploaded (under fair use) to sv.wiki in 2004. In addition Priscilla D has uploaded copyrighted works before. Lokal_Profil 23:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Image also available here. /Lokal_Profil 23:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 14:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This looks like a clear copyvio to me. If it was not a copyvio. I ask hereby the uploader and suposed author to upload a high res version of the image. ALE! ¿…? 09:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- This request is extend to following images too:
--ALE! ¿…? 09:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, all these photos were taken by me approximately in 2001. I reduced and touched them because I used them at a personal web page (www.unnoba.galeon.com) and I did not want heavy photos there. I can upload higher resolution versions for Wikipedia, but these photos were taken with a reflex "roll of film" camera (I don't know if it is the right word in English). So they are not digital photos. I have to find my printed photos and scan them again. Please wait just a few days. Regards, --Germanramos 16:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Current status:
- Image:Junín_Borchex_Lago_01.jpg >> I uploaded a new high resolution version of the same photograph. I achieved this by scanning again the photograph.
- Image:Junín UNNOBA Aula 01.jpg >> Replaced by Image:JUNIN UNNOBA 001.jpg
- Image:Junín UNNOBA Rectorado 01.jpg >> Replaced by: Image:JUNIN UNNOBA 002.jpg
- Image:Junín UNNOBA Sede 01.jpg >> I uploaded a new high resolution version of the same photograph. I achieved this by scanning again the photograph.
- Image:Junín UNNOBA Sede 02.jpg >> I couldn't find the original photograph yet.
- Please, note this: What is "clear copyvio" for someone, can be actually an own work. Please always remember: you must ask the uploader and suposed author before sending images to "Deletion requests", in order to avoid innecesary use of this functionality. Thank you! Regards, --Germanramos 13:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Current status:
- Image:Junín UNNOBA Aula 01.jpg - The status of this image is still unclear. Can you provide proof, that it is your own work? The same applies to Image:Junín UNNOBA Rectorado 01.jpg and Image:Junín UNNOBA Sede 02.jpg.
- Anyone can file a deletion request whenever he/she estimees it to be necessary without contacting the uploader before. This is nothing personal against you, but we have too many copyvios arround here and your images looked like one. --ALE! ¿…? 20:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ale!, I understand and there is no problem about this. I like to collaborate and I do not want to cause problems or extra work to other people. First of all, these are not difficult photos to obtain. These are not pop star images or something like that. It is just a building and I can go and take another photo. They're all my own work but I don't have any merit because they are very easy to take... but I understand that many people just lie indicating "own work" to be able to illustrate a favorite article with a photo.
- You said that the photos look like copy violation. Is it because of its low resolution, and it is usual that the photos of low resolution are downloaded from web pages without permission?
- I uploaded high resolution version of 2 of the images, because I found the original printed ones and I scanned them again. I replace other 2 images by high resolution ones, so you can delete Image:Junín UNNOBA Aula 01.jpg and Image:Junín UNNOBA Rectorado 01.jpg because there are better ones available. The last photo is Image:Junín UNNOBA Sede 02.jpg and I couldn't find the original photograph. So you can delete it too. I will be uploading more photos taking care of its high resolution.
- Are you from Deutschland? I work with SAP in Argentina and we usually receive the visit of consultants from Deutschland. But but in spite of my name, my German language level is very low... Regards, --Germanramos 19:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I am from Germany. Thank you for your understanding that we have to make sure that the images available on Commons are free. It is nothing personal against you but we have to take care, because other people rely on us, that we only offer "free food" for their projects. --ALE! ¿…? 07:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, Ale! Please let me know if other images that I have uploaded are in the same situation. I think that Image:Junín PNLG JetSki 01.jpg and Image:Junín PNLG Costero 01.jpg could look like copyvios, so I am going to upload high resolution version of them. There is no problem because I have the original printed photos. Thank you. Regards,--Germanramos 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ale!, I uploaded high resolution versions of Image:Junín PNLG JetSki 01.jpg and Image:Junín PNLG Costero 01.jpg. I found in you profile that you speak Spanish... Entonces, hablemos español! Saludos, --Germanramos 01:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. Deleted the ones replaced and kept the rest. Would be nice if they get a better description. One pic is still unsolved, but I think the uploader proofed that the pics are not copyvio so I leave it even if the quality is not so good. Cecil 14:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Per freedom of panorama rules for Denmark - The article 24 of the Danish copyright law permits panorama freedom for buildings. This, however, does not extend to the works of art that are located in public places. They cannot be commercially published when they constitute the central element of the picture. Against licensing policy (Commons also does not accept noncommercial-only content). ~ Riana ⁂ 09:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Cecil 15:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source, date or author OsamaK 10:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Agree that the image needs more information to establish that this is a free image and make it possible to give proper attribution. Unless the uploader can provide the information it needs to be deleted. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- related discussion is made about another Pic here Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ommayad7.jpg --Chaos 14:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Cecil 15:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a typical case where I'm not sure what is the most appropriate action. Is this considered a logo (and thus should be deleted) or is this picture acceptable on Commons ? le Korrigan →bla 11:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep: not a logo, it is a physical object including a logo. Else, almost all automobiles photos will have to be removed, since the manufacturer plaque is visible... --Jollyroger 08:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment didn't we have this discussion before? I am having a deja vue here. ;-) --ALE! ¿…? 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, me too, but I couldn't find the original discussion :-) le Korrigan →bla 14:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- can't remember, but maybe. What was the conclusion? --Jollyroger 15:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyright logo:nothing more. MichaelMaggs 19:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong file uploaded --Spoladore 18:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Looks defect. There is also the option of using Speedy Delete. No need for a discussion in cases like that. -- Cecil 15:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a great, fresh hymen to me.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As discussed on de.wikipedia.org (de:Hymen) by various physicians and anatomists: This is a fake image. Polarlys 22:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This is not photograph but it shows exactly one example of hymen. There is no reason for deletion.--Nicholasolan 14:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- No comment: „Photograph of a vagina with virginal hymen.“ – Unfortunately a hymen doesn't look that way, the file has no encyclopedic value since it gives a wrong impression of this anatomical structure. ––Polarlys 14:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I do not agree with you, Polarlys. There are many type of hymens. This image shows an example of a hymen, "typical" from my examination.--Nicholasolan 15:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- from my professional point of view, as gynaecologist/obstetrician and former photographer, must say that this picture looks not at all like a real hymen. Besides beeing a fake, it gives an anatomically wrong impression and is by no means "typical". Delete it please, it´s of no encyclopedic or educational value. Tcrib
- In fact, the picture has been drawn with my observation of real virginal woman. In addition, before I uploaded the picture, I had a comment from an obstetrician, who is one of my friend. He said that it was "typical". So I had confidence in it. Moreover, many of the broken hymen tissues that I saw made me estimate that those were the same type of hymen.--Nicholasolan 16:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yeah ? Well... i haven´t seen a hymen like that. It is not impossible that someone has a hymen like that, but it´s definitely not "typical", at least not for european, african and asian women. Besides, the anatomical structures would still be wrong. And last but not least - it´s a fake ! So keep it as a cartoon for how someone without any anatomical knowledge could imagine a hymen to be, but it´s worthless for encyclopedic use- unless you´re listing it in the cartoon section. TCrib
- Your experience, Our experience. Even if it is not "typical" in your experience, you should not say that it is anatomically wrong. I cannot understand why you can say so definitely. It means that the women who cooperated with me have anatomically wrong structures. I would like to hear comments from other specialists.--Nicholasolan 07:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, get your friend obstetrician here to comment on your cartoon work. But besides the experience thing - your cartoon, even if the hymen part would look like one could imagine a hymen to look like - will still be ANATOMICALLY WRONG and it will still be a FAKE and no photograph. So no matter what my or your friends experience says, two good reasons to delete remain. But you say you know some women to cooperate, and a real virgin to observe, so why don´t you go ahead and make a photo of this real intact hymen ? This would solve the problem completely, not ? TCrib 07:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yeah ? Well... i haven´t seen a hymen like that. It is not impossible that someone has a hymen like that, but it´s definitely not "typical", at least not for european, african and asian women. Besides, the anatomical structures would still be wrong. And last but not least - it´s a fake ! So keep it as a cartoon for how someone without any anatomical knowledge could imagine a hymen to be, but it´s worthless for encyclopedic use- unless you´re listing it in the cartoon section. TCrib
- It is not an issue of the discussion whether it is a photograph or not. There are many (painted) pictures for explaining something. I am waiting for comments from other specialists.--Nicholasolan 15:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- It can be boiled down to the discussion wether it´s a photo or not. If you label it as a photo, it claims a certain quantity of reality (wich it doesn´t have), a cartoon doesn´t. And, for that, there are a lot of better paintings of hymen than this faked photo lookalike. TCrib 17:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- In fact, the picture has been drawn with my observation of real virginal woman. In addition, before I uploaded the picture, I had a comment from an obstetrician, who is one of my friend. He said that it was "typical". So I had confidence in it. Moreover, many of the broken hymen tissues that I saw made me estimate that those were the same type of hymen.--Nicholasolan 16:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- from my professional point of view, as gynaecologist/obstetrician and former photographer, must say that this picture looks not at all like a real hymen. Besides beeing a fake, it gives an anatomically wrong impression and is by no means "typical". Delete it please, it´s of no encyclopedic or educational value. Tcrib
- I do not agree with you, Polarlys. There are many type of hymens. This image shows an example of a hymen, "typical" from my examination.--Nicholasolan 15:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- As an (veterinary) anatomist and author of an anatomical textbook on female genitalia, I suppose that this picture is a fake. A hymen in a woman may look similar in shape like this, but I suppose never in this regular manner. Drawings are indeed used for anatomical illustrations, but at least the description should be changed to mention the fact that it has been added by an graphics editor. When viewing under high magnification there is a smear effect in this region. Maybe a graphic expert can verify this assumption. --Uwe Gille 18:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest Nicholasans other faked vulva picture should be deleted too. TCrib 17:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why? I think it's better to have things like this than only drawings. You just have to write that this isn't a photograph or that it is faked. Sure, a real photo of a hymen would be better but apparently it isn't so easy to find a model. 20:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Since this is based on real woman, nobody can say it is a fake. --Nicholasolan 09:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- You just don´t get it, do you ? Every fake is based on something real - that´s the problem with fakes. They pretend to be something real, but they are not. A Picasso painting is a piece of art, a painting looking like a picasso and pretending to be one is a fake. Your pictures, pretending to show a vulva or a hymen, are fakes, no matter how real the women is they´re based on. There is no reason, not a single one, to keep them. They´re not art, they´re not right, the´re not even giving the right impression. Delete ASAP please. TCrib 13:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- I did not make it "déformer." --Nicholasolan 14:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- You just don´t get it, do you ? Every fake is based on something real - that´s the problem with fakes. They pretend to be something real, but they are not. A Picasso painting is a piece of art, a painting looking like a picasso and pretending to be one is a fake. Your pictures, pretending to show a vulva or a hymen, are fakes, no matter how real the women is they´re based on. There is no reason, not a single one, to keep them. They´re not art, they´re not right, the´re not even giving the right impression. Delete ASAP please. TCrib 13:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Since this is based on real woman, nobody can say it is a fake. --Nicholasolan 09:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why? I think it's better to have things like this than only drawings. You just have to write that this isn't a photograph or that it is faked. Sure, a real photo of a hymen would be better but apparently it isn't so easy to find a model. 20:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- It´s a fake. So delete it or re-label it as a cartoon. TCrib 21:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest Nicholasans other faked vulva picture should be deleted too. TCrib 17:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I say once again. I have drawn it watching a real virginal woman. So it should be held here as an example of hymen. --Nicholasolan 09:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Did you smash her flaps in afterwards? Good job
- You should have photographed this woman´s hymen instead of watching it and then faking a picture. TCrib 21:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why did I have to draw a fake picture? There is no reason why I draw a fake. --Nicholasolan 16:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a fake. If you think it's a fake, you should provide your evidence rather than only guess. Maybe you could get a better photograph to replace it.
Ok, why is there an issue with this? I am not a medical specialist but I am a well-educated and very intelligent woman. 1) How can you compare copying Picasso's painting to someone's drawn rendition of a hymen? That's like saying Van Gogh's paintings of sunflowers are fakes because they were not photographed. If you want to get technical and say cameras did not exist or were not widely used back then, then let's apply the same logic for Picasso. Picasso's paintings are fake because none of the women in his paintings are anatomically correct and he definitely should have taken a photo if he wanted to show us what a woman really looked like. 2) With all the photo editors out there, who is going to confirm whether someone didn't take poetic license with the pictures posted?? 3) Who generally has intact hymens?? Younger women? How many younger women are you going to find lined up to have their hymen photographed so that it can be displayed for the world to see on wikipedia? 4) I had only heard a hymen described - never seen one and don't remember seeing a photo or drawing of it. Whether anyone's hymen looks exactly like the drawing, I now have a clearer understanding of approximately where it existed in my body and a general idea of how this tissue looked like and why breaking through it might be painful and why it's generally accompanied with bleeding. 5) There are a lot of fake pictures and drawings created to explain or show a lot of things. Does a drawing of the universe qualify as a cartoon and should never be used to demonstrate what our scientists believe our universe looks like. Drawings of dinosaurs - well those are definitely fake. There's no one who can legitimately claim that they have seen a living, breathing dinosaur.
I am a male medical student, currently reading about gynecology. I was unsure exactly what the hymen was, and wanted to a general view of its anatomical location and shape. Despite being an artist's impression, I found this image quite adequate to satisfy my quick search. I thought it was a sufficient visual complement to the detailed descriptions of hymens in the text. Unless someone is proposing another, more "real and typical" photo or image to replace this one, it should remain on this page. As far as artist's renditions within the medical field, how about Netter's or Gray's Anatomy, the foundation of anatomy teaching in current medical schools!
- Delete as misleading. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm no med student or anything. But, I think real photos should be given. I don't have anything against drawing, but real photos are, of course, more helpful. And, I guess, anyone with the given facility, can do this rather than complaining. As far as I'm concerned (as common people) I have my question answered well by the given drawing. - shunno
This is ridiculous. This picture, whether drawn or photographed, was extremely helpful in my search. Before lobbying to take it down, find a replacement. -Aera
Since it might be very difficult to photograph an intact hymen without violating some sex/age law, I suggest we make do with this until we get a better drawing.
Deleted per nom. Cecil 15:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A better version of this image has been added to Commons Happyme22 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I assume you mean Image:Reagan Library dignitaries July 17, 2007.jpg as the better version. It does seem to have better colors, but is much smaller. I would probably use the newer one on a Wikipedia article, but I would be inclined to Keep both here on commons. Carl Lindberg 18:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I can not see that the smaler image should be better or worse. So I would say: Delete the smaller one. --ALE! ¿…? 12:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
kept. --Cecil 15:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"non confidential/personal letter" is not a reason for it to be PD, to my knowledge. Davepape 03:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also applies to Image:Lettera Boratto p2.JPG. --Davepape 03:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I just distinguished between the content and the image: the latter is in the public domain because is not an artwork but just a letter, written more than 70 years ago, whose original is in my hands, and I can put it if necessary in the PD. The photographic reproduction was made by myself, and covered by an cc-by-sa-2.5-it licence from me.
The content, being a letter, would be protected by the heirs (btw I'm the heir of the receiver) only if it is a confidential/personal letter (at least in Italy) and as you can see it is not at all personal, though interesting because of the context. So I put it as PD.
Let me know, Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini 10:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the reason given in the PD tag is not sufficient for public domain status. --ALE! ¿…? 12:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I changed the reason in the PD tag to make it more clear. Or perhaps using a {{PD-ineligible}} tag would be more appropriate. Otherwise, someone should jump in and advise on the rules applying to old (> 75 years) written letters of no personal/intimate/confidential content and no artistic content/interest, just historical. Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini 23:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- No new discussion or objection to the modified tag in more than 40 days. I am closing this as kept; if there is reason to object or if I have missed something important, please relist. -- Infrogmation 13:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded + unused --78.48.48.181 14:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete (when deleted from en Wikipedia) // Liftarn
Deleted, not in use on en:Wikipedia. -- Infrogmation 14:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
pornographic, misuse in Upper Sorbian Wikipedia --Michawiki 16:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this ugly satanic penis. ALLAH AKBAR! Al-Bargit 16:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, but not for being pornography. We have enough of these already. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion, every image could be misused. --Dezidor 09:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Misuse per Dezidor and "We have enough penises" is no argument, this free image could be potentially used many people. --Alverawa 13:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete We have enough penises is indeed an argument for me. Out of scope, delete - could somebody please take a picture of his knee or thumb or something for a change. Finn Rindahl 17:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Mind going and deleting some Milla Jovovich pictures? There is like an entire page of them!!! 354d 18:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, we are not a free pornography/voyeur host. --Kjetil r 20:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, not against rules, consistent licensing, reason given inadequate --Jollyroger 08:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Closing as Keep-- no consensus to delete. While many agree we've had too many human penis photos, this is a higher resolution photo than most of them. If a vandal misuses an image by placing it in inapporpriate context, the fault is with the vandal. -- Infrogmation 13:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong file uploaded --Spoladore 18:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted mistaken upload. (This could have been speedy deleted.) -- Infrogmation 14:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fratelli Calvi monument
[edit]No FOP in Italy. Per G.dallorto's comment on my talkpage: "The monument was sculpted by Giacomo Manzù, who did not die at least 70 years ago" --Deadstar (msg) 07:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Images:
- Image:Monumento FlliCalvi BG 01.JPG
- Image:Monumento FlliCalvi BG 02.JPG
- Image:Monumento Attilio Calvi.JPG
- Image:Monumento GianninoCalvi.JPG
- Image:Monumento Natalino calvi.JPG
- Image:Monumento Santino Calvi.JPG
and perhaps
- Image:Monumento FlliCalvi PBrembana.JPG (but this is just a plaque)
- I think the plaque per se should be ineligible for copyright, unless it has literary value, which is not the case... So let s keep at least this picture :-( But Manzu died only in 1990... --User:G.dallorto 14:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please consider that is in discussion a new law allowing FOP in Italy, so the images may have to be recovered in a near future --Jollyroger 08:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Well, law apply when they are approved. When it is approved, we shall undelete the pix. Furthermore, a law is not being discussed, it has been requested. Which is a different thing... :-( --User:G.dallorto 21:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please consider that is in discussion a new law allowing FOP in Italy, so the images may have to be recovered in a near future --Jollyroger 08:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Cecil 14:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
September 21
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image is taged as "© All rights reserved" on its flickr page which is not free license Shadyaftrmathgunit 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep and close I know it's under "all rights reserved", which is why I requested permission from the author, Mikko Koponen, to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license. The transcript was sent and received through the FlickrMail system. That's why there's an OTRS ticket number attached (#2007092010012205). Did you not read the template info? Spellcast 20:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep — the image has received an OTRS ticket to prove it is a free image. Nom rationale invalid. --Boricuæddie 00:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image is taged as "© All rights reserved" on its flickr page which is not free license Shadyaftrmathgunit 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep and close I know it's under "all rights reserved", which is why I requested permission from the author, Mikko Koponen, to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license. The transcript was sent and received through the FlickrMail system. That's why there's an OTRS ticket number attached (#2007092010012205). Did you not read the template info? Spellcast 20:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep — the image has received an OTRS ticket to prove it is a free image. Nom rationale invalid. --Boricuæddie 00:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image was uploaded under an incorrect name. --PeeJay 12:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate of Image:2007 Rugby World Cup WAL-JPN - 03.JPG Deadstar (msg) 15:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted Please use {{badname}} or if both versions in use {{duplicate}} Finn Rindahl 00:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's marked as CC on Flickr, but the current edition of the CA driver handbook is copyrighted by the DMV (see page 7; there's also a very similar letter from Schwartzenegger on the second page), and a Flickr user who doesn't own the copyright can't override that. Chaser 07:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete I'm not positive the driver's handbook is copyrighted, the State of California seems to PD all its materials. There isn't a snowball's chance in Hell the ads are owned by the state, and its extraordinarily unlikely they're PD. It's also not very certain on the Governor's photo. [[User:WilyD|Wily<font color="FF8800">[[User talk:WilyD|D]]</font>]] 13:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I could crop out the add.Calbear22 18:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted by Polarlys Finn Rindahl 00:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Content does not matches title and different from nl: reference picture. 30 July 2007 User:Foroa Foroa 20:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
kept, Incorrect assumption. Image had a different name on nl.wp. Currently visible is a Commons image with the same name as the previous name. Checked deletion logs on nl.wp. Everything is all right. --Siebrand 23:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I created it, and it is incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_function no longer links to it, because the formula that the image represents has been changed. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Window_function_(Kaiser;_alpha_=_2_pi).png is the correct image. The graphs are essentially the same, but the title is different. The title is also reflected in the file name, which is why this file should be deleted. It has the wrong name and the wrong image. --Bob K 00:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Deleted. --Avatar 12:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I created it, and it is incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_function no longer links to it, because the formula that the image represents has been changed. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Window_function_(Kaiser;_alpha_=_3_pi).png is the correct image. The graphs are essentially the same, but the title is different. The title is also reflected in the file name, which is why this file should be deleted. It has the wrong name and the wrong image. --Bob K 00:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Deleted. --Avatar 12:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I created this figure. It is correct, but it has been superceded by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Window_function_(Kaiser;_alpha_=_2_pi).png, which is very similar and has better resolution. --Bob K 02:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Avatar 12:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I created this figure. It is correct, but it has been superceeded by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Window_function_(Kaiser;_alpha_=_3_pi).png, which is very similar and has better resolution. --Bob K 02:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Avatar 12:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Physical NONSENSE - Sun never illuminates Earth this way - Earth axis is ALWAYS TILTED with respect to Sun. Please correct this or remove this graphics!! 24.141.175.214 20:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not true: the image (as said in it's english version Image:Earth-lighting-equinox EN.png shows what happens exactly twice every year "on the day of equinox (vernal and autumnal)". So the image is perfectly valid and should be kept. Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini 09:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep At the time of an equinox the tilt is toward and away from the viewer of this diagram, so not visible. William Avery 18:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The requester should look up the definition of "equinox" ;-) The Earth is almost always tilted with respect to the sun, but there are two days each year when the sun is directly over the equator and the illumination would look like this -- the vernal and autumnal equinox. The solstices are the two days of maximum tilt. This images shows exactly what its title implies... the Earth's tilt it essentially "sideways" to the sun on these two days, one on each side of its orbit. Carl Lindberg 01:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - as an author of the image I perfectly agree with previous "keep" votes - equinox is exactly what the image depicts... I know that it can be misleading if one doesn't think about all the relative positions of Sun and Earth throughout our solar year, but unfortunately (for the submitter), this situation does happen - the earth's tilt sure is the same with respect to the Sun - but as Earth's position changes, so does the angle between the tilt and the sun rays coming towards Earth. That's where seasons come from - Blueshade 10:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It also looks all right to me. The only surprising feature of the image is that it is represented as if the observer was situated far away on a direction that 1) belongs to the equatorial plane and 2) is orthogonal to the intersection of the ecliptic plane and the equatorial plane. Shows there is no shadow at noon on the equator on that day! Possibly this kind of image is clearer when observation point is situated on a less specific direction? Gil-Estel 12:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Pazulex
[edit]
I believe that User:Pazulex's images are all copyvios because they are all missing source or license, and many of that user's images have already been deleted for the same reason. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment User:Pazulex's Image:M chelito vt.jpg was deleted on 3 September; the image there now is different, and from User:Pp-diablo (who appears to have been bitten by bugzilla:4636). --Davepape 17:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
All images of Pazulex were deleted by various administrators. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicate of Image:B_kilian_ludwig_jungermann.png Emha 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted (not a clear duplicate, but I think, we do not need the text) --ALE! ¿…? 07:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope EugeneZelenko 15:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted Julo 18:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope. Personalities rights? EugeneZelenko 15:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Moonian 00:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted Julo 18:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
reproduction of a threedimensional artwork Polarlys 16:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Photo made and published in Poland before 1994 ( before 1980 - source is given ), without clear copyright notice - obvious {{PD-Polish}}. No any reason for deletion request. Andros64 09:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why without clear copyright notice? --Polarlys 10:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Without (c) on the photo. It is clear copyright notice in meaning of Polish law before 1994. You exactly know what does it mean "clear copyright notice". First read regulations ( links in template), delete after. :) Andros64 10:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Don't treat me like a stupid child, Andros. Is there no clear copyright notice in the book itself? Where is the photographer BTW, as required by the template? --Polarlys 10:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment According to #2. of this law notice of copyright shall be placed directly on the photo. Only in such case photo is a subject of copyright.
Andros64 11:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete scanned from book, unlikely that no copyright is indicated. I have some railway photobook with photos from Poland, none of them has (C) written on the photo itself. Authors are in credit page. --Jollyroger 08:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
kept, clear {{PD-Polish}} Julo 18:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio, the date of creation (of the sword) doesn't matter, the (modern) photographer enjoys copyright Polarlys 16:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Photo made and published in Poland before 1994 ( before 1980 - source is given ), without clear copyright notice - obvious {{PD-Polish}}. No any reason for deletion request. Andros64 09:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why without clear copyright notice? --Polarlys
- Without (c) on the photo. It is clear copyright notice in meaning of Polish law before 1994. You exactly know what does it mean "clear copyright notice". First read regulations ( links in template), delete after. :) Matter many times discussed. Andros64 10:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Don't treat me like a stupid child, Andros. Is there no clear copyright notice in the book itself? Where is the photographer BTW, as required by the template? --Polarlys 10:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment According to #2. of this law notice of copyright shall be placed directly on the photo. Only in such case photo is a subject of copyright.
Andros64 11:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per above, scanned from copyrighted book. --Jollyroger 08:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
kept, clear {{PD-Polish}} Julo 18:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio, scan from a modern book Polarlys 16:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Photo made and published in Poland before 1994 ( before 1980 - source is given ), without clear copyright notice - obvious {{PD-Polish}}. No any reason for deletion request. Andros64 09:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why without clear copyright notice? --Polarlys 10:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Without (c) on the photo. It is clear copyright notice in meaning of Polish law before 1994. You exactly know what does it mean "clear copyright notice". First read regulations ( links in template), delete after. :) Matter many times discussed. Andros64 10:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Don't treat me like a stupid child, Andros. Is there no clear copyright notice in the book itself? Where is the photographer BTW, as required by the template? --Polarlys 10:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment According to #2. of this law notice of copyright shall be placed directly on the photo. Only in such case photo is a subject of copyright.
Andros64 11:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete like other scans from this book --Jollyroger 08:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
kept, clear {{PD-Polish}} Julo 18:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio, scan from a modern book Polarlys 16:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Photo made and published in Poland before 1994 ( before 1980 - source is given ), without clear copyright notice - obvious {{PD-Polish}}. No reason for deletion request.
Andros64 09:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why without clear copyright notice? --Polarlys 10:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Without (c) on the photo. It is clear copyright notice in meaning of Polish law before 1994. You exactly know what does it mean "clear copyright notice". First read regulations ( links in template), delete after. :) Matter many times discussed. Andros64 10:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Don't treat me like a stupid child, Andros. Is there no clear copyright notice in the book itself? Where is the photographer BTW, as required by the template? --Polarlys 10:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment According to #2. of this law notice of copyright shall be placed directly on the photo. Only in such case photo is a subject of copyright.
Andros64 11:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per above --Jollyroger 08:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
kept, clear {{PD-Polish}} Julo 18:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bad file name; see Image:James Clark McReynolds portrait.jpg, which is the same image with a clearer file name. Esrever 02:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as duplicate. Uploader re-submitted the image with a better file name. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 17:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
author is Instituto tecnológico de Cd. Victoria, not uploader --Shizhao 03:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio Deadstar (msg) 11:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted per nom --Cecil 17:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I made this image, but MediaWiki doesn't handle GIFs well so can not really be used. So we made a much better SVG image instead. See the other versions linked from the image's description. --Davidgothberg 04:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 17:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
el tamaño es extremadamente grande, se dispone una imagen semejante de menor tamaño Luislineroq 06:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
kept, why should we replace a good picture with one that has low quality? --Cecil 18:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a duplicate of [Image:Su7mk-Algeria.PNG] Groumfy 06:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 18:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Alushta locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 18:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Aqmechet locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 18:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Aqsheyh locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 18:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Baghchasaray locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 18:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Cankoy locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 18:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Cankoy-city locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 18:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Curchi locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 18:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Ermenibazar locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 18:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Eupatoria locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 19:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Ichki locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 19:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Islamterek locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 19:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Kerch locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 19:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Krasnoperekopsk-city locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 19:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Krasnoperekopsk locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 19:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Qarasuvbazar locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 19:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Qurman locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 19:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Saq locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 19:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Saq-city locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Sebastopol locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Semikolodez locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Seyitler locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Simferopol locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Simferopol-city locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Sudaq locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Theodosia locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is currently used nowhere. More correct version of the map Image:Crimea-Yalta locator map.png is now uploaded. Alessandro 08:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I have just realised that one of the arrows of the horizontal force is in the wrong direction, so this file should be deleted as it is confusing. There is a similar file on commons with the forces drawn correctly. --Snowmanradio 09:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, I asume that Image:Conical pendulum.png is the correct one. --Cecil 19:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright unclear. Picture is from 1949 --Fransvannes 12:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- A lot of uploads by this user lack information about author, source and permission and need to be reviewed. --91.65.124.74 15:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted per nom. --Cecil 19:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deletion request fix - image was tagged {{derivative}}. I believe User:Natacho was trying to follow the "if you disagree" instructions on the Spanish version of the speedy delete tag, but edited the wrong page. --Davepape 01:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Esta foto es de un mural que se encuentra en mi antiguo colegio. En ella se pueden ver los logos de los distintos campamentos organizados por los estudiantes del ultimo año. Los logos fueron creados por los estudiantes que organizaron cada campamento y ellos estan felices de que los mismo aparezcan en wikipedia. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Natacho (talk • contribs)
- Sorry for edit the wrong page. Is it posible to discus it at spanish?--Natacho 12:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Si, por supuesto. --ALE! ¿…? 07:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Closing as kept; visible logos are work of students who have no objection to their appearance in the photo. -- Infrogmation 14:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Likely copyright violation and more, see talk page. There is also a cut-out from this image with the same problems: Image:Collage of women.jpg. Thus I have also nominated that one for deletion. --Davidgothberg 04:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Source is FBI, the copyright statement read All information the Bureau provides at this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied, subject to Sections 701 and 709 of Title 18, United States Code (Link has since then changed, but entire section of copyright can be found in the image page or on the FBI website).
- Hence the source images are also public information, not a likely copyright violation, although I have to admit am not familiar with Title 18, United States Code. The collage of these images was licensed by me as CC and GFDL, which is my usual style of licensing on the commons. So for all practical purposes these images are free. -- Chris 73 19:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- collecting is not enough reason to making it CC and GFDL it must still under PD..--OsamaK 13:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not collect, en:Collage. To be licensed separately, it must contribute artistic value. It can be argued if making this collage is artistic value. The legal definition of artistic value is, however, very minimalistic, and even a simple photo of a 3D object allows for separate licensing. I chose this license simply because it is most convenient to me, as i license all my other stuff under this license. Since the collage required additional effort like collecting, reformatting, etc, i think it validates a separate license. But anyway, I think this is a minor point of this discussion. -- Chris 73 17:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- collecting is not enough reason to making it CC and GFDL it must still under PD..--OsamaK 13:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept, not copyright violation as from PD-US source, now mentioned on image page. -- Infrogmation 14:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Renomination #1
this is compiled from images on the fbi most wanted list, many of which are merely obtained and not taken by us govt employees. (The one on the bottom left in particular looks cropped from a family photo.) This is not PD-USGov. If this goes so should the crop of this image linked on the image page. 65.96.164.13 14:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- For the same reason as above, All information the Bureau provides at this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied, subject to Sections 701 and 709 of Title 18, United States Code, there is no mentioning of who took the images. -- Chris 73 (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Give me a break, clearly many of the wanted photos they did not take themselves. Their copyright statement can only refer to what is actually produced by the federal government. They have tons of photos of terrorists on the run etc on their website. If they took these photos themselves, these people would have been found already. And do you think that the FBI went to someone's Christmas party to take the bottom left photo? 76.118.176.89 20:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please read the statement again: All information the Bureau provides at this ... In this license there is no mentioning at all of who took the photos, merely providing them on the site makes them public information. -- Chris 73 (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, merely placing something on your website can never place something into the public domain. The FBI has no authority to seize the copyright owned by the photographer at the woman's party. 65.96.164.13 00:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- He did not say Public Domain, but rather public information. It does not violate any copyright law because in order for something to be copyrighted, it must have actual creative and artistic value. A family photo, be it not be anything creative or original (such as artistic intent of the photographer or of the people in the photo), is not included in US copyright protections for creative and original works. Proof is in the media. Often the media will get a hold of a picture online from places like FaceBook or MySpace. Easiest example is Obama's speech writer that got in hot water with a pic posted of him with a cutout of Hilary Clinton. That picture was not taken nor given to the media, but rather taken from online areas that are open to public viewing. These organizations were not held for copyright violations. The photos all combined could be considered for copyright, but as it was provided by the FBI, it isn't. If anyone would even attempt to have it taken off, it would be for an invasion of privacy, though that argument would be EXTREMELY hard to market, and Wikipedia would be far from being responsible. I declare this argument over and am taking off the request. 72.204.20.105 02:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- No. To be copyrighted, it must have at least a tiny shred of creative influence--not value. It's very very hard not to pass that level in the US; the average family photo would exceed it massively. Yes, the media uses photos from FaceBook and MySpace; it's called fair use, budget to pay off virtually any litigants, and expensive lawyers to fight anyone looking for Big Money.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- He did not say Public Domain, but rather public information. It does not violate any copyright law because in order for something to be copyrighted, it must have actual creative and artistic value. A family photo, be it not be anything creative or original (such as artistic intent of the photographer or of the people in the photo), is not included in US copyright protections for creative and original works. Proof is in the media. Often the media will get a hold of a picture online from places like FaceBook or MySpace. Easiest example is Obama's speech writer that got in hot water with a pic posted of him with a cutout of Hilary Clinton. That picture was not taken nor given to the media, but rather taken from online areas that are open to public viewing. These organizations were not held for copyright violations. The photos all combined could be considered for copyright, but as it was provided by the FBI, it isn't. If anyone would even attempt to have it taken off, it would be for an invasion of privacy, though that argument would be EXTREMELY hard to market, and Wikipedia would be far from being responsible. I declare this argument over and am taking off the request. 72.204.20.105 02:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, merely placing something on your website can never place something into the public domain. The FBI has no authority to seize the copyright owned by the photographer at the woman's party. 65.96.164.13 00:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please read the statement again: All information the Bureau provides at this ... In this license there is no mentioning at all of who took the photos, merely providing them on the site makes them public information. -- Chris 73 (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Give me a break, clearly many of the wanted photos they did not take themselves. Their copyright statement can only refer to what is actually produced by the federal government. They have tons of photos of terrorists on the run etc on their website. If they took these photos themselves, these people would have been found already. And do you think that the FBI went to someone's Christmas party to take the bottom left photo? 76.118.176.89 20:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- And what is the creative expression evident in this media? I don't see any. They seem like purely utilitarian photographs, and only the composition expressed any scintilla of creativity. In any case, I don't understand at all the argument here regarding the license. The license clearly says the photographs may be used. Then people argue that others took the photos and that therefore the FBI didn't have the authority to license them and/or they aren't a US government work. Wikipedia requires the work to be appropriately licensed for inclusion, or to be available by virtue of other reasons such as inaplicability of copyright. It is not our job to guess, based on no infromation, that the FBI didn't really have the authority to release these photos and that therefore.... It meets the requirements for use in Wikipedia so use it. As an aside I can't see how the argument that some intrinsic quality of the photos or purpose demonstrates the FBI is granting authority for works illegaly. The FBI compiles records of people, especially those who've had runins with state authorities. There are laws requiring submission of such records to the FBI. Do you really think the FBI is guilty of massive copyright infringment when it posts the mugshots in post offices, their website, and every single time they transmit, store, or use in any way these mugshots? If these are even subject to copyright, which I doubt, it certainly is not evident that the copyright notice is mistaken based on the (lack of) evidence presented thus far.
- They look like pictures of people to me, which almost by default meet the minimum level of creative expression. You can't see any creative expression in the picture in the bottom row, second over? It's clearly a family photo or something, so the FBI doesn't have the right to license it, and the choice of timing and framing is certainly creative. The FBI has a strong fair-use argument when it posts a mugshot. We have none when we use a mugshot because we're too lazy to find another picture of a black man.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete They're copyrighted by the photographers, who almost certainly weren't federal government.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- What is your source or reasoning supporting this conclusion? Further, what is the basis for your claim that these photos are copyrighted by the photographers? You think these are freelance mugshot artists or something? They just happened to be walking around the police station and snapped these pictures? It really begs the question to just declare they are copyrighted by the photographers, when there is no reason given to assume this is true. Further, how do you get past the FBI license? Have you just decided that the FBI license is invalid? On what grounds? How does that mean we can't keep this photo, which meets wikipedia/commons requirements? Anyways, I'm off to file my lawsuit against my local police departments and post offices.... Those bastards reprinted my photos and passed them around to other cops and departments (apparently they wanted to catch the guy, whatever) As a starving mugshot artist who's honed my craft for years, I'm incensed that they would put up copies for the public and cops to look at. Everyone knows you can't do that with mugshots!--Δζ (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- and
- No, I think there are photographs of families and friends. I think the license is sloppy and careless. As I said, they have a strong fair-use argument in using this pictures to represent the person in the picture, but we have none in using them to represent generic people. Use mugshots taken by the FBI, or taken and distributed by a US state or local PD prior to 1989 (and not filed for copyright, but that almost goes without saying).--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unknown copyright status and violates these people's right to privacy. -Nard the Bard 07:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Simple face photographs used by the FBI do not fall above the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it can credibly be suggested that photos of faces under US law don't reach the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. The threshold of originality is extremely low and the process of selecting angles and lighting for a photo is more than enough to qualify. Even Shepard Fairey didn't try and argue that the photo didn't reach the threshold of originality and the fact he ended up settling with AP makes it pretty clear that AP did hold a valid copyright.Geni (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted These are all images of people who were wanted fugitives -- not in the custody of the FBI. It is, therefore, very unlikely that all of these images were taken by the FBI or other Federal employees. In the absence of proof, we must assume that one or more of them came from state or local law enforcement agencies or other sources and are still under copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Likely copyright violation and more, see talk page. This image is a cut-out from Image:RaceMugshots.jpg that also has the same problems. Thus I have also nominated that one for deletion. --Davidgothberg 04:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Source is FBI, the copyright statement read All information the Bureau provides at this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied, subject to Sections 701 and 709 of Title 18, United States Code (Link has since then changed, but entire section of copyright can be found in the image page or on the FBI website).
- Hence the source images are also public information, not a likely copyright violation, although I have to admit am not familiar with Title 18, United States Code. The collage of these images was licensed by me as CC and GFDL, which is my usual style of licensing on the commons. So for all practical purposes these images are free. Artistic value can be seen as low, but this is not a deletion reason. -- Chris 73 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept, not copyright violation as from PD-US source, now mentioned on image page. -- Infrogmation 14:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Small, bad quality, no use in articles Ingolfson 08:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I retract the 'not in use'. However, I find that the image is still of very bad quality and should be deleted. Can't be too hard to get a better one eventually, and the article would not suffer substantially from the loss at all. Ingolfson 08:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Closing as kept. If used it is useful; uploading a better quality image is encouraged but there is no reason to delete this one until after that has been done. -- Infrogmation 14:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There exists a new one as PNG --Kgberger 11:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Was ist das denn? Gibt Putzger seine Karten mit Farbverlauf im Meer raus? Das sieht ja grottig aus. Wie ist das mit den Lizenzen der neueren Bilder? Was qualifiziert überhaupt das eine Bild vor dem anderen? Warum wurde es hochgeladen. Ich sehe mehr Gründe, das neue Bild zu löschen, als das alte. --N3MO 16:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nun (verläufe), das ist sicher geschmackssache. Die karten sind von mir gezeichnet und nicht irgendwo rausgescannt. Ich habe was die gesamtanmutung betrifft anregungen von User:Korny78 aufgenommen. Und ergänzungen in der überschrift vorgenommen, da die karte eigentlich nicht die administrative gliederung des großdeutschen reiches widergibt. Kgberger 14:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as duplicate. Uploader re-submitted the image with a better version. Kgberger 09:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
September 22
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
damaged, did not upload correctly --altairisfar 01:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 00:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Obvious copyvio. The logo is copyrighted by the Colombian Conservative Party Boricuæddie 02:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- {{Copyvio}} should be used. Chanueting 05:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 15:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Joan Soler was president of FC Barcelona from 1939 to 1940 so the image was probably taken in this period. We don't know who took the photo in the first place, but the photographer cannot be dead for more then 70 years if the photo was taken during Soler's presidency. Matt314 11:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- This might also apply for other photo's uploaded by Fcb93. --Matt314 12:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted them all (in every single image description a request for speedy deletion), copyvios--Polarlys 20:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REDIRECT Insert text Editing CommonsDeletion requestsInsert text 189.172.15.151 requests. 06:56, 10 May 2007 Warning: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted.
ROSALIA
registrado 100 العربية: دخولك هنا غير مسجل. إن عنوان الأيبي الخاص بك سيتم إدراجه ضمن تاريخ الصفحة مما قد يضر بخصوصيتك —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.238.74.0 (talk • contribs) at 19:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Nonsense. That page does not exist. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work of copyrighted photo, "Some years back, I hired a student to make some drawings of famous psychologists which we could put into the public domain. I've since forgotten the artist's name. She did the drawing from some existing photograph." Polarlys 10:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Inspiration doesn't mean derivative work. --Alverawa 13:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's obviously wrong here. ––Polarlys 16:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Digon3: Derivative work, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Skinner.jpg
Please delete Image:AudiS8 3.jpg because it is a duplicate of Image:AudiS8 2.jpg. --Siku-Sammler 21:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate. -- Cecil 02:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source. According to Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Nordic_countries the photo of the painting could well be copyright protected Fred J 15:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Still no source to ensure the PD-licence. -- Cecil 13:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused and I can't find the diff between it and Image:John Rep.jpg. OsamaK 16:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Image differs (check the opening of the mouth and the zoon factor). Not duplicates and no reason for deletion. Especially since you nominated both images for deletion. Siebrand 17:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The two images named have the exact same name... obviously an image will look identical to itself ;-) Wikimedia software will turn the space into an underscore automatically, so both of these names point to the same image. And obviously the photo itself should be kept. Carl Lindberg 01:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry it's Commons:Deletion requests/Image:John Rep 3.jpg :).--OsamaK 12:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The images are different, no reason for deletion. --GeorgHH 12:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- :-) Okay. Still, they are not the exact same image. Very similar, but different enough to keep. We would only delete an exact duplicate. We should let editors choose which one to use in articles, not decide for them via deletion. In any event, the only other two images we have of this person, including the new one mentioned, have been nominated for deletion as well. The requester has removed the deletion tag from this one, so I assume this is the one he/she wants to stay. So, my vote still a keep. Carl Lindberg 15:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep being similar is not a reason to delete --Jollyroger 08:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept: It's only similar, not a duplicate. --GeorgHH 10:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused and I can't find the diff between it and Image:John Rep.jpg OsamaK 16:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Image differs (check the opening of the mouth and the zoon factor). Not duplicates and no reason for deletion. Especially since you nominated both images for deletion. Siebrand 17:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's very minor diff.--OsamaK 12:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but it means they are not the exact same image. Very similar, but different enough to keep. We would only delete an exact duplicate. We should let editors choose which one to use in articles, not decide for them via deletion. Keep Carl Lindberg 15:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but it means they are not the exact same image. Very similar, but different enough to keep. We would only delete an exact duplicate. We should let editors choose which one to use in articles, not decide for them via deletion.
- That's very minor diff.--OsamaK 12:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep being similar is not a reason to delete --Jollyroger 08:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept: It's only similar, not a duplicate. --GeorgHH 10:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE. Dodo 09:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
suspect to be copyvio: http://www.thehistorybunker.co.uk/acatalog/mp41400.jpg Chanueting 05:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This image has now been deleted
Uh... incorrect sir, the image is an original. Koalorka 03:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: cv
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This map I created is no more used. Instead, I created Image:Saronic_Gulf_map-fr.svg of better quality and with the text in SVG, easy to translate. --Sting 22:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work: photograph of newspaper of 2006 Yakoo 07:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 14:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Originally tagged as a derivative work by Dodo. The maneki neko is a longstanding motif in Japan, so it is a question of theshold of originality. The outcome of this debate would seem to be applicable to most images in Category:Maneki neko. --William Avery 17:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep object is clearly not artistic. AFAIK photos of simple industrial objects are not subject to limits in photographic rights. Not an original creation too, since is closely resemblant to a traditional image. --Jollyroger 08:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Object is clearly not artistic. See Copywrite Violation? and OiMax's photos / Tags / beckoningcat in Flickr.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
too big Fabi 18:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept Large image size not prohibited. -- Infrogmation 14:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture is not a PD. It is written by uploader "Source: New Party Nippon, Authuor: New Party Nippon" in Japanese. --MZM-MSYK 19:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Copy vio.--Monaneko 15:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 14:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope EugeneZelenko 16:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted per nom. --Cecil 23:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not covered by FOP Polarlys 21:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. Siebrand 20:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 07:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this image is not necesary, and content grammatical errors. Can will erase with safe --72.50.110.176 15:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept No valid reason. --GeorgHH • talk 21:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Claimed "The medical authorities in Bulgaria are doing their best to send this picture to as much viewers, as possible. There are not copyright restrictions over the image." -- but can anyone verify whether the Bulgarian health ministery does not claim copyright of their material or of this poster? I see no evidence. Fred J 16:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted No indication that it is PD. --GeorgHH • talk 21:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
THere is nothing supporting that this image was released under GFDL (or that it is PD as on de.wiki). Furter more www.ngw.nl is not a proper source since they don't actually own the copyright to any of their images Lokal_Profil 11:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Deleted, because the artist's year of death is unknown (but not unknowable), and there is no evidence the work is anonymous. Quadell (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed PD status: This is not correct for all cases. If the author is anonym or worked under a pseudonym, a picture is PD 70 years after publication. In this case, the author is anonym because the impressum does not name him! Red Rooster 14:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC) -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please keep this picture. I already told it on page of this picture. In Germany, a picture is PD 70 years after publication if the author is not named! This is the true fact about this picture and thus, it has not to be deleted! (Sorry that I repeat this over and over, but I got already blocked because of so called "copyright-violation", only because I did not clarify the facts about further deletion requests) Red Rooster 21:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like it came from a magazine... if the artist's name is not published anywhere in that magazine, then {{Anonymous-EU}} would apply. It should not be marked PD-Old though. If the artist later made himself known that would be different, but unless there is information to that effect I think it would be OK. Note that I am assuming the uploader has access to a copy of the original magazine and can verify that the artist's name was not mentioned anywhere inside. If that is not the case and we don't know the contents of the magazine, then the situation changes as the authorship is "unknown" (i.e. we don't have enough information) instead of being "anonymous" (we know it was published without attribution). Carl Lindberg 01:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- But where's the problem? 1924 + 70 = 1994. Now we have 2007, I think. And yes, it's a magazine cover. Marcus Cyron 19:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- If we know who the author is, then the copyright expires 70 years after that person's death, which has quite possibly not expired yet. If the magazine was published without mentioning the artist's name, then that would qualify as "anonymous" and we can use the 1994 date, and it is fine. If we don't know what was printed inside that magazine, then it's "unknown" rather than explicitly "anonymous", and we don't know enough to say it's fine. We need to point to a specific law which would make it public domain, not just hope so. I think the UK has a law about "unknown" works but I don't think Germany does; all other European countries do have a law pertaining to "anonymous" works but to qualify we need to at least know it was published without attribution, and that attribution could have been anywhere inside the magazine. Carl Lindberg 06:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Don't we say: Anonymous Work must be made 100 years ago? I only answerd Bryans: If the author is anonym or worked under a pseudonym, a picture is PD 70 years after publication. Marcus Cyron 10:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, missed that. Bryan was actually just quoting Red Rooster, who wrote the above on the image description. I guess he is disputing that statement. "Anonymous" is different than "unknown". "Anonymous" is when something is published, and either no name or a pseudonym in the place where the author's name normally goes, and has always been reasonably common, especially for books and newspaper articles. There are laws which specifically deal with anonymous works, in particular the EU where (as is stated) copyright lasts 70 years after publication. "Unknown" is different... those probably were published with a name, and thus a completely valid copyright may still exist, except that the work has been copied without attribution enough times that it is hard to trace back. There are very few laws which deal with this, and it is especially common with photographs (no normal place to attribute the photographer) on the Internet (really easy to copy but harder to keep attribution). The German wikipedia does have a 100-year rule of thumb for "unknown" photographs, but as far as I know commons does not have a similar guideline -- I think we require at least an arguable legal basis for something being in the public domain. As for this image, it's impossible to know just from a cover image if the artwork was attributed or not. You would expect at least a page inside the magazine would note who did the cover artwork, so if that is not there this would be anonymous. If we don't know about the contents of the magazine, then this one probably drifts back into "unknown" territory. Carl Lindberg 04:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Don't we say: Anonymous Work must be made 100 years ago? I only answerd Bryans: If the author is anonym or worked under a pseudonym, a picture is PD 70 years after publication. Marcus Cyron 10:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- If we know who the author is, then the copyright expires 70 years after that person's death, which has quite possibly not expired yet. If the magazine was published without mentioning the artist's name, then that would qualify as "anonymous" and we can use the 1994 date, and it is fine. If we don't know what was printed inside that magazine, then it's "unknown" rather than explicitly "anonymous", and we don't know enough to say it's fine. We need to point to a specific law which would make it public domain, not just hope so. I think the UK has a law about "unknown" works but I don't think Germany does; all other European countries do have a law pertaining to "anonymous" works but to qualify we need to at least know it was published without attribution, and that attribution could have been anywhere inside the magazine. Carl Lindberg 06:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think government officials were taking pictures of Senator Jeffords when he was seven years old. grendel|khan 20:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per nominator. Superm401 05:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Looks like the type of photo likely to have been taken by a family member. Since it was on the Senator's official website it may have been released under a free license, but more info to confirm status is probably needed to determine if that is so. -- Infrogmation 10:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. I changed the tag to {{PD-US-not renewed}}. The photo was taken in 1940. To still be under copyright, it would have had to have been renewed with the U.S. Copyright office in 1968. This never happened, in practice, with family photos, and an exhaustive search here turns up no Jeffords renewals listed for that year. Quadell (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
September 23
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The source site uses cc-by-nc-nd-2.5-it --Jaqen 14:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Bryan: nc-nd license
Project by Marcello Piacentini, who died in 1960. No FOP in Italy. --User:G.dallorto 01:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted per nom. --ALE! ¿…? 07:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [63]. Yann (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Project by Marcello Piacentini, who died in 1960. No FOP in Italy. --User:G.dallorto 01:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted per nom. --ALE! ¿…? 07:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [64]. Yann (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dazzi died only in 1966, copyrighted work. No FOP in Italy --User:G.dallorto 01:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted per nom. --ALE! ¿…? 07:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dazzi died only in 1966, copyrighted work. No FOP in Italy --User:G.dallorto 01:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted per nom. --ALE! ¿…? 07:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyrighted screenshot ˉanetode╦╩ 00:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Unless evidence is presented that the film was actually released as copyrighted free use, Delete -- Infrogmation 02:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Infrogmation and Anetode. Maxim(talk) 19:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk screenshot
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contains non-free Firefox logo and is a low-quality JPEG image. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- I have removed the logo, and as the image is being used I think it serves a purpose. / Fred J 09:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Fred J. — Jeff G. 17:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
old revision deleted, image kept --ALE! ¿…? 11:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused, math formula. Dodo 11:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete formulas can be done with Latex. --ALE! ¿…? 11:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete ack ALE!. Even if Latex is a bit difficult it should work. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contains copyrighted avatar and software logos EugeneZelenko 16:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete ack. This would maybe work on but not here. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --Digon3 talk 16:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source is the Wikipedia image page that did not identify the source, author was identified as "Claeys Patrick ( head construction team )" but there is no evidence that the author has released all rights. Butseriouslyfolks 17:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The author appears to be the webmaster of baileybrug.info and pclaeys.be. This image appears to be a crop of the digital watermark "www.pclaeys.be" off of the bottom of photo http://www.baileybrug.info/Leest/Leest%20noodbrug%20af%20(8).JPG as displayed by Baileybridge - baileybrug - pont bailey - bro bailey - Leest : afwerking na de bouw at http://www.baileybrug.info/LeestAfwerking-N.htm. "P C" in the digital watermark in the top left corner appears to refer to "Patrick" and "Claeys", although I'm unsure why the order is reversed. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: unfree. WjBscribe 17:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The only thing the flickr user does is collecting images from women in public and promotional and other shots of actresses (Monica Belluci, Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, ...), putting them under "free" licenses. This image is copied from some paparazzi website. Looking for "paris that's hot" on google, you can find similar photos (same bag, same skirt, same shirt) and this one on other websites. Polarlys 18:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Appears to be a copyvio of http://laist.com/attachments/la_zach/paris-hilton_thatshot.jpg as displayed by LAist: "That's Hot." Now Come and Sue Us at http://laist.com/2007/09/08/thats_hot_now_c.php. This Flickr user appears to be a license fraud at http://www.flickr.com/photos/32515288@N00/ AKA Quibbling Bunnies. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Unless you can prove, a image is not copyrighted just because it appear on google or other website. The image is on flickr licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0, that's enough. -- JohnBiancato talk 23:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Since people create flickr accounts to upload copyrighted photos from there to Wikimedia Commons and since there are thousands of flickr user whose portfolio just consists of collected copyvios under free licenses: It's not enough. We don't have to prove anything, a lot of professional photos from actresses on the user's flickr page is enough evidence not t trust him. ––Polarlys 11:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. See also my deletion requests starting at Commons:Deletion_requests/2007/09/30#Image:Victoria_Beckham.jpg. --BLueFiSH 18:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete inconsistent EXIF information on the rest of that users flickr photos suggest that it wasn't taken by the user. Megapixie
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
fake, see Commons:Village_pump#Fake images Moloch981 19:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete with extreme prejudice per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep With the right description it is useful. The picture is not the fake, the description is the fake. --Historiograf 18:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- hm...? Do we have the right description (and source)?? If so, it should be uploaded udner it's correct name, this version should be Deleted
- No, we don't. We don't know who the subject really is. --Moloch981 15:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: without prejudice to reupload with correct description at correct title. WjBscribe 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
fake, see Commons:Village_pump#Fake images Moloch981 19:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete with extreme prejudice per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: without prejudice to reupload with correct description at correct title. WjBscribe 17:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
fake, see Commons:Village_pump#Fake images Moloch981 19:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete with extreme prejudice per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep and rename correctly The picture is not a fake --Historiograf 18:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Believe me, I would :-) But we don't know who the subject really is... I have no clue. --Moloch981 15:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: without prejudice to reupload with correct description at correct title. WjBscribe 17:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
fake, see Commons:Village_pump#Fake images Moloch981 19:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete with extreme prejudice per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: without prejudice to reupload with correct description at correct title. WjBscribe 17:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
fake, see Commons:Village_pump#Fake images Moloch981 19:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete with extreme prejudice per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: without prejudice to reupload with correct description at correct title. WjBscribe 17:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
fake, see Commons:Village_pump#Fake images Moloch981 19:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete with extreme prejudice per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: without prejudice to reupload with correct description at correct title. WjBscribe 17:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
fake, see Commons:Village_pump#Fake images Moloch981 19:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete with extreme prejudice per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: without prejudice to reupload with correct description at correct title. WjBscribe 17:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deleted from German Wikipedia. From looking at the log, probably because it is not PD. See [65]. Garion96 19:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
![[65]](https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial%3ALogbuch&type=&user=&page=Bild%3AFeuersturmHamburg.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per nom. Deleted from German Wikipedia due to "Impressum Herausgeber und Verlag: JUNGE FREIHEIT Verlag GmbH & Co. Hohenzollerndamm 27a 10713 Berlin Tel. 030/864953-0 Fax: 030/864953-14 © 1996 - 2005". Source is http://www.bombenkrieg.net/feuersturm.jpg as displayed by Von oben Text (From above Text) - Hamburg Fires at http://www.bombenkrieg.net/hamburg_feuers.htm. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: unfree. WjBscribe 17:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work --Garion96 19:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also, English Wikipedia is no source, please use CommonsHelper in the future. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: Images tagged as potentially unfree on their home wiki really shouldn't be uploaded here until such issues are resolved... WjBscribe 17:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence of PD. See webarchive of source site at [66] and this listing.Garion96 19:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I uploaded this image from en.wikipedia, but seeing the evidences it is obvious that must be deleted. Chabacano 00:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted as a copyvio --ALE! ¿…? 11:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The source talks about reproductions, it does not mention the right to make derivative works Kjetil r 21:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - "© Service photographique de la Présidence de la République - sommet du G8 de Paris – 1989 – conférence de presse du Président français François Mitterrand" on the caption and "Service photographique de la Présidence de la République (Office of the French President, Photo Unit. Reproduction authorised subject to acknowledgement of source and photographer's name)." on G8 - Sommet Evian Summit 2003 - Legal notice at http://www.g8.fr/evian/english/legal_notice.html. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: unfree. WjBscribe 17:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence that uploader can release rights, plus it has a large copyright notice. Butseriouslyfolks 22:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — --GeorgHH 11:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/aap/kmiller.html does not indicate public domain Butseriouslyfolks 22:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. We probably can't assume it's PD until 2040. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Looked on Howard University site also, and saw no indication there that this image is free per Commons inclusion policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 03:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete cant see anything about PD there. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong state in name --carol 08:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Please use {{rename image}} next time. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- What's the right state? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I did miss this. I thought my work was done. Sorry. I uploaded Image:Big Well-Greensburg Kansas.jpg as soon as I figured out that I had made the mistake.
- {{rename image}} is less work for others? -- carol 21:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. I (or another administrator) can delete it immediately without waiting for comment. Please see badname at Commons:Deletion_requests. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- {{rename image}} is less work for others? -- carol 21:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as {{badname}} Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Low quality JPEG, not used on any wikis. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contains non-free Firefox logo, not used on any wikis. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Maxim(talk) 19:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contains non-free Firefox logo. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Maxim(talk) 19:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contains non-free Firefox logo, not used on any wikis. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Maxim(talk) 19:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong file name, see Commons:Village_pump#Fake_images Moloch981 12:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by WJBscribe: doctored image under false title
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Original uploader has history of incorrect tags at en.wikipedia, and this certainly looks like a professional shot. Butseriouslyfolks 22:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The original upload was "{{CopyrightedFreeUse}}" per this log, and the original uploader's log is a sea of red. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. See here as well. - Julian's Rock (tell me) 00:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Superseded by Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg.
The image was deleted as superseded, but undeleted following Undeletion request.
My arguments for deletion are:
- The filename is wrong: the title is not "Tsunami" but "Great Wave"
- Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg is of much better quality.
According to Image talk:Tsunami by hokusai 19th century.jpg, that image was actually never voted a FP; it was just promoted as such because it was so at English Wikipedia.
- Comment Incorrect, see Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/January_2005#Image:Tsunami_by_hokusai_19th_century.jpg_featured --Tony Wills 13:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, I stand corrected. / Fred J 10:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that Image:Tsunami_by_hokusai_19th_century.jpg be deleted and that all references to it be changed to Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg.
Fred J 00:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Irrelevant argumentation. Image:Alfred Sisley 065.jpg is also of much better quality than Image:Tsunami by hokusai 19th century.jpg. This is not a valid reason to delete the latter, since these pictures don't show the same work of art. The reproduction (sometimes forgery) of works of art is a common activity everywhere in the World: see the pictures in the English Wikipedia article Mona Lisa. More, when you look at the pictures in Category:36 Views of Mount Fuji, Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg clearly appears as the odd one: don't replace an original work of art with a reproduction. --Juiced lemon 09:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep They are different images, where does the idea of 'superseded come from? Commons has room for two different versions of the same image, especially if one is from a copy of the 'real' version. Also this image was the one promoted to FP, if you wish to change that there is a de-listing process at FP. If you wish to change the images name, there is a process for that. As far as I can see Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg was never voted FP, nor was it ever used as POTD. --Tony Wills 13:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Rename This is not a tsunami. I'm not sure about the colors, but think the higher resolution version (if correct) should be featured. The low resolution should not be featured, in my opinion. I have posted Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#Image:The_Great_Wave_off_Kanagawa.jpg and Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#Image:Tsunami_by_hokusai_19th_century.jpg to discuss and try to sort this out. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have no problem with renaming the image, but clearly deletion is not appropriate. Putting the other version up as an FP candidate is fine and if it succeeds they will probably delist this version, but there will still be no need to delete this different version. This should have been a {{badname}} request from the start. --Tony Wills 23:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- You might want to check the log for this image. Apparently this version was uploaded first, then the version now at Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg was uploaded, overwriting the first version. Neither version should be named "tsunami". This is not a tsunami. Not sure we need two versions, either. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- I can not tell from those logs what was uploaded by User:Red devil 666 in March 06 (the links all just point to what is currently there), but clearly it is the 2005 version that was promoted to FP.
- You might want to check the log for this image. Apparently this version was uploaded first, then the version now at Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg was uploaded, overwriting the first version. Neither version should be named "tsunami". This is not a tsunami. Not sure we need two versions, either. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- There is a fundamental disconnect going on in this discussion. We are not discussing different images of the same print. We are not discussing better photographs of the same print. We are discussing two different images of different prints made from different woodcuts that depict a scene painted by Hokusai. This one is a photograph of a print owned by Metropolitan Museum of Art, the other (larger) image is of a completely different (unspecified) print! Clearly even to the untrained eye the clouds are different, the blobs of sea spray are different. The idea of deleting one image because it is larger etc only makes sense if you are looking at this as a depiction of Mount Fuji and a large wave, whereas these images are depictions of works of art (maybe forgeries as suggested in Image talk:Tsunami by hokusai 19th century.jpg), does that make sense ! :-) --Tony Wills 00:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, according to en:The Great Wave off Kanagawa, the painting at the Met is a copy. There is another copy at the British Museum, and a third copy. Does anyone know where the original is? I would support renaming this as Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa at the Met.jpg or something like that. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- The British Museum copy appears to be a print from the same woodcut as the Met one, but in very poor condition. As far as I can make out the original woodblock is part of Monet's collection displayed at his Giverny home. From this it appears that this version is from that woodblock (although the colours are not the same, the image detail appears the same), the larger alternative image is clearly not from that woodblock (and perhaps a forgery) - any experts out there? I agree with the suggested renaming, and ask for an admin to close this with a keep and we can proceed with a {{badname}} request --Tony Wills 02:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and Rename. I am the one who asked first the change of name of now the Great wave off Kanagawa. I didn't noice there's a differnet print, but Tony Wills is right. The Tsunami print's black background of Mt. Fuji is slightly curved upward on both sides but The Great Wave is not. According to this, the Met has the 4
printscopies of the Wave and the page shows the one in the best condition. Anyway, the Tsunami is a bad name. Oda Mari 06:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- The Great wave is the same as this one and the page author says he's an en. WP editor. Oda Mari 06:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- The British Museum copy appears to be a print from the same woodcut as the Met one, but in very poor condition. As far as I can make out the original woodblock is part of Monet's collection displayed at his Giverny home. From this it appears that this version is from that woodblock (although the colours are not the same, the image detail appears the same), the larger alternative image is clearly not from that woodblock (and perhaps a forgery) - any experts out there? I agree with the suggested renaming, and ask for an admin to close this with a keep and we can proceed with a {{badname}} request --Tony Wills 02:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Rename since it is apparently based on misunderstanding. It should be titled in the original title or its translation "Behind the Great Wave at Kanagawa". --Aphaia 06:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If it is true that they are really two different version, coming from two different places / sources, then I also support to upload this image with a different name and Keeping it. / Fred J 10:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Here's the story: None of these are paintings, all are woodblock prints. As is the case with most ukiyo-e prints, there is no single original copy. There were a number of separate impressions made from the same woodblock, that is to say, a number of original copies, all of them equally authentic. Other copies, such as the ones with different clouds and such, may be variations created by Hokusai, again just as original and authentic as the others. I do not know enough about this particular print to say whether or not the copy in any particular collection is or is not a forgery, or how old the individual copies may be, but it is extremely likely that all of the copies in question are authentic - this is by no means uncommon when it comes to ukiyo-e prints, which were made in the hundreds at the original time that they were made. Incidentally, as someone else has already pointed out, the title imprinted on the image itself reads ｢富嶽三十六景 神奈川沖浪裏」, which translates to something like "36 landscapes of Fuji; the reverse side of Kanagawa deep-ocean wave". No tsunami involved. LordAmeth 11:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep They are images of completely different woodcuts. The first half of Lord Ameth's points are exactly right; the second is not. The featured picture is a reproduction, probably made in the 1930s, using exactly the same techniques, probably with no fraudulent intent, as the differences are easy to see. Somebody else started from scratch and carved anothor woodcut copying the original. The narrative added by the uploader is perfectly clear on this. He uploaded the whole set of Hokusai views of Mount Fuji done in this way - see Category:36 Views of Mount Fuji. I myself don't object to this at all, and they are great images of very good copies, but I think they all should be MUCH more clearly labelled to avid the confusion they are clearly causing, which I can understand - I thought they were the real ones myself at first. I personally don't think a copy of a really well known work of art should be made a featured pic, especially when there is clearly much misunderstanding about what is being seen. I am pretty confident that EVERY use of these in articles, will be inaccurately captioned. No of course it isn't a tsunami! We could do with a better image of one of the many impressions of the original though. Johnbod 12:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that clarification, I see that 'narrative' has also been copied across to the other version, just to confuse matters :-). The two images being discussed here are definitely not both from the same woodblock, the white blobs of foam sea-spray are quite different. Anyway probably best not to assume it's the same version as the Met then, perhaps rename as Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa (1930s recut).jpg --Tony Wills 13:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea - and to change the others, which is a pain of course. Johnbod 13:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- For the comparison. You can see the photographs of the original printings in the Tokyo National Museum at here, here, here, here, and here. And the one in the Kanagawa Museum is here, the one in the Tokyo Fuji Art Museum is here and the photo of another original print which was auctioned in 2004 in Japan is here. Oda Mari 15:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Closing as Kept. PD image, no consensus for deletion. -- Infrogmation 14:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
{{copyvio|Derivative Work}} per guerreritoboy 01:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - insufficient reason for a speedy deletion request. However, this image appears to be a photo taken at 02:30 (probably PM), 26 May 2007, at Yankee Stadium (where COM:FOP#USA applies), of the flag of the New York Yankees, containing the Yankees current logo that is a Registered Trademark and is probably still copyrighted, as it only began usage in 1936[67]. The burden is on the uploader to show that the logo is no longer copyrighted. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative. --Dodo 10:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative. Patstuart 17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 14:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [68]. Yann (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
![[68]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=749427246#File:Flag_of_New_York_Yankees.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Is this sufficient for GFDL claim? Butseriouslyfolks 07:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - the text there is insufficient for a GFDL claim, but may be sufficient for a new license tag. However, I can't find that image there. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Already deleted at en.wiki for copyright reasons; see deletion listing. Chick Bowen 20:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, false licence. -- Infrogmation 14:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Most likely collection of computer game images EugeneZelenko 16:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 14:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Newly inaugurated. No FOP in Italy. --User:G.dallorto 01:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 07:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of copyrighted work. Source is not federal government but state government, so not public domain either --Garion96 19:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted per nom --Cecil 23:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
If you follow the source link, and then the photo credits link, you see that most of the images there were not creted by NPS or US Government employees. This one is by a Maryland state employee and is therefore copyrighted. Butseriouslyfolks 22:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted per nom --Cecil 23:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Screenshot includes non-free Firefox logo, non-free Yahoo toolbar, non-free ImageShack toolbar, and non-free Google toolbar. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted non-free logos. I think it can use now. －Shack... (Talk) 16:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Kept, problematic elements removed. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Screenshot (still) contains the non-free Yahoo toolbar, the non-free ImageShack toolbar, the non-free Google toolbar (visuals and elements of all of which have still survived). Mardus (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- In addition, a small Firefox logo has also survived at the bottom right of the image. -Mardus (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I modified the nomination request to (just in case) remove a reference to the theme for the following reasons:
- Turned out that the source code license of AquaTint Slate 3.6.9 is MPL 1.1, but there is still no information on whether versions of that theme for Firefox 2.0 held the same license, or if MPL 1.1 applies only to the theme's source code and whether the artwork also stays under it or not. Nevertheless, the author of the theme does not indicate in any way if Aquatint Slate is MPL or under any other free license. -Mardus (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept - all possible issues are DM - Jcb (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contains the non-free Gmail logo. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the Gmail logo's - Warddr 07:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept, problematic elements removed pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The public domain release quoted on this page is for images from the State of California web site. This photo is not from the State of California web site. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. The remaining to images were deleted. They may be copyrighted, and they are not used. Quadell (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Images of Multi images
[edit]File:Linea6barra.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)File:Barratlinea5.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)File:Barrat4.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)File:Barraroja3.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)File:Barraazul2.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)File:Barraamarillametro1.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)- File:Nuevalinea7Metrovalencia.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Futurometrovalencia.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Linea7metrovalencia.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Centro urbano.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Most likely scan from metro map.
- Other images uploaded by Multi images (talk • contribs) looks taken from website.
![[69]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Centro_urbano.jpg&oldid=7677722){kind=link}
![[70]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Centro_urbano.jpg&diff=7677737&oldid=7677722){kind=link}
I believe that User:Multi images' images are all copyvios because they all appear to have been taken from the same copyrighted maps of the Valencia, Spain Metro at http://www.metrovalencia.com/metroval/htmleng/plano/acceso_planos.htm as accessed via the "metro network map"'s "+ INFO" link on http://www.metrovalencia.com/metroval/htmleng/home/home.asp and at http://www.metrovalencia.com/metroval/htmleng/descargas/pdf.asp. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Colored rectangles such as Image:Barraazul2.gif are not copyrightable, as simple geometric shapes (even of a certain ratio) contain no original thought, and color itself is also not copyrightable. Choice of color may be trade dress, but not copyright. IMHO anyway. So some of these images are not at issue, in my view. It would be helpful if the specific map or image that is asserted to be a copyvio were given for at least one or two of the non geometric images (once we see a pattern, yes we can delete all the rest). Some helpful person could perhaps make up colored rectangles to replace the ones currently being used in the es: article.... ++Lar: t/c 19:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- If they are not copyrightable, than let the uploader use {{PD-ineligible}}; as they currently stand (two {{GFDL}} and the rest {{PD-self}}), they are either copyvio or copyfraud. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have changed the rectangles to pd-ineligible and deleted the map at Image:Centro urbano.jpg, as copyvio of [71]. I did not close the request yet, as I am not sure whether the remaining images are ineligible as well. --rimshottalk 14:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work. What is date of publication? Who is artist? EugeneZelenko 15:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Date of publication appears to be before the date of the death of the author, Fiodor Dostoievski AKA Fyodor Dostoevsky, in 1881. This appears to be a photo of the hard cover of his White Nights (short story) (first published 1848), translated from Russian into Spanish, in book form, as published 1849, with cover design by the International Book Club in Madrid. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please provide link to photo of 1849 edition (not modern reprint) cover to support your opinion? --EugeneZelenko 14:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not have such a link. What makes you think this is a modern reprint? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I also think that it is modern. I collect old books and none has a that good looking binding after nearly 200 years. Especially the gold print tends to fade after some time or gets worn. -- Cecil 08:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- The book is new, but is the design new? Did the original cover use this same design? Quadell (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not enough information to claim public domain. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 13:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
September 24
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is a non free image, since it is a screenshot of a movie/cartoon/video game. No permissions have been given to use this image as free media. CO2 01:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, which forgot to mention the lack of date, source, and author. :) — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Drini: Copyright violation
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The cards are works of the US Federal Government. However, the individual photographs are not the work of the United States government, but were taken by unknown authors. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, as cannot be properly licensed in its current state. But since this was brought over by a bot, FIRST get with the bot author w:user:Betacommand and the person who approved the move here w:user:Dmcdevit to improve the process so this doesn't happen again, and so that they can move it back if they need to. ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have invited them here to discuss the matter. I have some serious concerns about Image:US Government most-wanted Iraqi playing cards.jpg, how it came here via BetacommandBot, and how it persists here under the questionable judgement of Betacommand.
- There was discussion of that image (or a similar one containing component images of the same playing cards, I couldn't find it yesterday) either here or on English Wikipedia, and it was decided that the component images were not free enough for Commons (many having Iraqi copyrights but having been appropriated by the US DoD and fraudulently redistributed as if they were PD), but that they were free enough for English Wikipedia under Fair Use. Now, along come Dmcdevit, who unilaterally decides to move it to Commons (despite the Fair Use tagging), BetacommandBot, who allows such a move, and Betacommand, who manually removes the Fair Use tagging and calls the image "free". This brings into question the suitability of BetacommandBot for the task at hand, and the judgement of Betacommand. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- And how, pray tell, could I have moved an image multilaterally? It's still a wiki, right? It's always nicer when someone finds a mistake I made after hours of work when they report it with the assumption that it was nothing more than a mistake, rather than when they assume they've foiled my diabolical plot. Dmcdevit 00:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, you know... the usual IRC conniving, rouge adminship, nefarious plotting, cabalism... etc. Unilaterally, bilaterally, trilaterally, whatever it takes... We do love our Jeff G. but he can come on a bit strong sometimes. :) Sorry about that. I did put him up to giving you a heads up to this. We need to figure out, is this a onesie, or something we need to have a process to "bounce back" or whatever if it might happen a lot. A bounceback doesn't mean anyone's evil :) ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- And how, pray tell, could I have moved an image multilaterally? It's still a wiki, right? It's always nicer when someone finds a mistake I made after hours of work when they report it with the assumption that it was nothing more than a mistake, rather than when they assume they've foiled my diabolical plot. Dmcdevit 00:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- This should be deleted. It was simply a user error to have tagged an image that was clearly fair use, and any sort o argument in favor of the US holding legitimate copyright on the original images. I've restored the deleted image on Wikipedia already. Dmcdevit 00:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Nom being a ass and making personal attacks. But seriously I am human and do make mistakes, I saw a US-GOV image and thought it was PD, I wasnt thinking about the composite images and their source. The image on wikipedia was restored so just delete this copy. Betacommand 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- That is an excellent reason to keep an image! Just have the nominator be an ass, and you're home free. Delete, by the way, due to image licensing uncertainty. Titoxd(?!?) 02:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- That is an excellent reason to keep an image! Just have the nominator be an ass, and you're home free.
OK, since Nominator is as ass, makes personal attacks, and is right, I am deleting the image. Betacommand and Dmcdevit, you've goofed, that's not a problem in itself; but it'd be gracious to say "point taken", learn from the mistake, and move on. I'm really astonished at the lack of discipline sometimes; we're here to serve, not to boost our egos. Rama 07:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Rama: individual images have unclear status. Consensus for removal on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:US Government most-wanted Iraqi playing cards.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dudo de que Terra permita que sus fotos se usen con licencia de Creative Commons. Error 22:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair use image - deleted. Yuval Y § Chat § 00:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicate of Image:Carte France Département 89.png Geraki 13:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, for something like that we realy dont need to talk, use the template {{Badname}} instead of {{Delete}}. ~ bayo or talk 15:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Can't delete it, since it used at many places. I placed {{duplicate}} instead. Yuval Y § Chat § 00:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Majorly: Universally replaced by Image:Carte_France_Département_89.png. Reason was "Was in category "Duplicate", although NOT an exact duplicate"
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This cat is empty --Ma-Lik 18:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC) --Ma-Lik 18:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I have added some items to this category. Gordo 07:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ok then delete I the deletion request.--Ma-Lik 08:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
self-nom (I'm the original uploader of this image at the English Wikipedia): since this picture was taken at circa 1955, the copyright probably still holds. I've also nominated it for deletion on the En Wiki —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K.C. Tang (talk • contribs) at 01:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC) (rescued by — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC))
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- O, I forgot to sign! Thanks Jeff.--K.C. Tang 01:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Well. I'm the one who upload this pic from English Wikipedia. I agree to delete it as well. Stewart~惡龍 18:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- O, I forgot to tell you about the deletion, Stewart. Thanks for your understanding.:)--K.C. Tang 01:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per copyright vio now noted by the original contributor on Wiki-en and agreed to by the user uploading here. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete see the others, its not okay as that. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Was tagged for speedy deletion but is installed permanently in a public place (moviepark, oberhausen, germany) with consent of the copyright owner (moviepark is a licensee for showing spongebob installations). So the sculpture itself is not a copy-vio and as it is installed public, freedom of panorama holds true here. Imho deletion not justified. -- 80.139.35.148 12:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete
I don't think FOP is applicable for derivative works. Deadstar (msg) 11:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC) - Also for images:
Deadstar (msg) 11:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is exactly where FOP applies. (@Deadstar: I'm not sure if you understand the idea of Freedom of Panorama? The FOP rule only exists because there is a restriction on derivative works!) --Fb78 12:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep OK with FOP in Germany! --Herbert Ortner 18:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Forget I said anything. Deadstar (msg) 07:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Photo of something at public palace and FoP in Germany. --Dezidor 20:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep OK because of FOP. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This photo is great1 Keep it dude!
There was some discussion at COM:UNDEL, and it suggests that this image may not fall under FOP due to the subject being permanently situated in a private amusement park. Private, in this context, means that visitors must pay to enter, and to fall under FOP, the amusement park must not have any entrance restrictions. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 01:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, as the sculpture is not a public place. German FOP law requires works to be situated in a public place to be freely photographed. --rimshottalk 14:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Adambro 15:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Doesn't fall under German FOP as it's not a "public place" properly defined. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Existe una versión vectorizada Quantumleap 06:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Español: ¿Dónde está una versión vectorizada? ¿De dónde usted consiguió esta imagen?
- English: Where is a vectorized version? Where did you get this image?
- — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted (no source) --ALE! ¿…? 11:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
every contents moved to Jang, Yeongsil --Applebee 20:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: empty category
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
all contents are moved to Category:Artists from South Korea --Applebee 17:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: empty category
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(Contents are moved to Category:Goryeo porcelain) --Applebee 11:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: empty category
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicated --Applebee 12:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: empty category
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bad name ve2bog 13:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
image was tagged with {{rename image}} --ALE! ¿…? 11:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
all contents are move to Yi, Sunsin --Applebee 21:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Category is not empty! --ALE! ¿…? 08:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: empty category
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE. Dodo 15:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, and no scoure information. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted because of the missing source, but scope would be an argument too. -- Cecil 14:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation see http://freelog.chez-alice.fr/emoticon/Gros_Smileys_2/Gros_Smileys_107.gif --87.123.156.159 12:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
delete per nom. --Herrick 07:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted; uploaded by a disgruntled user who removed the delete tag.[72]
![[72]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Emoticone-msn-montre-fesses.gif&diff=next&oldid=7692547){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image had "fair use" tag attached by IP number. It is not claimed as fair use, however, the image is taken from a somewhere (I assume) and has permission attached, yet is licensed as "self2" which is then incorrect. So the image can stay IF: 1) the email quoted is sent to OTRS + 2) The permission (as per the text on the image) states that it should be GFDL. Otherwise, delete. (Image was deleted before) --Deadstar (msg) 09:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, still no proof of permission. --Cecil 01:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The title is wrong because it's "sainte Namadie" in french and a category still exists for her husband Saint Calminius. 24 September 2007 User:Matth97
- en:Wiki states on Saint Calminius "His wife, Saint Namadie (Latin: Namadia) became a nun at Marsat." Not sure where that leaves us. Deadstar (msg) 11:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- In french for a female, you say "sainte" (holy) and not "saint", so the title is wrong. Matth97 20:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
kept, while gallerys and images can be named in each language, it was decided that categories are to be in english (not that I like it), so 'Saint' (english) is correct and not 'Sainte' (french). --Cecil 01:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
there is a link on the picture. picture seems like taken from somewhere and then edited. 88.240.76.135 17:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, no clear proof of permission. --Cecil 01:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This drawing has an error in it and I do not want anyone to use it as-is. I have found a public domain version that is correct and will be used instead. This image is currently only used on a talk: page. --Michael Daly 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted the link to this image from the talk page. It is no longer used anywhere. Michael Daly 05:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Cecil 12:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The picture from the original source, as stated in EN WP is different from this one, and no proof of the correct choice of PD-self license is provided. Moreover, the website states All rights reserved. --Spiritia 20:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, on EN WP it said that:
"This work has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: The copyright holder grants any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." so I presumed it would be safe to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, as it is not a fair use tag. --Chinneeb 09:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand, I don't blame you, it happens :-) It's the local uploader, en:user:Zerida, whose initial fault it is to release under an improper license. But, as I see from the image history they've also started procedure for deletion... --Spiritia 19:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, no permission. Was deleted at en.WP too. --Cecil 12:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is "The recto of Rylands Library Papyrus P52 from the Gospel of John." It is tagged as PD-Old. I'd appreciate input on whether not the *photo* is copyrighted, since this is not an exact faithful replica of a 2D work -- the work has shadows and disposition. Fred J 20:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting, but I don't think the shadows are intended to be artistic. // Liftarn
- Since I doubt that anyone else would be able to make an exact identical photo of this image, I would say that copyright applies even if the shadows are not artistic. / Fred J 16:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Give me the Papyrus and I will take the image for you. Where is your problem Fred? I think PD-old is applicable. If not, I would say PD-Art should be applicable in analogy. --ALE! ¿…? 11:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know about that. PD-Art doesn't apply in the UK, per Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#UK. / Fred J 15:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- The museum website appears to have moved and I couldn't find the image on its new location. But it is here, with copyright info. / Fred J 15:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, and lack of source, date, author, and permission for the photo. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Keep or substitute original from JRUL, I requested permission from archivist at Rylands for use of verso of fragment on en.wikipedia and by logic the status of recto on commons was included in the request. Amazingly, the librarian there indicated the images are not crown copyrighted, which I believe puts them in Public Domain Old (discovered in 1920). New here, so plan is to upload per Library instructions, verso and recto, add {{Otrs pending}} tag, forward email to OTRS team. Any guidance or suggestions or knowledge of an OTRS menber who specializes in religious history. - REAL TUBE | Talk 00:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Revision done, library needs timely notification. - REAL TUBE | Talk 05:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note that permission for use on en.Wikipedia is not the same as being accepted here. It is recommended using Commons:Email templates for all permission requests, because third party re-use (even commercial) and derivative works must be allowed.
- Also note that this isn't about the copyright of the fragment itself, which is, is you said, not copyrighted. However, the photograph is likely copyrighted, according to British law (Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#UK).
- Regards, Fred J 06:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I looked at the image again and since you have removed the shadows it might not be copyrighted anymore. I'll have to ask an expert on British copyright law.
- Fred J 06:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Revision was the library approved untouched image, only resized, to replace the poor quality manually enhanced old image per library instructions, I can only assume the OTRS will render the "expert" opinion, since the email discusses UK law at length. - REAL TUBE | Talk 17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Hm. I changed the license of a similar image after an OTRS email, unaware of this deletion request. I changed the tag to PD-Art in the assumption that the source was American. As it is British, it may not apply.
Well, at least it taught us to always leave a {{delete}} tag on images that are for deletion...Ok, it's too early in the morning -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If I have to contact the archivist at Rylands Library again because he did not use the words "public domain" in his release, I need to know exactly what license: GFDL, CC by SA, PD-old, to inquire. The sample statements do not apply at this point. I have asked these questions repeatedly in good faith with resultant silence, ambiguous replies or questionable actions. Certainly, I do not understand the need for two PD licenses on one image. Are they saying PD-old for the document and PD-art for the photograph, Admin Bryan says PD-art does not work for photographs in UK, what, PD-old is not enought? I interpret the archivist's statement, no copyright, as clearly public domain, an archivist photographs documents whether he personally handled the camera or not, and to have to followup with him in that regard as to who photographed the fragment would only highlight the unprofessionalism (read: volunteerism) of Wikipedia, myself included. Maybe we should consult the Magna Carta, I jest, but seriously... - REAL TUBE | Talk 20:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- To follow up: our (Commons') British lawyer said that the image is copyrighted according to UK law.[73] I trust him on that.
- But if the archivist said the image was "public domain" then I have no problem with that. I'll just have to wait for someone with OTRS access to read the email and judge whether it is sufficient.
- Fred J 23:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I made the mistake of asking for non-specific copyright release for Wikipedia article and the response of "not copyrighted" was surprising. I will contact the archivist again if need be, which license is the question [Ticket#2007102210014251]. - REAL TUBE | Talk 06:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- We need to contact the librarian again, as it's pretty clear from the OTRS ticket that he thought he was releasing the image for Wikipedia alone, and subject to further permission being sought for further uses. If you'd like to leave it to me, I'll contact him and ask for a suitable licence for both the recto and verso images. Please give me a week or so, though, as I won't have much time for the next few days. These are interesting and useful images that it is worth taking a bit of effort over to make sure we can legitimately keep them. --MichaelMaggs 20:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have asked. No reply yet. --MichaelMaggs 19:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Still no reply. I have emailed again. --MichaelMaggs 07:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Still no reply. I have considered this again, and want to revise my earlier view. Even under UK law, which requires very little originality and where PD-Art can't be used, it is still the case that no new copyright can be created by a mere mechanical scan. It follows that there can be no new copyright in images that are to all intents and purposes indistinguishable from such a scan. Here, there is enough of an argument along those lines for us to keep this. We don't need absolute 100% certainty on every image we host. --MichaelMaggs 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept for reasons given above MichaelMaggs 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is non-free. In this vote Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FinnishDefenceForces it was decided that images by the Finnish Defence Forces are not acceptable. Similar images have been removed in the past (See User_talk:O/7_2007#FinnishDefenceForces). Pafcu 10:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- That is correct - I used the quote from the Finnish Defence Force ("usage allowed as long as credit is given to source ("Puolustusvoimat/Försvarsmakten") and stated where the file is used/displayed.") - but I understand that the qoute does not improve the "freeness" of the picture. Ztaffanb 12:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
September 25
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Clearly not in the public domain, as a logo of a band. Maxim(talk) 01:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Drini: Copyright violation
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
cause i hate it 213.232.79.150 09:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Closed - Troll --Fb78 14:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
it sucks ass!!!!! 69.182.114.238 11:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Closed - Troll --Fb78 14:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I don't like this dog. 78.3.18.123 12:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep this is a joke? --Suradnik13 13:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep problem is not in the image, where is it???--Dtom 13:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Closed - Troll --Fb78 14:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is an advertisement 88.144.65.71 22:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Yuval Y § Chat § 00:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON(mandatory) --Ogrom 07:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Seems like the uploader would like to have this image removed; the image has no source and license anyways. --Moonian 01:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
image is webshot, not PD-self --Shizhao 03:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)--Shizhao 03:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Dear Shizhao, as the real governmental rules in their original "Tong-Zhi" which block any future "Super Girl" TV show are hidden from any public domain (typically referred as "State Secret"), the snap of their offical web site is the only objective evidence for this important event.
- On the copyright: This kind of snap captures of their official web site shall be considered as fair use of a not-copy righted governmental works (as you see, it's a administrative regulation, a law).
- Thanks for your collaborations for this article. The Chinese Wikinews project is quite lack of original articles at current stage. Please kindlly support.
- --AliYoung.com 16:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fair use is not allowed on Commons. guillom 16:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Web capturing on this governmental rules is a legal personal work just as taking photo on public buiding. --AliYoung.com 16:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fair use is not allowed on Commons. guillom 16:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- web Design and logo not PD--Shizhao 03:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As an album cover, it is inherently a non-free image. The uploader claims this cover is ineligible for copyright because it is "too simple". szyslak 08:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- The uploader here. It is too simple because:
- It has nothing but the words "The BEATLES" on the foreground. You can't copyright two words.
- The words don't form anything pictorial and are in fact in a common typeface, which are public domain.
- The background is plain, you can't copyright a plain colour.
- When you say that album covers are inherently non-free, you should be saying that in practice almost all album covers can be and are protected by copyright. This one is very exceptional in that sense. Please also see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nirvana album cover.jpg. --Hautala 11:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please point to the copyright law that says things that are too "simple" can't be copyrighted? This is a copyrighted image that doesn't belong on Commons. However, you're free to upload it to a wiki that allows fair use images, such as the English Wikipedia. In fact, on enwiki's version of the image, it's tagged as fair use. szyslak 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- The U.S. Copyright Office has on the page Copyright Office Basics answer to the question "What Is Not Protected by Copyright?". According to it,
- "Titles, names" are not protected, meaning the words "The BEATLES" are not protected as the title of the album or the name of the band
- "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" are not protected, meaning that as the font used on the cover is not protected as it is just one of the zillion similar fonts
- "Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship" are not protected, which is legal mumbo jumbo for "simple". --Hautala 12:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- The U.S. Copyright Office has on the page Copyright Office Basics answer to the question "What Is Not Protected by Copyright?". According to it,
- Could you please point to the copyright law that says things that are too "simple" can't be copyrighted? This is a copyrighted image that doesn't belong on Commons. However, you're free to upload it to a wiki that allows fair use images, such as the English Wikipedia. In fact, on enwiki's version of the image, it's tagged as fair use. szyslak 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Just because it's famous doesn't mean it's copyrighted. --Fb78 14:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, it is really strange, and probably it is not that useful to have just one album cover, and not the others. But it really seems to me that you cannot copyright such a straightforward idea, no matter you use that as an album cover. --Mormegil 17:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I think that the reason given above should consider the artistic value of the image, too. Its simplicity is not casual, it is a precise design choice adding value to the composition. We can see this cover as the music biz equivalent of a Lucio Fontana painting. And they are copyrighted :-) --Jollyroger 08:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know the case of the paintings, but I dare to disagree that simplicity would be copyrighted if even it was artistic. If the cover was even simpler, all white for example, that would be an artistic decision just as well and would probably have artistic value as well (it's one of the most famous album covers), but still, that would not mean the record company would gain copyrights to white colour or plain album covers. --Hautala 11:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed with Hautala. The thing that there has been much deliberation put into some decision does not make the result copyrightable. Compare this with e.g. book titles. An author may spend days choosing a good name, but still, the name itself is not protected by copyright. [74] --Mormegil 12:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know the case of the paintings, but I dare to disagree that simplicity would be copyrighted if even it was artistic. If the cover was even simpler, all white for example, that would be an artistic decision just as well and would probably have artistic value as well (it's one of the most famous album covers), but still, that would not mean the record company would gain copyrights to white colour or plain album covers. --Hautala 11:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Mormegil. Additionally, pure texts are not copyrightable. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Bryan, __ ABF __ ϑ 10:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept --Digon3 talk Too simple to be copyrighted
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
reopening as copyvio, now that Image:Making_Movies.svg has been deleted. --Balabiot 13:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Balabiot 14:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Why do you think it's eligible, Balabiot? (In before "John Cage copyrighted four minutes and thirty three seconds of silence so it must be".) I think Trixt's assessment of the Making Movies deletion request was wrong. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep pd-ineligible. AYFK? -Nard 23:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- "AYFK?"? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Are you effing kidding. -Nard 03:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh. :D Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- NNAA (No, not at all). Because most people if asked to write "The Beatles" on a blank sheet of paper would not write it in grey, would not write "The BEATLES" with the right combo of lowercase/uppercase, and would not push it slightly towards the right edge. Even people who know the cover. That makes it a work of art, despite its simplicity (which might be a reason to not consider copyvio an independent reinvention -- but not an admitted attempt to mock the original work of art). Balabiot 06:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- And if you told someone to type out Microsoft, then they probably wouldn't use the same font and "pac man" idea as this, but this is our classic case of ineligibility. Indeed, if I asked you to write the word "this" right now, I dare say you wouldn't end up writing exactly the same thing as this, but I'd be silly to say this was some kind of unique, copyrighted expression. (Please don't gratuitously accuse N of personal attacks, by the way; what he said was nothing of the sort.) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Are you effing kidding. -Nard 03:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- "AYFK?"? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I vote Keep like above. Please also see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:The White Album.svg. --Hautala 11:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept as {{pd-ineligible}} – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(By Author request) --Sparrowman980 13:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- So you photographed a wallpaper there? I think we can speedy delete it then. --Fb78 14:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
See original deletion rationale here. RG2 17:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio - because of the wallpaper. __ ABF __ ϑ 10:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work EugeneZelenko 15:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted per nom. --ALE! ¿…? 07:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE EugeneZelenko 15:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
do we really need something like this? __ ABF __ ▼☺☻▲ 14:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, 'we' do. We're currently working on a PNG transparency fix on en:Mediawiki:Common.js that enables proper PNG tranparency in IE5.5 and IE6.0. It needs a 1px transparent image, and I uploaded it here so it would be universally avialiable, should the finished script be rolled out to other projects. — Edokter • Talk • 18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Indexed color PNG transparent run with old IE. ~ bayo or talk 12:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I trust GIF more on IE when it come to transparency. Proven technology. — Edokter • Talk • 13:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- edit : sorry, error ;) 83.179.8.44 (JSDX from Wiki:FR) 09:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Problem is, we need the "just tranparency" bit of this GIF. The aplha transparency is handled by the IE6 AlphaImageLoader filter loading the PNG images, but it needs a fully transparent surface. That is what this GIF provides. There is absolutely no need to tinker with transparent PNGs while a GIF works perfectly OK. — Edokter • Talk • 15:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- edit : sorry, error ;) 83.179.8.44 (JSDX from Wiki:FR) 09:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I trust GIF more on IE when it come to transparency. Proven technology. — Edokter • Talk • 13:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Indexed color PNG transparent run with old IE. ~ bayo or talk 12:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep We use it on the french wiki. ptit Raizin °° 09:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept; seriously needed for compatibility for older IE versions (yes, people are still using those versions). This image will be protected because it will be used heavily and to prevent vandalism. O2 (息 • 吹) 23:00, 13 October 2007 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I took this photo with my own camera and I had the mistaken belief that the photo was public domain (see Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag). I was wrong and the correct license is CC-BY-NC. Regards, Thuresson 16:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Thuresson 16:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- If it was you who took the photgraph and if it is correct that the motive is a PD-old work of art, you can decide what license to use for your photogrpah. Can you not choose a CC-license that is allowed on Commons? /Ö 17:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, although I think it is a peculiar attitude for someone who is working on a free contents project. / Fred J 18:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I am the photographer and I have changed the license to CC-BY-SA-2.0. Thuresson 01:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I have changed the 'Speedy deletion' to 'Request deletion' to have the oportunity to 'save' the image, an image took by myself. I think it's possible to maintain it. --Generalpoteito 20:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work, unless you have permission of the poster's copyright owner. --Dodo 06:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio of artwork MichaelMaggs 20:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I could not find any statement supporting the statement that the author has released the work into PD. This was probably just a “is on web, therefore it is public domain” kind of reasoning. Mormegil 13:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted per nom. Source-Website states 'all rights reserved'. --Cecil 12:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I could not find any statement supporting the statement that the author has released the work into PD. The linked page does not even contain this image (nor does it contain any copyright-related information, AFAICS). Mormegil 13:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted per nom. No permissio. --Cecil 12:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source. I know {{subst:nsd}} is the chose but I do not like edit war OsamaK 13:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, no source. Right now the image description is not even able to proof that it is Egypt PD, and that one has really lax PD options. --Cecil 12:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I don't think that this image was made on 28/08/2007. I know that it's just guessing, but I also think that the uploader isn't theauthor. D-Kuru 13:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted. Don't believe that either. --Cecil 12:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is an obvious infringement on Namco visual copyrights. For more information, note on en:KC_Munchkin that even games which are much more dissimilar have been prosecuted. Even though the program code is different, the visual representation is almost identical to Namco's original, copyrighted Pac-Man. 87.227.78.40 22:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept, when a suit is brought against KPacman then we should revisit the issue. For now this is screenshot of GPL software. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This looks an awful TOO much like the regular Pac-Man for it to be not a derivative work. Even if the code is open source, doesn't mean the graphics can still be an infringement. And I do not care about "when a suit is brought against KPacman then we should revisit the issue." ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The field appears to be the same as that of one of the NES implementations sold here. That is confirmed by some other clones and a photo of an arcade machine I’ve found. A screenshot with identical graphics is also available at English Wikipedia under the “fair use” exception, claimed to depict the original Pac Man. --AVRS (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. I moved it to Image:Satellite image of Ameland, Netherlands 5.78162E 53.45129N.jpg. Quadell (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not an image of Terschelling, but of Ameland, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_image_of_Ameland%2C_Netherlands_%285.78E_53.43N%29.png --Galwaygirl 13:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Is it uploaded here with the correct name? Deadstar (msg) 09:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not enough info. What's the "old book"? OsamaK 13:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
kept.
Since this is "The first Quoranic word, in order of arrival (Letter Qaf eight times, letter 'Alif sixteen times.)" I consider it not copyrightable / too old to copyright, and will close as a keep. / Fred J 16:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Closed with no consensus to delete, at least unless or until evidence surfaces that these works are under copyright. Quadell (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- And then reopened. Developing. . . Quadell (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- And reclosed, with some deleted, and others kept. Quadell (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Rachmaninoff recordings from Pandora Records
[edit]Converting copyvio tag to regular deletion request, as it doesn't seem clear-cut.
Original speedy-delete note:
- {{copyvio}} This work is protected in Bern Convention states until at least 2019. No permission from the publishers nor from the Rachmaninoff estate is given. File uploader does not hold copyright to the musical work. Listed as copyright in the ASCAP title searchGretab 09:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
These files come from Pandora Music, who apparently were a commercial recording label that went out of business and have since provided some of their recordings to ibiblio. As a regular record label, I'm assuming that they went through the proper licensing procedures when they released the original records, and so may be able to release these files CC-BY-SA. But possibly the ASCAP licensing terms wouldn't allow that - I don't know.
Files are:
- Image:Sergei Rachmaninoff - Concerto 1 in F minor, 1st movement.ogg (now at File:Sergei Rachmaninoff - Concerto 1 in F sharp minor, 1st movement.ogg)
- Image:Sergei Rachmaninoff - Concerto 1 in F minor, 2nd movement.ogg (now at File:Sergei Rachmaninoff - Concerto 1 in F sharp minor, 2nd movement.ogg)
- Image:Sergei Rachmaninoff - Concerto 1 in F minor, 3rd movement.ogg (now at File:Sergei Rachmaninoff - Concerto 1 in F sharp minor, 3rd movement.ogg)
- Image:Sergei Rachmaninoff - Six Moments Musicaux - No 3, B minor.ogg
- Image:Sergei Rachmaninoff - Symphonic dances (1).ogg (not transferred to Wikilivres due to technical issue with maximum upload size)
- Image:Sergei Rachmaninoff - Symphonic dances (2).ogg (not transferred to Wikilivres due to technical issue with maximum upload size)
- Image:Sergei Rachmaninoff - Symphonic dances (3).ogg (not transferred to Wikilivres due to technical issue with maximum upload size)
--Davepape 14:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Vincent Persechetti - Serenade for Flute and Harp.ogg (not transferred to Wikilivres) has the same issue; so even though it's not Rachmaninoff, I'm adding it to this request. --Davepape 15:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't believe everything the music industry tells you :-) As you can see on en:Sergei Rachmaninoff, at least some of his works are in the public domain. As the other music at the ibiblio site is clearly PD, it seems Pandora only used PD sources. To avoid copyright paranoia, we should keep these, at least someone claiming to have the copyright comes along and demands takedown. Then we can see. No need to panic. --Magnus Manske 18:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC) (and I'm not saying this because I was the one who uploaded them!:-)
Also, if you look at Gretab's contributions, you'll find that (s)he has done nothing but throw copyright violation tags around. I'd say someone's on a crusade... --Magnus Manske 18:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Some details:
- Rachmaninoff lived 1873 - 1943. Concerto #1 composed 1891, revised 1917, in Russia. Moments Musicaux composed 1896 in Russia. The scores of both are presumably {{PD-Russia}} as well as PD in the U.S.
- Symphonic dances composed 1940 in the U.S. Unlikely to be PD.
- Persichetti was an American composed who lived 1915 - 1987. His work is also unlikely to be PD.
- So the Concerto and Moments Musicaux seem okay; for the others the question of Pandora's licensing rights remains. --Davepape 21:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been doing this because you have a BIG problem. I know what happens when copyright holders decide to enforce their rights. You're in the wrong here, whether your like it or not. This entire Pandora archives is just that, Pandora's box, just waiting to be opened. THERE ARE MORE PROBLEMS HERE, I just didn't have time to tag them all.
All of these files are copyright, according to the ASCAP ACE title search. For these files, I have listed links to the ACE datebase--if it's on ACE, it's copyright as far as ASCAP is concerned-- for the Concerto, no. 1 (for convenience, here it is again [75]), and for the Moments Musicaux (also on ACE here) but not for the Symphonique Dances, although they are there, per this link. Searching for titles at ASCAP and Search the BMI repertoire is a fast and easy way to determine copyright status. However, it should be clear that given the fact that nothing will enter public domain in the US until 2018, and that the rule is 70 years after death (with exceptions), that these works are not public domain and should be deleted to avoid problems. Many Russian composers were part of a special law which reinstated copyright. Rachmaninoff is listed in the composers under this law on the ASCAP site. All works by Rachmaninoff should be considered copyright, unless you can get a copyright lawyer to tell you otherwise and a judge agrees with him.
Now, you could avoid things like this if you would ask people to do a search at ASCAP, at BMI and at the Library of congress. (http://www.loc.gov/) Even then you can't be absolutely sure that something is fair use unless you have located a source, or gotten permission from the primary rights holder. Gretab 21:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify a point discussed above: the important date in determining protection is not the date of composition, but the date of first publication. That is to say that if something is written in 1910 and published first in 1911, it's (probably) public domain in the US. If something is written in 1890 and first published in 1924, it's protected. I have not been able to locate a first publication date, but the copy at IMSLP.org which claims public domain status because that service is located in Canada, where protection is only life plus 50 years.
I would suspect that both the Concerto no. 1 (revised version) and the Moments Musicaux were both published for the first time in the US (where copyright used to be determined) after 1923. If this is true, then they are protected. Gretab 08:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- There are several points I am unclear about:
- 1. What is the authority of ASCAP? Is everything listed there copyrighted, or merely claimed to be copyrighted? If so, by whom? EMI, in this case?
- 2. If [76] is authoritative, what is actually copyrighted? The "raw data" (piece of paper from which to play), or just the EMI recording? Is the EMI recording the same as the Pandora one?
- 3. ASCAP seems to apply to US only. We have Category:PD-Russia, for example. Maybe that is a way to keep them.
- All in all, maybe we should ask the Foundation lawyer. US copyright based on retroactively revoked USSR PD seems a little far out to solve on a talk page... --Magnus Manske 08:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
ASCAP is the US equivalent of PRS in the UK and GEMA in Germany. None of these agencies enforce copyright, but they collect monies on behalf of copyright owners, once copyright has been proven to their satisfaction. In order for a publisher to claim copyright, he has to prove his claim by producing a contract. So, having the works listed in these databases is evidence that the publisher has a contract with the composer and owns the copyright, which is valid because monies are still being collected.
The copyright owner is the publisher, which is EMI music publishing. If this is the case, then Russian PD status probably could not be claimed, especially that the servers here are located in the United States.
I also have to warn you that "copyright" during the Soviet period is extremely murky and in researching copyright status of various Russian works, no one (including legal experts on the subject) has ever been able to clearly state that any of these works published under this system were in the public domain. It would seem that the tendency is to say that there was an implied contract with the Soviet government which has been tacitly been extended to those who now control these catalogs. This is a subject of much discussion and I would encourage you to ignore this part of the question, since it would solve quite a few problems to use US law, which is at least clear.
In response to your second question, the "copyright" refers to all manifestations of the musical work, including the printed music, performances of the work, recordings, broadcasts and audio-visual use of the work. The person who makes the recording (ie here Pandora) owns the recording itself-ie the physical object, but does not own any of the copyright, which remains with the publisher who "rents" the work to the recording producer in exchange for a mechanical right, unless the publisher cedes a percentage of the ownership through contract. If this was the case, that information would be in the ASCAP records. Pandora owns the recording, but does not own the work and cannot cede any rights concerning the musical work in question.
Before 1978, Worldwide copyright was decided by the US copyright office at the Library of Congress, but the Bern Convention changed that. Copyright is now automatic upon the "fixation of the work". Here is the text of the Bern Convention, which explains more about the important of the composer's nationality, the composer's place of residence and the place of the first publication.
In the question of the First Concerto, the fact that there are two versions is problematic. Is this recording of the first version or the second? If it is indeed the first, the first publication of that version seems to be in 1946, so perhaps the first (earlier) version is protected and the second isn't. In any case, until you can know which version is performed, you can't say whether this is public domain or not.
For discussion, here is a link to information about the Treaty which restored copyright to any number of works, especially for Russian and Soviet-bloc composers. You'll note that Rachmaninoff is listed as one of these composers, but that the works under discussion aren't mentioned. I think that this because they had never gone out of copyright in the first place, due to the date of copyright registration.
I hope that you see that this situation is not as clear-cut as you might have thought at first. Gretab 09:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
According to information on Category:PD-Russia (which needs to be confirmed as being correct), only Soviet composers who died before 1942 may be considered to be in the public domain in the US if US copyright was not registered. Rach. died in 1943 and copyright was registered. Therefore, this cannot be seen as being in PD in the US.Gretab 12:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- My 2c. For works pre-1923 - these would be public domain - i.e. their copyright expired pre-retroactive copyright term extension in 1996. The rest I can't get my head around. Megapixie 06:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Further, according to the most unreliable of sources the only pieces that are not public domain are:
- Op. 40, Piano Concerto No. 4 in G minor (1926)
- Op. 41, The Three Russian Songs (1927)
- Op. 42, Variations on a Theme of Corelli in D minor for piano solo (1931)
- Op. 43, Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini for piano and orchestra in A minor (sometimes catalogued op. 42) (1934)
- Op. 44, Symphony No. 3 in A minor (1936)
- Op. 45, Three Symphonic Dances for orchestra (1940)
- Megapixie 06:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Further, according to the most unreliable of sources the only pieces that are not public domain are:
You're citing WP as a reference in the evidence above, and I was under the impression that WP could not be cited as a reliable source in discussions of itself.
However, none of this explains the presence of these works in the ASCAP repertoire catalog. The only people who could explain this are the copyright holders themselves, who are EMI Music Publishing for the Concerto no. 1 and Boosey and Hawks for the Moments Musicaux. In the ASCAP listings above, there are telephone numbers and contact names. Someone needs to call and ask them this question.
The question of PD-Russia seems to me to be beside the point: the servers are in the US. The files are used on EN. US copyright is clearly the main question here. If they are not PD in the US, I don't see how they can be retained.
Until we can prove that these works are public domain, I think that there is too much evidence which would seem to suggest that they are not. It is far better to err on the prudent side, rather than risk the ire of EMI and Boosey.
The Persichetti file is clearly protected and needs to be deleted. Gretab 08:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- I concur with you on the Persichetti file. Humming the star wars theme does not make it free.
- I'm going to point at Hirtle and say that anything published pre-1923 is PD in the US. I've sent them an online inquiry pointing out that the registered works are pre-1923. I'm not holding my breath that they are going to correct their database (They do seem to represent "Publishers" who would have a vested interest in spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt over what is and isn't public domain). I would suggest that we delete the post Jan 1 1923 works, and keep the pre-1923 works. Megapixie 08:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- BTW is this anything to do with this / blogged ? Megapixie 09:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. I hadn't heard about that, but it follows a line of composer's families (the Shostokovich family comes to mind, as do the Gershwins) who are setting up their own structures to handle intellectual property for these kinds of estates.
- I do not understand at all this attitude about publishers and organisations like ASCAP "spreading lies" about copyright ownership and the like. There are laws which are designed to make sure that people who create things are paid for their work. One of the reason that the laws were changed was because there were cases of older composers who became penniless when their works went into public domain before they died. And it's only normal for composers (and other creators) to want to look after their families. This isn't just about big business. I know people who live off of the money earned off of rights. Why should musicians have to work for free when they have to pay everybody else?
- Because of the insistence on the Estate's future plans, The Arizona Sun article makes it sound as if Rachmaninoff is still under protection and won't come out of protection until 70 years after his death (which would theoretically be 2018, although the Sony Bono act also had extentions to 85 years under specific circumstances, so that date also needs to be confirmed).
- To sum things up, for the evidence to delete, we have an listing on ASCAP ACE, we have a link to a page which says that Rachmaninoff's copyrights were re-instated under the International treaty, and now we have a link to a newspaper article which seems to say that his catalogue is still under copyright. On the evidence to keep, we have unconfirmed dates of composition, but not dates of publication. As I've stated above, protection is determined not by date of composition, but of date of first publication. In the US, date of copyright registration is also the date to consider.
- Interesting. I hadn't heard about that, but it follows a line of composer's families (the Shostokovich family comes to mind, as do the Gershwins) who are setting up their own structures to handle intellectual property for these kinds of estates.
I think that much more evidence needs to be provided to prove public domain of these works, since much evidence exists that they are not public domain. I also think that it would be prudent to call the copyright owners. However, if the composer's estate is trying to get back control of all copyrights, it's difficult to say exactly who should be contacted then.
It would seem that the Estate is taking the position that American copyright law should be applied, in what I understand reading through the lines of that article. In any case, this is not a simple situation at all.Gretab 12:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Look - I don't have any off web sources for music, but I would claim (in good faith) - that a work first composed in 1917 and first published in 1919 as I can as Op.39 was is in the public domain. Post 1 Jan 1923 work (Op.40 onwards) appears to be clear as mud, and I would agree should be deleted. But it has been a standard here for a long time that work published pre-1923 is public domain. As for my understanding of the retroactive copyright extensions, all the pre-1920 work would have entered the public domain before the 1976 non-retroactive life+50 act kicked in (i.e. maximum of 56 years protection from date of first publiction).
- Expecting ASCAP to question publishers about their claims of copyright on things that are no longer copyright is like asking hunters to vote for a ban on hunting. To quote the ASCAP's database use disclaimer "The information contained has been supplied to ASCAP by various sources and ASCAP makes no representations as to its accuracy." And additionally quoting them again "The Restoration applies only to certain works first published abroad after 1920." Megapixie 23:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
That's all very fine and well, but no one's been able to locate a published version of either work with a date before 1923. The only ones that I've seen are the one for the Concerto no. 1 listed at IMSLP.org which is an undated Soviet-era publication which seems to be from the 1950s, according to their uncited sources. IMSLP lists first publication dates of 1919 (rev. version) and 1946 (original version). Which version is this? It would seem that the original version would be definitely protected, if this is correct.
The Moments Musicaux lists a 1919 first publication date, but does not say where, by whom and does not cite their sources.
Neither of the pdf documents list any publication date, nor do they (obviously, given the circumstances) give copyright notices. In both cases, this doesn't prove anything about the first date of publication, and certainly has nothing to do with a US copyright registration, which is what is under discussion.
- I never said that the listing on ACE was proof that the works were protected. I said that the ACE listings were evidence that they were. So far, we've only been able to come up with evidence which suggests that the works are under copyright. No evidence, other than supposition, exists to prove that the works are public domain. Show me a score with a publication copyright before 1923 and that will be a step in the right direction. I haven't found one yet.
- Even then, the only way of knowing would be to either contact the Library of Congress and pay for a copyright search, or contact the copyright holders and inquire. A "good faith" assumption is not enough here and would never stand up in court, since we've already seen plenty of evidence to prove that something else is going on. Hiding our heads in the sand and pretending it's not there isn't part of the solution. Isn't it better the address the issue? Gretab 08:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit sorry I brought up the question of PD-Russia, as it seems to have drowned out my original reason for putting the request here; so let me restate: If it were something like a home-recording by a Wikimedian of a copyrighted score, I'd have no issue with deleting it [77]. But these are professional recordings from a (former) record company, which I have no reason to believe was in the business of music piracy. Pandora Records owns the copyright in their recordings, derivative works of the composers' works, at least some of which are definitely copyrighted. In order to create these derivative works, they would have obtained a license from ASCAP. That license allowed them to copy and distribute their work, but was it broad enough for them to distribute the work under the EFF OAL?
The Internet and free licenses were unknown at the time the recordings were made, so ASCAP's license at the time would not have addressed this directly. Here's a hypothetical question that might help: if someone making a movie in the 1970s wanted to use one of these recordings on the soundtrack, would it have been sufficient for him to get permission from Pandora, or would he have needed additional licensing from ASCAP? I have a feeling it may be the latter, in which case these files are probably not free enough for Commons - they could only be released under some form of no-derivatives license. But I'd prefer that someone with better knowledge of ASCAP licensing contracts address this. --Davepape 16:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Analysis of PD-status:
- Works, which were
createdpublished before emigration in 1917, are the subject of both US and Russian laws (for Wikicommons purposes). They are in PD in US, and today in PD in Russia. But since 1 Jan 2008 they will afresh copyrighted in Russia (see Template talk:PD-Russia Bad news section) and unsuitable for Wikicommons. - Works, which were created after 1917, are the subject of US laws.
Alex Spade 17:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is true, however "created" should be read as "fixed", in other words, either published and/or recorded. Until a work has been presented in pubished form, it is not considered to be "fixed" under the Bern Convention. So, therefore, the first "fixed" version of the work would determine the term of protection. We have, as of yet, to determine that date for any of these works. However, all of the dates presented here are after 1917, so it would appear that US law would be the deciding force. I believe that all of these files should be deleted. Gretab 20:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes - published. My fall.
- But the works, which were first published (recorded) in US between 1917 and 1923, are PD, as I understand. Alex Spade
- no.2 leads us right back to the necessity of locating a published version with a date of before 1923 or a source which indicates that this is so. We also need to know which version of the concerto is recorded.Gretab 10:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It is quite clear that most, if not all of these works are copyright viuolations. It has been over a month. Why have these not been deleted? Gretab 22:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Because Commons is slow. But I want to recap, just to make sure I have a good handle on this. If any of the following points are incorrect, please, let me know. Quadell (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The performances have been released under a free license; however the songs themselves have not, and the performances are derivative works of the songs.
- All of the works under discussion here were first published in the United States.
- Therefore U.S. copyright applies. If these songs are PD in the U.S., then we may use them here. If not, then we can't.
Is this all correct? Quadell (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- 1. Yes - though some may or may not be PD.
- 2. No. See en:List_of_compositions_by_Sergei_Rachmaninoff. He toured the US in 1909 (probably airing most of his pre-1909 works, though we can't be sure), he emigrated in 1917.
- 3. See (2).
- Megapixie 23:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Answering the questions.
- It has been asserted that these performances have been issued under a "free license" by a third-party site. The rights to use the songs was most likely covered by a mechanical license which only included the rights to press phonogrammes, given the date of the recordings. In order to know what type of rights were granted and what were their scope, one would have to examine the license itself. The performances are derivative works and therefore only possess the rights granted by the copyright holder. No evidence has been presented which proves the non-PD status of any of these works, other than supposition.
- Given the copyright laws in effect in the US at the time, it is probable that these works were first registered for copyright in the US after the composer emigrated to the United States in 1917. It could be that these works were first registered after 1923 and are therefore still under protection. Only the US copyright office can answer this question.
- Since the files are being used for an organization which is incorporated in the United States, US copyright law applies outside of this system. Within this system, I'm not exactly certain what would apply.
The following files are clearly non-PD, because of composition date and should be deleted :
- Image:Sergei Rachmaninoff - Symphonic dances (1).ogg
- Image:Sergei Rachmaninoff - Symphonic dances (2).ogg
- Image:Sergei Rachmaninoff - Symphonic dances (3).ogg
- Image:Vincent Persechetti - Serenade for Flute and Harp.ogg
For the others, there is simply no proof that they are public domain. There is a great deal of hard evidence that they are not. If one is prudent, one would delete them. Gretab 15:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- For all of Rachmaninoff's works, there are two possibilities: either they were first published in Russia, or they were first published in the United States. According to Lupo at Template talk:PD-Russia, works first published in Russia before 1939 are now (and forever) considered PD in Russia. So any of Rachmaninoff's works first published in Russia are PD in Russia. These same works (if they exist) would have been PD in Russia in 1996, so they are PD in the United States as well. Only Rachmaninoff's Symphonic Dances were published after this date, and they were published in the United States. So we don't have to worry about anything first published in Russia.
- For works first published in the United States, they are of course PD if published before 1923. After 1923, they would only still be copyrighted if the copyright-holder (Rachmaninoff's estate) applied for a copyright renewal during the calendar year of the year of publication plus 28 years. See Wikipedia:User:Quadell/copyright. (So if Symphonic Dances was published in 1940, it would have had to have been renewed in 1968 or it would have passed irrevocably into the public domain.) Any of these works that passed into the public domain in the United States would be in the public domain in Russia as well, since Russia applies the Rule of the Shorter Term.
- So the only works of Rachmaninoff that could possibly be still under copyright would be those first published in the United States, after 1923, and with a renewal lodged with the U.S. copyright office. The renewal records for 1951 to 1978 (for works first published between 1923 and 1950) are available online at the UPenn database. I have searched every year from 1951 (1923 + 28) to 1971 (1943, the year of his death, + 28) for "Rachmaninov", and have found no matches. I think we can safely say that none of his works are still under copyright either in the U.S. or Russia. Quadell (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I think that the presence of all of these works in the ASCAP database would indict that they are all protected. I will call ASCAP tommorow and enquire. I'll also call the publishers, since they're also concerned. Gretab 21:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Boosey and Hawks said that both the Symphonic Dances and the Moments Musicaux were under copyright and should be deleted. I will call EMI later today. Gretab 09:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- As an experiment (if you happen to happen to have their attention) - can you ask them WHY it's still under copyright. Explain that you've checked the copyright renewal records, and that the copyright doesn't appear to have been renewed, and that without renewal would have expired in the US. If they have a solid reason they we can apply it consistently. Megapixie 13:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is an interesting and similar example: the song "This Land is Your Land" by Woody Guthrie was written in 1940, first published in 1945, and registered for copyright in 1956. The copyright holder (Ludlow Music, Inc.) applied for a renewal of copyright in 1984, believing (incorrectly) that the work had been first published in 1956. Since the copyright expired in 1973 (28 years after its first publication), the work had lapsed into the public domain by 1984, so the renewal attempt had no effect. Ludlow had tried to claim copyright (for financial reasons, of course), but this claim was false. See [78] and [79] for details.
In the Rachmaninov case, there is no evidence that the copyright was ever registered. (If it wasn't, then the work is in the public domain.) If the copyright was registered, there is clear evidence that the copyright was never renewed, since the work does not appear in the records of the U.S. copyright office. I haven't seen any evidence that Boosey and Hawks or EMI even claims copyright on these works (their listing in ASCAP doesn't necessarily indicate a current claim). If they do claim copyright, I can't see how their claims could have any merit. Quadell (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Perfect. So, therefore, you are challenging the rights of EMI music publishing and Boosey and Hawks to claim copyright on these works? Well, let's just let them handle this, shall we? They will be informed of this. We'll see what happens. Gretab 01:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well at least point them at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/designated_agent and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Contact_us . Megapixie 07:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the plot thickens - looks like Boosey & Hawks re-registered at least three of the works as a result of the en:Uruguay Round Agreements Act - namely
- Rachmaninoff, Sergei Polka Italienne 1925
- Rachmaninoff, Sergei Six Songs Op 38 1923
- Rachmaninoff, Sergei Sonata No. 2 for Piano Op 36 1931
- See http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/1996/61fr19371.html - you have to search for the title. I'm not entirely clear why these works qualify - but I'm guessing it's something like - Boosey, originally a UK company, published the sheet music first in the UK around the time of the release / written, and failed to register them at the US copyright office - however they also didn't publish it in the US within 30 days. This meant they would have been out of copyright in the US, but protected in the UK for life+50. When URAA kicked in the works were (only just) protected by the life+50 UK copyright term. This restored the works copyright in the US to life+70. Though he was a resident of the US, he was a foreign national until a couple of days before his death so although living in the US, he is protected as if he wasn't (but only for works first published outside the US, not registered for copyright, and not published inside the US within 30 days of first publication). Megapixie 13:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sergei Rachmaninoff died 1943, so if these UK works were copyrighted until life+50, they went out of copyright in the UK at the end of 1993. Then in 1995 EU directive 93/98/EEC came along and re-copyrighted his works in the UK for life+70. And then in 1996 the URAA restorations for these UK works occurred. The U.S. restoration was not to life+70 but to the normal full U.S. term for works of a known author published in 1925, 1923, or 1931, namely until 95 years after the initial publication. Are these indeed the first publications of these scores? Also note that the fedreg link only shows that Boosey filed an NIE. That isn't a copyright registration, it just says that Boosey thinks the U.S. copyright on these works was restored and is prepared to defend that claim even against U.S. reliance parties. It's no proof that a copyright exists (though it seems likely in this case); some NIE filings have been overturned by the U.S. courts (e.g. Alameda Films v. Authors Rights Restoration Corp.). Still, in the case of these three Rachmaninoff works apparently first published in the UK, I would agree that URAA restorations have occurred. Not for his works first published in Russia, though. And certainly not for those of his works first published in the U.S.; for those, we'd need evidence of non-renewal. And his compositions of which the scores were published before 1923 are PD-US anyway. Lupo 15:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification - I've dug around as much as I can on the net, and can't find any definitive first publications for any of his stuff. Boosey appear to have been publishing his sheet music since as early as 1914 (the earliest copyright date I can find on one of their manuscripts). According to various sources - he had a publishing agreement of some kind with "Editions Russes de Musique" run by en:Sergei Koussevitzky that was based in Germany. I don't really have the time to delve into any more detail on this. If someone has access to a physical music library with a good manuscript collection, they should be able to find reasonably good first publication dates for the majority of the stuff here. Megapixie 15:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sergei Rachmaninoff died 1943, so if these UK works were copyrighted until life+50, they went out of copyright in the UK at the end of 1993. Then in 1995 EU directive 93/98/EEC came along and re-copyrighted his works in the UK for life+70. And then in 1996 the URAA restorations for these UK works occurred. The U.S. restoration was not to life+70 but to the normal full U.S. term for works of a known author published in 1925, 1923, or 1931, namely until 95 years after the initial publication. Are these indeed the first publications of these scores? Also note that the fedreg link only shows that Boosey filed an NIE. That isn't a copyright registration, it just says that Boosey thinks the U.S. copyright on these works was restored and is prepared to defend that claim even against U.S. reliance parties. It's no proof that a copyright exists (though it seems likely in this case); some NIE filings have been overturned by the U.S. courts (e.g. Alameda Films v. Authors Rights Restoration Corp.). Still, in the case of these three Rachmaninoff works apparently first published in the UK, I would agree that URAA restorations have occurred. Not for his works first published in Russia, though. And certainly not for those of his works first published in the U.S.; for those, we'd need evidence of non-renewal. And his compositions of which the scores were published before 1923 are PD-US anyway. Lupo 15:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the plot thickens - looks like Boosey & Hawks re-registered at least three of the works as a result of the en:Uruguay Round Agreements Act - namely
- As per my talk page:
- In general, Delete any of his works first published 1923 or later in the U.S. unless we find a reliable database of renewals that includes music/sound recordings (UPenn or Stanford don't) and can't find any renewal there.
- Delete any of his compositions that were first published 1923 or later in the UK or another western country; these would've been subject to the URAA restorations.
- Keep any composition of which the scores were published before 1923. (Either U.S. works that would be {{PD-US}}, or Russian works for which no URAA restoration could have occurred.) Therefore, Keep the Concerto No. 1 and the Moments Musicaux.
- Keep any of his works first published 1923 or later in Russia (don't know if any such works exist, seems unlikely); those would not have been subject to the URAA as the then valid Russian term of life+50 would have expired two years before the URAA date of January 1, 1996.
- Delete the Persichetti composition.
- In general,
- Lupo 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Transfer notes: All Rachmaninoff works are PD in Canada (author died more than 50 years ago). I was not able to transfer them due to a technical issue with maximum upload size, but this should be fixed later. Persechetti work not transferred since he died in 1987. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
September 26
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I accidentally uploaded this with a jibberish filename. I re-uploaded it as Image:Michael Ian Black - Stand-Up.jpg. Nothing links to this poorly named version. Seidenstud 04:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 09:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like a album/cd cover GeorgHH 11:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Yes, it seems to be one. At least the image contains a logo. [80] --Christian NurtschTM 11:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Dodo: CD cover
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Gallery is blank. --← Körnerbrötchen <✉> 13:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dodo 15:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation - logo Doo-dle-doo 21:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted for the 3rd time... Next time tag it as {{copyvio}} or {{fair use}} Yuval Y § Chat § 14:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a photograph of a television screen, derivative work. Videmus Omnia 02:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep So what? Don't panic, go and find something else to adhere... People, you really don't have anything to do. --Shedao 17:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Remover — Foto de un programa de televisión protegido por las leyes de derechos de autor. --Boricuæddie 00:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Remove Surely a derivative work. Rico Shen contact... 17:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Screenshot
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Corrupt SVG data. Repleaced by GIF format, which works fine.. --Wdwd 11:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete File is failing. May I see the new GIF file? --Christian NurtschTM 11:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. and ack Christian. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
'Deleted by --Digon3 talk Corrupted and replaced
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused and I can't find the diff between it and Image:John Rep.jpg. OsamaK 12:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The images are different, no reason for deletion. --GeorgHH 12:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Not the exact same image. Very similar, but different enough to keep. We would only delete an exact duplicate. Carl Lindberg 15:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - it looks better than Image:John Rep.jpg. Yuval Y § Chat § 00:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept --Digon3 talk 15:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Not an exact duplicate
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE. Dodo 07:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No author and source given at english wikipedia. GeorgHH 11:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE. Dodo 15:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Replaced by Image:Medaille Maatschappij tot Redding van Drenkelingen.jpg Gouwenaar 19:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please use {{duplicate}}. Siebrand 20:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
useless image due to insufficient resolution and pointless subject - nasty title Juiced lemon 20:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - no details as well. Yuval Y § Chat § 00:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete you cant see anything. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The file has a low image quality/resolution. --Digon3 talk 16:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
source does not license file under cc-by-sa-2.5 as claimed. Doo-dle-doo 21:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought I had when it was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. How can I do that? Rpgch
- Delete You can ask them if they would like to license it under cc-by-sa-2.5 and have them send the permission to Commons:OTRS. Until then it is a copyvio. --Digon3 talk 16:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per digon 3. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, OTRS is pending now Rpgch
{{Otrs pending}}
- Permission has been received; Kept. Cbrown1023 talk 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I added "GFDL-presumed" to this image a long time ago because it actually never had a license. Harmless or not, I would like to get a closure on the issue and am nominating it for deletion so that it either gets PROPER license from the copyright holder, or gets deleted. Fred J 22:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete My opinion is that we should not accept images on Commons with a "presumed GFDL" tag on en.wikipedia.org. --ALE! ¿…? 07:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I sent the creator an email around September 27. / Fred J 08:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The image is GFDL. Fredrik 05:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 07:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
PD-China - but en:Aung San was a Burmese general. No source, no info, where or when the image was published. --Syrcro 13:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I'm an en wiki admin and the licensing there pre-deletion was straight {{PD}} with no explanation, regardless of this summary. - BanyanTree 10:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. and per Banyan. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted (no source) --ALE! ¿…? 07:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to source http://www.toursaudiarabia.com/kaaba/kaaba-4-high.html is under a cc nc (non-commercial) license Fred J 09:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 is not an acceptable license here. Mormegil 23:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
from zh:Wikipedia:删除投票和请求/2007年9月19日#Image:Bjguoanlskb.jpg: "This picture is published by "Beijing Daily" not by Wikiers. No copyright is guaranteed. We need to replace it with another one.—Yunner 2007年9月19日 (三) 17:31 (UTC)" --Shizhao 02:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Zambian copyright law makes no exception for government works. Any design created in Zambia in the last 50 years is still under copyright. Quadell (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Unlikely to be PD, unless Zambia has different rules from most countries JackyR 21:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, banknote with no evidence that the government doesn't retain copyright, so no reason to assume PD. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Does that hold true for banknotes that are no longer in circulation too? This note has a value of 0.00035 € (0.00052 US$), and is no longer used. Lycaon 08:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, copyright still applies. / Fred J 16:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
September 27
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicate of Image:Washer1.svg, replaced by Image:Nuvola dryer.svg --Rfc1394 06:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Majorly: user request (renamed)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source page and image are copyrighted. Christian NurtschTM 06:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Dodo: copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image was uploaded just to be used in a vanity page in Wikipedia in Spanish. --J.M.Domingo 13:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete COM:SCOPE --Moonian 14:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete yeah, scope __ ABF __ ϑ 14:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Out of Scope
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
An anon has {{disputed}} whether this really is "own work". I'm inclined to agree - uploader appears to be same as es:Usuario:Oikema, whose self-reported birthdate is 17 years after Le Corbusier died. Davepape 03:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It's a famous picture of Le Corbusier (actually, the only one I know of him). It can be found easily on Google Images with keywords "Le Corbusier". I would delete it on the spot if not for the fact that it's used at least by fr: (CheckUsage seems to be broken right now). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I've replaced it with a correct image Vaughan Pratt 11:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Do you mean it's replaced with Image:SubobjectPullbackTopos.svg? If yes, then Speedy Delete the wrong one (author request). --Moonian 14:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This painting is here with much higher resolution: Image:Ilia Efimovich Repin (1844-1930) - Volga Boatmen (1870-1873).jpg --J.M.Domingo 13:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
_-_Volga_Boatmen_(1870-1873).jpg){kind=link}
- Agree. // Liftarn
- Delete per nom. __ ABF __ ϑ 10:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- { Comment the image is in use. --ALE! ¿…? 09:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, duplicate --Polarlys 23:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Will be PD-old in 2011 EugeneZelenko 15:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Undeleted today cause its past 2011. --JuTa 21:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Why Latvian copyrights law (70 years) is not applied? EugeneZelenko 15:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted (Russian PD not applicable) --ALE! ¿…? 08:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Incorrect name. I will charge the image again Jordi Roqué 16:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
tagged as a duplicate --ALE! ¿…? 08:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image claims to be from a "scan" and the author is listed as "unknown." Not sure how an unknown source could have released it into the public domain. Seidenstud 20:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image claims to be from a "scan" and the author is listed as "unknown." Not sure how an unknown source could have released it into the public domain. Seidenstud 20:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This man is not Mr. Yann Wehrling. This man Image:YannWehrling2006.jpeg is True Mr. Yann Wehrling. --Shimin Heiwa2 05:07, 27 September 2007
- Keep. (I'm the author). I'm sorry for the misidentification. I fixed the picture description, which doesn't refer to Yann Wehrling anymore. However, this is no reason to delete this picture, especially because the filename doesn't include the (alleged) name of the person represented. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope --ALE! ¿…? 10:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment : I'm trying to secure an ID for this guy. He was seated first row at the meeting, so I presume he's a member of the French Greens leaders, which would put him in scope. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- The Greens spokesman just provided me with an ID: the man represented on the picture is Claude Taleb, vice-president of the Regional Council of Haute-Normandie (one of the regions of France) and campaign director of Dominique Voynet, the Greens candidate for the French 2007 presidential election. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well then reupload the image under the correct name and tag the old one with {{bad name|Image:new file name.jpg}} --ALE! ¿…? 07:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Er, ALE!, I don't understand what you mean. There must be some misunderstanding. The picture whose deletion is requested here is named Image:Meeting Voynet Mutualite 2006-04-05 n11.jpg. The filename bears no allusion whatsoever to Mr. Yann Wehrling. It states that the picture was taken at Ms. Voynet's meeting on April, 5th, which is perfectly correct. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- The image shows Mr Claude Taleb not the meeting. Therefore it should be renamed. Please read: Commons:Contributing your own work: Step 4: Uploading: "Choose a meaningful descriptive destination filename! Files cannot be easily renamed, so try to get it right the first time. If you forget, simply upload the file again under a meaningful name, and mark the old one like with {{bad name|image:better named file.jpg}}." --ALE! ¿…? 08:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- The picture shows Mr Taleb at the meeting. It belongs to a series of 11 pictures which all bear a name beginning with Meeting Voynet Mutualite 2006-04-05 because it was easier for me to handle them this way. I personnally don't wish to rename them all, because the filenames, however more precise they could be, are *not* inaccurate. You 'll find lots of pictures named in that fashion under Category:French presidential election (2007). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- The image shows Mr Claude Taleb not the meeting. Therefore it should be renamed. Please read: Commons:Contributing your own work: Step 4: Uploading: "Choose a meaningful descriptive destination filename! Files cannot be easily renamed, so try to get it right the first time. If you forget, simply upload the file again under a meaningful name, and mark the old one like with {{bad name|image:better named file.jpg}}." --ALE! ¿…? 08:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Er, ALE!, I don't understand what you mean. There must be some misunderstanding. The picture whose deletion is requested here is named Image:Meeting Voynet Mutualite 2006-04-05 n11.jpg. The filename bears no allusion whatsoever to Mr. Yann Wehrling. It states that the picture was taken at Ms. Voynet's meeting on April, 5th, which is perfectly correct. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well then reupload the image under the correct name and tag the old one with {{bad name|Image:new file name.jpg}} --ALE! ¿…? 07:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- The Greens spokesman just provided me with an ID: the man represented on the picture is Claude Taleb, vice-president of the Regional Council of Haute-Normandie (one of the regions of France) and campaign director of Dominique Voynet, the Greens candidate for the French 2007 presidential election. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment : I'm trying to secure an ID for this guy. He was seated first row at the meeting, so I presume he's a member of the French Greens leaders, which would put him in scope. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept, original reason for deletion is gone, now that the person is identified. The file name is not bad enough to be reason for deletion. --rimshottalk 18:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Kept. There are reproduction guidelines which as sui generis, but these are not copyright concerns. There's no consensus to delete. Quadell (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
does not fulfil the ECB reproduction guidelines. See Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_Euro_banknotes RokerHRO 15:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
not a banksy piece, it's by "arofish".
- Still worth recording Gordo 22:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete because FOP in UK (alleged location is London) does not apply to paintings and murals; in addition to the fact that the authorship of the original is debated. --Túrelio (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep as we keep graffiti per our image casebook even when COM:FOP does not apply. In this case, it does not matter whether this graffiti was made by banksy or arofish because both do not ask for permissions. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, I've never read this. Who the hell wrote that paragraph of the casebook? That's really of the style "they can't sue us, so we don't need to follow the law". Was this ever checked by the Wikimedia lawyers? --Túrelio (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- It reflects a consensus that was found before I became admin. We have a significant amount of similar photographs that are kept on base of this consensus. I think that it is appropriate to reopen this discussion at the associated talk page and/or the forum as this was done before if you want to challenge this. As this was backed up by MichaelMaggs who is a UK lawyer with deep knowledge of UK copyright law, this is good enough for me. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, I've never read this. Who the hell wrote that paragraph of the casebook? That's really of the style "they can't sue us, so we don't need to follow the law". Was this ever checked by the Wikimedia lawyers? --Túrelio (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept per COM:CB#Graffiti. Rename if title is erroneous Badseed talk 22:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Deleted. This is a contentious and complicated case. But in the end, we don't know whether "Julian Mandel" is a pseudonym or a real name, and we don't know when the person died. There is no reason to think the work was pseudonymous, and no reason to think the person died before 1938. (1937 is the cutoff year according to the relevant French law implementing EU directive OJ no. L290, and this was retroactive.) If anyone can provide any direct evidence concerning "Julian Mandel", this should be reexamined. For instance, if it can be shown that "Julian Mandel" was not the photographer's real name, then copyright expired after 70 years. But as of now, we only have speculation, and that's not good enough. Quadell (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Not a US work, and it's doubtful whether Julian Mandel died more than 70 years ago Phrood 23:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the PD-limit has been 50 years in France until the 93/98 CEE directive in Europe and the 27 septembre 1997 law in France. If Julian Mandel died before 1996-50=1946 (which is likely) his work was PD in 1997, and the 70 years limit does not apply (this limit won't free pictures to PD until 2017). Michelet-密是力 17:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt it. The 70 years pma rule is probably retroactive, and furthermore we generally apply EU law here at Commons. --Phrood 17:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- If the picture has been published in France, then (1) French law applies (2) It may have been PD in France before 1997 (3) The protection is retroactive only if another European country both did not apply the rule of shorter term, and had a longer protection at that time. As far as I remember, it could indeed have been retroactive if the work was still protected somewhere in Europe independently of the "rule of shorter term" of the Berne convention (assuming the picture was published in France, of course) - but in that case, under which legislation? Michelet-密是力 07:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- tallulahs.com takes the position "When the images were originally produced, they were illegal. Since no one claimed any copyrights, we are all free to use them". Whereas no one claimed copyrights when originally published Mandel's pictures should be considered "anonymous or pseudonymous works", and according to the EU rules copyrights expired "70 years after publication". Which is clearly the case, since these pictures were published in 1932 at the very latest, probably much earlier than that. So according to either rule, the old French rule "50 years after the artist died" or the EU rule "70 years after publication", these pictures are now in the public domain. Fernande 18:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, the rules on anonymous works only apply if no author can be determined, they do not depend on whether copyright was "claimed". --Phrood 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as "EU law", CEE directives are translated in national laws and are not laws by themselves. Michelet-密是力 07:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, the rules on anonymous works only apply if no author can be determined, they do not depend on whether copyright was "claimed". --Phrood 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt it. The 70 years pma rule is probably retroactive, and furthermore we generally apply EU law here at Commons. --Phrood 17:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the PD-limit has been 50 years in France until the 93/98 CEE directive in Europe and the 27 septembre 1997 law in France. If Julian Mandel died before 1996-50=1946 (which is likely) his work was PD in 1997, and the 70 years limit does not apply (this limit won't free pictures to PD until 2017). Michelet-密是力 17:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep COPYRIGHT-FREE according to tallulahs.com's website. Julian Mandel was active during the 1915-1932 period; his most recent pictures date from 1932 Fernande 13:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Mandel was indeed based in France. If copyright status is dependant on his date of death, we ought to find out what that date was. I didn't find that info in a quick google search. As Mandel seems to have produced some valuable images in use on Wiki projects, it may be worth while to do some research to find out. If the "70 years from publication" argument above is valid (if so, perhaps we should have something about that at Commons:Licensing?) the image appears ok on that basis alone. -- Infrogmation 18:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete If this is a French publication then EU law applies and that's till 70 years after death (it was definitely retrospective in the UK and so it probably is in France). If beautiful tasteful nudes were illegal in 1920s France it's news to me. (The model was famous and a noted artist in her own right.) Copyright being claimed is a US peculiarity, the EU's (and most other places') law just requires that art be produced; I've seen no evidence that "Julian Mandel" was anything other than the guy's name and some web sites claim he had a University Scholarship named after him. Please somebody prove me wrong because some of these pictures are very high quality indeed. --Simonxag 19:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed - and most of the models as well... that one is extraordinary - that guy was a real artist.
- see Helen and Sam Mandel and Anita and Julian Mandel Educational Scholarship for info on that scholarship. It is to provide a "need-based scholarship" for incoming freshmen; there is nothing in the dedication to suggest any connection with the arts or to the artist discussed here. Fernande 17:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- see http://www.darrenmccoy.com/?p=102 "In Nude photography, 1840-1920, Peter Marshall notes: “In the prevailing moral climate at the time of the invention of photography, the only officially sanctioned photography of the body was for the production of artist’s studies. Many of the surviving examples of Daguerreotypes are clearly not in this genre but have a sensuality that clearly implies they were designed as erotic or pornographic images". Daguerreotypes were from an earlier period, but I doubt whether the moral climate had changed all that much by the 1920s. It is only recently that pictures like Mandel's are considered "art" rather than pornographic. Fernande 19:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The very same source says Julian Mandel became known in the 1920s and 1930s for his exceptional photographs of the female form. Participating in the German “new age outdoor movement,” Mandel took numerous pictures in natural settings, publishing them through the Paris-based studios of A. Noyer and PC Paris. A Johns Hopkins University scholarship was named in his honor. Can we assume from this source that the artist remained effectively anonymous for 70 years after publication? Hardly, but that is what it would take for the publication date to be the start of the 70 years rather than the death date. --Simonxag 01:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- The photograph is in color. The shoes are ox blood red. That makes it dated later than 1920s because the color process was not available until into the 1930s -- there is no sense in publishing something that is questionable. It should be deleted. 65.196.169.194 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to have left an identical comment twice; I replied to the version further down. -- Infrogmation 20:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- The photograph is in color. The shoes are ox blood red. That makes it dated later than 1920s because the color process was not available until into the 1930s -- there is no sense in publishing something that is questionable. It should be deleted. 65.196.169.194 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The source says it is PD. Yann 11:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Date of death / pseudonym
[edit]
Three questions, then: Since "Julian Mandel" last published in ~ 1930 (a) He may have died before 1937, which puts his work in public domain in 2007 under the 70 ypm rule. (b) He may have died before 1946, which put his work in public domain under French law unless it was protected in another European country that does not apply the rule of shorter term (afaik, Spain or Germany). (c) "Julian Mandel" may have been a pseudonym, and in that case the delay (50 or 70) is counted from the publication date, unless the real name of the author has been revealed before his death. The short biography says that he "raised a family" in Brazil after 1932, which suggests that he died much later. Michelet-密是力 08:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- There are good reasons to assume that "Julian Mandel" is not the real name of the artist, but a pseudonym. (1) According to the short biography mentioned above "Although Mandel's works were considered illegal, he considered himself an artist, and in a bold move for the time, signed his name to the fronts of his work". Signing with his real name would have made him liable to persecution, and I doubt whether he would have gone that far to proclaim his beliefs regarding his work. (2) Most artists of the "Belle Epoch" who produced nude photographs used pseudonyms. (3) Searching the web for a biography of Julian Mandel comes up void (except for the short biography of tallulahs.com). Even wikipedia doesn't have a biography. Fernande 15:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- (This discussion can be the source of an embryo en:Julian Mandel article ;o) I was tempted to follow that "pseudonym" idea, until I saw that he "raised a family in Brazil": this is not what a pseudonym is expected to do... I can't explain that kind of information the name was a pseudonym and the identity was not revealed. Michelet-密是力 06:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that the web is notoriously unreliable and the short biography at tallulahs.com is no exception. As I mentioned above, I find it highly unlikely that the artist is in any way connected to that endowment at Johns Hopkins University to provide scholarships for students from Brooklyn, and this "info" about raising a family in Brazil after he had already a career as a photographer behind him looks very suspicious as well. Since they don't provide a source for that "info" we should disregard it. Fernande 07:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Does anyone have access to photographer databases or biographical databases such as WBIS? --Phrood 15:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- I posted a note on the village pump. Michelet-密是力 06:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Confirmed at 98% for me: the link to the scholarship involves another "Julian Mandel" (see discussion at en:talk:Julian Mandel. Michelet-密是力 10:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- I posted a note on the village pump. Michelet-密是力 06:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Does anyone have access to photographer databases or biographical databases such as WBIS? --Phrood 15:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Looking for Julian Mandel I found out, that 2 sites name him Juli e n Mandel, i. e. a specialized seller of vintage photographs (http://www.ragoarts.com/results_2005_04ART05.php - auction result no. 138) and a Brazilian government site (http://www.fundaj.gov.br/docs/indoc/icono/gdc.html). I assume, both sites are using special libraries and archives but they didn't find out his live dates. Therefore: Keep. Mutter Erde 07:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. There is also a Brazilian filmmaker Julien Mandel who may be or may not be the same person as the photographer mentioned on Arquivos Fotográficos. These websites could very well be the source of tallulahs.com's claim that Julian Mandel eventually settled in Brazil. The problem with that claim is of course that there is nothing on those webpages to indicate a connection between the Brazilian "Julien Mandel" and the French "Julian Mandel". So unless there is a reliable source that shows that Julian and Julien are one and the same person it is far more likely that those are two different people. After all, "Mandel" is a faily common surname, and there are likely several Julian/Julien Mandel's around.
In conclusion, despite our best efforts there is no reliable biographical information on the French photographer Julian Mandel, and the question of what happened with the artist after 1932 remains unresolved. That is sufficient reason to consider his work "anonymous or pseudonymous" Fernande 14:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)- Comment We have a curious case with Julian Mandel, whose work is well known but who as a person (or pseudonym) is mysterious. It would be good to clear it up a bit more if possible; what other avenues might we try exploring? Perhaps writting to the Tallulahs.com site and asking the source of their info? -- Infrogmation 16:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- IMHO, the entry en:Julian Mandel now states all that could be clarified seen from here - which boils down to comments on his work, and not a single piece of confirmed information on biography. The scholarship is clearly a "false positive", the "Julian Mandel" that pops up by searching "Brazil + Mandel" appears in recent films, is not the same one, and is likely to be the origin of this Tallulah.com remark. This site deserves no sympathy anyway, writing that "Since no one claimed any copyrights, we are all free to use them" shows someone that has no idea of author's right under the Berne convention, and thinks the 1950 US law on copyright still rules the world. Exploring other avenues ? what is left appear as faint mountain goat's trails to me... ;o) Michelet-密是力 06:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I like having something more definitive before making a vote, but in this case I'll vote for a provisional Keep (unless any new information surfaces giving reason to reconsider). The photographs attributed to "Julian Mandel" seem to be the product of a person or pseudonym who stopped work more than 70 years ago. No evidence he was alive later nor that any copyright has been claimed on his work in recent generations. -- Infrogmation 15:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I like having something more definitive before making a vote, but in this case I'll vote for a provisional
- IMHO, the entry en:Julian Mandel now states all that could be clarified seen from here - which boils down to comments on his work, and not a single piece of confirmed information on biography. The scholarship is clearly a "false positive", the "Julian Mandel" that pops up by searching "Brazil + Mandel" appears in recent films, is not the same one, and is likely to be the origin of this Tallulah.com remark. This site deserves no sympathy anyway, writing that "Since no one claimed any copyrights, we are all free to use them" shows someone that has no idea of author's right under the Berne convention, and thinks the 1950 US law on copyright still rules the world. Exploring other avenues ? what is left appear as faint mountain goat's trails to me... ;o) Michelet-密是力 06:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. There is also a Brazilian filmmaker Julien Mandel who may be or may not be the same person as the photographer mentioned on Arquivos Fotográficos. These websites could very well be the source of tallulahs.com's claim that Julian Mandel eventually settled in Brazil. The problem with that claim is of course that there is nothing on those webpages to indicate a connection between the Brazilian "Julien Mandel" and the French "Julian Mandel". So unless there is a reliable source that shows that Julian and Julien are one and the same person it is far more likely that those are two different people. After all, "Mandel" is a faily common surname, and there are likely several Julian/Julien Mandel's around.
- Here´s a site from Belgium, naming him Julien too and complaining that some sellers have tried to claim to be the copyright owners, but they were not impressed and show their collection as ever:
- from http://www.magasinpittoresque.be/images-erotiques/carte-postales.htm
- .... Malheureusement, alors qu'il n'en sont pas les photographes et qu'il serait bien difficile d'établir qui sont les ayant droit de ces images, probablement entrées dans le domaine public, certains vendeurs s'attribuent de façon grotesque un pseudo copywright, que ne justifie en aucune manière la simple possession de l'objet....
- btw: the pics of Léo are very nice too .... for commons :-) Mutter Erde 12:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- The photograph is in color. The shoes are ox blood red. That makes it dated later than 1920s because the color process was not available until into the 1930s -- there is no sense in publishing something that is questionable. It should be deleted. 65.196.169.194 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- 1) Which specific photo are you talking about? 2) You may be working on a mistaken assumption-- certainly there was color photography before the 1930s (though more rare), and published images such as post cards often used printing techniques to add color to postcards and posters even when the original photo was in sepia or b&w. -- Infrogmation 20:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to suggest for 65.196.169.194 to go see an ophthalmologist ASAP, since (s)he seems to have a vision problem, seeing colors where there are none. And even if the picture were colored (which is not the case) it would be meaningless, since (1) color photography was already known in the 19th century, see the article on color photography, and (2) in the early 20th century it was common practice to handcolor photographs, see e.g. Image:FolliesBergereBoxCostume.jpg Fernande 02:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Note on French IP Laws
[edit]
Concerning anonymous works, the protecton is 70 years from the year following publication. If the author claimed the work before he died, it is no more concidered anonymous by the law and general rules apply. The 70 year period is extended by somewhat 9 years from 1939 to 1948. That would apply also in that case, So if we concider the 70 years rule apply it is indeed 79 year and 100 years if the author died for the nation.--195.6.25.115 16:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- The war extensions no longer applies. It was removed by the Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court) in February 2007. Yann 23:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Per de:Julien Mandel, the photographer's death date and hence the public domain status of the work seems to have been established, so restoring. -- Infrogmation 13:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
September 28
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Obviously accidentally created page of no value --Tony Wills 11:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Yuval Y § Chat § 12:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
seems to be a cover Christian NurtschTM 09:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Bryan: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
spelling error --Fransvannes 07:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
'Deleted by Lestath: content was: '{{delete|spelling error}}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyvio. It's completely unclear why uploader should be copyright holder. AndreasPraefcke 16:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted' by --Digon3 talk Obvious copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyvio. It's completely unclear why uploader should be copyright holder. AndreasPraefcke 16:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted' by --Digon3 talk Obvious copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please check Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Charley patton.jpg, the picture is the same Denis Barthel 00:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
typo --Applebee 16:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: empty category
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
false naming --Applebee 20:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: empty category
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No such car ever existed, see the wikipedia entry on the Holden Commodore for more details 22 September 2007 User:OSX
Deleted by ALE!: empty category
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'd like to ask for deletion: This was an eternally fuzzy category because many of the "seamanlike" knots are also used by climbers, campers or simply those who tie their shoes! There have even been double uploads in the past, but mainly it's simply impossible to keep such fuzzy categories well-sorted. --User:Ibn Battuta 18:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete empty cat Deadstar (msg) 09:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: empty category
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"typo" --Applebee 21:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: empty category
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
What's the reason for this image? Is there any usefull usage possible? --Cyrotux 23:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes there is. It is a sample of the ribbon of the order. These ribbons are used as batons and are worn on uniforms. The sample is used as an illustration on [81] in the Dutch Wiki. As I write articles on orders in four languages I might use it elsewhere.
Faithfully yours,
Robert Prummel Robert Prummel 01:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No license; used for nonsense articles on Dutch Wikipedia Jvhertum 10:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A question mark under 'Author' but a 'self-...' template? That cant work anyway. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, no appropriate source, no author, no year of origin. --Polarlys 23:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probably copyrighted. --Fransvannes 20:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, no permission --Polarlys 23:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Se autoriza su reproducción y uso citando fuente" - means not "for any purpose", we had this before. Polarlys 21:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The authorization includes only one clause: "citing sources". Commercial use and derivative uses are types of reproduction and use, authorized by the page. If they have any problem, they would advise as in the case of the images of the Presidency of the Republic (also from the Chilean government) where it is noted that it's not allowed the derivative use or even in the frontpage of www.gobierno.cl where they have "All Rights Reserved" in the bottom.--B1mbo 23:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: In category Unknown - September 2007; no permission
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the result of touch-ups is worse than I expected, and I uploaded the same image --Applebee 14:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Other image is Image:Korean.dessert-Tteok-Hanbok-01.jpg Deadstar (msg) 13:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is an image of product packaging (ie: a logo) that is trademarked (in the image) and probably copyrighted more forcefully than the uploader on Flickr indicates, as most logos are. The background doesn't help the image to pass the threshold of originality. Chaser 09:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- DeleteSeems like solid reasoning by the nom. - BanyanTree 11:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Clear copyvioMichaelMaggs 20:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
beautiful job but dog is blurry... --Patricia.fidi 21:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep no reason for deletion Siebrand 21:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Siebrand -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Not a reason for deletion. // Liftarn
Kept, not a reason for deletion. Kjetil_r 03:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Author has requested deletion for emotional reasons --BesselDekker 05:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- What reasons? This image is actually used on a few articles. Skander 15:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: there's a duplicate of this picture (Image:Kooiker0092c.jpg) as well. Several other pictures of this breed are available: Kooikerhondje. NielsF ? (en, nl, fr, it) 15:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)- Keep What? --Dezidor 13:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Image is replaceable and I think we should honor such deletion requests. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom / Bryan. Original uploader is a longstanding and valuable contributor at nl:. NielsF ? (en, nl, fr, it) 22:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Honor request. - .Aiko 14:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Honored
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files by IrishMas
[edit]IrishMas (talk • contribs) has uploaded files with no approriate dates, in low resolution quality and with different licences. Thats all looks for me, that the images are not his own work. --GeorgHH 21:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - IMO they are all copyvios. I've already deleted Image:Englishladss.gif. Herr Kriss 22:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all, per nom. And the user insulted other users too. --Moonian 02:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment +here. Bad guy. Herr Kriss 15:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I've blocked him for that. --GeorgHH 19:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I believe that this image does not fall under Article 7 of the Thai Copyright Act.
Please note that the file was originally uploaded to the English Wikipedia and later copied to the Thai Wikipedia. However, the original file at the English Wikipedia has since been deleted due to copyright problems (see the file's log). En:User:Patiwat, the original uploader at the English Wikipedia, believed that the work might have fallen under the category of governmental documents, and would thus be in the Public Domain, but did not argue its case because he once argued—and failed—against the usability of such images in the Thai Wikipedia.
Also note that the Bureau of the Royal Household specifically released the original crop of this image and others from the same occasion under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 license (see http://www.palaces.thai.net/king60B/), which is not allowed on the Wikimedia Commons. Paul_012 (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I've had this image on my watchlist with the intent of nominating it for deletion, and I agree with Paul's summary. --Iamunknown 12:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
eh... why do we need copyright restrictions and stuff on everything, anyways? why can't everything just be free? Jonas Dalton Freeman (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I think it is copyright violation. The logo in the lower left corner of the map identifies it as made by Latvian map publisher Jāņa Sēta --Xil 22:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Looks like a scan, there are a visible inverdet labels from next page. Herr Kriss 00:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Source given does not state any type of license. Logo in the corner identified as being from a Latvian map publisher: Copyvio. Deadstar (msg) 15:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file, being quite large, does not display as a .gif due to a known Wiki bug. It has therefore been replaced by an identical .png image and is thus redundant. -- 24 September 2007 User:Arbus Driver
Deleted, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is listed as public domain. It's not. It's clearly trimmed from LukeIsBack.com http://www.lukeisback.com/images/images/Img0100/DSC_0352.JPG taken by Luke at Erotica LA Pictures 6/12/05 http://www.lukeisback.com/images/photos/050612.htm . The good news is that Luke allows us to use his pictures. However, we absolutely need to attribute it properly, and are probably better off using the entire picture, given that the other person in it is Kris Knight, also a pornographic performer, and Jenaveve Jolie's long time consort, who gets a fair amount of play in en:Jenaveve Jolie. Given that, I've uploaded Image:Jenaveve Jolie and Kris Knight.JPG, which I think makes this one redundant. AnonEMouse 15:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, thanks AnonEMouse --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probably copyrighted. --Fransvannes 20:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- there are permission for use--Albedo-ukr 20:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Closed for now but marked as NPD, pending OTRS permission. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probably copyrighted. --Fransvannes 20:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have permission of the author--Albedo-ukr 20:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept for now but marked as no (evidence of) permission, so if no OTRS email is forthcoming they may be deleted. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The source for this image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:City_of_the_dead.jpg), is itself, missing its source! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I made a mistake and assumed that the uploader made this photo. If it get the right source information, we still can import it to here. --Möchtegern 18:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No valid source specified, uploader admitted mistake. Mormegil 23:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This page claimes that the data sources are public domain. This does not necessarily mean that also images generated by the software is public domain. I'm not sure whether modification is allowed, since the page only grants permission to copy the images. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Did you miss the last line of that page? "With this statement DEMIS BV grants you permission to freely copy the PNG images returned by our server and use them for your own purposes, including web pages. We would appreciate a reference to our server but such a reference is not required, nor do we take responsibility for the accuracy or quality of the maps." This map appears to be from their on-line mapserver and isn't modified beyond cropping. Kmusser 16:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. The image is public domain like the rest of Demis maps; see also de:Bild:Demis Bestätigung.gif. Mormegil 23:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no commecial usage and derivative works explicitly permitted, we had this all before. Polarlys 21:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The authorization includes only one clause: "citing sources". Commercial use and derivative uses are types of reproduction and use, authorized by the page. If they have any problem, they would advise as in the case of the images of the Presidency of the Republic (also from the Chilean government) where it is noted that it's not allowed the derivative use or even in the frontpage of www.gobierno.cl where they have "All Rights Reserved" in the bottom.--B1mbo 23:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept, the web site says attribution is required, nothing more. --rimshottalk 18:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
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 --Herby talk thyme 07:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
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 Madmax32 13:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Restored 12:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC) by MichaelMaggs (talk | contribs) (8 revision(s) and 1 file(s) restored: Admitted mistake by deleting admin). — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(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 Mattsmillion 14:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- 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. --Timeshifter 17:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Any good reason for deletion. --Dezidor 13:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Timeshifter. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept, Per Timeshifter. --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 14:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Was not taken in the U.S. or in another country where a similar rule applies, nor is it 2D. Jackaranga 13:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is 2d! Do you think you should cut all the stones around to make it "more" 2D? --Sailko 14:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep LOL indeed, not in the US - so what? {{PD-old}} obviously applies. The author is dead since far more than 70 years (LOL...) Michelet-密是力 19:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Are you saying that this art is 3D? Hardly. The surface may be uneven but there is absolutely no doubt that it is a 2D surface. {{PD-old}} obviously applies since the author had been dead far more than 70 years Madman2001 04:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- No he has not been dead for over 70 years ! You are assuming that the laws in France are the same as in the USA ! This is not the case, in France the photograph itself is copyrighted even if the work depicted is PD. Please read the policy related to PD-Art. I don't understand why people can't understand this, every time, people start going on about how cavemen died more than 70 years ago. Will you please just stop and think for a minute, and read Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Country-specific rules. Someone has even written on the description: "ATTENTION IMAGE SOUSMISE AUX DROITS D'AUTEUR DU SITE DE LASCAUX This image is a violation", which means "WARNING IMAGE COPYRIGHTED BY THE LASCAUX WEBSITE".
- Also can people stop changing the license half way through a deletion discussion please, how many times do I have to say it ? The drawing on the cave wall is not copyrighted, it's the photography that is. We know this because the cave wasn't discovered until 1940 so the photographer can't have died more than 70 years ago, or he would have had to take the photo after his death, which we should consider impossible ! Jackaranga 11:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, correcting an erroneous licence is normal. Since you referred to the PD-old rationale, I thought you were mentionning the caveman artist - sorry. Let me rephrase it that way:
- Also can people stop changing the license half way through a deletion discussion please, how many times do I have to say it ? The drawing on the cave wall is not copyrighted, it's the photography that is. We know this because the cave wasn't discovered until 1940 so the photographer can't have died more than 70 years ago, or he would have had to take the photo after his death, which we should consider impossible ! Jackaranga 11:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The uploader has not taken the picture himself, and it is unclear whether the photograph has or has not artistic rights according to the {{PD-Art}} rationale.
- OK, then the Lascaux site does have a copyright warning, but that does not mean anything in terms of artistic property right = we must evaluaate it by ourselves. As a databank, picture copy is legal in France = there is no interference with the landowner's right, or the owner of the site. So the only real question with respect to French law is indeed whether or not the reproduction is a technical and faithful reproduction demonstrating no artistic choice, or is an artistic production that demonstrates the personality of its author.
- Though the model is not "2D and framed", there is no much choice with respect to framing and point of view. A court decision in France has ruled that there was no artistic choice in the picture of a car race arrival, or something like that, in that case the choice is even less.
- IMHO, the very nature of this photograph is to render the Lascaux painting as-is, not to demonstrate the personality of the photographer. Nothing in the photograph sugests anything contrary. Therefore, there is no artistic right attached, and Keep on Commons, but I'd be glad to hear Jastrow's second advice on that borderline one. Michelet-密是力 13:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Kept. It seems like the author died several thousand years ago during the stone age or whatever. Copyright was not known back then or writing for that matter. -- Cat ちぃ？ 22:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- This was not even the point but whatever, feel free to continue believing American law applies all over the world. Jackaranga 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation of a photograph of a rock. Consider the analguous case of coins. -Nard the Bard 06:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom., photograph of a rock. Photographic work of a cave is eligible for copyright, no matter the cave-painting. --Martin H. (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, the previous closing was completely besides the point. The photographer didn't release his work under a free license, and {{PD-Art}} doesn't apply to 3D objects such as a cave wall. –Tryphon☂ 08:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Absolutely right. Whether the original rock art is itself copyrighted or not (it isn't) is completely irrelevant. The key issue is whether the photograph that was taken of it is subject to copyright. There is no evidence that the photographer released it to the Commons under a free licence. In fact, the uploader explicitly indicates that the photograph was taken from a book. There doesn't appear to be anything stopping someone from visiting the site, taking another photograph, and licensing it to the Commons under a free licence. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the site is closed to the public since 1963, so only a few scientists still have access to the cave and could take pictures. Doesn't change anything for the copyright status of this image, but it makes its deletion a bigger loss. –Tryphon☂ 20:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom.--sevela.p (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per above. ZooFari 23:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete the photograph is protected by copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. I consider this a borderline case - the depicted portion of the cave wall is relatively flat and featureless, to the point where it may serve as a mere canvas. I still lean towards delete, however. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 19:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Kept. The website doesn't say that the image is released under a free license, but doesn't say "all rights reserved" or something similar either. I don't see a reason to doubt the uploader's claim.
Probably copyrighted. --Fransvannes 20:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe you should first send an e-mail to a webmaster of that website? Herr Kriss 23:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Error in mean rain Lokilech 20:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- You are an author and you uploaded correct version of that? If yes then Delete. Herr Kriss 23:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 16:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Error in mean rain Lokilech 20:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- You are an author and you uploaded correct version of that? If yes then Delete. Herr Kriss 23:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. / Fred J 16:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
September 29
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I can't see a use for such file Tarawneh 04:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted, prank/troll image. -- Infrogmation 05:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: troll prank image
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is SOOOOOO rude to scare away birds with that gun, they're innocent creatures! They probably want to forage for some food or build a nest! GEEEEZZ!!!! 76.102.51.236 05:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Not a valid reason for deletion. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image needs a 90 degrees correction rafax 08:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You may upload a new version without deleting the old file. --Christian NurtschTM 12:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep since it's now fixed. If you want something done right... Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 06:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy kept, problem solved. — Timichal 06:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE. Dodo 23:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE. Dodo 23:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"the image may only be used in a Wikimedia project. It may not be downloaded or sold." 88.134.232.95 01:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Such kind of license terms is not allowed in Commons. --Moonian 02:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Moonian Deadstar (msg) 09:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Not free enough
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free enough for Commons. "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that image is only used on wikipedia or sister sites." 88.134.232.95 02:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk not free
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free enough. "Images downloaded from these pages may not be used in advertising." 88.134.232.95 03:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk NC License
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused; this was uploaded with self-promotional purposes for the es wiki (I can provide proofs if enough rights at es:). No useful for an encyclopedia. --81.39.191.11 10:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted because of the missing licence (was in Unknown-Category too). -- Cecil 11:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unused --78.48.242.38 09:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 10:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation. Derivative photo of photo; no evidence uploader is copyright holder of original photo. - Infrogmation 00:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Herr Kriss 00:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free enough. "For off-line use, a written approval from IsraelInfo.ru must be granted." 88.134.232.95 02:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, per nom --Polarlys 23:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Permission for use on commons only. "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the author is contacted before any use outside the wikicommons." 88.134.232.95 02:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The source allows reproduction, but does not mention derivative work. 88.134.232.95 02:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
deleted, not free enough--Polarlys 23:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image comes from the NATO website. The terms of use on the website don't mention derivative work and commercial use, and additional restrictions like " No material is to be used for advertising purposes whatsoever." make these images unusable for Commons. --88.134.232.95 02:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unfree press photo copied from http://www.musee-suisse.com. The site says "Press photos may only be used for publications in connection with reporting on our museums, exhibitions and events. Please note that only journalists are permitted to download and use our press photos, and only with reference to copyright." --88.134.232.95 03:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation 00:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not a free image. "Usage of this image outside this web site must be approved by Palm, Inc." 88.134.232.95 03:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The russian constitution itself might not be subject to copyright, but a photo of the book (not a 2D reproduction of the document) is copyrighted. For images from kremlin.ru also see Commons:Deletion requests/License tags of russian websites 88.134.232.95 03:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's a CD-Cover, and there is no real source to proof that it's free to use. -- Cecil 17:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; user apparently uploaded a number of other deleted copyviols. Speedy del OK, I think. -- Infrogmation 19:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"to copy the Artwork you must have the autorisation of the right owner." does not sound like a free image. 88.134.232.95 02:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
i'm the creator and uploader of this image. i have uploaded a better quality version of this image here Image:Macfie tartan (w2r24g4r2g32r2g4r24y2).png.--Celtus 08:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC) --Celtus 08:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
kept, the image is in use --ALE! ¿…? 20:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image needs a 90 degrees correction, i will upload it again as soon as i fix it rafax 09:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Haven't we seen this episode before? Keep, since it's fixed. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 06:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 20:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Corrupt file. The correct file seems to be available as Image:Monosialotetrahexosylganglioside.svg. Christian NurtschTM 12:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as author. Shoyrudude555 16:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 20:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request --Militaryace 20:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Wrong File Name
kept, please tag the image with {{rename image|new file name.jpg}} --ALE! ¿…? 20:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Screenshot of a game which the art work is not clearly free. --John Vandenberg 23:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed that it's an unfree image; note that I did not upload it commons but rather to en:wp where fair-use and other dubious practices are permitted. I believe my local image still exists so this image can be deleted without affecting en. Mackensen 00:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Local copy en:Image:Farhill Transport, 14th Mar 1939.png is tagged as fair use. Thuresson 05:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted {{screenshot}} --ALE! ¿…? 20:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Non descriptive filename, replacement already uploaded Jeff Dahl 23:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Here is the replacement Image:Temple at Phile, view from river.jpg Jeff Dahl 23:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 20:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(This was not the flag of Khmer Rouge, but an incorrect version of the flag of MONATIO. Please see discussion at en:Talk:Khmer Rouge as well as deletion request for its duplicate, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Khmer Rouge flag.svg) --Soman 09:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
kept per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Khmer Rouge flag.svg --ALE! ¿…? 07:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploaded higher resolution version of exact same image (also better description) at Image:Isabella Soprano.jpg AnonEMouse 22:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
tagged as a duplicate and liste at CommonsDelinker --ALE! ¿…? 20:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ani Lorak images
[edit]
Copied from the image description page: "© Ані Лорак Компані. Всі права захищені. При використанні медіа-матеріалів в електронному виді посилання на www.anilorak.com/ua/ обов'язкове.(translation:The picture is allowed to be used in electronic media with reference to:http://www.anilorak.com/ua/"
This seems not like a free license. There's no mention of derivative work and commercial use, and the use is limited to electronic media. --88.134.232.95 01:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Moonian 02:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Also en:Image:Ani lorak.jpg is produced with same license from same web page. I think, that Wikipedia is a electronic media.--BezPRUzyn 17:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but all content on Commons must be re-usable by anyone, for any purpose, not just electronic media - see Commons:Licensing. --88.134.232.95 02:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, not free enough --Polarlys 23:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
See below.--Chaser 05:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Withdrawn. See below. -- Cecil 07:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The edging in these two images looks professionally done, as if they're postcards. There's another image in the Flickr user's collection which is definitely a postcard, [82]. It's suspicious, anyway. The images are not used in any articles on EN, French, Dutch, German, or Finnish Wikipedias (there's a Finish article). Chaser 05:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- The edging is no evidence here. If you look at [83], you see a similar effect in a picture the uploader describes as 'my living room'. However, there are indeed other pictures by the same author which clearly are not own work, like [84]. - Andre Engels 17:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- A good point. I didn't see that photo and am glad you pointed it out, Andre. I withdraw the deletion request.--Chaser 00:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Withdrawn. -- Cecil 07:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Inexact content; this image was created to back geo-political ambition, not to illustrate a real fact. This image violates neutrality. 62.203.70.157 14:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This image creates a conflict where there is no conflict. The borders between Honduras and Nicaragua, and Nicaragua and Costa Rica were settled long ago, in international courts. The government of Nicaragua has no open legal claims on these territories. This image advances a political agenda and presents as fact (the land claim) something that is not claimed by the government of Nicaragua. - Rus Sheptak - 136.152.132.93 18:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This image is an absurd. Nicaragua has treaties which define the borders. The regions which Nicaragua claimed in the past are not "Nicaraguan territories administered by Costa Rica" or "Nicaraguan territories administered by Honduras", they are Costa Rican and Honduran territory. I don't think any Nicaragua would like to see a map of his/her country presented as "Spanish territory administered by Nicaragua". - Margarita
En algun momento de la historia, hubieron territorios (de los marcados en rojo) en litigio con Honduras y Costa Rica con respecto a Nicaragua, pero las dimenciones en el mapa considero no corresponde a la verdad (obviamente areas mucho mas pequeñas); no asi las islas de San Andres y Providencia que Colombia quiere usurpar.
Por supuuesto cada persona simpatiza con las posiciones de su país y desearía verlo triunfante en los litigios fronterizos. Sin embargo el problema aquí es que en el mapa se algo que es falso. Como dice Margarita, los supuestos "territorios nicaragüenses administrados por...", NO SON territorios nicaragüenses. Si lo fueron o no, o si Nicaragua tuvo autoridad o pretensiones sobre ellos, es un asunto diferente. Actualmente son territorios de Honduras y de Costa Rica, de conformidad con tratados y fallos internacionales que Nicaragua, hasta donde yo sé, no ha desconocido. En el caso particular de las islas de San Andrés y Providencia, Nicaragua sí denunció el tratado de 1928 que las había reconocido como territorios colombianos, pero aun así, lo más que cabría decir es "territorios en disputa entre Colombia y Nicaragua", no "territorios nicaragüenses administrados por Colombia". No creo que a ningún nicaragüense le gustara que la costa caribeña de su país (sobre al que Colombia tuvo pretensiones hasta 1928) apareciera a estas alturas en mapas de Colombia como "territorio colombiano administrado por Nicaragua". - Hohenfelsen, Centroamérica
Inexact content; this image was created to back geo-political ambition, not to illustrate a real fact. This image violates neutrality. --201.195.130.198 04:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
kept, no valid reason for deletion --ALE! ¿…? 20:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Press photo. Permission only for "publication", no mention of derivative work or commercial use. 88.134.232.95 02:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- when I uploaded the picture (back in 2005), the description of the picture read Veröffentlichung honorarfrei bei Quellenangabe. "Foto: Presseamt Stadt Münster". Belegexemplar bitte an Stadt Münster · Presse- und Informationsamt · 48127 Münster as the licence-template says. You can check this at archive.org. Additionally I was in contact (via mail) with Presseamt of Münster and they wrote: Pictures may be used for non-commercial purposes. I checked back, said that wasn't enough and Joachim Schiek (head of Presseamt) told me Einige Fotos (z.B. Rathaus und ein Prinzipalmarkt-Motiv) stehen unter www.muenster.de/stadt/galerie nur mit dem Vermerk "Presseamt Stadt Münster" ohne ergänzenden Fotografen-Namen. Diese Bilder können Sie auf jeden Fall verwenden, da hier auch das Urheberrecht beim Presseamt liegt (engl.: Some Photos at www.muenster.de/stadt/galerie are credited to "Presseamt Stadt Münster" only, without any additional name of the photographer. These you can use whatsoever, since the Presseamt holds the copyright. This is documented at de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Florian_Adler/Archiv#Fotos. the original emails are still in my gmail-archive and can be forwarded (german languange) --schlendrian •λ• 13:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I'm not 100% sure these photos are completely free. "Veröffentlichung honorarfrei bei Quellenangabe." is just a press license, meaning that you can use these images in newspapers, magazines etc. It does not mention whether you can use the images for every purpose or make derivative works. Does the answer of the Presseamt explicitly mention use for whatever purpose and derivative works? In many cases press people unfortunately don't understand the implications and if asked if commercial use (advertisements, posters, t-shirts) and derivative works are allowed they outright forbid it (there were several cases like this in the past). It might be useful to forward the emails to the OTRS. --88.134.232.95 22:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- the emails have already been forwarded to german OTRS, please wait for them to check. Other images uploaded under the same reasons include Image:Schiff1.jpg, Image:Pier3.jpg and Image:Zwinger4.jpg, they have to be treaded like Poolballs1 --schlendrian •λ• 15:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- according to OTRS response, the permission does not state explicitly, that commericial use is permitted. Wrong in my opinion, but nothing to do about. I'll see if i can find free pics but won't send mails to the city of Münster again, to request a permission I already recieved in a time there was nothing like OTRS to send permissions to --schlendrian •λ• 20:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- the emails have already been forwarded to german OTRS, please wait for them to check. Other images uploaded under the same reasons include Image:Schiff1.jpg, Image:Pier3.jpg and Image:Zwinger4.jpg, they have to be treaded like Poolballs1 --schlendrian •λ• 15:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I'm not 100% sure these photos are completely free. "Veröffentlichung honorarfrei bei Quellenangabe." is just a press license, meaning that you can use these images in newspapers, magazines etc. It does not mention whether you can use the images for every purpose or make derivative works. Does the answer of the Presseamt explicitly mention use for whatever purpose and derivative works? In many cases press people unfortunately don't understand the implications and if asked if commercial use (advertisements, posters, t-shirts) and derivative works are allowed they outright forbid it (there were several cases like this in the past). It might be useful to forward the emails to the OTRS. --88.134.232.95 22:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Other speedy deletions; no permission
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images from GPO Access
[edit]- Image:Johannes Paul II - Bill Clinton.jpg
- Image:JohannesPaulII.jpg
- Image:JohannesPaul2-portrait.jpg
- Image:Bill Clinton Al Gore.jpg
- Image:Rabin at peace talks.jpg
- Image:Clinton&Aristide.jpg
PD status unclear. The source says that "For many of the images on GPO Access, GPO has purchased the right to use the image. GPO is licensed to use these images on a non-exclusive and non-transferable basis. All other rights to the image, including without limitation, copyright and all other rights, are retained by the owner of the images. These images are not in the public domain. For inquiries about images on GPO Access please contact the GPO Contact Center."
I considered tagging these images as subst:npd, but I will make a deletion request instead, in case somebody wants to contact gpoaccess.gov.
See also Commons:Village_pump_archive-16#gpoaccess.gov. --Kjetil r 13:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note that all the above images come from "Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States" [85]. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/pubpapers/about.html says the Public Papers feature a "portfolio of photographs selected from White House Photo Office files", which would imply {{PD-USGov-POTUS}}. --Davepape 04:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Please stop this obsession with reading too much into fine prints which sometimes end up being contradictory in different places. Official government photos of nation-states are and should be in publicly re-producible.--71.107.235.82 09:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- But how do you know that they are official government photos? --Kjetil r 12:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- The question is whether the White House Photo Office files include photos that they didn't take. I don't know; perhaps someone else does. If these were promo-type photos of just the pope/Rabin/Aristide alone, it would be reasonable to think they might have come from other sources. But as they're all photos of the President, at the White House or other official functions, it seems quite fair to believe that the White House Photo Office took the pictures themselves - that's their job. --Davepape 14:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I saw this picture for years, even in french newspapers. Except Mr Clinton, all of them are dead and, more: Fortunately when alphabets were born there were not yet copyrights... Otherwise, impossible to write anything. (even patents ?)
- But how do you know that they are official government photos? --Kjetil r 12:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I'd think any leased third party photos on the site would have some sort of attribution or notice with them? I see nothing in the page these images are from to suggest they are not official office of the President photos, PD-USGov, in either text nor appearance. -- Infrogmation 17:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Davepape & Infrogmation: absent evidence to the contrary, I think it's safe to presume that "White House Photo Office files" are indeed photos taken by official White House Photographers. BTW, Image:Johannes Paul II - Bill Clinton.jpg has also been used on whitehouse.gov during Clinton's term, see the archived copy at NARA. Lupo 11:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Lupo. Kigoe 22:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I agree as well. 72.74.106.61 02:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment they look set to survive but just in case, don't delete them before you upload them to Wikipedia under applicable "Unique historic image" fair-use, where possible. Some of them appear to be irreplaceable. 209.146.241.93 02:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Keep, agreed that it's ok. j.allison.0201 13:20, 11 December 2007 (GMT)
Kept. Per consensus. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
September 30
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Clearly copyright infringement. The image should be removed immediately. See: http://www.jimin.jp/index.html (all rights reserved) WTCA 02:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zscout370: image with unknown copyright or source information
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Gallery page with one image, unlikely to be expanded, no other content. -- Sandstein 06:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - the image is also in the rifle gallery. Yuval Y § Chat § 12:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio by flickr user Josete1, see also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Paris Hilton - That's Hot.jpg BLueFiSH 18:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hm. Same day this was taken at Los Angeles, Joestel has a couple of pix of Paris Hilton, a photo of Beyonce taken in Paris (France), along with much lower quality photos of a gang of his friends in Santiago Chile where he lives. Source fraud by Josetel seems the most likely explanation. -- Infrogmation 19:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete inconsistent EXIF information on the rest of that users flickr photos suggest that it wasn't taken by the user. Megapixie 06:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 20:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio by flickr user Josete1, see also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Paris Hilton - That's Hot.jpg BLueFiSH 18:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio by flickr user Josete1, see also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Paris Hilton - That's Hot.jpg BLueFiSH 18:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio by flickr user Josete1, see also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Paris Hilton - That's Hot.jpg BLueFiSH 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 20:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
From the description of the page, it looks like this is a fair use image. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
NO SIRVE Cecibel cruz 00:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- No sirve??????? Great argument. I vote don't delete. --leonardo 01:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 09:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I don't believe US postage stamps are normally PD, are they? --Jmabel | talk 03:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep They are pd before 78 : Stamps of the United States Greudin 08:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 09:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I uploaded this image in good faith, thinking that it was an example of Luther’s handwriting. However, after having done some further research, I’ve determined that this is in fact, not Luther’s handwriting after all. Delta x 04:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
For reference, here are a couple of genuine examples of Luther’s handwriting.
See p. 124 of Martin Luther, By Gustav Freytag, 1897, http://books.google.com/books?id=2X4AAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP14&dq=%22luther%27s+handwriting%22#PPA124-IA2,M1
And this image, which I just recently discovered on Commons (uploaded 7.20.2007): http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Martin_Luther's_handwriting_01.jpg Delta x 05:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Delta, for following up on this. Support deletion, as per our previous discussion on w:en:User talk:Delta x#Luther handwriting?. Future Perfect at Sunrise 15:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted /Mistake and no used --Fanghong 09:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Name collision with image on en.wikipedia; Re-uploaded with different name to resolve. This old one is no longer required. Michael Daly 18:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Could just use {{badname}} template... AnonMoos 22:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: Dupe of Image:Nocturnal (instrument).jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The GFDL tag looks suspect, as it has been applied to he:תמונה:Merenptah.jpg and en:Image:Merenptah.jpg by different people without a source. Note that this photo of the same says "The Egyptian Museum, Cairo, Egypt. Photo by Barry Bandstra, May 1987" in the credits. This is a very small online image by the Museum, and their copyright statement prohibits reuse of that image. --John Vandenberg 00:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Tag it as having no source. If no source is provided within 7 days it will be deleted. You will have to go to those individual projects to have them deleted locally. However, it still appears to be a copyvio. CO2 00:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
tagged with no source --ALE! ¿…? 08:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture was produced in Uruguay not in Argentina: wrong license Dantadd✉ 21:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
filename is non descriptive, and picture has been re loaded to better filename Petedavo 03:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
filename is non descriptive, and picture has been re loaded to better filename Petedavo 03:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
filename is non descriptive, and picture has been re loaded to better filename Petedavo 03:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
filename is non descriptive, and picture has been re loaded to better filename Petedavo 03:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
_at_Perth_Royal_Show.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_at_Perth_Royal_Show.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Have redone this image at a higher resolution Petedavo 03:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
_at_Perth_Royal_Show.jpg){kind=link}
Have redone this image at a higher resolution Petedavo 03:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Have redone this image at a higher resolution Petedavo 03:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Have redone this image at a higher resolution Petedavo 03:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I mispelt the filename and have now re uploaded a correctly spelt version Petedavo 03:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please tag the image as {{Badname}}. --Digon3 talk 00:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I mispseplt the filename and have uploaded a correctly spelt version Petedavo 03:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please tag the image as {{Badname}}. --Digon3 talk 00:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I mispelt the filname so I have upload a new one Petedavo 03:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You're the uploader. Tag them with {{Bad name|correctly named image}} Platonides 22:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Permission was limted to use on Wikipedia and related sites, not explained to include commercial use or derivs. Clearly not coextensive with GFDL. Butseriouslyfolks 19:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. MichaelMaggs 20:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image description page contains no reason why this should be PD-old. The only name given is Carl D. Anderson, who died 1991. Mormegil 15:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hopefully this picture is not deleted. The maker is dead, it is not a piece of art. Ans it is usefull in the article.
62.251.75.133 16:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC) beetjedwars
Deleted No source or author given, so no indication for PD-old. --GeorgHH • talk 17:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The recording has cropped ending and therefore it is useless. You can't hear the whole word. --Derbeth talk 18:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Faulty file, also no source. --GeorgHH • talk 17:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No authorship declared. Bolívar died in 1830, but the painting could have been done two years ago. Dantadd✉ 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Determining the copyright status of paintings is often difficult, but I'm siding with the common sense view rather than the lawyering view. However, the painting is probably housed in a museum somewhere, so we should be able to find someone who knows the author. If the painting was done in Bolivar's lifetime, the artist is long dead.--HereToHelp (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is nonsense. This is a painting used in various text books. --209.183.190.77 20:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
