Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2007/10
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
October 1
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
identical to Image:V05p329001 Falashas.jpg Jarekt 03:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
tagged with {{duplicate|new file name}}. Please use this tag next time --ALE! ¿…? 08:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Pictures of statues in Denmark cannot be used commercially under the protection of freedom of panorama. Fingalo 14:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 14:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Majorly: not covered by law
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Pictures of statues in Denmark cannot be used commercially under the protection of freedom of panorama. Fingalo 14:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 14:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Majorly: not covered by law
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Pictures of statues in Denmark cannot be used commercially under the protection of freedom of panorama. Fingalo 14:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 14:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Anna: Danish copyright law does not allow commercial use of photos of public sculptures.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Pictures of statues in Denmark cannot be used commercially under the protection of freedom of panorama. Fingalo 15:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 15:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Anna: Danish copyright law does not allow commercial use of photos of public sculptures.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
is someone seriously claiming that what is going on in the picture is "taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties" ? If this were true, then the soldiers would not be convicted, but the Army Chiefs would be in jail. I know the Americans torture people in Irak, but having the template, with the little department of Defense logo, saying this is the employee's official duties is just silly Jackaranga 15:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep What, are you arguing that the US military personel at Abu Ghraib were acting there as private citizens? The legal status of actions and who might be culpable are not for Wikimedia Commons to decide. US military photos per US law, so not a copyright violation, so keep. -- Infrogmation 17:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Because the media used treated these as they were public domain photos (just like the My Lai photographs which were widely published without any payment to the photographer, A U.S soldier), I don't see why there should be copyright paranoia over these widely published images Innertook 22:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep They have been widely published, and could comm under the official duties section. --Nate1481 15:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the same as Image:Gemeente Borger Odoorn verkiezingen.png Gouwenaar 18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate. -- Cecil 22:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Commons:Scope - Some of these pictures are really nice, but most of them are not usable for any of the wikimedia projects. This seems to be a private image collection. --Cecil 21:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Additional information: the few pictures which are already missing where speedily deleted because they were pur nonsense. Those were pictures where the animals were faster than the camera and they where either a flash or not even on the picture or hiding.Just for clarification (since right now it's part of the discussion below and probably be overlooked): I don't request ALL of these pictures to be deleted. I just want them to be sorted through so that only the useful ones stay. I can't see the usefullness in about 50 pictures of a chipmunk feeded with nuts from the perspective of the viewer, especially since these animals are not shown in their natural surrounding. -- Cecil 09:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- One of the image is used in the Chipmunk article. The rest are linked from it through the commons template. It has been my sincere hope that those who read that article could benefit from having access to these high-quality, unique images, and that this would further enhance their experience of and exposure to the English Wikipedia, and by extension, Wikimedia Commons. Thank you for your consideration. ElC 00:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- As for the speedy deletions, since if we're going to have a deletion debate, I'm not certain I see the point of having both. Also, as I explained to the nominator on his/her talk page, I'm not sure how judicious all his/her speedy deletions of the images I donated have been: for example, this image depicts a chipmunk closing its eyes while being petted. I think it is rather unique and wotrhwhile for our readers/viewers. Is it so implausible to conceive a Wikimedia project that may find use for this hitherto speedy-deleted image (or is even doing so now)? I donated these images in goodfaith, thinking they enrich the experience of those who come across Category:Tamias. ElC 00:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Server space is cheap and these are all free use...what more can we ask?--MONGO 05:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Just because something is free or cheap it doesn't mean it should be wasted. After all this is still a project for which we need donations. -- Cecil 08:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. What's wrong with readers of the Chipmunk article being able to view further unique chip images? For my part, I've never seen a chipmunk in Real Life—I live in a part of the world where they don't exist—and having access to this whole gallery certainly told me more about them than just reading the article by itself. (Same goes for the images of American squirrels included in the gallery—never seen a real one.) After all, Commons contains lots and lots of images of tigers (and very nice too)— why can't it have a good-sized collection of chipmunks, too? Bishonen 07:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC).
- I should have made it more clear: I didn't mean that we should delete them all, but sort through them and look if and how and how many of the pictures of tame animals (not shown in their normal surrounding) are useful. But I can't see the good in things like these: I'm sure you like Image:Wait,_I_wanted_to_pet!.jpg, Image:Chimunk aka the flash.jpg, Image:Chimunk aka the flash2.jpg, Image:This is camera.jpg, Image:Welcome to hand5.jpg, Image:Two hidden squirrels.jpg, Image:Transformers, chipmunks in disguise!.jpg, Image:Oh wait, yes it is (it was pealed).jpg, Image:Hidden squirrel.jpg, Image:Nice jump!.jpg, Image:Nodding-chip.jpg, Image:Don't drop that peanut.jpg, Image:Diving into a sea of grass2.jpg, Image:Chipetting13.jpg, Image:Okay-bye-then.jpg, Image:Handfed-chip-flying.jpg, Image:Handfed-chipetted6 (flying, again!).jpg, Image:Circlingwater.jpg, Image:Searching for the peanut source.jpg, Image:Say hi to camera!.jpg, Image:Chipscape route.jpg, Image:Chipretreat!.jpg, Image:Chipetting gone amiss.jpg, Image:Nice-chipass!.jpg, Image:Leap-from-hand-of-chipfriendship.jpg or Image:Handfed-chipetted2.jpg. Just to name a few examples. -- Cecil 08:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you should have. Why didn't you? You must have some newcomer-friendly policy/ies here (you still haven't responded to my query about that - why is that?) I'm just not sure why you're picking on me. This is the greatest tragedy in the history of petting chipmunks. I am of the opinion that the majority of my images would enrich the experience of many readers/viewers, even if the quality of some may not be as high as others. And why do you care if they're are not in their "normal surrounding"? (although they are, that's the forest; but why even mention that? what does that have to do with anything?) ElC 09:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Don't know if there are any policies, maybe some guidelines, but you are here since more than three month month, so you hardly count as newbie. The argument with the "normal surrounding" came because of the Chipmunk-article at en.WP: The temptation to pick up or pet any wild animal should be strictly avoided, however. and Are we looking to encourage hand feeding of wild animals? to just cite it. We have lots of pics of tigers, as mentioned up there, for each species some. The most pictures are there for Panthera tigris altaica (about 40). They show a lot of different situation, wildlife and zoo. They are different and don't show only the feeding and touching of a wilde animal, which was tamed. -- Cecil 09:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Look, do you not know how to indent? I keep having to fix that for you. Three months is not a lot of time. As for that do-not-pet guideline, that probably should not be in the article. We do not structure our articles as instruction manuals, and that assertion is open to debate. And these are wild/tame animals. But why are you projecting so much of your personal taste to this debate? Why have my pictures become some sort of cause célèbre for you, as they seem to have? ElC 09:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, who is getting personally now. To cite the deletion request information: In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Obiously you took it personally. This deletion request is not a cause célèbre for me, I just try to answer your questions. But I can stay silent too, but then you will accuse me of ignoring you. -- Cecil 10:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Once again, I keep fixing your indentations; please just look at how I do it for future reference. I'm getting the impression that you are projecting your hostility toward the English Wikipedia (which you claim you care not to edit, yet quick to cite as both an authority here as well as assert which pictures should appear there - claiming the one currently in place is not good enough). It's just difficult to keep you grounded on-usefulness-topic, I find. ElC 10:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- What has the English WP to do with this discussion? And just to answer your off-topic-question: Yes, I know how to do indentations. I just don't do enumerations, so stop altering my discussion entries. -- Cecil 10:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know, you're the one who keeps raising it (how you'd never edit it and so on); and now you've mis-indented your comment, again, are you trying to provoke me? And I asked you on your talk page what the EOD abbreviation(?) stands for and you used administrative rollback?(!) What is going on here? ElC 10:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Hm, I think we should try to start this one over again. Right now the only file that's tagged for deletion (as far as I could tell) is ElC - the user page, and that's certainly not an issue here. I agree that some of these images might not be very useful (I'm thinking about images where the squirrel is so blurry due to movement that you can't really see what it is), but there are also a lot of good images. I would like to ask the uploader to look through these images again and concider if some of them could/should be removed. It's not a question about server-capacity, but information overload - it's harder to find the good images when we have to browse through so many images of various quality to find them. Finn Rindahl 09:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to do mark them an other way. I tagged the page and not the pictures, because it was impossible for me to decide which one are the most unnecessary. So it was either tagging all the pictures or the page, so that people can get an overview. -- Cecil 09:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not finding this an inviting place. I have already gone through the selection process upon uploading the images (what you call blurry was something I found artistic merit in, or I wouldn't have uploaded them). I'm not sure why the metagallery bothers you so much? It's not harming anyone. Other commons editors have already worked on categorizing the pics themsleves. But now that I've criticized Cecil who has shown zero regret (not to mention remorse), it seems clear that he will never let it go and will make it a point to see em gone. ElC 09:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but why should I feel regret or remorse for a deletion request? -- Cecil 10:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Because you didn't make it clear, initially, that you are not nominating all the images for deletion; and your now-retracted speedy-deletions were a bit redundant, since we're having this debate, anyway. But now that I evidently gotten you are angry about this, I significantly reduced my chances of seeing the images retained, so I lose. ElC 10:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've retracted the speedy deletion so that other users can see what exactly you see as useful contributions to Commons (not en.WP). And I'm not angry, I just try to answer your questions. I'm not moody enough to from one minute to the next feel remorse, than anger, and then whatever the next step should be. And could we please stay at the topic: the usefullness of your pictures. -- Cecil 10:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're not angry yet you use administrative rollback to revert a question I pose... ElC 10:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I keep fixing Cecil's misformatted indentations, so that the comments flow better visually, and he reverts it with the edit summary (until now, he reverted it once without an edit summary): stop altering my contributions, it's unpolite and could be considered as vandalism, and I've decided to not answer off-topic questions here anymore. So, upon asking Cecil why he used administrative rollback to revert my question (what EOD stands for, which I still don't know); why he keeps mentioning the English Wikipedia and how it's of such low quality compared to the German one, that he'd never be caught editing it; how it's human to feel regret when one upsets another person, and that it may not necessarily be a vice, or "moodiness" to feel this; suddenly, unemotionally and dispassionately of course, opts to not answer my questions. And end with an insinuation that I am committing vandalism upon fixing his format errors (and that's the 1st time he objects, insinuating vandalism with his very 1st objection). First experience with a commons admin. And it's ... not good. ElC 11:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Since you can't stop to attack me, on last time an answer: I have not accused you of vandalism, I just informed you that it could be considered as vandalism if you edit the contributions of others. I have several hundred contributions at en.WP. And EOD comes from en.WP, you can find it there on most discussion pages (End of discussion). And since you didn't respect my request there I made a revert. -- Cecil 11:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have not attacked you, once; I take exception to that accusation. You continue to be unresponsive and hostile. ElC 11:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- And I did not edit your contributions, I just made your indented response to my bulletpoint an indented bulletpoint, so that the indentation is not so minor that the two comments can be, visually, mistaken to be one at a glance. What is going on here? Is this normal for commons discussions? ElC 11:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm not in favour of using Wikipedia server space to make a home page for some teenager who wants to store all their images there, and promote themselves without making any useful edits. But that's not the case here. This is a productive and respected administrator, who has contributed a lot to en:wiki. Some of the images seem very useful; others are less so. But frankly, we can afford to allow a tiny bit of server space to be wasted (if it is being wasted, though I'm not committing myself on that) because the good done by the uploader more than compensates. The importance of keeping a good-humoured, pleasant, collaborative working environment means that when very productive editors occasionally use a bit of Wikimedia's server space for something that does not seem to be directly serving the project, we can assume that it's indirectly helping. ElinorD 11:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep pr nomination, but I still believe a stricter sorting of these images would make this contribution even more valuable to our project(s). That discussion does not belong here, at least not until another attempt of dialogue with the uploader has been attempted. I also stronly urge that the ongoing discussion about how these images were nominated etc etc is not brought any further here, it's not to the topic of keeep/delete as it is now. Finn Rindahl 11:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I should like to echo Finn Rindahl's request, "I would like to ask the uploader to look through these images again and concider if some of them could/should be removed. It's not a question about server-capacity, but information overload - it's harder to find the good images when we have to browse through so many images of various quality to find them." It seems to have been partially lost in the discussion above. EIC says that s/he used a selection process for the images; however, I'm not sure it was informed by Commons:Scope. I agree with both Cecil and Finn Rindahl that "[s]ome of these pictures are really nice" and "there are also a lot of good images". I'd invite EIC to consider if en:Flikr, for example, might be a more suitable repository for images that do not seem to fall within the scope of Commons. Commons:Featured pictures provides an indication of how some Commons editors evaluate images. I agree with Cecil that most of the images are not usable for any of the wikimedia projects. However, I think Image:Groundhogpeanut2.jpg, for example, is potentially usable and I thank EIC for his/her efforts. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Since the discussion gets to much of topic this way I will try to make the deletion request for the worst pictures somehow else. -- Cecil 11:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Same deal and same situation as with Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wheel life 01.jpg: Author of the work photographed and photographer are obviously not identical and there is no indication that the original artist (painter of the picture that was photographed by Roelli) has given Roelli the permission to publish derivations of his work under GNU-FDL. --Melanom 05:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- The picture shows one of the murals, which are painted on the wall of the Khang Tshan Temple in the Sera Monastery and dates back to 15/16th century. Thus it's probably a little bit difficult to get permission from the artists since they are dead for about 500 years. Maybe a seance could help, but until then Keep. -- Cecil 13:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- this is stupid. The author did release the image, I uploaded it as he stood next to me saying "do it". He just couldn't be bothered to create an account and do it himself. I mean, if I uploaded it claiming it was my own photograph, how would you have verified that? And how is the claim that the author personally gave me permission any different in terms of verifiability? This is just a holiday snapshot, and there is no way to prove who pressed the button now. Dbachmann 16:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
kept, --Fred J 07:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The background music is uncredited and probably copyrighted. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- The background music is credited by Low (Fair-use) and Russian Low --Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff 12:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete You seem to misunderstand the basis of this site (Commons) whose goal is to provide only free (as a speech) content. Fair use is explicitely not permitted. Fair use may be allowed on ru: (check it first) and you may deposit fair use content on that WP but not here. (This said, using a copyrighted music as the background of your speech is a derived work and I'm pretty sure this doesn't fall under fair use, but this doesn't matter here.) — Xavier, 14:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- The background music is credited by Low (Fair-use) and Russian Low --Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff 12:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- You the judge, the lawyer or well know the international laws?))))) You seem to misunderstand the basis of this site! )) Still recently someone argued with me about the russian state badges. So, what? Where their arrogance now? --Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff 21:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
07:35, 18 October 2007 Lupo (talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Fil min.ogg" (fair use: not allowed; see COM:L)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Map purporting to be an historical ethnographic map of the Slavs in the medieval Balkans. Lacks source information (not in the sense of copyright, but in the sense of verifiability of academic content), hence a danger of OR and possibly POV-pushing. Also, even if the map is self-made, it was evidently made on the basis of a pre-existing template showing the geographical details, and as such is quite likely a copyvio. A request for clarification on the uploader's talk page ([1]) was ignored. --Future Perfect at Sunrise 22:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hello everybody, I am consenting to statements expressed here. Without any reference on source (whatever quality this source may be of) this map is useless except for unsourced fueling the dispute about distribution of populations in the balkans at whatsoever point of time. Conclusion: Delete. Greetings Christaras A 18:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Pictures of statues in Denmark cannot be used commercially under the protection of freedom of panorama. --Fingalo 13:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author was Anne Marie Nielsen ((1863 - 1945) Pictures of statues in Denmark cannot be used commercially under the protection of freedom of panorama. Fingalo 14:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 14:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Pictures of statues in Denmark cannot be used commercially under the protection of freedom of panorama. --Fingalo 15:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
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. Fingalo 15:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 15:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Mahlum 20:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
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. Fingalo 15:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 15:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
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. Fingalo 15:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 15:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
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. Fingalo 15:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 15:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:10, 4 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. Fingalo 16:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 16:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Info sculptor da:Henrik Starcke died 1973. --JuTa 20:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 17:30, 10 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. Fingalo 16:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 16:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Info: Sculptor da:Henrik Starcke died 1973. --JuTa 20:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 17:30, 10 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. “Skulpturen er lavet i elmetræ og skabt af en russisk billedskærerkunstner i 1997.” Fingalo 16:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 16:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, per Fingalo's argumentation (no freedom of panorama for sculptures in Denmark). Patrícia msg 23:58, 10 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. “Skulpturen er lavet i elmetræ og skabt af en russisk billedskærerkunstner i 1997.” Fingalo 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 17:28, 10 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. Skulptur by Svend Wiig Hansen 1995. Fingalo 16:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 16:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Sculptor en:Svend Wiig Hansen died 1997. --JuTa 20:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, per Fingalo's argumentation (no freedom of panorama for sculptures in Denmark). Patrícia msg 00:00, 11 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. Fuglen Jonathan" by Palle Mørk 1999. Fingalo 16:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 16:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 17:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
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. Rudolph Tegner (1873-1950) Fingalo 16:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 16:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Sculptor de:Rudolph Tegner died 1950. --JuTa 20:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 17:26, 10 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. Article 85.-(1) The provisions of this Act concerning copyright shall apply to works of persons who are nationals of or who have their habitual residence in a country Fingalo
Keep The sculpture is by a Danish artist, but the sculpture is in Mexico, not Denmark. If there is a problem under Mexican law with this photograph, please site it, otherwise no valid reason for deletion has been made for this. -- Infrogmation 16:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Kept, this falls under COM:FOP#Mexico, so freedom of panorama applies to this image. Patrícia msg 00:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Consolidated Act on Copyright 2006: Art. 63. The copyright in a work shall last for 70 years after the year of the author’s death. She is living. Fingalo 19:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 19:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 17:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Consolidated Act on Copyright 2006: Art. 63. The copyright in a work shall last for 70 years after the year of the author’s death. She is living. --Fingalo 19:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, per Fingalo's argumentation (no freedom of panorama for sculptures in Denmark). Patrícia msg 00:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Consolidated Act on Copyright 2006: Art. 63. The copyright in a work shall last for 70 years after the year of the author’s death. She is living. --Fingalo 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, per Fingalo's argumentation (no freedom of panorama for sculptures in Denmark). Patrícia msg 00:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Consolidated Act on Copyright 2006: Art. 63. The copyright in a work shall last for 70 years after the year of the author’s death. Bent Hagedorn-Olsen is living. --Fingalo 19:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, per Fingalo's argumentation (no freedom of panorama for sculptures in Denmark). Patrícia msg 00:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Consolidated Act on Copyright 2006: Art. 63. The copyright in a work shall last for 70 years after the year of the author’s death. Erik Heide is living. --Fingalo 19:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, per Fingalo's argumentation (no freedom of panorama for sculptures in Denmark). Patrícia msg 00:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Consolidated Act on Copyright 2006: Art. 63. The copyright in a work shall last for 70 years after the year of the author’s death. Erik Heide is living. --Fingalo 19:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, per Fingalo's argumentation (no freedom of panorama for sculptures in Denmark). Patrícia msg 00:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Insufficient sourcing. Description appears to include a book without full citation. Source url http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/pogrebnojalexandroff/ is the uploader's own user page on another site. Uploader removed previous nsd tag. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- The copyright of Author's reconstruction of the family arms on the basis of following literary-historical information sources: "Энциклопедический словарь Брокгауза и Ефрона" (1890—1907 гг) (Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary); Исторический архив России (Historical archive of Russia); Family archive of Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff and archival inquiries from 15-16 centuries; "Общий гербовник дворянских родов Всероссийской империи" (The General armorial childbirth of the All-Russia empire of noble family (1797-1917)); "Гербовник дворянских родов Царства Польского" (Armorial childbirth of the Kingdom of noble family Polish (18 centuries)) and other materials of public and historical libraries. No part of the image can be removed or changed. --Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff 13:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment The copyright tags you have used, {{Attribution}} and {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} permit use of your image for derivative work. This is the opposite of "[n]o part of the image can be removed or changed". Did you choose this license without understanding that you were permitting this image to be changed? Licenses that do not allow derivative works are not allowed on Commons. Please see Commons:Choosing_a_license. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- For you it would be necessary to appreciate and thank with the big apologies for work given to you and to the Wikiprojects, instead of to demand inconceivable from authors and the Law! It is not necessary, with rudeness, to stick on rules breaking rights of authors! These are requirements of the author and the Law of the international copyright (including the USA and Russia)COM:L. Besides, the Name of the author should be present at any photo or other author's image at all places where they take places. The images can be used in Wikiprojects without any changes or other should be personally discussed with the author, with reception of the written permission. --Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff 20:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- 'Re-users must display the full text of the license every time they use the work'! {{Attribution}} and {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} But not any changes and/or removes.
- If you have anything against changing your images, sorry such images can't be hosted on Commons. If must allow unrestricted modifications without permission from author. Please read Commons:Licensing and {{Attribution}}, {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} text. Probably you choose wrong license instead of {{Nonderivative}}. --EugeneZelenko 14:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Женя, в первую очередь прочти внимательно всё что там написано сам, а потом сравни с существующим Законодательством. Если что-то не понятно-мудрённо -- обратись к опытным адвокатам за разъяснением (не студентам). Я уверен, что ты поймёшь всё сам, разобравшись в текстах и будешь уверен в моей правоте. К стати сказать, рамку можно и убрать (позже, ато сейчас мне не до этого -- нет времени, да и изображение заблокировано от правок). --Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff 23:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads of Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Mr. Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff apparently does not understand that Commons can't host images in such conditions. Patrícia msg 00:44, 11 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. Article 85.-(1) The provisions of this Act concerning copyright shall apply to works of persons who are nationals of or who have their habitual residence in a country within the European Economic Area; (Jens Galschiøt * 1954) Fingalo 18:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 18:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Is this in Denmark, or in Mexico like the image above? Unclear. -- Infrogmation 17:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Kept for now, but tagged {{nsd}}. Once we know where this comes from and where it was taken, we can re-evaluate this. Lupo 08:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Anne Marie (Carl) Nielsen (1863 - 1945) Consolidated Act on Copyright 2006: Art. 63. The copyright in a work shall last for 70 years after the year of the author’s death. Fingalo 19:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 19:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- This sculpture is include in my privat collection, picture is own picture, what is the problem?
- Cette sculpture fait partie de ma collection privée, la photographie est de moi même...quel est le probleme?
- Skulpture er en del af min private samling, billed har jeg selv lavet, hvor trykker skoen?
- —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Graphicos (talk • contribs)
- The problem is, that you are not the author of the sculpture. Please read Commons:Derivative works --ALE! ¿…? 13:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Sculpture belongs to Graphicos, as does photo. Graphicos therefore now owns any copyright claims. Patstuart 21:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The ownership of the material object is irrelevant. What is relevant is the immaterial copyright, which is independent of the object itself. Owning a copy of a work (even if it is the original and only copy) does not equate to holding the copyright. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per LX, unless proven that there was tranferral of copyright. Patrícia msg 00:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 08:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Consolidated Act on Copyright 2006: Art. 63. The copyright in a work shall last for 70 years after the year of the author’s death. Erik Heide is living. --Fingalo 19:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Could you please provide some evidence that Erik Heide is the author of this object? Patrícia msg 00:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. [2] mentions that the Church of Herning was offered a crucifix by Erik Heide for its centennial, made in oak and with gold leaf. Lupo 08:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Kolkata Red Light photos
[edit]- Image:Sonagachi jon gresham 1.jpg
- Image:Sonagachi jon gresham 2.jpg
- Image:Sonagachi jon gresham 3.jpg
I consider that these three photos uploaded by User:AxelBoldt should be deleted, as 1) they highly unethical and 2) do not provide any encyclopediatic value for the wiki project as a whole. Prostitution carries an extreme social stigma in India, it is extremly unlikely that all participants agreed to have their photo taken (just look at no. 3) and much, much would have agreed to have their faces outed internationally on www. Soman 15:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Photos are being used and capture the atmosphere of Sonagachi perfectly. We nave never required model releases on Commons, and there's no reason to start now. AxelBoldt 02:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, I'm not saying to introduce a system of model released, but to use a grain of common sense here. Lets say one would like to illustrate closet gay article by snapping portrait photos with a hidden camera, would that be ethical to publish? just cause these women come from the third world doesn't mean that we have to completly disregard that they are also human beings. Moreover, how do portraits 'capture the athmoshere'? An athmospehere photo would logically be one which would show buildings, architecture, etc., not close-ups on individuals. --Soman 05:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I see nothing compromising or unethical about the images in their own right. They appear to have been taken in a public place and do not seem to make any judgement as to the nature of their subjects. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, the question is whether the relevant judgement lies in some hypothecial cyber ethnic or in the actual reality in which these women live. This does carry an extreme stigma in Indian society, something that should be taken into account. --Soman 09:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Copy of a modern mural. No FOP in Iran that would allow this so far as I know. MichaelMaggs 17:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
So far as you know... All is said (Let me know exactly how much you know about that question?). Perhaps you could have started by a message on my discussion page instead of that.
- This picture is one of a public monument, Daniel's shrine is Shush (Susa), and not as you think, a modern copyrighted artwork. THE MURAL IS PART OF THE MONUMENT!!!!!!!!!!
- The picture is not a copy of the mural, but a scene with a women taking place at its front = not a copy in any way.
- I even cheked the agreement of the woman with the picture, respecting basic politness and correction manners in Iran
- Wether you want to be sure that the murals are not copyrighted, is nothing but a very easy process, you just have to mail to the Iranian Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organisation (ICHTO) and ask it. Cultural Heritage News Agency, (ICHTO's press agency) can provide you the answer easier as their interface is in english: info@chn.ir
Pentocelo 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry you feel like that. The legal issue with this picture is that in almost all countries photos of modern murals are copyright infringements, whether or not the mural is part of a public monument. The only, small, possibility is that Iran might have some Freedom of panorama rule which would allow it, in which case we should update the Freedom of panorama page. That will need someone to do some detailed research into Iranian copyright law. It would be great if somebody could show that local copyright law allows it, but I rather doubt that it does based on the rules in almost every other country. --MichaelMaggs 21:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is no personal problem, but an issue wich being not sustained by any clear evidence of copyvio, might have deserved a discussion before a deletion request. Your argument is essentially based on a lack of info on the iranian policy (from your own saying), and imho on a misrepresentation of both picture and context. Concerning the 2 last items, as I pointed above, the picture is not a copy but a scene taking place in front of a wall, and the picture was taken into not only a public munument, but a religious and very sacred buiding. I doubt the fact that anyone could in Iran, claim any copyright on a place dedicated to God without being prosecuted for blaspheme (keep in mind that Iran is an Islamic republic, so, issues it's laws from religious rules). Concerning the first item, and specially this place (daniel's Shrine), I gave you the mail of the press agency of the ICHTO, state organism in charge of the gestion and management of the cultural/heritage/touristic places such as this one. Did you pay any attention to that? I mean: a clear and definate answer to your question can be earned easy by simply asking it there.... The true legal questioning there, lies all into the agreement of the woman with the picture, and I did check it as I always do in Iran (specially with womens). Last but not least, see for instance either this one, other and older version of the same wall (taken in 2005 loaded in 2006 in the commons), and Iran_and_copyright_issues (on en:wiki).Pentocelo 07:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: for the reasons given above. Pentocelo 07:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep : even if there is no Freedom of Panorama in Iran, I do not think that this mural falls under FOP rules, as it is basically an advertisement : see for instance Image:Advertisement Maggi Haiti.jpg for a similar picture. le Korrigan →bla 22:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Copyright issues are very loose in Iran, so basically, I don't think there's a problem with that mural. The mural here is part of the photograph, not the main subject (the picture represents a woman dressing the same way as advertised by the mural). I agree with all the issues underlined by Pentocelo in his second message. We can ask in Iran wether there's a copyright issue or not, but well just be losing time. That mural was ordered by the ministry of Culture and Islamic guidance (I'm almost sure for that) and as one of their attributions is to advertise for islamic rulings, they would not retain copyright on such murals. This is not the same case as if the mural was from a famous artist... Fabienkhan 10:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The English translation of the Copyright law which was notified to UNESCO by the Iranian Government in 1970 can be found at here. It doesn't allow any exception for freedom of Panorama. Of course, a lot has happened in Iran since 1970, and it may well be that this law is no longer in force. I can't find anything more up to date, though W:Iran and copyright issues states - without quoting any source - that "In short, there currently are no laws in effect that protect the intellectual or proprietary rights of anything of Iranian origin." I will leave this to another Admin to close. --MichaelMaggs 17:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This file was nominated again in October 2012 at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Daniel's tomb dressing code wallpainting.jpg and the result was delete. seb26 (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Orphan; Commons is not for non-encyclopedic content. — Jeff G. 23:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep come on.. non enyclopedic yet neither is the gallery of penises, fellatio, pornography and ejaculation vids available here. Besides this is probably more encyclopedic than the ones I mentioned. Madmax32 00:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I can't think of how it could be used to illustrate an encyclopedia article. It isn't a particularly good illustration of its putative subject due to the lighting, angle and highlights. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Right. There are probably better images of nude female buttocks, labia, vaginal openings, and sunbathing. Also, Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff appears to be trying to host its entire art collection here on Commons. :) — Jeff G. 02:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with his artwork as long as he is not stealing it from somewhere. Madmax32 05:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- What about the watermarks? Those are against policy, and he flat-out refuses to remove them. — Jeff G. 16:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not convinced that this is outside Commons' scope. EVula // talk // 17:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep nothing wrong with this image (well, except the quality somehow reminds me of a screen cap, but that's probably just copyright paranoia). -Nard 20:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a copyvio from the movie Trasgredire. See relevant screenshots here and here. Of course, NSFW. --Abu badali 03:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is not the first time this uploader gets confused about copyright. See this and this. Most of his contributions seem to be good, thought. --Abu badali 03:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I guess it was a screencap after all. -Nard 14:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted; obvious copyvio. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Buttocks.jpg (2nd request)
[edit]User uploaded using filename he previously used that was deleted as a copyvio; {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff}} produces invalid nonsense. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- So, if the uploader made a small mistake specifying the copyright then why don't you contact him to have him correct himself? This is a beautiful picture and I vote for keep: Roman Czyborra 22:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete A Russian contributor would have used a Russian filename - obviously snagged from elsewhere. --Connel MacKenzie 15:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced by your argument. Other Russian contributors use English file names, e.g., EugeneZelenko (talk · contribs). Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, was uploaded by troll banned from ru: long ago. On Russian Wikipedia, he often uploaded images under false license claims. MaxSem 13:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete no question --Herby talk thyme 16:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per consensus and Commons:Deletion_requests/Uploads_of_Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a way to consider this interesting letter as free, but having a tag that says that Fidel Castro is a United States Department of State employee seems... strange, to say the least (I guess the uploader was talking about the person who took the picture of the letter instead of the actual author) --Schutz 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- As Schutz suspects, the image, not the original letter, is the work of a State Department employee, and the National Archives (NARA) seems to feel that Castro holds no copyright that prevents NARA's release of this image to the world. I've fixed the broken {{NARA-image}} tag and added a detailed explanation of why this work is not under copyright. (Frankly, I'd like a more succinct statement from NARA rather than the 3-step process to show no copyright, but I didn't see an obvious path to this.) ~ Jeff Q 01:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- After reading the text, I still don't really see how the tag {{PD-USGov-DOS}} can possibly indicate that Fidel Castro is not the copyright holder of the letter (if it is the case); if the original letter is free, there must be a reason for it (at least more elaborated than just the absence of a copyright in the Archival Research Catalog). Or do we simply trust that the DOS has done its homework, even if there may be an indication that it is not the case ? Schutz 06:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I uploaded this image to Commons. Schutz, thank you for notifying me the deletion request, and Jeff Q thank you for fixing the tag. The DOS tag reffred to not the letter but the picture & photographer. I thought when the original letter had been given to the US Embassy in Cuba 60+ years ago, it had become the property of US government; it was not just a letter but an official government archival material and public access was granted. (However, our signed 1040 forms, for example, held at IRS as an official document, probably won't have public access for the next 60 years. Who has the copyright of those forms???) Since this image is not used in any Wikipedia pages, and an English Wikipedia article w:en:Fidel Castro mentions Castro's letter, we can delete this image without any losses. FYI:English wikipedia has the original (and full 3 page) image under the name Image:FCR to FDR letter complete.jpg--Chiew 02:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, we do now. Image:FCR to FDR letter complete.jpg -Rocket000 19:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Either the copyright rests with the letter's recipient, the US Federal government per the source site, or with the letter's writer, Fidel Castro. If the former, it is PD. If the latter.... What? What is the copyright status of pre-1977 Cuban works? Was any registration of copyright required, or were all works automatically covered? I find nothing in Commons:Licensing. Wondering, -- Infrogmation 17:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- On Cuban copyrights, see also User:Lupo/Hairy copyright#Cuba. Lupo 10:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. Useful in seeing about copyright extentions-- but I'm still unclear as to if the original letter have been under any copyright by Cuban law? -- Infrogmation 04:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not too clear myself, but it seems if Castro ever had the copyright, it has expired anyway. (50 years is the most it could possible have, right?) Rocket000 19:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nope; it is 50 years after the death of the author. So the 50 years countdown hasn't even started... Schutz 12:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, read that wrong. Yeah, so I have know idea. :) Rocket000 03:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nope; it is 50 years after the death of the author. So the 50 years countdown hasn't even started... Schutz 12:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not too clear myself, but it seems if Castro ever had the copyright, it has expired anyway. (50 years is the most it could possible have, right?) Rocket000 19:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. Useful in seeing about copyright extentions-- but I'm still unclear as to if the original letter have been under any copyright by Cuban law? -- Infrogmation 04:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
October 2
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Collision, uploading to new location Ingoman 03:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, please use {{bad name|bettername.png}} next time --ALE! ¿…? 13:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
image collision Ingoman 03:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo is given with written permission to be published for promotional purposes only. GeorgHH 07:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I never post photos of any celebrities in my life nor do I bother to ask permission for it except for Domingo because I believe he deserves to have good photos in all Wiki Family. I wrote there as promotional because I thought that is how it should be written based on what I saw many people doing it in Wiki. The photos are given with unconditional permission straight from the PR in Placido Domingo office that hold all the events, publicities, his official website etc. The PR never state any terms and condition at all (except noted that the credit to the photographer for this photo must be displayed). When I requested for permission, I sent e-mail through the e-mail BOX in Placido Domingo official website, not from some agents or recording companies because I believe the consent should come from the company of the singer itself. I was expecting people here to advice me on what to write in the remarks or at least discuss with me if I have done or write anything wrong. I never expect the admin could easily come up to the conclusion for the photos to be deleted as soon as I uploaded it. The PR as a matter of fact, didn’t give me photos that I asked because according to her, all the photos that I asked have copyrights. She then, sending me photos approved by her company for various purposes including promotional etc to be published. So, it is still wrong to publish in here? I would love to hear your reply - Whjayg 09:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- The remarks have been changed to unconditional permission. - Whjayg 10:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: 05:12, 5. Okt. 2007 Davepape (Diskussion | Beiträge | sperren) hat „Image:DomingoJay1.jpg“ gelöscht (uploader request; uncertain license status). --GeorgHH 18:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo is given with written permission to be published for promotional purposes only. GeorgHH 07:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I never post photos of any celebrities in my life nor do I bother to ask permission for it except for Domingo because I believe he deserves to have good photos in all Wiki Family. I wrote there as promotional because I thought that is how it should be written based on what I saw many people doing it in Wiki. The photos are given with unconditional permission straight from the PR in Placido Domingo office that hold all the events, publicities, his official website etc. The PR never state any terms and condition at all. When I requested for permission, I sent e-mail through the e-mail BOX in Placido Domingo official website, not from some agents or recording companies because I believe the consent should come from the company of the singer itself. I was expecting people here to advice me on what to write in the remarks or at least discuss with me if I have done or write anything wrong. I never expect the admin could easily come up to the conclusion for the photos to be deleted as soon as I uploaded it. The PR as a matter of fact, didn’t give me photos that I asked because according to her, all the photos that I asked have copyrights. She then, sending me photos approved by her company for various purposes including promotional etc to be published. So, it is still wrong to publish in here? I would love to hear your reply - Whjayg 09:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- @Whjayg, to me the problem seems to be your commentary in the description: This photo is not to be used for any other personal purposes except as part of Wiki articles only. That means actually, the image can only be used for Wikipedia articles. So far that's fine. But all the media here at Commons have to be useable not only for Wikipedias but by everybody for anything and even for commercial purposes. So if your above mentioned statement is still valid, you should upload that image directly onto any Wikipedias where it is of use. But here it has to go. -- Túrelio 10:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I know that was the mistake I made and hoping if any of you could ask (at least), so then I can re-write in a proper manner - not suggesting for deletion like what what GeorgHH does. The photos were given without any terms and condition (unconditional). So, if you could tell me what I should do now? Shall I change the remarks or just wait for the photos to be deleted - Whjayg 10:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- The remarks has been changed. It is not for promotional - Whjayg 10:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I know that was the mistake I made and hoping if any of you could ask (at least), so then I can re-write in a proper manner - not suggesting for deletion like what what GeorgHH does. The photos were given without any terms and condition (unconditional). So, if you could tell me what I should do now? Shall I change the remarks or just wait for the photos to be deleted - Whjayg 10:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- @Whjayg, to me the problem seems to be your commentary in the description: This photo is not to be used for any other personal purposes except as part of Wiki articles only. That means actually, the image can only be used for Wikipedia articles. So far that's fine. But all the media here at Commons have to be useable not only for Wikipedias but by everybody for anything and even for commercial purposes. So if your above mentioned statement is still valid, you should upload that image directly onto any Wikipedias where it is of use. But here it has to go. -- Túrelio 10:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: 23:41, 5. Okt. 2007 Majorly (Diskussion | Beiträge | sperren) hat „Image:Domingo OtelloJay2.jpg“ gelöscht (user request). --GeorgHH 18:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Low quality, blurry and superseded -- 25 September 2007 User:JDavid
- template fix Deadstar (msg) 10:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
kept, low quality is not a good reason for deletion --ALE! ¿…? 13:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
obvious copyvio, to take this image you must have press credentials and if you have press credentials you do not upload images to wikipedia --30 September 2007 User:83.227.73.78
- template fix + agree that this is likely copyvio. Deadstar (msg) 10:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not a proven copyvio - seems to be two pieces of original research here! Still, prima facie case for seeking clarification.--Londoneye 12:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41417000/jpg/_41417583_kallur416.jpg. Maybe someone would like to template User:AGSV for uploading it (I don't know how). Patstuart 16:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Davepape --ALE! ¿…? 09:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to cpyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 45 c. Photographs of a person shall not be reproduced or publicly exhibited without the consent of the subject of the picture. Fingalo 13:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 13:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- 1) the picture are used in an article about the painter in Norwegian Wikipedia.
- 2) I have taken the picture and asked him if it was ok to use the picture in Wikipedia and he confirmed it. The photo is taken for use in wikipedia. ---Nina- 16:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have absolutly no reason to distrust this user in this matter. Unless there are a very clear statement from the depicted person I think the case can be closed without further discussion. Jeblad 17:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. No reason to assume that this photograph was taken without consent. Finn Rindahl 17:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to cpyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 45 c. Photographs of a person shall not be reproduced or publicly exhibited without the consent of the subject of the picture. Fingalo 13:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 13:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- 1) the picture are used in an article about the painter in Norwegian Wikipedia.
- 2) I have taken the picture and asked him if it was ok to use the picture in Wikipedia and he confirmed it. The photo is taken for use in wikipedia. ---Nina- 16:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have absolutly no reason to distrust this user in this matter. Unless there are a very clear statement from the depicted person I think the case can be closed without further discussion. Jeblad 17:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept This nomination does not make any sense. Finn Rindahl 17:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Doppelt/double Kgberger 13:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, please use {{bad name|bettername.jpg}} next time --ALE! ¿…? 13:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The Swedish Copyright Legislation: Article 43. † 8 mars 1990. --Fingalo 13:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close, withdrawn by nominator. PatríciaR msg 15:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The Swedish Copyright Legislation: Article 43. † 8 mars 1990. Fingalo 14:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 14:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close, withdrawn by nominator. PatríciaR msg 15:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The Swedish Copyright Legislation: Article 43. † 8 mars 1990. --Fingalo 14:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close, withdrawn by nominator. PatríciaR msg 15:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The Swedish Copyright Legislation: Article 43. † 8 mars 1990. --Fingalo 14:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close, withdrawn by nominator. PatríciaR msg 15:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The Swedish Copyright Legislation: Article 43. † 8 mars 1990. --Fingalo 14:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close, withdrawn by nominator. PatríciaR msg 15:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The Swedish Copyright Legislation: Article 43. † 2003.) --Fingalo 14:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Commons:Freedom of panorama#Sweden, citing the Swedish copyright law on litterary and artistic work states that there is freedom of panorama in Sweden. These sculptures are permanently placed on the thoroughfare. PatríciaR msg 14:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close, withdrawn by nominator. PatríciaR msg 16:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The Swedish Copyright Legislation: Article 43. † 2003. Fingalo 14:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 14:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close, withdrawn by nominator. PatríciaR msg 15:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The Swedish Copyright Legislation: Article 43. † 2003. --Fingalo 14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close, withdrawn by nominator. PatríciaR msg 15:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The Swedish Copyright Legislation: Article 43. Fingalo 14:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 14:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close, withdrawn by nominator. PatríciaR msg 16:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I changed my mind and do not want my picture in the Commons. --Aeky1 14:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Blurry shot of the dog, redeye. Out of scope Deadstar (msg) 11:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Requested by uploader, not used
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Sorry, I've replaced this image with a more appropriately labelled version. --1 October 2007 User:Currawong 276
- Other image is Image:Lovina - Sunrise off the coast on dolphin trip 01-08-2007.JPG -I think I prefer the original name! Deadstar (msg) 15:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
a clone of Image:Felt cloth.jpg Mintz l 15:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
tagged as a {{duplicate}} --ALE! ¿…? 10:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
yes Illyriacom 16:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Uploader request + corrupted image(?). --Moonian 01:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, corrupted image Pimke 05:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Represents a copyrighted work: this door was made for the Jubilee of 2000 (see this page). Italy has no Freedom of panorama. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unfortunately, this one has a noncommercial, no derivs license at Flickr. Butseriouslyfolks 19:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, copyvioFinn Rindahl 22:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Out of Scope, personal photo. --Digon3 talk 20:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Moonian 01:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request --AnyFile 20:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Even if the file is not identical, it is very very similar to Image:LocationSerbia.png .
I actually do not know which is the better to take and which is better to delete. I can only understand that, to follow the name scheme used by similar file in category Locator maps of countries, the name Image:LocationSerbia.png is more appropriate. -- AnyFile 20:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
tagged as a {{duplicate}} and CommonsDelinker is running --ALE! ¿…? 13:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
File has a confused history, here and on en.wp, switching between an NIH illustration and photo of an advertising poster. At this instant, it's showing the poster, which is a copyvio of the advertisement. (It also doesn't make sense where the image is currently used - en:Cellulite.) Recommend deleting those versions and leaving the NIH image. Davepape 20:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Deleting a file because of a "confused history" is not a valid reason. This file was overwritten by a subsequent editor and I restored the original. If its not being used in an appropriate fashion (outside of Commons), then the photo should be removed from the articles in question, not deleted. SteveHopson 22:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the "original" image here on Commons is the NIH one - that's what en:User:Dmcdevit transwikied here; technically, the en.wp image with the same name is separate (note that I consider the way mediawiki indexes images by user-supplied filenames, rather than unique, system-generated IDs like flickr, to be a flaw, which this case exemplifies).
- Regardless, the point of the deletion request is that the poster photo is a derivative work of a copyrighted ad. --Davepape 04:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: SteveHopson's upload to en.wp was earlier than PD-USGov upload. Here, PD-USGov upload was brought here before SteveHopson overwrote the file with the copyvio. When the PD-USGov upload can also illustrate cellulite, I suggest:
- Keep BetacommandBot's transwikied version and revert to this one.
- Delete SteveHopson's copyvio poster while I see no good reason to claim fair use on en.wp.--Jusjih 02:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted the copyvio posters and kept the NIH version.--Jusjih 02:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
renamed version has been uploaded Chris_huhtalk 22:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Never mind i am listing it as badname. Chris_huhtalk 22:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Badname
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:aughie.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Commercial use seems to be prohibited [3], not in line with the acceptable licenses at Commons Matt314 07:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just read about that. I still don't understand, why. I did not find an explanation for that on acceptable licenses, only why fair-use is not allowed. Well, go ahead and delete it then... --Vertigo-1 07:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per Vertigo-1.--Londoneye 12:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete noncom. Patstuart 15:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Danish Statues
[edit]- Image:Kong Frederik 9 - statue 2005-02.jpg
- Image:Kong Frederik 9 - statue 2005-03.jpg
- Image:Statue-soldat-Copenhague.jpg
- Image:Sundby Idraetspark En Fodboldspiller by www.mysona.dk.JPG
- Image:Vestre Kirkegård soldat.JPG
- Image:Viggo Hørup statue.jpg
This is a subset of the pictures of the category Category:Statues in Copenhagen. Unfortunately, freedom of panorama in case of Denmark does not grant the privilege to use such pictures commercially. Hence they are not fit for the Commons except if the copyright has expired which happens 70 years after the year when the artist has died. This case has been discussed here (in German language but with the original law texts in Danish) and here (my summarising translation into English). --AFBorchert 04:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am the responsible person for the Kong Frederik-pictures in Copenhagen Harbour. The first one is - IMHO - fine enough, since it is not the statue, that is interesting, it is the Royal yacht Dannebrog in the background CONNECTED with the sea-loving King in the shadowy foreground, that makes a good picture.
- The other two may be deleted in order to avoid complaints, since they are photos of a status and nothing else. --Hansjorn 08:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Hansjorn, you are raising an important point. Indeed, according to the Danish law, freedom of panorama is granted except if the artwork is the main motive and the picture is to be used commercially. Consequently, I have delisted this picture as I agree with you that the statue is not the main motive in this case. --AFBorchert 13:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You can safely delete it :-/ The metal plate in front of the statue reads "En fodboldspiller - af Carl Mortensen - 1861-1945 - 1903", which can be confirmed at the central danish register "Kunstindeks Danmark & Weilbachs Kunstnerleksikon" under Carl Mortensen (full name: Laurits Carl Nicolaj Mortensen). The statue, created in 1903 and relocated to da:Sundby Idrætspark in 1910, is also mentioned as one of his several artworks in the index. Having been born on 23. February 1861 in Copenhagen and died on 30. January 1945 in Hellerup, it turns out I was eight years too fast with my image upload according to the danish freedom of panorama. I will make a note in my Calender to upload it again on 31. January 2015 :-) --Froztbyte 08:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Froztbyte, thanks for your comment and your analysis. Please allow me to add a minor remark regarding your calendar: You should make a note on January 1st, 2016. The law, as I understand it thanks to a translation by Fingalo, counts the 70 years beginning with the year after the year the artist died. And yes, I would wish to have such a service somewhere available which would allow to automatically delay uploads because of such reasons. Regards, AFBorchert 09:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Esbjerg
[edit]Unfortunatelly I have 2 more of my own:
--AngMoKio 18:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- The second image seems to be Image:Esbjerg Statues amk.jpg. It is indeed a real pity that we have to remove these impressive pictures. --AFBorchert 21:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- oh yes you are right...I fixed it. --AngMoKio 06:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Sculptor en:Svend Wiig Hansen died 1997. --JuTa 20:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Pictures of statues in Denmark cannot be used commercially under the protection of freedom of panorama. --Fingalo 13:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Info: sculptor en:Edvard Eriksen died 1959. --JuTa 20:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Per Kirkeby
[edit]- Image:Kirkeby Groningen 01.JPG
- Image:Kirkeby Groningen 02.JPG
- Image:Kirkeby Groningen 03.JPG
- Image:Kirkeby Groningen 04.JPG
- Image:Kirkeby17.jpg
- Image:Kirkeby22.jpg
- Image:Per Kirkeby.JPG
- Image:Muenster Kirkeby Backstein 6737.jpg
- Image:Recklinghausen-Kirkby-Sculpture.JPG
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. Kirkeby is alive. Fingalo 07:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Do the FOP rules for Denmark apply when the building is in the Netherlands? (the Groningen ones are). Deadstar (msg) 10:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Most those images are taken outside of Denmark - the first 4 and number 7 are in the Netherlands, the bottom two are taken in Germany. Only Kirkeby17 and Kirkeby22 are taken in Denmark. Deadstar (msg) 10:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Art. 85.-(1) The provisions of this Act concerning copyright shall apply to 1. works of persons who are nationals of or who have their habitual residence in a country within the European Economic Area; (2) works first published in a country within the European Economic Area, or first published simultaneously in a country within the European Economic Area and in another country. Fingalo 11:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- In the Netherlands FOP rules from the Netherlands apply. The Nationality of the artist in question is of no interest at all.
Danish artist who create sculptures in the Netherlands fall under Dutch law. What applies in Denmark goes far beyond this discussion.--Gerardus 13:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Who doesn't violate Dutch right can nevertheless violate Danish law. Fingalo 14:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't see the point--Gerardus 14:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- The danish law dsnt work in Germany. The picure in Muenster was made on a public place: -- Rüdiger Wölk 14:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't see the point--Gerardus 14:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Danish FoP only works in the Danish jurisdiction. Art without expired copyright installed permanently in public areas in the Netherlands or Germany can be photographed and licensed with a free license. The nominator has clearly misunderstood this. I propose to close this deletion request with keep. Cheers! Siebrand 08:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep We'd get in an awesome mess if we tried to apply one country's laws to pictures taken elsewhere.--Londoneye 12:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Inaccurate deletion request. -- Infrogmation 17:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
double upload (see image:Schotstek1.png), which hadn't been detected due to lack of categorization. After changes in wiki projects, this file is not in use anymore. Thanks for deleting it, Ibn Battuta 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This image is not a double of Image:Schotstek1.png. I think Ibn Battuta means Image:Achtknoten2.png.
- For that case Delete. --GeorgHH 19:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You can try {{duplicate}} from here on. Patstuart 15:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep , this upload is older than Image:Achtknoten2.png. This latter one should be deleted then. Patrícia msg 00:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Bild wurde von de:Wikipedia hochgeladen, die Persönlichkeitsrechte sind aber nicht geklärt (siehe de:Recht am eigenen Bild. -- Ra'ike Diskussion 10:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Das ist keine Thematik, mit der sich Wikimedia auseinandersetzen muß. Es ist alleinig ein Problem des Fotografen. Schimmelreiter 12:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, sicher. So kann sich die Wikimedia immer leicht aus der Verantwortung stehlen. Schön nach dem Motto "Augen zu und durch." Uns geht's ja nichts an, ob das minderjährige "Model" einverstanden war, dass es hier öffentlich ausgestellt wird. -- Ra'ike Diskussion 23:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. It's a Swiss photo. Per [4] one may assume a tacit consent of the depicted person for photos taken at public events. The "Gotthelfmärit" is a public market, and the photo is not derogatory at all. Tagged with {{Personality rights}}. Lupo 09:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Breivik, Lechner, Kirkeby is alive. --Fingalo 11:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Kiel is in Germany - Freedom of Panorama! --194.48.128.75 13:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- The German freedom of panorama permits “to take pictures of publicly visible buildings and sculptures and publish them commercially”. --VollwertBIT 08:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Are these sculpture accessable without entering the Kunsthalle's premises? If yes: Keep; if no: Delete --ALE! ¿…? 13:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Are these sculpture accessable without entering the Kunsthalle's premises? If yes:
- Is the Kunsthalle a public building? (I believe it is.) If so, they are publicly visible even if only visible from within the Kunsthalle.--Londoneye 12:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- On inquiry at the Kunsthalle administration: the park belongs to the city Kiel. --VollwertBIT 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- So does that mean this is within German Freedom of Panorama law or not? -- Infrogmation 17:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- According to my information, it is a public place. Therefore, it is within the German Freedom of Panorama law. --VollwertBIT 14:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- So does that mean this is within German Freedom of Panorama law or not? -- Infrogmation 17:45, 10 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. Fingalo 11:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 11:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 17:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
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. --Fingalo 11:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Image description says is in Sweden, not Denmark. If a problem in Sweden, Swedish law needs to be applied, not that of Denmark. -- Infrogmation 17:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Kept, according to COM:FOP#Sweden, photos of works of art in swedish public places are allowed in Commons. Patrícia msg 01:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Consolidated Act on Copyright 2006: Art 63.-(1) The copyright in a work shall last for 70 years after the year of the author’s death. Fingalo 11:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 11:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 17:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Restored in 2021: Rudolph Tegner (died in 1950) copyright has expired. Platonides (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. Fingalo 12:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 12:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Freedom of Panorama rules in such case seem to rule out commercial work, so not free, deleting. -- Infrogmation 17:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 17:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. --Fingalo 12:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, Fritz Røed died in 2002, no freedom of panorama. Patrícia msg 01:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. --Fingalo 12:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 17:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. (Vigeland † 12. März 1943 in Oslo) --Fingalo 12:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture. Kjetil r 12:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Patrícia msg 01:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Restored 2014. INeverCry 01:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. (Vigeland † 12. März 1943 in Oslo) --Fingalo 12:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Patrícia msg 01:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to cpyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. (Vigeland † 12. März 1943 in Oslo) --Fingalo 12:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Patrícia msg 01:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Restored 2014. INeverCry 01:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to cpyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. (Vigeland † 12. März 1943 in Oslo) --Fingalo 12:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Patrícia msg 01:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Restored 2014. INeverCry 01:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to cpyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. (Vigeland † 12. März 1943 in Oslo) --Fingalo 12:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Patrícia msg 01:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Restored 2014. INeverCry 01:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to cpyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. (Vigeland † 12. März 1943 in Oslo) --Fingalo 12:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Patrícia msg 01:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Restored 2014. INeverCry 01:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to cpyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. (Vigeland † 12. März 1943 in Oslo) --Fingalo 12:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [5]. Yann (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to cpyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. (Vigeland † 12. März 1943 in Oslo) Fingalo 12:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 12:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - this image will not be free until 1 January 2014. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Patrícia msg 01:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Restored 2014. INeverCry 01:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image was re-uploaded under "Russian Premier League 2007 map", and all pages linked to this image now link to that one, so this one is orphaned. --Artyom 12:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Link to the re-uploaded image, just in case: Image:Russian Premier League 2007 map.png. Artyom 17:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support, especially because older version is at Image:Russian Premier League 2006 map.png. Conscious 11:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant.--Londoneye 12:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This image is not orphaned. Please substitute the old instances with the new upload and tag this image as {{duplicate}}. Patrícia msg 01:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate. All uses changed to Image:Russian Premier League 2007 map.png. --GeorgHH 14:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to cpyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. Fingalo 13:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 13:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Where is this sculpture located? Patrícia msg 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- In Vigeland Park, Oslo, Norway. Please also note Image:Gustav Vigeland - monument in Frogner Park.jpg, also in Oslo. Fingalo's quotes above are from the Norwegian copyright law. Lupo 09:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 21:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Restored in 2014. odder (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I wonder whether the text of this historical explanation might be copyrighted. --User:G.dallorto 13:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Add {{FOP}}, and keep the photo. Gridge 23:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC).
- The problem is that this is not a reproduction of a view which includes a panel, it is a closeup of the text of the panel, whose only purpose is to allow people to read the text. This is quite as uploading a photocopy of a text. The photocopy may be free, but the text in it could be copyrighted. Here we are talking about text copyright, not about image copyright. There is no such a thing as "freedom of panorama" for texts, only "quotation right", better known as "fair use", which is not allowed on Commons. --User:G.dallorto 16:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Israeli FOP does not cover texts, see §2(1)(iii) of the Israeli copyright law. Note to Giovanni: in other countries, FOP may cover texts, too. For instance in Germany or Switzerland: a plaque on a public place reproducing some poem would be covered by FOP there. Lupo 09:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Restored by me. The bureaucracy faults had been fixed. Yuval Y § Chat § 15:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to cpyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 40. Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. § 45 c. Photographs of a person shall not be reproduced or publicly exhibited without the consent of the subject of the picture. Fingalo 13:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 13:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am a friend and neighbour of the sculptor Ms Dahlsveen, and this photo was taken by me personally, with the explicit and mutual agreement and intention to publish the photo at wikipedia. She is well aware of my contributions to norwegian wikipedia, many of them including biographies on norwegian painters and sculptors. As copyright holder to the sculpture on the photo, she has every right to allow a "photographic reproduction of her artistic work", as in this photo. Ms Dahlsveen will be 78 next week, and does AFAIK not have any mail adress. Thus, Fingalo must take my word for her consent, or mail me to get her phono number. --Orland 15:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As I understand it, Ms Dahlsveen has agreed that this image can be published at wikipedia, and are aware of the implications (derivative and commercial use) thereof. I'm adding {{personality rights}} to the image though. Finn Rindahl 22:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I wonder whether the text of this monument might be copyrighted. --User:G.dallorto 13:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- this is my own picture , sorry i wrote in hebrew. now i changed it to english. please do not delete it.
- The text in itself is protected, however, this is a picture of the whole monument, and therefore under Israeli Freedom of Panorama, is alowed. Deror avi 14:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep OK, so I am going to add a {{FOP}} template and the question is settled. Thank you. --User:G.dallorto 12:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep And the same rule apply here: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gat garden01.jpg. Gridge 15:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC).
- in the second case I am dubious. In the second case, this is not the picture of the whole monument including the text, it is the picture of the text alone, therefore there is no "panorama" at all. However, while waiting for a solution, I put a {{FOP}} template in the second picture as well. --User:G.dallorto 20:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- The text in itself is protected, however, this is a picture of the whole monument, and therefore under Israeli Freedom of Panorama, is alowed. Deror avi 14:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Lupo 09:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- COM:FOP#Israel is for architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art : you can't use it for the texts. Teofilo (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't know this had already been nominated last year, but afer reading what was said, I still think that the picture should be cropped so that the texts are removed. Therefore this uncropped version must be deleted. Teofilo (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have uploaded a cropped version with the same title. The original picture still needs deletion. Teofilo (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- There is every reason to suspect it, because the text of the Israeli FOP law is "architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art", which clearly excludes texts. Teofilo (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
It would be surprising if these signs were not either "applied art" or ineligible. Please provide a court decision for your opinion./Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- There is every reason to suspect it, because the text of the Israeli FOP law is "architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art", which clearly excludes texts. Teofilo (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have uploaded a cropped version with the same title. The original picture still needs deletion. Teofilo (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep PD-ineligible and covered by FOP. You have presented no new arguments not raised in the last deletion request. -Nard the Bard 20:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Request Please undo Teofilo's mutilation of this photo. It is an infringement on User:Avi1111 moral right as an author. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)I did this now (after Teofilo had given me directions to the right button.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)- There is no need to present new arguments. The arguments by the initial nominator G. dallorto are powerful enough. Teofilo (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep "work of applied art" - The text is part of the momument as a whole. If this was just an image of the text, then I'd agree, but this is a picture of the whole work. J.smith (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Applied art refers to the application of design and aesthetics to objects of function and everyday use. : en:applied arts. Teofilo (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose you are right. Text is litterary works, not artistic work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Applied art refers to the application of design and aesthetics to objects of function and everyday use. : en:applied arts. Teofilo (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio of the text on the signs. Copyright law calls text a "literary work", and so far as I can see there is no FOP in Israel for literary works. There is freedom for "works of applied art", but text is not a work of applied art, and the prominence of the text, and its quantity, means that we cannot ignore this as de minimis. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Restored by me. The bureaucracy faults had been fixed. Yuval Y § Chat § 15:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Is there a freedom of panorama in Greece? The monument was made after 1970 --User:G.dallorto 14:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- What exactly is freedom of panorama? And what does it have to do with the freedom of taking any picture you want and releasing it under the GFDL? If this is a joke please end it. Dr.K. 02:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- And how do you list a picture for deletion without knowing if Greece has this kind of Law or not? Chances are Greece does not have this restrictive law. Dr.K. 02:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- You can read here --> what Freedom of panorama is. Freedom of panorama laws are not restrictive law, but quite the opposite: they are laws that allow to publish images featuring works of arts whose author died less than 70 years ago (which is our case, since the monument was made after 1970). Therefore to keep this image we need to know whether in Greece it is legal to use the "freedom of panorama" exemption clause or not. If not this image should be deleted. As you see, no joke, but a very serious problem, affecting not only your picture but any other picture of any work of art displayed in Greece, whenever it was created by any artist who has not been dead for at least 70 years. Sorry: my country, Italy, has no Freedom of panorama, and that's a problem for me too. --User:G.dallorto 10:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- And how do you list a picture for deletion without knowing if Greece has this kind of Law or not? Chances are Greece does not have this restrictive law. Dr.K. 02:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You could check out how the European directive 2001/29/EG was adapted by Greek law. This directive states in article 5, section 2:
- Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the reproduction right provided for in Article 2 in the following cases:
- [...]
- (h) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;
This looks promising but it is unfortunately an optional clause only. Even if implemented it could be restricted to non-commercial usage etc. Hence, it would be quite helpful if we could learn more about the current Greek copyright law in regard to the panorama of freedom. --AFBorchert 14:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the advice. I'll read it and let you know. Just in case you want to check it out as well here it is in pdf. Take care. Dr.K. 16:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- We should also consider that this sculpture may not be a work of art, but rather a monument commissioned most probably by the Greek state to commemorate a Greek resistance hero against the junta. As such it may be public property. Dr.K. 23:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the advice. I'll read it and let you know. Just in case you want to check it out as well here it is in pdf. Take care. Dr.K. 16:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I point your attention to the fact that this sculpture has a commemorative plaque which refers to the incidents surrounding his death in Italy and I provide it here for your convenience. Therefore it is a monument that commemorates Kostas Georgakis. If I am not mistaken the Greek Municipality of Corfu commissioned it. Dr.K. 00:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- The inscription reads:
- I point your attention to the fact that this sculpture has a commemorative plaque which refers to the incidents surrounding his death in Italy and I provide it here for your convenience. Therefore it is a monument that commemorates Kostas Georgakis. If I am not mistaken the Greek Municipality of Corfu commissioned it. Dr.K. 00:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Kostas Georgakis Student Kerkyra 1945-1970 Genova He self immolated in Genova (sic) Italy on 19 September 1970 for Freedom and Democracy in Greece. And in the lower part of the engraved stone his words are inscribed:
I cannot but think and act as a free individual--Kostas Georgakis
- It is clear, therefore, that this is a memorial to Georgakis as opposed to a work of art.
- I quote from the definition of work of art from Wikipedia:
In fine art, a work of art (or artwork or work) is a creation, such as a song, book, film, print, sculpture or a painting, that has been made in order to be a thing of beauty in itself or a symbolic statement of meaning, rather than having a practical function.
- This monument has a practical function; To commemorate Kostas Georgakis and it explicitly does so by incorporating elements such as engraved plaques mentioning his birth and death places and dates.
- Therefore it is a work of applied art, meant to have a practical function. The Greek copyright law in pdf above states that: Such rights are not applicable to architectural works and works of applied arts..
- To recap:
- This monument may well be public property as I am almost certain that it was commissioned by the Corfu City Hall to commemorate Georgakis.
- It is a work of applied art.
- In either or both of these cases its copyright is not restricted. Dr.K. 13:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not at all sure that you're using "applied art" or "practical" in the way intended, but the way to approach this is to consult Greek copyright law, as opposed to making guesses. The government of Greece has made some unusual copyright claims regarding public monuments, so I'm not optimistic. Jkelly 17:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Can you provide an example of such unusual copyright claims? Dr.K. 18:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hallo Dr K., the problem with copyright laws is that the copyright is owned as a rule by the artist, not tby the person who paid for the monument and/or physically owns it. The payer obviuously in our test-case wanted the work to be on public display and to have it reproduced as much as possible: this is the purpose of any monument indeed. Yet the sculptor still owns the copyright, and can legitimally oppose the reproduction of the work, UNLESS some exhemption stands in the Greek laws books. Since I cannot read modern Greek, I need the help of native Greek speakers such as you to settle the issue.
- What JKelly refers to is to the claim made some time ago by the Greek Minister of Culture pretending that every and any reproduction of any works of art in Greece - including the ancient Greek ones - ought now pay to them a royalty, "for the preservation of ancient monuments". This claim is groundless, as is any request of royalties for works that are in the Public Domain, however this precedent does not induce us in thinking that the attitude of the Greek government be favourable to free reproduction of works of art: quite the opposite.
- Eventually, as per your distinction between art and applied art, I am not aware of such a distinction in the International copyright laws. Italy used to have such a distinction, e.g. for photography, but it disappeared with the new round of copyright laws, so I suppose the same is true for Greece, if Greece used to have such laws. We agree on the fact that copright laws are becoming fascist laws. But unless we want to pick up a gun and start a revolution, we have to obey them until we succed in changing them. Now the point is therefore only in knowing whether Greece has or not a "freedom of panorama" clause in its copyright laws. --User:G.dallorto 02:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi G.dallorto. I agree with many of your points but I don't have a definitive answer yet. I do believe however that the conditions surrounding this particular monument are unique and its status belongs in a grey area. The definition of a work of art does not apply in my opinion to this work and the law as I mentioned above does make exceptions for architecture and applied arts. We have to get a legal opinion not only on the law itself but on the status of the monument as a work of art or not. The linked pdf file does not appear to be the complete document of the law. I will enquire after the weekend and if anyone can come up with a copy, even in Greek, send it to me and I'll translate it. Ciao. Dr.K. 03:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Can you provide an example of such unusual copyright claims? Dr.K. 18:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- According to the Greek Copyright law, article 26, "freedom of panorama" appears to be restricted to "occasional reproduction and communication" by the "mass media". See the new section COM:FOP#Greece. That wouldn't be free enough and make Greece a no-FOP country for us. And of course a sculpture is a work of the fine arts. See article 2 of the said law: copyright applies to "... works of fine art, including drawings, works of painting and sculpture, engravings and lithographs, ..." (and also to "works of architecture" and to "works of applied art", mentioned later). Hence Delete. Lupo 13:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep I disagree. If it is stated that: occasional reproduction by the mass media... etc., this is so vague, I think it is essentially meaningless and certainly not as restrictive as the debate above indicated. For sure with phraseology like that the Greek State indicates no real intention for a serious challenge. I don't see the point for such extreme caution. Given, however, that this is a grey area I can understand the caveats expressed and I retire from this debate. Dr.K. 23:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Given the quotation, we may not keep this kind of pix. Commons has in fact a permanent display, not an "occasional" one. Dr K., don't take it personally. There is nothuing personal here. You may still move this kind of pix to other sites with a less strict observation of the law, such a Flickr. --User:G.dallorto 01:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your concern Giovanni. I don't take it personally. Far from that. I tried to project my points but given the uncertainty I will understand if they don't prevail. (BTW: I just happen to think Flickr is a tad exhibitionist for my taste). Anyway all the best. Arrivederci. Dr.K. 04:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Lupo and G.dallorto. That it is a memorial does change the fact that it is also an artwork. -- Infrogmation 04:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 11:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Not PD-NASA - primary author listed on APOD page is from SwRi [6], who do not appear to freely license their work [7]. Davepape 15:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- It can be used
- All materials appearing on the SwRI® website or related file servers may not be reproduced or stored in any retrieval system without prior written permission of the Institute, except for attributed noncommercial educational purposes. Material available through this site may not be used for any commercial purposes without the express prior written permission of the copyright holder. The previous unsigned comment was added on 3 October 2007 by User:189.141.35.254
- Delete I think IP user is contradicting him/herself, it clearly states it may NOT be used for commercial purposes, and as such the license is unsuitable for commons. Deadstar (msg) 10:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- If it is going to be deleted, please hold it a couple of days, as it is currently on the English Wikipedia's Today's Featured Article. Titoxd(?!?) 03:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Too many paranoid copyvio regulators running amok. This is certainly an educational and noncommercial use. 71.110.158.173 03:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how it's being used by Wikimedia. If the image is not free, then it doesn't belong on the Commons and should be hosted by the individual projects, such as Wikipedia, iff they allow it to be used there. 17Drew 09:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Secondary APOD credit given to NASA. Has this no weight? ec 75.84.196.101 04:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. AS per above, NASA has a primary credit as well and allows this use. In addition, the copyright rationale quoted above appears to apply specifically to material sourced from the SwRI website. This image did not come from there, it came from NASA. (Furthermore, if this is still deemed unsuitable for Commons, it should not be deleted from EnWiki as fair use would allow it there.) --24.85.206.144 05:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Move. As commons has to allow commercial use then this image should be simply moved to Wikipedia. If it is merely deleted then the educational value will be lost and the people will be denied knowledge due to, IMO, a petty copyright discrepancy. 84.9.55.54 11:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Move - Wikimedia Commons doesn't take non-commercial images, and this is one of them. Move over to Wikipedia EN.
Husky (talk to me) 13:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- EN doesn't accept non-commercial images either, generally. Someone could try making a fair use argument for it there, though. --Davepape 19:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Is this image creative enough to be able to be copyrighted? If it is, wouldn't it be trivial to create a free version based on the factual data this image conveys? R. Koot 22:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep pending further information to the contrary. The nominator's link concerns generic legal terms for information found on the SWRI website. That does not imply that nothing ever produced by an SWRI employee can ever have a different license. The double-credit to NASA strongly suggests that the research project that produced this image was funded by the U.S. government, and that it is therefore not subject to copyright in the first place. (This assumption is not meaningfully contradicted by a generic website copyright statement). Furthermore, even ignoring the works-for-government doctrine, it is doubtful whether meets the creativity requirements for copyright to arise. If the image is what it is claimed to be, no creative choices were made during its production, and it does not appear to fall under the protection for non-creative photographs that some jurisdictions recognize. At the very least, an effort to contact the author should be made to ask whether he or SWRI claims a copyright on the image. w:user:Henning Makholm / 85.81.19.235 22:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- The papers published about the image indicate the scientific creativity involved in making it; that this is not simply a sphere texture-mapped with a photo from NASA or something [8] [9] (full copy of second paper at [10]). The authors (and data sources) are all from private institutions; NASA's involvement appears to be solely in providing a grant to fund the work, which does not make it PD-NASA. --Davepape 01:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, choices were made, but they were scientific choices, not expressive choices, and only the latter category of choice is protected by copyright. Any U.S. federal funding for a research project is usually considered to preclude copyright claims on the works produced by the project. (At least this is held to be true in computer science, to the extent that scientific publishers generally waive their demand to have copyright assigned for such works, even though they require all other authors to transfer copyright to the publisher. I don't see why it would be different in astronomy. Do you have any evidence that it is?) There is no particular "NASA" exemption from copyright; it is a "United States government" exemption, and includes private organization working under contract with the U.S. government. w:user:Henning Makholm / 85.81.19.235 22:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- "PD-NASA" simply refers to the specific license template used on this image. The "United States government exemption" applies only to federal government employees, not grant recipients at private institutions (having been both, I've run into this issue before). See OMB Circular A-110, section 36 - grant recipients may copyright work developed under an award; the federal government has royalty-free access to the results, but this does not extend to the rest of the world. (Perhaps you've misread a form; ACM, IEEE, and Elsevier, at least, only waive the copyright transfer for government employees.)
- Although it's true that copyright is supposed to protect only expressions of ideas, not basic facts, in practice U.S. laws and courts tend to allow nearly anything to be copyrighted. For comparison, note that automated, seemingly unexpressive satellite imagery from private companies such as DigitalGlobe is considered copyrighted and not allowed here. --Davepape 03:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, choices were made, but they were scientific choices, not expressive choices, and only the latter category of choice is protected by copyright. Any U.S. federal funding for a research project is usually considered to preclude copyright claims on the works produced by the project. (At least this is held to be true in computer science, to the extent that scientific publishers generally waive their demand to have copyright assigned for such works, even though they require all other authors to transfer copyright to the publisher. I don't see why it would be different in astronomy. Do you have any evidence that it is?) There is no particular "NASA" exemption from copyright; it is a "United States government" exemption, and includes private organization working under contract with the U.S. government. w:user:Henning Makholm / 85.81.19.235 22:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Query: Can we contact them and ask? 129.215.149.98 07:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is educational/noncommercial use. The image is freely available in any case.
- Sounds like a Move to me, unless further information is sourced from NASA or SWRI. A fair use argument could relatively easily be made, I'd say. Ingolfson 10:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Non commercial restriction makes it insufficently free for use on Commons. This is a discussion per guidelines, not a vote. The local copy on en:Wikipedia has been restored with a notification of the licensing problems per here. -- Infrogmation 18:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
October 3
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide." I think the copyright holder is Google and not a Commons-user... --Michael Reschke 14:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 14:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
personal photograph without appropriate use --24 September 2007 User:Steerpike
- Delete deletion fix. Out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 10:05, 3 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.
vandalismo Bigsus 13:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope Deadstar (msg) 10:27, 3 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.
I'm not so sure this is a free image. Though one website says it's an OWI photo, the LOC doesn't. I can't find any other websites that say it's OWI that aren't derived from that website or from us. The LOC gives no indication of its copyright status, and only has a tiny thumbnail, which ordinarily means it's copyrighted. --Calliopejen 12:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- If this is deleted can someone replace all instances of this image with Image:De Gaulle shot0063.png or something similar that shows the same thing? I would hate for this image to leave so many gaps, at en.wiki especially. Calliopejen 13:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The link on the Library of Congress is here. This page does not contain the mention "RIGHTS INFORMATION: Publication may be restricted. " that copyrighted works usually have here for instance. We have serious sources crediting the Office of War Information, and none stating otherwise; I'd say let's not invent problems that we don't have. Rama 13:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - (nom withdrawn) - I nominated this because normally the LOC explicitly labels all OWI photos, but this one is not. However, it does have a prefix that matches the OWI collection (prefixes are specified on at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pp/pphome.html). Calliopejen 15:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept; Nom withdrawn --Digon3 talk 13:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 21:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete The copy on en was used in vandalism here. William Avery 21:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep That has to be the worst reason for deletion I ever heard. // Liftarn
That has to be the worst reason for keeping an image from deletion I ever heard. --Moonian 11:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)- Any image can be used in vandalism. It is not a valid reason for deletion. // Liftarn
- Ah, I thought you were responding to the nominator. I withdraw that comment then. --Moonian 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Any image can be used in vandalism. It is not a valid reason for deletion. // Liftarn
- Speedy Delete COM:SCOPE, used in vandalism. --Moonian 11:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by --Digon3 talk Out of scope, not because of the vandalism
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A useless crop from Image:Kanal gezisi-Amsterdam-Özhaseki-Hasan Sami Bolak-A.jpg Yuval Y § Chat § 23:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- acctually is not useless. Its being used in Polish wiktionary as a picture of a temple right here: click on:2. Głowa - head , this is a "Body parts - topic" part of our pl-en-pl dictionary, we add images to all of our topic dictionaries, so this picture is very important to us. Not unless you can find another picture of a temple-only, which shows it as good as this one, then you can go ahead and delete this. - thank you Frizabela 02:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if you'll write down the details as you wrote here, and make a category in commons, it would be easy to understand the importance of those pictures. I withdraw my request, but you'd still have to write the info. Yuval Y § Chat § 03:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my request. Yuval Y § Chat § 03:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Withdrawn --Digon3 talk
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Promo photo, not by Library of Congress. Village Voice has color version, credited to Jane Sobel Klonsky [11] Davepape 05:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
replaced with Image:Noisy Pitta anvil.jpg Glen Fergus 10:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate (badname) file Deadstar (msg) 11:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the same picture as Image:Gotland Raukar-Folhammar.jpg --Godewind 11:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
kept and the other image tagged with {{duplicate}} (reason:this image has a better resolution and is "freer" (PD!) --ALE! ¿…? 12:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate of image:Lauklähteenkatu,Turku.jpg . (my own mistake) Zache 16:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: duplicate or a scaled down version of Image:Lauklähteenkatu,Turku.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probable copyvio - looks like a standard publicity photo, I don't think it was actually taken by Library of Congress staff. USA Today has a higher resolution copy, credited to "Charmain Reading" [12] Davepape 05:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- The Library of Congress is not the owener to the images in their collection, unless the image is taken by government staff, you cannot use U.S. government license tag. Check Library of Congress copyright info here--Popalzai 08:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, copyviol -- Infrogmation 17:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copied from http://www.zlotoria.pl/fotoduze/061.jpg --Margoz 17:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- No. This is not copied. This is my photo, which I have given also to the second www. When I write it's mine - does it mine it's mine. There are 'several such a photos. I want to give them also to Commons. Dont look for every so nervous, please :-) --Jacek 767 18:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Jacek 767. --Dezidor 21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I don't agree with the speedy deletion request, so I have changed that delete request to this one so we have the oportunity to discuss it. I think this image can be used under a creative commons license. It's not a derivative work. --Generalpoteito 11:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work, unless you have permission of the poster's copyright owner. --Dodo 18:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative photo mostly of presumably copyrighted advertising art. -- Infrogmation 18:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is from an the last edition of an Italian weekly crossword magazine. Not PD, anyway. --Giac! - (Tiago is here) 15:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --Dezidor 21:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation; uploader did not have rights to release magazine crossword into public domain. -- Infrogmation 18:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio from the official site of dancer Ragunath Manet Sylenius 17:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Je suis un des photographes de Raghunath Manet, j'ai effectivement mis à la disposition de la communauté wikipedia certaines de mes photos de Raghunath Manet, j'ai respecté la procédure wikimedia commons, alors je ne comprends pas ce que c'est que ce copyvio ? C'est parce que les photos que j'ai chargé sont aussi sur le site de raghunath manet ? s'il faut des photos qui soient nulle part, j'en ai pleins d'autres, c'est moi qui l'ai shooté sur le spectacle qu'il a donné en bretagne avec Portal, mais j'aimerai bien que quelqu'un m'explique, et si vous ne voulez pas de mes photos il suffit juste de me le dire, c'est pas plus compliqué
- Ok. Uploader claims to have ownership of this image. Is there any special procedure to be undertaken ? Sylenius 19:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Any objection to closing this as a keep? Or should we requre OTRS? -- Infrogmation 18:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know, I'm not familiar with the procedures on commons. If we can just assume good faith from the uploader and not require OTRS, it is ok with me. Sylenius 14:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Any objection to closing this as a keep? Or should we requre OTRS? -- Infrogmation 18:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Kept, objections of nominator withdrawn. -- Infrogmation 15:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
file corrupted --Esculapio 08:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. SVG links to a non-existing BMP file. Lupo 09:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is not in the public domain. William Plane Pycraft died in 1942. 88.134.232.95 13:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 10:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
and Image:Разгром группы армии Северная Украина.jpg.
Производная работа/Derivative work. Подробности смотрите в статье 19 закона РФ об авторском праве и смежных правах.
EugeneZelenko 14:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Авторское право распространяется на произведения науки, литературы и искусства, являющиеся результатом творческой деятельности, независимо от назначения и достоинства произведения, а также от способа его выражения. . Если вы мне объясните, что именно в этой карте является результатом творческой деятельности, я с великим интересом выслушаю. #!George Shuklin 05:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Из статьи 7 «Произведения, являющиеся объектами авторского права ... географические, геологические и другие карты, планы, эскизы и пластические произведения, относящиеся к географии, топографии и к другим наукам». --EugeneZelenko 14:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted both: derivative works of maps. Draw your own instead! Lupo 10:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This map is a malicious distortion of a previous Wiki map, Image:UN Partition Plan For Palestine 1947.png, to make the Jewish partition look larger. Refer to the original 1947 map available from the UN. There has been at least one attempt to replace original, correct map with this distorted map by User:Dbz100 on Sept 27 2007 in the article Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. I requested that this file be deleted. Emmanuelm 15:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete An examination of the alleged sources of this map makes it clear that the map is not what it claims to be.
- Immediate source: en:Image:UN Partition Plan For Palestine 1947.png. As nominator points out, this map differs significantly from that map by its enlargement of the Jewish partition.
- based on a portion of the public domain work http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/israel_hist_1973.jpg Again, a comparison of this map and its alleged source shows that this map, while it may be "based" on another map, is not an accurate representation of its alleged source.
- Source map: original UNSCOP map from the UN web site. A third time, the UN map that is alleged to be the source does not resemble the map in question.
- Please note that all three alleged sources are consistent with one another, yet the map nominated for deletion resembles none of them. — Malik Shabazz registered editor at English language Wikipedia
- I'm looking to see if I still have the version that I originally uploaded. As noted, the current one is a gross misrepresentation of the partition plan. I'll replace it with the first version if I still have it. Jamesday 16:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete image should be directly from the source with no alterations. Should multiple sources conflict, then it would be appropriate to have multiple images, but only with clear attribution. 24.40.206.182 18:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 10:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Also listed at en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 October 3. Thuresson 19:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Thuresson 19:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Actually it wasn't listed as such when I uploaded. I followed the correct procedures when uploading and was listed as PD at the time it was uploaded here. DragonFire1024 22:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 10:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Insufficient sourcing. Description appears to include a book without full citation. Source url http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/pogrebnojalexandroff/ is the uploader's own user page on another site. Uploader removed previous nsd tag. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The author completely misunderstands the spirit of Commons and free contents. According to him, and contrary to the license given on the content page, "No part of the image can be removed or changed." (see here for the full discussion). It would be wise to delete this content from Commons. — Xavier, 16:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 10:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Insufficient sourcing. Description appears to include a book without full citation. Source url http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/pogrebnojalexandroff/ is the uploader's own user page on another site. Uploader removed previous nsd tag. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The author completely misunderstands the spirit of Commons and free contents. According to him, and contrary to the license given on the content page, "No part of the image can be removed or changed." (see here for the full discussion). It would be wise to delete this content from Commons. — Xavier, 16:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 10:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This image cannot be verified if it exists in the public domain, there is no link to the source. It should be deleted due to no proper source provided. We have no way of telling when the image was created or by whom.--Popalzai 08:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not all sources are online, you know. That said, I have a copy of the claimed source (Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East, Vol. 1, 1917) in front of me, and this is not one of the six illustrations in it (and the Douai bible doesn't have illustrations). User:Captaingrog probably added the source based on www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/hakhamaneshian/cyrus-the-great/decree_jews.htm (can't link because it triggers a spam filter), but that's just source info for the text on that page, not the picture. So - looks old, but no source. --Davepape 18:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think the source is clearly given. And as mentioned above, not all sources are online. I believe the picture should remain. --Arad 22:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- And, as I went on to say, the picture is not actually in the alleged source. --Davepape 03:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I really can't understand. According to en:WP:FAITH and my knowledge about the person who has uploaded it for the first time, I have no doubt about its copyright situation.
- not all the pictures on the cias-soas. com violates copyright.
- This picture looks so old and logically it doesn't have copyright problem. Moreover en:WP:Faith doesn't let me even to think about such this thing.--Soroush83 15:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I really can't understand. According to en:WP:FAITH and my knowledge about the person who has uploaded it for the first time, I have no doubt about its copyright situation.
- And, as I went on to say, the picture is not actually in the alleged source. --Davepape 03:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Does not have a valid source (as Davepape confirmed above) to verify PD claim. --91.65.124.34 23:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as unsourced. However, I also have serious doubts that this is really an "old Iranian painting". The monogram makes me rather think it's a European engraving. Can anyone identify whose monogram this is? (May also be flipped horizontally; the image exists on the web in both variations, with Cyrus facing left and right.) Lupo 09:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Author en:Charles Francis Horne died 1942. --JuTa 05:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work as Image:44802746.DSC 1699 cropped.jpg Dantadd✉ 18:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. If the author did give permission it should have been lodged with OTRS. MichaelMaggs 20:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work as Image:44802746.DSC 1699.jpg Dantadd✉ 18:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. If the author did give permission it should have been lodged with OTRS. MichaelMaggs 20:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Source page has vanished, but looks like another promo photo. The bookfest author images in general are far too varied stylistically for me to believe that they're all by Library of Congress staff. Davepape 05:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I checked the source page before uploading the image to commons (originally found on en.wikipedia.org). More information about the copyright status I cannot provide, but the license is okay. I just can no longer prove it. --Christian NurtschTM 15:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
According to this archive from the WayBack Machine, there is no copyright information present. When there is no such copyright information present, and the media looks recent, then it is automatically copyrighted. Nuked. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 22:10, 30 November 2007 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's screenshot for video in YouTube, this video is not under free license OsamaK 10:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Doesn't look like a video screenshot at all. Got any evidence? Lupo 10:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Kept: On YouTube is also a video of this dancing girls available, but this image is not from the video. --GeorgHH 14:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It's screenshot for video in YouTube, this video is not under free license OsamaK 10:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Doesn't look like a video screenshot at all. Got any evidence? Lupo 10:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Kept: On YouTube is also a video of this dancing girls available, but this image is not from the video. --GeorgHH 14:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader request. JPG version is the best for this image. It's leas size OsamaK 19:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate. --GeorgHH 15:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's more or less a duplicate of an image that's already at commons under a different name (Image:Sanmichele satana raffaello.jpg), which I only found after the upload. --Sgeureka 12:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Slightly smaller duplicate of Image:Sanmichele satana raffaello.jpg. Deadstar (msg) 13:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This image is unused, incorrect, and deprecated in favour of the SVG version. -- intgr [talk] 12:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC) -- intgr [talk] 12:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept Superseded images are not deleted. Deadstar (msg) 13:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file is not fully compatible with the WMF instructions and there are technical issues preventing its usage. A usable version has been uploaded: Image:Wikimediaisrael-logo.png --Steinninn ♨ 03:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Was replaced by Image:Wikimediaisrael-logo.png. --GeorgHH • talk 20:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
DjVu don't work. I will create a new file. 22 September 2007 User:MarcBot
- Fix request Deadstar (msg) 10:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- New file : Image:Charles Dickens - L'Ami commun, I.djvu. MarcBot 08:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- They both work for me. Lupo 10:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- New file : Image:Charles Dickens - L'Ami commun, I.djvu. MarcBot 08:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Dupe of Image:Charles Dickens - L'Ami commun, I.djvu (both seemed to work). Rocket000 19:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Non-existent flag, see Image:Mexico stateflags Guerrero.png --3 October 2007 User:AlexCovarrubias
- deletion fix Deadstar (msg) 11:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It exists for me. And it's used. Rocket000 21:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Kept - http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandera_de_Guerrero <- The file is in use on the Spanish Wikipedia, although I think Alex might mean "fake" rather than "non-existant". WilyD 15:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Problem was found by User:Kaganer: uploaded many thumbs with {{cc-by-sa}} without mentioning author/source or images claimed to made himself but for non-commercial usage only or without EXIF-info. Some of thumbs have watermark of Russian websites. I agree with User:Kaganer that all contributions of User:Hamlet53 must be removed. See also deleted edits of Hamlet53. --EugeneZelenko 14:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- It seems all the copyvios from 300online.ru (postcards) were purged. What remains looks like his own work to me, though. Or am I missing something? Lupo 21:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Kept Can't find obviously copyvios. Please list files separately next time. --GeorgHH 14:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Also:
dubious claim of self-creation --30 September 2007 User:66.212.73.116
- deletion fix. I agree, possible copyvio Deadstar (msg) 11:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I am owner of listed images : I can put on Wikimedia a much higher resolution versions if necesary to attest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanko (talk • contribs) 07:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is good idea, some users at commons are really paranoiac. --Dezidor 21:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No proof of copyright violation. --Dezidor 21:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept, until there is direct evidence of a violation. Quadell (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio from official site of ragunath manet Sylenius 20:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Je suis un des photographes de Raghunath Manet, j'ai effectivement mis à la disposition de la communauté wikipedia certaines de mes photos de Raghunath Manet, j'ai respecté la procédure wikimedia commons, alors je ne comprends pas ce que c'est que ce copyvio ? C'est parce que les photos que j'ai chargé sont aussi sur le site de raghunath manet ? s'il faut des photos qui soient nulle part, j'en ai pleins d'autres, c'est moi qui l'ai shooté sur le spectacle qu'il a donné en bretagne avec Portal, mais j'aimerai bien que quelqu'un m'explique, et si vous ne voulez pas de mes photos il suffit juste de me le dire, c'est pas plus compliqué
- Ok. Uploader claims to have ownership of this image. Is there any special procedure to be undertaken ? Sylenius 19:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I would say this needs to go OTRS. Permission emailed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. This is necessary because the site has copyright claims for each photo. It looks like all rights belong to each image's photographer. Unless the uploader wishes to state on the site itself that these are released under a free license. If there's no response we'll have to delete these. Rocket000 19:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No OTRS ticket seems to be available. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 18:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
October 4
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
dupe —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Elvey (talk • contribs)
- (duplicate of Image:Berlioz_young.jpg.) --Moonian 09:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
appears to be professioanal; even if it's not, it's unused, of little encyclopedic value, and could present heavy BLP problems --Patstuart 21:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
appears to be professioanal; even if it's not, it's unused, of little encyclopedic value, and could present heavy BLP problems —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigobelaro (talk • contribs)
- This is exactly the same reasoning I used above for a probably unfree pornographic picture, and the reasoning makes absolutely no sense with this image. Patstuart 19:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, this image has been for months at the English wikipedia, where I took it, with a PD license, and it is not "unused". For you it may be of litte enciclopedic value, but for my article about the Vergina Star it is crucial, since it gives examples about how has the symbol been used throughout the years. So, with your permission, and since no copyright violation has been detected, I'm going to use the image again. I won't accept you delete an image for uncertainties and suppositions (appears to be, could be, etc., but no facts at all), if you don't know for sure it violates the law please keep it because you are damaging at least two articles by removing it. Greetings --Bucephala 15:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy kept. Deletion rationale is plainly bogus, as Patstuart has pointed out; this deletion request probably has more to do with nationalist objections than any justifiable rationale. -- ChrisO 18:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I can't read Turkish at all, so I'm kind of in the dark. However, I can tell that this man died in 1928, showing pd-old might not be in effect; and somehow it seems doubtful that Aasezgin owns the copyright to this image, unless this is his family (in which case the Turkish page might lack notability) --Patstuart 21:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I moved this image from tr.wikipedia. And it was uploaded by Aasezgin from tr.wikipedia. He told that it's from his family archieve. And I looked at his other additions. He had only uploaded this photo and put it on the article about Abdulhamid Hamdi Bey which is an old politician in Turkey. And he died on 14th of March, 1928. I think this image can be have GFDL or PD-old. I don't know the policies completely but if it's possible, please do not delete this very very old photo. Thank you.. --Maderibeyza 05:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- If it's his grandfather, nevermind. WithdrawnPatstuart 14:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong name. The image is also available under the correct name Image:Theodor de Bry.png Jan Arkesteijn 14:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: Dupe of Image:Theodor de Bry.png
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Used with permission for informational purposes only" is not free enough for Commons. 88.134.232.95 03:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Does not have free lic per Commons policy since it is restricted to informational purposes only. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no freedom of panorama in France, this is a derivative work. The creator is a contemporary artist [13]. guillom 09:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No freedom of panorama in France MichaelMaggs 17:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright vio; no source FloNight♥♥♥ 13:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless uploader can verify free lic that is compatible with Commons policy. Found on this site and appears to have copyright notice. --FloNight♥♥♥ 13:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 15:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 15:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep .It is ridiculous: 1. The picture is my own work. 2. The picture is ineligible for copyright because it consists only of information, that ist common property. 3. The picture is ineligible for copyright because it consist only of a few stripes, stars and bows. 4. The picture is ineligible for copyright because there is no primary autorship. Summary: It is absolutely boring if I have to defend and justify every small matter--Fornax 09:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- KeepImage has been tagged with {{PD-GermanGov}} so the issue should now have been solved. Fornax how come you're ranting here when you changed the license which must be interpreted as though there was a more correct license. /Lokal_Profil 11:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am not "ranting", but I am annoyed :-)--Fornax 15:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Why has it been deleted when everybody wants to keep it ??--Fornax 04:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Majorly: In category Unknown as of 8 October 2007 for more than 7 days, missing essential information
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"The photo is public domain because the source was the group's Myspace page, and anything on Myspace is public domain. " - No it's not. 88.134.232.95 03:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless there is proof that the photo is released under a free license. --Moonian 15:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Everything on Myspace is in the public domain? I don't think so, mate. --Dybdal 23:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC+1)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 18:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligable for copyright". Possibly PD for other reasons but these aren't stated. /Lokal_Profil 08:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 08:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless Vatican State stamps are PD. // Liftarn 10:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete How is it that this image "consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship"? And why did Liftarn upload it? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted PD licence given clearly wrong, and no other reason for free licence offered. -- Infrogmation 18:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligable for copyright". possibly PD for other (non stated) reasons. /Lokal_Profil 08:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 08:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The fine print at the bottom indicates it was published & copyrighted in the U.S. in 1883, so it qualifies for {{PD-US}}. --Davepape 14:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- 1882 actually =). Anyhow Keep but change license to {{PD-US}} and add "Copyrighted by David W. Crider 1882" "Published by Crider & Brother" to image description. /Lokal_Profil 15:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- 1882 actually =). Anyhow
- Keep Yes, looks okay. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Well you won't get a no from me... --Mactographer 09:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Time to close this del request and remove the del tag??? --Mactographer 02:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've added the info above to the image page and changed the license to PD-US so this requsest can be closed whenever an admin comes along. /Lokal_Profil 13:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Kept Now correctly free licensed. -- Infrogmation 18:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 14:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 14:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This is the silliest RfD I ever read. My photo is perfectly licensed. The article is clearly PD-ineligble and also PD-old. The photo (my own photo, as clearly indicated), is released by myself in the public domain. But now, someone indeed writes a RfD and explicitely gives "other non-stated reasons" as the reason for the request. Congratulations! Keep, and block user:Lokal Profil. --AndreasPraefcke 14:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, missed the two licenses below the PD-ineligible. Would still not say that the image is PD-ineligible in itself and that PD-Old + PD-Self would be a sufficient license. So Keep but remove PD-ineligible tag. /Lokal_Profil 15:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Again: The ineligible is not about the image, but the object depicted. This distinction is necessary for practically all works of art and writing. --AndreasPraefcke 15:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Possibly true but almost any photograph includes at least some objects which are PD-ineligable, in a photograph of a tree the tree is PD-ineligable, in a diagram with lables the lables are PD-ineligible etc. This is obviously a less trivial case then those but the essence is the same. The fact that the text in this picture is not eligible for copyright could be mentioned on the page but to tag the image with the license is a bit overkill. Thats at least my oppinion. /Lokal_Profil 18:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader claims that the photo was first published before 1923 when John Ford was 31 y/o. The person on the photo looks much older than 31. Also listed at en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 October 4. Thuresson 17:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I agree about the age question, he might be 31. As for the origins of the picture, I have no idea. I uploaded it from the English Wikipedia (using CommonsHelper), and trusted that the information and licensing there was correct. --helt 19:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- The photo comes from wildestwesterns.com who claims: "Nothing in Wildest Westerns may be reprinted without written permission by the publisher" ... "© 2006 Wildest Westerns Magazine, All Rights Reserved". Thuresson 15:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- By age photo looks like other photos of Ford with known dates in the late 1930s easily found on images google search (eg two examples here); fashion more plausible for such a date as well. -- Infrogmation 18:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Version on en:Wikipedia taken from copyrighted website; no evidence for PD status found. -- Infrogmation 18:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No author, no source, no description, the low resolution probably dissimulates a fiddled image Juiced lemon 10:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation 01:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 10:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 14:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 14:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 21:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 14:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 14:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept per [14]. Pin issued by the Soviet Ministry for Automobile Industry, and thus {{PD-RU-exempt}}. Lupo 21:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 14:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 14:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept per [15]: 50 year anniversary of en:Komsomol. {{PD-RU-exempt}} Lupo 21:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 14:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 14:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per [16]. Lupo 21:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 14:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 14:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per [17]. Lupo 21:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 14:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 14:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per [18]. Lupo 21:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 14:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 14:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept per [19]: 50 year anniversary of VChK/KGB. {{PD-RU-exempt}} Lupo 21:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 14:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 14:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per [20]. Lupo 21:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 14:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 14:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per [21]. Lupo 21:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 16:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 16:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Angr: In category Unknown as of 11 November 2007; not edited for 17 days
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. The image also has no source to support the GFDL license. /Lokal_Profil 16:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 16:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Angr: In category Unknown as of 11 November 2007; not edited for 17 days
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
original license on wikipedia is not valid. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-4 12:46
Deleted No valid license. For same reason deleted on en.wiki. --GeorgHH 16:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
i made this picture out of several other pictures. "Cadde" have no right to use it! it is copyrighted so please remove it ASAP! --83.140.195.55 19:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept No information given which confirms the reason for deletion request. --GeorgHH 16:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
fallo en el nombre de archivo Sausalito 23:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- No entiendo el problema. Si no te gusta el nombre, vease las instrucciones en la plantilla {{rename}}. Patstuart 19:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate of Image:SAUSALITO SITGES-wiki0.JPG. --GeorgHH 16:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
fallo en el nombre de archivo Sausalito 23:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- No entiendo el problema. Si no te gusta el nombre, vease las instrucciones en la plantilla {{rename}}. Patstuart 19:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate of Image:SAUSALITO SITGES-wiki0.JPG. --GeorgHH 16:30, 2 December 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. Henry Lükow-Nielsens sculpture (1961) in the City Square in Copenhagen. Fingalo 13:53, 4 October 2007
Deleted -- Infrogmation 04:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 14:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 14:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative advertisment as well. -- Infrogmation 04:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 14:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 14:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted-- Infrogmation 04:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 14:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 14:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 04:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 14:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 14:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Very very simple design, I don't see why it should be eligible for copyright. --Rosenzweig 21:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- That is very true ! So it is the more annoying that sombobody believes it is not so:* Keep--Fornax 15:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 15:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 15:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete How is it that this image "consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship"? And why did Liftarn upload it? IFF the designer of the image published it and died before 1937, it would be PD-old, but that has not even been claimed yet. Most World War II images are not yet free. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Liftarn was not the original uploader; he just copied it to Commons with the same copyright claim as the original uploader. Morven 06:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 04:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 15:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 15:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
In that resolution it is ineligible for copyright, but delete away. -- Rainman 22:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- The resolution should have nothing to do with the eligibility, only the originality of the work should effect that. /Lokal_Profil 23:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 04:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 15:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 15:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Retagged with {{PD-GermanGov}}. /Lokal_Profil 12:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 15:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 15:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 04:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 16:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 16:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, this was one of my first uploads. The original source is this polish site here. Todays I upload my entirely own works only. Most likely it is to be deleted. --Galak76 13:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 04:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 15:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 15:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MECU: In category Unknown as of 12 November 2007; no source
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". The image also has no source to support the additional GFDL license /Lokal_Profil 16:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 16:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MECU: In category Unknown as of 12 November 2007; no source
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". PD due to "published by orders of an illegitimite government" is also not a legitimite license./Lokal_Profil 15:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 15:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. "Published by orders of an illegitimite government" does not mean it is necessarily PD. MichaelMaggs 19:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source, no reason for being the PD. A pictures from the 30s may well still be copyrighted. --User:G.dallorto 18:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment depend on who the author is. Wooyi 21:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Hopefully Triestino, the user that uploaded the image, can help clarify who has the copyright for the image and give us confidence that it can have a free license and can be included here per Commons policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I found the image on the Catalan Wikipedia and uploaded it from there. I guess it has to be deleted from Wikimedia, since the image was deleted from the Catalan project because of wrong copyrighting. Triestino 22:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Triestino, thank you for letting us know that we need to Delete the image. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Currency is not automatically PD./ Lokal_Profil 08:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 08:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Agreed. Same goes for the rest of Category:Billet drapeau. Doodle-doo Ħ 23:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment Incorrect reasoning but it still can be PD. I think this was originally made by the U.S. (during occupation). I don't know French law. If you don't like this one you'll really have issues with Image:Banknotes.jpg :) I just don't see why people single out certain images when hundreds of others have similar status (whatever that might be). Rocket000 20:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I singled out this one because it was incorrectly tagged PD-ineligible. I have less issues with Banknotes.jpg since the main thing in that image is not the particular image on each note but the mass of different notes. In this image however the main thing is the image on the banknote. /Lokal_Profil 21:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I guess meant that in general. Like picking one out of Category:Billet drapeau. I'm fine with it though. Rocket000 22:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thats why that category is included above. There are a lot of wrongly PD tagged images around and unless we can prove that they are PD we can't assume that they are. /Lokal_Profil 00:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I know. (and I didn't mean to single you out :-) Rocket000 23:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thats why that category is included above. There are a lot of wrongly PD tagged images around and unless we can prove that they are PD we can't assume that they are. /Lokal_Profil 00:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I guess meant that in general. Like picking one out of Category:Billet drapeau. I'm fine with it though. Rocket000 22:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, I believe that, as a work of the United States Federal Government, these works should be tagged {{PD-USGov}}. Quadell (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. It can be PD, but as long as there is no proof, this one is gone. The whole image description was rather incorrect (occupation money for france, but 1994 as date), the given source is humbug (an image hoster, the link logically does not work anymore). With better proof notify me and I will restore it (or go to Undeletion requests). -- Cecil 08:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 16:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 16:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- I created this file. Is it helpful to publish this image just under PD? --Spongo 21:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. If you created it then it's better to publish it under just PD-Self. =) /Lokal_Profil 10:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, but this was the original. If this is not ineligible for copyright but the author says it is PD, why don't you just change it to "{{PD-self}}"? In both cases it is PD. --Spongo 15:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry forgot that this was the case with the svg based on the png. The png was also marked as "ineligible for copyright" and there is currently no author given on the image page. There might have been some info on the original en.wiki page but I can't see that page since I'm not an admin on en.wiki. Basically the license of this (the svg image) can only be reolved once the license of the png version has been solved. /Lokal_Profil 16:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, but this was the original. If this is not ineligible for copyright but the author says it is PD, why don't you just change it to "{{PD-self}}"? In both cases it is PD. --Spongo 15:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. If you created it then it's better to publish it under just PD-Self. =) /Lokal_Profil 10:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I still don't understand the problem. IMHO this (and the original file) is "ineligible for copyright". Just a crescent und a hand are shown. (same as 1, 2, 3) If (for some reasons) it is not, than I publish this file under PD. Of course I used a template. Just as 90% of the files in Category:PD ineligible were not created from nowhere. --Spongo 07:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- And for the same reason I'd say that they aren't ineligable either. PD-ineligable is for works that lack any sort of originality. i.e. plain text (from a graphical point of view), simple geometrical figures, entirely computer generated graphics (such as the chemistry diagrams) and images created by animals (they can't claim copyright by law). There isn't only one (or a limited) number of ways of drawing a hand thus any image of a hand requires some originality (or reusing an image where someone else has applied som originality). It would be nice with some input from other users with more copyright experience though./Lokal_Profil 12:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps I have too less experience with copyright decisions on commons, because I usually work on de-WP. In German copyright law this is ineligible. Compare Anjouanflag to Image:SED-Logo.png#Copyright_information and de:Bild:Laufendes-Auge.jpg (if you speak German). They are certified by a court as "ineligible for copyright". But ok, we are here on an international project not a German one. --Spongo 08:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- And for the same reason I'd say that they aren't ineligable either. PD-ineligable is for works that lack any sort of originality. i.e. plain text (from a graphical point of view), simple geometrical figures, entirely computer generated graphics (such as the chemistry diagrams) and images created by animals (they can't claim copyright by law). There isn't only one (or a limited) number of ways of drawing a hand thus any image of a hand requires some originality (or reusing an image where someone else has applied som originality). It would be nice with some input from other users with more copyright experience though./Lokal_Profil 12:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for giving your reasoning for deletion. However, in the future it would help if you give reasons for your claims before people have to ask. Simply saying "wrong license" without a reason is not a valid request, IMO. You can't say it's obvious, because many of these are clearly PD-ineligible to me. Most of what you nominated (like this one) are entirely common property. Any originality in them appeared way before copyright even existed. The authors even agree they added no creative input. It would be wrong to say the copyright expired. I don't know what else you would call it.
- If authors honestly feel they added no originality (everyone's threshold is slightly different), why tell them different? Especially, if the author is from a country where this is the right license. They may not be able to release then as PD-self (which claims or recognizes the copyright in order to dismiss it). Legally, I'm sure it's fine (PD is PD), but personally, I wouldn't do this for moral reasons. (BTW, you're wrong about the computer generated graphics being automatically being PD, the computer's the same as a camera. Just a tool. You still gotta press the button. Simple chemistry diagrams are PD-ineligible, though, because they're common property, even if done by hand. ) Rocket000 21:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- From PD-ineligible: "consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship". This means that even if the flag and it's design is common property we also require that there is no original authorship (i.e. in the original flag itself since this image is a derivative of that). As I pointed out before drawing something like a hand generally requires original authorship (or reusing someone elses image) so this image does not fall under that tag. Now for it being PD in general... why? It's an image passing the threshold of originality so it's copyrighted unless stated otherwise. Perhaps international agreements say flags can't be copyrighted or perhaps local law says that the flag isn't copyrighted, or perhaps it's old enough for copyright to have expired. I don't know but unless someone knows we can't assume that it isn't. /Lokal_Profil 00:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- The discussion on Template talk:PD-Flag covers parts this as well. /Lokal_Profil 00:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- From PD-ineligible: "consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship". This means that even if the flag and it's design is common property we also require that there is no original authorship (i.e. in the original flag itself since this image is a derivative of that). As I pointed out before drawing something like a hand generally requires original authorship (or reusing someone elses image) so this image does not fall under that tag. Now for it being PD in general... why? It's an image passing the threshold of originality so it's copyrighted unless stated otherwise. Perhaps international agreements say flags can't be copyrighted or perhaps local law says that the flag isn't copyrighted, or perhaps it's old enough for copyright to have expired. I don't know but unless someone knows we can't assume that it isn't. /Lokal_Profil 00:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The original pgn file on English Wikipedia was tagged and with the text "Created by anonymous friend for school project" , but it's unclear if the released his right. To be sure, I think the best thing is to just upload a new image over this one and delete the old. It can't be too hard to create a new image. / Fred J (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- But that's what he did by creating the SVG, right? Rocket000 17:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- But the SVG was a derivative of the en.wp image and as such inherits it's problematic license status. /Lokal_Profil 19:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- But that's what he did by creating the SVG, right? Rocket000 17:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. It is doubtful whether very simplistic drawings of a hand and a crescent cross the general originality threshold, and any originality is diluted even more by this being a PD SVG redrawing of the original. Compare Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg. Sandstein 11:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
October 5
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not believe this picture was taken by the uploader, but suspect it is a copyvio; see also preceding nomination of Nikki Tyler image. Rosenzweig 20:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, every single upload by this user is a copyvio --Polarlys 00:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not believe this picture was taken by the uploader, but suspect it is a copyvio; see also preceding nomination of Nikki Tyler image. Rosenzweig 20:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, notorious copyvio uploader ... --Polarlys 00:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Most likely copyvio, found it on the web here: http://www.lideresmexicanos.com/images/upload/186.gif Rosenzweig 20:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 00:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio, found on the web here: http://www.allposters.de/-sp/Keiko-the-Killer-Whale-Poster_i1757301_.htm Rosenzweig 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 00:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Official portrait, can be found here: http://portal.sre.gob.mx/vaticano/index.php?option=displaypage&Itemid=129&op=page&SubMenu=129. I cannot find anything about this being PD, much less PD-Self. But I don't really speak Spanish, perhaps others will have more success. Given the histoy of copyvios by this uploader, I have nominated it for deletion nonetheless. Rosenzweig 20:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, copyvio --Polarlys 00:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
likely copyright violation. Only other image uploaded by user was previously deleted. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-5 00:11
deleted, --Polarlys 11:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Self-nom:This is a photo of a restaurant's menu; so it may be classified as derivatives of copyrighted works, and should be deleted.K.C. Tang 05:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 15:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploaded again under better title at Image:Annie Sprinkle Neo Sacred Prostitute.jpg AnonEMouse 15:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: Duplicate, uploader request
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
User states in his license that he "refuse to release my work under a free license that is compatable with the Wikimedia Foundation, especially the GFDL" and to use this image requires his permission. Therefore, I'm not sure it's compatible with commons.Deadstar (msg) 09:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note - uploader has applied the same confused, perhaps-trying-to-be-funny licensing to
- ("confused" because he also tags them with an {{Attribution}} license, which of course is "compatable with the Wikimedia Foundation".) --Davepape 17:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't want to licence my stuff under GFDL because I think a Gnu's head is a stupid logo. My intent was just to be funny on the description page, that's all. Of course you can use my images freely. I just don't wanna' license it under GFDL. I wish instead that you can use my images for any purpose, as if they were public domain, as long as you attribute me. You can attribute my by linking to my blog, and I would like you to ask me. That's all. If it's a matter of whether you have to ask me or not, I will change the image description page to change that. Taric25 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep — I just changed the image description page, removing the necesity to ask me first and the confusing text about refusing to release my work under a free license that is compatable with the Wikimedia Foundation. Taric25 12:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Kept, the description has been changed to remove confusion. Deadstar (msg) 08:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The description states: copyright of the World Trade Organization. There's no evidence the WTO releases its pictures under a GNU licence Dantadd✉ 00:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- The evidence is very clearly noted on the talk page (OTRS ticket #2006031310003349, confirmed by the current Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation). Feel free to add an appropriate OTRS template if you desire. Regards, High on a tree 01:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, sorry, I didn't notice it on the talk page. Dantadd✉ 01:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unclear details on photograph and/or permission, image from 1968. --S[1] 12:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Answer to S1 :
What details are unclear? There is the represented topic, (Московская Кремлёвская набережня), the name of the author (BTW, it happens to be my name), the date of the shots (April 1968) and the usual rights statements (Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 ) What more do yo expect ?????????? A copy of the Ferrania Negatives by Fedex? Or a copy of my passport? be more explicit on your request : there are unclear details about deletion reasons.
Liagushka 22:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- I could not know that Bernhard Marti is your name. Maybe it's better if you write in the description your username, too. --S[1] 11:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a 412px file; I uploaded the high-resolution version, and replaced links Pieter Kuiper 17:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete low-res duplicate of Image:Faustus-tragedy.gif. --Moonian 13:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: Dupe of Image:Faustus-tragedy.gif
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work, original photo copyrighted Polarlys 12:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not PD - summary even states that it's fair use --Patstuart 21:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as obvious copyright vio. The summary indicates that February 5, 1935 as date of publication of scanned image. Fair use claim not appropriate for Commons. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Commons cannot accept 'Fair Use' images MichaelMaggs 17:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio-suspicion: the picture is professionally made and has a watermark that does not fit to the author-declaration -- Cecil 12:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio - license changed by author after he saw it would be deleted. Patstuart 21:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Patstuart. Clearly a copyright violation, and uploader tried to get around that. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 21:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Same reason as with Image:Samira_SAID.jpg: Copyvio-suspicion, because the picture is professionally made (the other picture also has a watermark) -- Cecil 12:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio - license changed by author after he saw it would be deleted. Patstuart 21:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Patstuart. Clearly a copyright violation, and uploader tried to get around that. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 21:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Self-nom:The original source of this image has disappeared, so I'm unable to ascertain when it was taken, thus may be copyright-violating K.C. Tang 05:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Archive.org has it [22] but the page does not support a free license. Morven 06:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as the uploader is not certain the image is available for a free license and inclusion per Commons policy. The available evidence indicts the image may not be included in Commons based on the copyright notice on the web site. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 19:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Just trying, but version too large - need to experience bit more Jbertelo 19:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think "too large" is a problem in Wikimedia (you can set the size of an image like this:
[[Image:Waterloo-berg.JPG|100px]]). Keep unless there exists any Freedom of panorama issues. --Moonian 13:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept, no valid reason for deletion offered. -- Infrogmation 04:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded + unused + duplicate --78.49.174.130 17:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept Superseded + unused not reasons for deletion. Cannot find an exact duplicate. Deadstar (msg) 13:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No freedom of Panorama in Italy, furthermore, the art installation was only temporary. --User:G.dallorto 16:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Used, not apparent copyvio; no freedom from paranoia doesn't mean we delete every image of a building in Italy. If authors have problem, they can request deletion, much as personality rights. Patstuart 19:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep 1. per Patstuart. 2. Main subject is old royal castle. --Dezidor 22:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- from the author
I don't see this picture as a "panorama" but as a original combination of three elements, the art installation, young people not caring at all about the installation, and in the background, out of focus, as a symbol of institutional power, the royal castle. the installation was indeed temporary, but it's not temporary the sense of the installation as read by me: death is present in all places of my home town, and nobody could care less.
I'm not a professional photographer, but I consider this picture "artistic photography". after all what is art? it's in the eyes of the person looking at it or in the intentions of the author? or in the interpretation of lawyers distinguishing art from panorama's...
--User:Mfrasca 2007-10-05 19:17 TMEC
- No new comments in almost 2 months. Closing as keep per majority of votes. -- Infrogmation 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Stealing form http://www.odiamemas.com/titulos.php Weezeroso 22:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Titulos Club America2.jpg --Fred J (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Stealing form http://www.odiamemas.com/titulos.php Weezeroso 22:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I was surfing on the web looking for statistics from my website www.odiamemas.com
I found this wikimedia article where some images where deleted because they were copied from my site.
I don't have a problem with sharing any information from my webpage, so feel free to use it as long as a link is provided to odiamemas.com as the source of the articles or the images.
Any questions or concerns or to validate the authenticity of this message, please forward to webmaster@odiamemas.com. i'll be glad to answer back.
Greetings, and everything you see on my website if for free use all over the web.
Deleted. Ok thank you for giving your permission, but it is still unclear who took the photos and what copyright they are under, and whether commercial use and derivative works is really allowed by you. If you want me to clarify, please ask me. / Fred J (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Stealing from http://www.odiamemas.com/titulos.php Weezeroso 22:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, same reason as for Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Titulos Club America2.jpg. / Fred J (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No hay fuente ni autor, (no source and author) Weezeroso 23:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Fred J (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
low quality photomontage, invalid licensing (one photo PD, the other one CC-by-SA, the montage GFDL) Polarlys 23:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is a crappy image. I would normally just delete it but it's being used for some reason. Rocket000 03:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Kept, it is being used. I changed the license to cc-by-sa-2.0. Not sure if the composition can warrant a new copyright; anyways it shouldn't be a big deal. / Fred J (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio, who took the original photo? Polarlys 12:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- The image description page says that User:Soman took the original photo...Giggy\Talk 01:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think what Polarlys askes is who took the original image of Che which can be seen on the poster. /Lokal_Profil 19:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work not only of the photograph used in the central poster, but also of the design and layout of all the posters shown. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no FOP in this case (not permanently installed), original photo copyrighted Polarlys 12:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is paranoia gone bananas. The creator of this image has himself explicitly stated that he doesn't mind it being used, as long as it is not in a negative way (as was the case with RSF). Keep --Soman 20:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Famousphotoche.jpg --Polarlys 21:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, en:Che Guevara (photo) clarifies that non-commercial usage would be ok. That relating to the original photo, this is a handmade painting based on an image that effectively is used by leftwing movements all over the world for three decades, a usage that Korda never, never opposed. To delete images of banners, murals, etc., honouring Che is a to remove images based on a practice that Korda has publicly stated he was ok with. Common sense sometimes a valuable principle. --Soman 10:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Famousphotoche.jpg --Polarlys 21:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Wow, there's a lot of factors here. This photograph contains a derivative of a derivative of a photograph. (Not to mention FOP or Berne Convention issues.)
Things we know:
- The original photograph (that pretty much everything is based on) is by Alberto Korda. He owns* the copyright and has allowed conditional free use: anyone may use it for any purpose provided that it is used "to propagate the memory of Ernesto 'Che' Guevara".
- Korda and his heirs (he died in 2001) have sued, not liking how the image was being used.[23]
- Results
- A British court asserted Alberto Korda's photograph copyright protection when he won a settlement over the use in an vodka advertisement.[24]
- A French court banned the use of the image in a poster campaign.[25]
- Note: Neither case was over "commercial use". The latter wasn't even commercial. Both were over copies/derivatives of the original photograph.
- The original drawing is by Jim Fitzpatrick. He has declared his image "copyright free".[26]
- This photograph was taken by Soman, who released it under either the GFDL or cc-by-2.5.
- And finally, the drawing seen in this picture was done by an unknown author (?) and it's copyright status is unknown.
*This does not imply the U.S. recognizes his copyright claim, which would set the precedent for Commons.
Some of the above points are unique to this image, however, this is a much bigger issue.
- We have many similar images (including the original photograph). See Category:Che Guevara
See also:
- Che Guevara/deleted images - past discussion.
- English Wikipedia article on the image (uses the photo under fair use, uses the drawings under free use)
- es:Che Guevara (fotografía) - the photograph is used on the Spanish Wikipedia which doesn't allow local uploads (fair use).
I hope we can clear this up soon. Rocket000 02:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Do we *know* that the daughter now owns the copyright? Well, given that, here is a really crazy idea - why don't we just ask her? Explain what commons is etc, and what licensing is required, and ask if she will grant us a license. Presumably she's high profile enough to be found easily. I expect we'll get a standard lawyers letter, but we should at least ask :-) --Tony Wills 04:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The vodka case was obviously one of commercial use, the RSF case one of acting contrary to Korda's wish "to propagate the memory of Ernesto 'Che' Guevara". The common sense assumption here, based on the empirical fact that the image has been reproduced millions of times without the Kordas even slightest legal intervention, is that as long as the image is used in bonafide manner (i.e. by groups portraying Che in a sympatechic light) it is permitted. All usage of the image on banners, posters, etc. of left groups is completly legit. --Soman 11:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The issue Korda had with the vodka case wasn't that is was commercial but the nature of the product it was advertising (though, if it wasn't commercial I don't think he would of sued). Common sense assumptions are fine for using the image yourself, that's up to you, but for Commons we need explicitly stated permission. The permission that has been stated (the conditional free use) is too restrictive for Commons. All our images need to be allowed to be used for advertising vodka (trademark issues aside). I'm making no claims on the status of the copyright; these reasons may be irrelevant anyway. Rocket000 05:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I have argued keep for this before, but now I think that if Commons is supposed to be "as free as possible" then this image is must simply be deleted because it IS under copyright and is implicitly used with permission only. / Fred J (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless there is a more specific permission (derivative and commercial use inclusive) forwarded to OTRS, this image is gone. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 01:51, 17 January 2008 (GMT)
October 6
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Diese Sprachenkarte widerspricht allen gängigen Versionen. Nie war die "Oder-Neiße-Grenze" im 20. Jahrhundert eine Sprachgrenze zwischen Slawisch und Deutsch...das war sie allenfalls einmal im 10. Jahrhundert. Die ehemaligen deutschen Ostprovinzen Pommern, West- und Ostpreußen sowie Schlesien wiesen bei der amtlichen Volkszählung von 1910 eine deutsche Bevölkerungsmehrheit von rund 97 % aus! Südtirol hatte 1918/19 einen deutschsprachigen Bevölkerungsanteil von ebenfalls 97% und Elsaß-Lothringen einen deutschen Bevölkerungsanteil von 80 % (1910). Diese Karte verwirrt mehr als sie erklärt, da sie völlig verfälschende Informationen enthält. Die Oder-Neiße-Linie wurde erst von den Polen 1848/49 als "natürliche Sprachgrenze" erklärt, indem sie slawischstämmige Minderheiten (Prußsaken [Masuren in Ostpreußen], Kaschuben [Wasser-Polen in Westpreußen], Schlonsaken [Wasser-Polen in Oberschlesien]) zu "Polen" erklärte und ethnisch-begründete Ansprüche auf die überwiegend deutsch-besiedelten Provinzen erhob...allein in der Provinz Posen war eine deutliche polnische Mehrheit vorhanden! 195.93.60.33 21:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- This language map contradicts all common versions. The "Oder-Neisse-border" was never a linguistic boundary between Slavonic and German ... in the 20th century this was if need be she once in the 10th century. The former German east provinces Pomeranians, the west and east Prussians as well as Silesia expelled a German population majority of about 97% at the official national census of 1910! 1918/19 had a German-speaking part of the population South Tyrol of 97% and Alsace-Lorraine also unite a German part of the population of 80% (1910). This card confuses more than her professedly since she contains information distorting completely. The Oder-Neisse line was declared "a natural linguistic boundary" first by the Poles 1848/49 by available the predominating German-she settled Slavonic sturdy claim which is explained to minorities (Prußsaken [Masurians into east Prussians], Kashubes [Water-Polish into west Prussians], Schlonsaken [Water-Polish in Upper Silesian]) to "Polish peoples" and ethnic well-founded lifted up ... alone in the province Posen province was a clear Polish majority! 195.93.60.136 18:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
kept (no copyright issue) --ALE! ¿…? 13:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Deletion fix. This image was nominated for deletion again (by same IP user?) with the following comment:
- This Map is without sources and incorrect! -- 195.93.60.5 20:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Map was updated since last request. Deadstar 12:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The map presents Frisian and Dutch as part of the German language, eventhough the latter is older than German and has had a standard form for nearly 400 years. It also gives a false view of the German speakers in eastern Europe making them seem more numerous and dominant than they ever were. It compiles different sources in an arbitrary and misleading way in order to prove the author's biased POV. It also does not refer to any particular point in history, thus mixing up different periods. A result of non-scholarly original reseach.
- Delete Halibutt 07:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Improvements can be made, but what you say is not quite true. Dutch-speaking areas are in a different colour on the map, so the author is not saying that Dutch is exactly the same as German. However, he is right to include Dutch as Dutch and German are historically the same language. Even today, Dutch spoken near the German border is virtually the same as the Plattdeutsch spoken on the other side. There is a dialect continuum in place. Both modern languages descend from Old German. As for German speakers in Eastern Europe, the map correctly represents them as being very few and far between. — Erin (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- That a language is Germanic does not mean it is German, see e.g. Image:Germanictree.PNG. As for Eastern Europe it is pure fiction, e.g. the blue dot immediately south of Warsaw where there was never a German speaking minority (just an example). Wojsyl 07:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Wojsyl 07:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Might might be improved, but is still useful. The Dutch speaking area is marked as de:Niederdeutsche Sprache in the German Article de:Deutsche Sprache using it. The dutch Wikipedia uses this term also: nl:Nederduits. Furthermore: Do you want to delete en:Image:GermanicDialectAreas.PNG too? --ALE! 08:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- delete per nom. The uploader of this map has been blocked in german wikipedia for spreading ethnical POV or at least a blatant ignorance concerning peoples.--Wiggum 09:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if the map contains errors, fix it. I also agree with Erin. Btw, you forgot to notify the uploader. --Kjetil_r 11:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am sorry Kjetil but if the map contains errors and you are for keeping it - you fix it. Wikipedia should not contain errors and you cannot tell others to put their time in fixing it. DIY or delete - that's how it works. It's that simple. Best, aegis maelstrom δ 19:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Valid point, Mr. Maelstrom, the users wanting to keep it have the main responsibility for fixing it. --Kjetil_r 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Mr. Ree. :) I'm glad we agree here, too few people understand this IMHO healthy mechanism. aegis maelstrom δ 17:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Valid point, Mr. Maelstrom, the users wanting to keep it have the main responsibility for fixing it. --Kjetil_r 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am sorry Kjetil but if the map contains errors and you are for keeping it - you fix it. Wikipedia should not contain errors and you cannot tell others to put their time in fixing it. DIY or delete - that's how it works. It's that simple. Best, aegis maelstrom δ 19:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete delete The uploader of this map is reknowed nationalist and nearly every map he created is the source of heated debates and are often innacurate. This map is no different and should be deleted. Rex Germanus 11:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I would keep it and fix it. Maybe he exagurated a bit but but dont doubt that in Eastern Europ germans lived. AFAIK the picture show the situation until 1945. Wasent many germans from bessarabia and the baltics settelt in poland in this timeframe ? I will not doubt that Postmans idiology had effect on his work, but i would rather try to fix anything instead of deleting it.
- No, actually they weren't. Since 1918 there is an independent Polish state, so it would be hardly imaginable... as well as German settlers in Polish Kingdom (part of Russian Empire). German settlers were limited to the territories controlled by Prussia. If you want to see true settlers from Germany and Netherlands in Poland you have to go back to the late Medevial...
- Delete Map is a source of endless controversy due to the original research it contains. Balcer 17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Hoax. I would be for saving and fixing the map but let's face the facts - nobody is going to do that and nobody really knows how. The map is a pure fiction. It doesn't show which territories are with mixed populations. It is false while considering germanic languages - Lower Saxon is definitely different than Hochdeutsch, not to mention Dutch. It doesn't show what time we are actually talking about neither. And there are complete bollocks while we are talking about Eastern Europe - significant German speaking population in Ukraine? Only when you count in European Jews and jidysz as German... Summing up - whole lot of major errors difficult to spot for ignorants in this matter. And when I read AFAIK the picture show the situation until 1945. I am pretty sure that these errors are harmful. Delete. aegis maelstrom δ 19:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Let it be very clear that the Dutch language nor its dialects is a form of German. The only common ancestor German and Dutch have is Common West Germanic (AD 400), which also the ancestor of English, Frisian, Yiddish, and Scots. I suggest that the people who are unaware of this READ the article on English wikipedia. Rex Germanus 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Patently untrue, and the article on en: should be fixed. Language-genetically, Dutch and German belong to a common Dutch-German subgroup, while English and Frisian form the Anglo-Frisian subgroup. There is a dialect continuum on the Dutch east border, which isn't there between Dutch and Frisian. – gpvos (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment what about Image:Deutsche Mundarten.PNG, maybe you want to delete it as well? --Kjetil_r 11:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, looks like a different version of the same map. No article uses it. Looks like a candidate for deletion for me. aegis maelstrom δ 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- No article? It is used in 3 pages in 3 projects, in addition to local copies used in 3 pages in 2 projects. But if Image:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG is deleted, Image:Deutsche Mundarten.PNG should be deleted as well. --Kjetil_r 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, looks like a different version of the same map. No article uses it. Looks like a candidate for deletion for me. aegis maelstrom δ 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment if you want keep at least mark clearly as highly likely revisionist and non-trustable. Especially, no source is given. Postmann Michel was blocked because he had this revisionist behaviour pattern, overflowing nazi related articles with tons of highly irrelevant facts (assumed they were facts in the first place) to bury the really relevant information. --Rtc 11:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The thing about the dutchs (which sound to me like an english men try to speak the german word Deutsch, which is similar to the dutch word duits) and flamic: As ALE! said and also in german articles it is said that it belongs to the german language tree (not germanic). --Modgamers 16:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep Source proofs and notes of Postmann Michael: The available map is based mainly on the language map "Fischer of the information Atlas Federal Republic of Germany" (Fischer paperback publishing house, S. 63) from the year 1990. Besides calibrations with the "dtv Atlas found to the German language" (German paperbacks publishing house, S. 230/231) and the "Volkskunde - history of the German way of life and culture" (Elard Hugo Meyer, S. 363) from the year 1898 instead of. Furthermore also the books became "the Germanic languages - their history included in fundamentals" (Claus Juergen Hutterer, 1975) of the Akademiai Kiado, "Sudeten German regional studies" (Hans Krebs/Emil Lehmann, 1992), "east Prussian regional studies" (Walther Franz, 1993), all this in the Arndt publishing house appeared to Budapest, "Schlesien regional studies" (Alfred Pudelko, 1993). Also - probably most exact map of the German linguistic area - the dialect map "the spreading of the Germans in Europe had completely large influence 1844-1888" (Heinrich Nabert, 1890), which developed in the course of 30 years and which was presented as reproduction with the federation for German writing and language 1994 (series of publications number 12) again. Furthermore an alignment with the books became "Atlas contemporary history: Europe in 20. Century "(Manfred Scheuch, 1992) appeared in the publishing house Christian Brandstaetter, S. 51, and "small Atlas to German territorial history" (P. 137) of the culture donation of the German refugees (1990), the "Putzger historical world Atlas" (Cornelsen publishing house, 1991) - there S. 99 - made. Furthermore the information of the books "historical and political geography of Europe" (N. J. G. Pounds, the lecturer of the geographical faculty of the University of Cambridge), appeared 1950 in George Westermann publishing house (P. 296, 319, 327), of "Germany borders in history" (Alexander Demandt, 1990) from the publishing house C H. Beck Munich (P. 66) and the language map of "area and population losses of the German Reich and German Austria after the year 1918" (Dr. Karl Hans Ertl, 1996) from the row "German history in 20. Century "of the German publishing house company rose home. For the situation of the German settlement area Pounds on S gives. 295 on: In Czechoslovakia 3.5 millions. In Poland (including Danzigs) 2.2 millions. In Russia 1.6 millions. In France 1.5 millions. In Romania 0.9 millions. In Yugoslavia 0.7 millions. In the Baltic 0.27 millions. In Italy 0.25 millions. In Hungary 0.25 millions and in Belgium 0.15 millions.
Dr. Ertl indicates the following numbers for the tuning areas in west and east Prussia: east Prussia population to 8.10.1919: 577.001 enfranchised: 422.067 voices for Germany: 363.159 (= 97,9%) voices for Poland: 7.924 West Prussia Population to 8.10.1919: 164.183 enfranchised: 121.176 voices for Germany: 96.895 (= 92,4%) voices for Poland: 7.947 For the areas Memel, Soldauer hit a corner, Danzig and environment (retired west Prussia), Brandenburg, Pommern and Posen, which had to be retired without tuning, indicates to Ertl (P. 72) speaker numbers (after native language):
Memelgebiet
German: 71.781 speakers, German and others: 2.028, speakers Polish: 126 speakers, litauisch: 67.138 speakers, other languages: 165 speakers
Soldauer Laendchen
German: 9.232 speakers, German and others: 895 speakers, Polish: 5.289 speakers, Masurian: 9.134 speakers, other languages: 237 speakers
Danzig
German: 315.336 speakers, German and others: 3.039 speakers, Polish: 9.490 speakers, Kashubian: 2.254 speakers, other languages: 511 speakers
retired west Prussia (Danziger surrounding countryside)
German: 411.621 speakers, German and others: 14.807 speakers, Polish: 104.585 speakers, other languages: 410 speakers
Brandenburg
no language prevailing, there uninhabited area
Pommern
German: 180 speakers, Polish: 44 speakers
Posen
German: 699,859 speakers, German and others: 11.194 speakers, Polish: 1.263.346 speakers, Kashubian and Masurian: 69 speakers, other languages: 1.993 speakers
It is also expressly mentioned that according to the official census of the German Reich of the yearly 1914 alone the province west Prussia had a German population portion of over 63%; however in the province floats were those Poland the clear population of majority! But in the time between 1920 and 23 from Poland (above all west Prussia and east Upper Silesia) approximately 1.1 millions Germans were illegally driven out. That had even some objections of the German Reich with the voelkerbund in Geneva according to, since Poland refused those to the German of assured minority rights and/or stepped these with feet!
For the retired east Upper Silesia Ertl gives the following numbers to (P. 83): "the voting result was however for Poland and concomitantly for France disappointing (...) (it) obviously it became that with the tuning the majority of the water-Polish speaking population of Upper Silesia had decided for whereabouts with the German Reich. For the German Reich at that time 702,045 voices (= 59.4%) were delivered, for Poland 479,232 (= 40.6%). Only in the circles Beuthen-Land, Gross-Strelitz, Kattowitz-Land, Pless, Rybnik and Tarnowitz a weak became (sig!) Polish majority obtains (...)"
For the later Sudetenland and the language islands in Zentralboehmen Ertl (P. 146) indicates the following numbers:
Deutschboehmen
German: 2.070.438, Czechs: 116.275
Sudetenland
German: 643.804, Czechs: 25.028
Boehmerwaldgau
German: 176.237; Czechs: 6.131
Suedmaehren
German: 155.791, Czechs: 66.633
(All numbers for 1919, see also for this the representation maps on S. 150/151!)
I know this books and all datas in there are correct! 172.181.62.54 21:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, right. Nobody says there were no German speaking people in Lower/Upper Silesia or region of Poznan. Even the numbers given, even I would rather verify them (it was German research but let's assume it was quite fair), are not the most confusing. The most amusing things are: how do you explain significant German minorities in present Eastern Poland or Ukraine on the map (the numbers here say nothing about it) and, secondly, how were this people put on the map. The numbers say about whole regions - here we have some detailed map. Who is the author? What are the sources? Is it OR? It looks so. The author has been accused of bias and banned. So is this OR reliable? The numbers say for instance that the population in Pommern was mixed - it that on the map? Was the German population so monolithic while the ones of all the neighbours were not? Was that 100& German speaking population in Strasburg region? Or in Warsaw(?!)? My common sense says something different. aegis maelstrom δ 17:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep It gives the situation before WWII. Electionworld 22:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Contradicts scholary research and maps on ethnic groups in that region in Europe. False and biased.--Molobo 00:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment
- The map conflicts credible scholary data on German population in Eastern Europe.
Few examples of scholary maps- [27] Above map is from Historical Atlas of Central Europe. University of Washington Press: 2002. It clearly contradicts the author's map in regards to presence of German population in Poland. Image:HistPol-narodowosci1931.png Above map is from Henryk Zieliński, "Historia Polski 1914-1939", edited by Wydawnictwo Ossolineum, printed in Poland in 1983, it presents various nationalities in pre-war Poland. As can be seen German population isn't as widespread as presented by the author. [28] Above map is from Map of ethnic groups in Europe in 1896 from The Times Atlas This map also contradicts the author's map, showing quite different situation. Another example, a list of Polish areas with German minority listed: [29] In 1921 Pomerania 1921-18 % of population is German Poznan 1921-16 % of population is German This numbers obviously don't support the map presented here where the impression is that in those areas Germans made up almost total majority. And in 1931: Pomerania 1931-9% % of population is German Poznan 1931-9 % of population is German Upper Silesia 1931- 6 % of population is German
- The author has ignored massive settlement of Germans into Poland after 1939 (estimated by some at over 1 million with certain number of hundreds of thousands).
- The author doesn't explain why the same map is used for several different era's-1937, 1945 and WWII ignoring the fact of major population changes in WW2 ?
- The map doesn't show the exact date and as German population changed in very significant way during XX century in Central Europe it isn't neutral.
- It isn't clear what the map presents, if the map presents those Germans born in Poland or those people who spoke German as mother language ? Second option would indicate he counts occupation forces moved into Poland in his map.
- No mention is made that hundreds of thousands of Germans were settled into Poland during WW2 further adding to POV. The use of colours is very strange since it hardly shows significant populations of Poles in Silesia left after 1921.
- Another data contradicting the map:
According to p.27 of the Reich Statistical Yearbook for 1941 the population of the territories annexed from Poland was as follows in June 1940: Province Ostpreussen: 994,092. Reichsgau Danzig-West-Preussen (not including Danzig): 1,487,452. Reichsgau Wartheland: 4,538,922. Prov. Schlesien: 2,603,550. General Gouvernment: 12,107,000 According to p.6 of "Documents on the Expulsion of the Germans from East-Central Europe" Volume 1, (Bonn, 1954) the following was the German population of these areas when they were annexed from Poland in 1939: Polish Territories attached to the Provinz of Ostpreussen: 31,000. Polish Territories of the Reichsgau Danzig-Westpreussen: 210,000. Polish Territories of the Reichsgau Wartheland: 230,000. Eastern Upper Silesia: 238,000. Generalgouvernment: 80,000.
The map is obviously biased towards representing the German population as dominating Central Europe, it is innaccurate compared to scholary sources on ethnic distribution of Germans in the time period, and is unclear at all what time period the author means-1910 ? 1939 ? 1945 ? In all these periods the situation and distribution of German population was different due to various events relating to German colonisation attempts made in Central Europe. For example many German communities were in 1910 result of colonisation attempts by German Eastern March Society, in 1939 Poles were being expelled from their homes in Gdynia to make room for German settlers, in 1945 large parts of Poland were settled by Nazi sponsored German colonists for example in Poznan area. However as pointed out earlier this map is showing datat that other scholary maps disprove.The presentiation is made in such way that it can be seen as portaying even small presence of German settles as being the dominant ethnic group in a region, whereas it was not.For example 100,000 Germans in Pomorze are almost dominating the region according to the map(although Poles made up 1.000.000 people there) , but 530,000 Poles in German held Silesia are hardly seen as existing. It certainly can be seen as nationalisticaly biased map to serve in some disputes relating to WW2 and Polish-German issues, for example claims that some regions had German majority(due to its biased presentation) --Molobo 00:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This argument will always be biasd. Well have a look at http://csumc.wisc.edu/AmericanLanguages/german/states/wisconsin/europeanroots.htm . This would be a little bit more neutral although it is a not very detailed map. Does anybody have the "dtv-Atlas der deutschen Sprache" and can give some more detailed information? Are there other maps that support the view represented in this map? --ALE! ¿…? 07:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The map presented by you is much more neutral then the author's map and also contradicts him..There have been similiar maps but I only have seen such from Nazi era,or made during disputes over territories in 1920s period. I do have maps made at the beginning at the beginning of XX century by German sources(when it seemed unlikely Poland would be restored) and they both show much smaller German population as well as larger Polish presence in comparison to the map of the author.--Molobo 12:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- sorry the above was me, jadger [30]
- Keep - please keep nationalist and scientific items separated! --213.150.1.76 09:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Even if the map were reflecting a certain biased view, which is btw. clearly stated on the page describing the image, e.g. is says West-Prussian inhabitants were 63% German speaking per census while ethnically Germans were a minority (so we may conclude that also far more than 50% were Polish speaking giving so-and-so many bilingual people) if it is used in the right context, such as - I am brainstorming - "how Germanocentrics see/saw the German language distribution in and around Germany at a certain time in history", then it is a useful ressource. I am unable to check all the given sources, and it may be problematic to combine them, and there may be certain errors needing improvement. These improvements should rather be made, than the image deleted. Npov, btw. is not an argument not to mention pov's if they exist(ed) and are/were influential. (A personal side-note on Dutch, and German. I am grown up in a central area of the dialect continuum between Dutch, Low German, High German, and Luxembourgian. I never ever had any education in any language of those but Standard High German. Of course do I listen to Dutch radio/tv broadcasts, but it is hard for me to follow since people tend to talk too fast, and 'mumble'; but I read Dutch, Afrikaans, Luxemburgish, Low German, because of their closeness to the local language I grew up with, at a Babel level between xx-1 and xx-2 without having much writing skills leave alone practice speaking. I am very confident though, living two or three months among supportive natives would allow me to improve and handle most everydays talks in any of those languages fairly well. Thus I - and likely hundreds of thousands with me - experience a relative closeness of our own language (called German) and Dutch. So we feel it appropriate to call them related. I am certainly not a nationalist, I hate biased views disguised as (imho fake) scientific theories. Btw. if it comes to Frisian, another language group at the distance of an afternoons bike ride, my understanding is next to zilch. So while not opposing authors who state Dutch and German were close, I cannot support authors who see Frisian languages as Dutch, respective German, dialects.) --Purodha Blissenbach 09:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Property of Reuters, editorial use only. Mushroom 00:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Property of Reuters, editorial use only. Mushroom 00:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Two other images from the same author are copyvio, so this may be as well. Mushroom 00:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ugly and unsubstantial picture. Arven 1853 10:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig 10:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
kept, --Polarlys 11:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope. Arven 1853 10:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig 11:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
kept, --Polarlys 11:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio, found on the net here: http://www.handelsmagazine.net/v2/?rub=stil&markt&rubkey=114&sub=gia-Award&subkey=141&gianews=1&open=60597_SM-06-08_224xx0806sm and in other places (here: http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/1853/phmty027lu.gif, http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=340738) Rosenzweig 10:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I feel disguted to see this mass murderer's tomb 12:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC) —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.133.79 (talk • contribs)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig 12:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep No reason relevent to Commons policy presented for deleteion. The scope of Commons is not a restricted to only images that make you personally happy. -- Infrogmation 14:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept, no reason for deletion. --Kjetil r 21:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyrighted video game character (Mortal Kombat), just try a google image search or similar to find exemplary images. Rosenzweig 13:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Obvious copyvio/derivative; speedy deleted. -- Infrogmation 14:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: cv
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio, see http://www.wireimage.com/GalleryListing.asp?navtyp=CLB&str=42669&styp=clbi&sfld=&nvc=E&nvv=26945&nm=UTADA&evntI=&nbc1=1 Rosenzweig 13:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted, obvious copyviol; source says "Copyright © 2007 WireImage (A Division of Getty Images, Inc.) All Rights Reserved." -- Infrogmation 14:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: cv
Fan art, most likely copyvio using a copyrighted picture, seems to use Commons as a filehoster (see here: http://hikki.mforos.com/1225714/6245889-nuevos-subforos/) Rosenzweig 13:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted, against policy. -- Infrogmation 14:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: cv, using Commons as image host for commerical site
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looked up source on flickr page, all rights reserved for the image. That licensing isn't allowed on commons. CO2 23:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dodo 06:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate od my other image, see image:Svilan island (near Rogoznica, Croatia) 3.jpg --Ante Perkovic 13:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: duplicate or a scaled down version of Image:Svilan island (near Rogoznica, Croatia) 3.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Rename to Category:Coal mines. Naming conventions: should be plural, and probably lowercase. --Patstuart 20:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Done have put command into commons delinker. Deadstar (msg) 08:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ridiculously subjective map: see the criterion under which it was created: [31] --Patstuart 22:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete // Liftarn
- Delete. So subjective that it's outside the project scope. Its usefulness to Wikipedia was discussed here, and it was removed from en:Foreign relations of the United States. It has since been replaced by a map showing formally declared allies of the US. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 19:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unencyclopedic; Wikipedia is not a webhost. --Patstuart 20:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 11:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside of commons scope Platonides 21:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Out of scope, unused. --GeorgHH 16:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong image Rafamiga 22:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- How is it the wrong image? Patstuart 03:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept Rafamiga has removed the RDF tag form the image and has uploaded a new version. So, I think this request can be closed. --GeorgHH 16:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
private life, no possible verification, possible diffamation Mogador 02:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Pibwl 18:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 10:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture was released at Luke Ford's site, but not photographed by him (see http://www.lukeisback.com/images/photos/010110.htm), so there is no permission Rosenzweig 10:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 10:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not see any encyclopaedic value of this self-proclaimed "fan art". Rosenzweig 12:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- No opinion. There are more imaginary flags, may-be the flag has been inspired by the category? Havang 12:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- weak Keep Unless we want to delete the rest of this cat. as well. Finn Rindahl 17:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment In my opinion, imaginary flags are ok if they are or were imagined by someone who is relevant in some way for an encyclopaedia. So: if some rebel faction wants to take over whatever state and they already know what flag they want it to have afterwards, that's ok, and we should keep such flags and the corresponding category. In the case of this file, however, none of those things apply, it is a flag that comes solely from the imagination of a Commons user. I still do not see any encyclopaedic value in that. Regards --Rosenzweig 17:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Compare to this one Image:Red Europe.png, the author calls it just a joke. Havang 17:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, Commons is not a webhost. If the user was even displaying it on his userpage, or it was being used elsewhere, I would say keep. But as it is, it's not even used. Patstuart 17:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Agree with Pat. If it was being used, maybe, but it isn't!Giggy\Talk 03:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I do not know if i have yet a right to vote but in any case i wish my message to be treated here at least as a recommendation. And for the subject under discussion - i think that it doesn't hurt or take any needed space in wikicommons and for that i believe it shouldn't be deleted. who knows if it may be used in the future. Oren neu dag 13:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- plus now it is used! Oren neu dag 19:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- According to the search (be conservative clicking on that link!), it is unused on the wiki projects. Patstuart 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- plus now it is used! Oren neu dag 19:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Outside of the project scope. The image is not even close to being encyclopedic. Valentinian T / C 11:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 10:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is fanart and a fanstory, not an image. Unused. --Patstuart 20:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 11:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Does not provide sources for the 4 images. Yegoyan 22:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note: Uploader has included images identified as copyright violations in similar collages already deleted. -- Infrogmation 05:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 05:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
gif duplicate of an svg image: Image:Emblema del Govern de les Illes Balears.svg --Paucabot 11:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- So? Why should it be deleted? The images are not equal (different yellow, different leaves and border form) so we should keep both and let people choose. Platonides 22:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Because we prefer svg images to gif images; they take up less space, and they're more precise. And we don't need duplication. Patstuart 17:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Will it be ever deleted? Paucabot 19:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Because we prefer svg images to gif images; they take up less space, and they're more precise. And we don't need duplication. Patstuart 17:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept Superseded images are not deleted, and the two mentioned are not equal. Deadstar (msg) 14:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader cites this page as evidence of the image having been published under the GFDL, yet I can see no mention of GFDL on that page. In fact, I suspect point 4 states that modification is not permitted. There is also no verifiable source information. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Los contenidos de este sitio pueden ser reproducidos literalmente, siempre que se cite el dominio www.ppclm.es. Queda, en cualquier caso, prohibido modificar y/o explotar los mismos. - "The contents of thie site may be reproduced exactly, always citing www.ppclm.es. It is, in all cases, prohibited to modify the same". No derivs. Patstuart 22:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted No modification allowed, not released under GFDL as stated. Deadstar (msg) 14:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
delete --78.48.9.42 18:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - quite likely a derivative work of some sort. Patstuart 17:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I don't know what it says, but it looks like Cheney's making some sort of illicit deal. Where could it possibly used on Wikipedia? I think anywhere it's shown it would violate WP:BLP. Does Commons have a policy simliar to that? If anybody can answer that question, let me know on my talk page. Ipankonin 08:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 03:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
probably copyvio --78.48.9.42 19:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Actually appears to be legit. License for the site is here: [32] (in Spanish), where it says that everythign is released under cc-by-2.0, except those texts, images, etc taken from the press. However, it appears that the site is the author of this photo. Patstuart 17:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Site says that it is released under cc-by-2.0. Chris Down (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Kept is CC-by-2.0 --ChristianBier 09:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Villianc
[edit]This image looks like it may be unfree as a derivative work. As mentioned by User:CBDunkerson on Image talk:Villianc.svg#Copyright, this image resembles the cartoon character Snidely Whiplash, and thus may be subject to the copyright on that character. Zzyzx11 07:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Info: See Image talk:Villianc.svg. Someone else may have used the same source image, as the artist attested that a very similar work to this one was not, in fact, a derivative. grendel|khan 01:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Can you point the rest of us to an image of Snidely for comparison? - 131.211.210.13 08:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've been watching some Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons recently, and Snidely Whiplash actually has green skin! Also, the Dudley Do-right cartoons were heavily based on stock characters from old silent movies and Victorian melodrama, and so no valid exclusive copyright could be claimed on aspects of the cartoons which were directly copied from such pre-existing material (such as a generic mustachioed melodrama villain). AnonMoos 08:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a DVD screen grab, which shows that as he appears in the first three seasons of the cartoons, at least, he has green skin: en:Image:DoRightCast.JPG -- AnonMoos 13:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Has anyone else noticed that when you Google snidely whiplash, this is the image that shows up? Also, here's Snidely. It would be very helpful if someone could find a public domain character or drawing on which both Snidely and this drawing are based. Absent that, it's clearly inspired, but not a simple copy. grendel|khan 15:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I do not believe this image specifically represents Snidely Whiplash... The image uses several characteristics common to visual representation of "villains" across the years, common stereotypes that existed long before Snidely Whiplash. Both use the stereotype of the evil villain with the twirling mustache, evil grin, and suave attire complete with top-hat. They are both caricatures illustrating similar things, and the image in question is different enough, both in terms specific facial and physical characteristics, and in the intent of the author, to warrant continued inclusion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 03:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note that in Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation, the 2nd Circuit Court ruled that "copyright protection cannot be extended to the characteristics of stock characters in a story, whether it be a book, play, or film." howcheng {chat} 08:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the picture and Snidely look the same because all stereotypical villians look the same: top hat, handlebar mustache, evil grin, wringing hands... It's not a picture of Snidely, but a picture of the stock character Snidely is modeled after. I think this picture should be kept. Scoutersig 18:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I agree with Scoutersig. Yuval Y § Chat §
- Keep Any thought that this is derivitive of Snidley Whiplash is under the mistaken impression that the Snidely Whiplash originated the shared characteristics seen here. Actually when the "Dudley Dooright" cartoons with the Snidley Whiplash character first aired in the early 1960s, most adults in the audience would recognize the stock melodrama character with top hat and moustache tying helpless maidens to the railroad track (those too young to recall the silent films or earlier stage versions would have known it from the continued revival of the stock character in films like "The Villain Still Persued Her"... and that 1940s film in turn was from a pre-WWI play). The cartoon character Snidely Whiplash no more introduced the concept of a moustacheoed tophatted villain than did Dudley Dooright introduce the concept a Canadian Mountie. -- Infrogmation 22:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There's only a similarity between the two because both are based on the same concept; the similarity is a coincidence, not a derivative. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep that's one example of copyright paranoia gone too far. Are we also going to delete all images of boys in glasses because they look like Harry Potter? Madness. Grue 22:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There's different skin color, ears, nose, and chin. The only thing that's similar is the hair color, handlebar mustache, and mean look. We can't say every dark haired, mean-looking drawing with a handlebar mustache is a copyright violation of this particular character. There are tons of characters the look similar to that. As Jeffrey claimed, this is an "evil character" stereotype, so they're all bound to look similar. Hmwith 23:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The text content of the sign is likely coopyrighted by the Fine Arts Department, and the photograph is therefore a derivative work. Paul_012 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It seems to me that Vietnam does have "freedom of panorama", see the new section COM:FOP#Vietnam. Lupo 08:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Phra That Phanom is in Thailand, where freedom of panorama applies to works of art, not including text. Paul_012 (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- PD-ThaiGov: "made by the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units" -- This user loves Krittaya. 07:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please do not quote out of context; it might be taken as bad faith. The sign is not "Regulations, by-laws, notifications, orders, explanations and official correspondence". --Paul_012 (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry. I am "en-1". --This user loves Krittaya. 09:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. If if this is included among published works of the fine or applied arts or photographs, if the works have already been publicly displayed for "introduction purposes" (quote COM:FOP) – and I am unsure if it is! – I still consider it unuseful for inclusion on Commons and I can't see what purpose it could have on any Wikiproject. / Fred J (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete text only in image/photo -- This user loves Krittaya. 09:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Majorly (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Below are 3 maps created by Micheal Postmann, a German banned on the German Wikipedia (link) for an indefinite period of time for POV-PUSHING, using DOUBTFULL SOURCES and EUPHEMISING NAZISM and was said to DAMAGE WIKIPEDIA. He was not however banned from other projects, such as Wikimedia commons. Now I know that this information alone is not enough to remove these images below, people can change (though this one definately did not) so individual reasons are listed below.
For those who are planning to oppose the deletion, remember this: No matter how usefull a map can be for a subject, or how pretty they look. They are lies, and lies harm all wikipedias and those who read them.Rex 15:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Beweise von dir, mein Lieber :-)
- (Sonst machst du dich des Rufmordes schuldig!) -- Postmann Michael 13:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- PS:Elian, die dumme Kuh, ist des Beweises immer noch schuldig... -- Postmann Michael 13:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep All Invalid reason to delete. Our images do not have to be NPOV. We're not the ones saying these are fact or even verifiable. (If we are in image descriptions, we shouldn't be) We just host the images. It's up to others to decide if these images fit their purpose. If you have a problem with some image, don't use it. Why is that so hard? Or fix it. We're not hear to decide what is or isn't "correct". We let our users decide. I didn't have to look at the images. We can have completely fictional maps. As long as it's free and there's some use for it (which there currently is for these), we keep it. NPOV-pushing is just as wrong as POV-pushing. We don't need to examine our files with any POV. They just are whatever they are. Take it, leave it, or fix it. Rocket000 04:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Totally and completely: Unreferenced.
- Treats Dutch and Frisian as being German.
- Overall German POV-pushing.
- Treats the Nazi-German occupation of Poland as expansion of the German language area.
- Bad English.
Rex 15:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wie wäre es mit "Die deutsche Ostsiedlung" (1989), "Kleine Geschichte der Deutschen" (1989) oder auch "Die Verbreitung der Deutschen 1888" von Nabert? Der Rest von dem Gedöns ist hier uninteressant!
- Am besten durch ndl. und poln.-tsch. POV ersetzen, dann hat die Mimose ihre Ruh'. -- Postmann Michael 13:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- PS:Ausserdem stand in der ursprünglichen Beschreibung "sogenannte deutsche Ostsiedlung"...wenn man richtig lesen könnte, Rex...
- ist ja leider nicht mehr herzustellen, du Mimöschen :-) -- Postmann Michael 13:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am sympathetic to your claims, Rex, but it does not appear to treat Dutch or Frisian as German languages, at least not in the present. However, it does foolishly treat the Nazi-German occupation of Poland as a German language area. I thus reluctantly call for Delete, as it can be encyclopedic, and it is unsourced, without prejudice to recreation with sources. As for the POV pushing, it is a problem: it treats areas not owned by Germany, if they speak German, as German linguistic, but if an area is owned by Germany, but doesn't speak German, it's also treated as German. This is a double-standard, and thus calls for deletion. Patstuart 17:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. —Angr 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Related images also up for deletion
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- The image is unsourced, despite the myriad of supposed "references" (backed up by terrible English). The image claims to portray the German language area of 1910. However, it says it based on the 1910 National census of Germany (German Empire). The national cannot provide information on any linguistic situation outside the borders of the country it was held in. This one does however, in fact it portrays the German language in France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, Denmark, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria-Hungary, Liechtenstein, Italy and Russia. 11 country's more than the source could ever account for.
- This map portrays 2 independant languages, as German: The Dutch language (with a documented history of 1500 years) and the Frisian language (a documented history of over 1200 years).
- From what I can make out from the terribly written summary, this map uses information from different censuses and the locators on German speaking populations were drawn at random and give a gross simplification of the linguistic situation in Poland.
- Overall German POV-pushing.
Rex 15:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Genau!
- Und jetzt folgt die Niederländische!
- Schwachsinn *lol* -- Postmann Michael 13:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I hate to call for delete based on this kind of argument, but Postmann's flippant response above, the fact that he's banned on German Wikipedia, and the fact that he has other improper images lend me to trust Rex's arguments that he's a POV pusher more than anything Postmann has said. Patstuart 17:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Given the history of this file (110 deleted edits!) and its heavy use (14 sites, 31 pages), I don't think deleting it is the best thing to do. →Яocket°°° 09:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Again based on a national census, this time of 1919, but again showing information on German speakers outside of Germany.
- Overall German POV-pushing.
- German and English are mixed in the map, which not only makes this ugly map hard too read, it also makes it look unreliable. (which it of course is)
Rex 15:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Welche "Volkszählung"? Polnische, Ungarische oder Russische? (Komisch, ich habe die Ergebnisse von 1910-39 ... bei mir stehen andere Zahlen *LOL*
- Keine Quelle, aber viel Phantasie...
- kauf dir anständige Bücher und Atlanten, mein Guter :-) -- Postmann Michael 21:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- PS: Ich schreibe hier wie ich es will! EOD -- Postmann Michael 13:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete See my comments above. Keine Quelle, aber viel Phantasie... : No source, but a lot of imagination ... says it all. Postmann, if you could try to put together a better response, you might get more sympathy. Patstuart 17:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. The original has been restored (Rex's version), so I'm not sure if there's still reason for deletion and he tag has already been removed, so I'm just closing this up. →Яocket°°° 09:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- delete all - where are the "Quellen" (sorry) for this Images? --Marcela (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- For sources (and more discussions), see Image:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG.--Matthead (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Map consists of false data (exaggerates German linguistic area, doesn't show mixed linguistic areas, considering them as full-German), author doesn't give any sources (no wonder ;-) 79.189.230.42 14:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. In use on 14 wikis. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
That's NOT an argument! It just means that on 14 wikis there is a misleading information!!!
- Please read COM:PS#"Neutral point of view". --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- England should also be in green, at least before AD 1066. Sv1xv (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Dont you know what means "The request is closed"? Next time anyone will edit I'll protect the page! abf /talk to me/ 19:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
October 7
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Cover for a book or CD. Either way it appears to be fair use, which is not allowed on commons. No source to check. CO2 00:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I found the source. It appears that the Commons user, the Flickr user, and the copyright holder are the same individual, an unnamed Internet publicist for Hip Hop / Hardcore / Christian musical group, record label, and ministry Hostyle Gospel Ministries, spreading the word about Christ. The best way to do that on Commons when referencing Flickr is to use tag {{self|cc-by-sa-2.0|author=[[user:Hostyle Gospel{{!}}Hostyle Gospel]]}} and write "I also uploaded this image to Flickr as <URL>". — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: In category Unknown as of 29 September 2007; no source
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a contemporary monument, therefore it is copyrighted. No FOP in Italy. --User:G.dallorto 02:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image can't be self-license it's an art. Is it PD-art? if not maybe deleted OsamaK 03:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The sculpture is old enough to be in the Public Domain. But a photograph of such a three-dimensional piece of art is a new work and the photographer is owner of copyright to this image. --Herbert Ortner 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 10:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image can't be self-license it's an art. Is it PD-art? if not maybe deleted OsamaK 03:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The sculpture is old enough to be in the Public Domain. But a photograph of such a three-dimensional piece of art is a new work and the photographer is owner of copyright to this image. --Herbert Ortner 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 10:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wiedergabe [...] bedarf der ausdrücklichen Genehmigung durch den Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe is not GFDL --78.49.171.96 07:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
image kept, license replaced with {{PD-Coa-Germany}} --ALE! ¿…? 14:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unencyclopedic Unused looks copyrighted OsamaK 11:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphand own photo OsamaK 11:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphand own photo OsamaK 11:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's not own work. it's from www.superschool.de as written. it's copyrightes OsamaK 13:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"It's fair-use."! OsamaK 19:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, fixed!--OsamaK 19:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
closed --ALE! ¿…? 10:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned own photo OsamaK 13:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/07 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned own photo OsamaK 13:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/07 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned own photo OsamaK 13:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/07 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned own photo OsamaK 13:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/07 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned own photo OsamaK 13:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/07 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned own photo OsamaK 13:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/07 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned own photo OsamaK 13:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/07 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned own photo OsamaK 13:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/07 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 13:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/07 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned Unencyclopedic OsamaK 13:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/07 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 13:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/07 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 13:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Pibwl 18:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/07 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 14:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Pibwl 18:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/07 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 14:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Pibwl 18:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/07 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 14:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Pibwl 18:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/07 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Commons isn't photo album and we don't need it. OsamaK 08:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is needed for user's personal page. Keep -- Simplicius 18:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Which one? According to CheckUsage, it's an orphan. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- The user is an artist and photographer in the German wikipedia changing her illustrations regularly.
- We are quite happy to have her photos and articles. -- Simplicius 01:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Yann 22:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep We want Julica to keep uploading her great photos. Deleting them will put her off. Check out her credentials on her personal gallery before you make a decision. --Fb78 22:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep yau! __ ABF __ ▼☺☻▲ 13:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 14:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's unencyclopedic and unused (We hope users upload high quality, used and encyclopedic images not high quality only!). Please, do not close the request early..--OsamaK 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Fb78 and __ ABF __. And it's not an orphan any more. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I do not care about de.wp ;). we are in Commons ,and when we delete this image he will gives us better photos!--OsamaK 12:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- she - Julica is undoubtedly a she. :)
- I do not care about de.wp ;). we are in Commons ,and when we delete this image he will gives us better photos!--OsamaK 12:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep see above. part of serial from Berlin. Simplicius 20:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Yours,--Horstovich (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC) --Horstovich
kept --ALE! ¿…? 10:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Low-quality image that has been superseded in quality by Image:Nat West media centre cropped.jpg. All pages that had linked to this image have since been changed to said image. --IanManka 21:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Agree. Samulili 12:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
kept, the image is in use (besides there is no reason to delete the image) --ALE! ¿…? 10:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Picture is made solely to harrass and annoy high ambitious reenactment and LARP people (called Costume Fascists) by comparing them to nazis (replace coif with swastika and you have the nazi German flag). Image is uploded by a useraccount created solely for this purpouse. Pic is not used on any Wikipedia. 217.208.68.122 03:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Vanity insult/prank image, not in use in any Wikimedia project. -- Infrogmation 19:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned own photo OsamaK 13:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Cool!)) I hotly kiss you (in deserted caves). Why "Orphaned own photo"?)) The image has, intended for this illustration, a place.))) You could not find any more - why only one? --Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff 18:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Since this request, it has been used on several wiki-projects. Moreover, Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff has written at least two books (ISBN 0972126600 and ISBN 097212666X) and for this single reason, this image should be kept for possible encyclopedic use. — Xavier, 21:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Free licenced self portrait of active user is allowed. I was about to close this as a keep, but I notice the uploader has been indefinately blocked as a repeat problem user, so I am going ahead and deleting it. -- Infrogmation 01:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, but not for reason of request. -- Infrogmation 01:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright Violation. More infos on the image's talk page. See also http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117962360.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 and http://www.rieti.go.jp/it/column/column030304.html for example of an actual, contemporary trial against a company that used AK works as PD. More discussion here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk_archive/2007Apr#Are_pre-1953_Japaneses_films_ok_for_us_.3F --Benjamin.pineau 17:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- update: the Toho vs. Cosmo Content case as been settled in court. The Tokyo District Court settled, on Septembre 14 2007, that Akira Kurosawa works won't be public domain until Decembre 31, 2036 (the end of the 38th civil year after AK death). Here are references, from three differents sources: eiga.com, Asahi Shimbun, Nikkei Inc.. So clearly (and sadly), those pictures are copyright violation. Benjamin.pineau 12:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 23:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright Violation. More infos on the image's talk page. See also http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117962360.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 and http://www.rieti.go.jp/it/column/column030304.html for example of an actual, contemporary trial against a company that used AK works as PD. More discussion here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk_archive/2007Apr#Are_pre-1953_Japaneses_films_ok_for_us_.3F --Benjamin.pineau 18:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- update: the Toho vs. Cosmo Content case as been settled in court. The Tokyo District Court settled, on Septembre 14 2007, that Akira Kurosawa works won't be public domain until Decembre 31, 2036 (the end of the 38th civil year after AK death). Here are references, from three differents sources: eiga.com, Asahi Shimbun, Nikkei Inc.. So clearly (and sadly), those pictures are copyright violation. Benjamin.pineau 12:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Any chance of an English language article of this decision? feydey (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, here you are : [40], [41], [42]. Benjamin.pineau 11:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest a delete based on the news items above. feydey (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, here you are : [40], [41], [42]. Benjamin.pineau 11:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Any chance of an English language article of this decision? feydey (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 23:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright Violation. More infos on the image's talk page. See also http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117962360.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 and http://www.rieti.go.jp/it/column/column030304.html for example of an actual, contemporary trial against a company that used AK works as PD. More discussion here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk_archive/2007Apr#Are_pre-1953_Japaneses_films_ok_for_us_.3F --Benjamin.pineau 18:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per this AP story reproduced by CBS News. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- comment: This judgment was about American movies distributed in Japan, not about movies produced in Japan. And that was in 2006. Since then, the "Toho vs. Cosmo" trial as settled things more accurately, specifically about Akira Kuroswa's works. Look my comments above (or just see the sources, from serious Japaneses newspapers : eiga.com, Asahi Shimbun, Nikkei Inc.) : AK works won't be public domain until 2036, as per the latest judgement. Benjamin.pineau 12:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 23:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned own photo OsamaK 13:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Files by User:Fijojose: Image:P1010013.JPG, Image:P1010028.JPG and Image:Sit.jpg - Private collection, against Commons:Project scope, all unused. --GeorgHH 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 13:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- could be used for some project. --ALE! ¿…? 10:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept Usable image. --GeorgHH 17:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
kbz 91.121.2.175 16:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Kept "kbz" is no valid reason. Test by an IP-user. --GeorgHH 17:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Text and drawing look very recent, therefore they are most likely copyrighted, alas. --User:G.dallorto 02:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 04:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Flags must be SVG. there is SVG one OsamaK 14:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- On what do you base this "must be SVG"-rule? --ALE! ¿…? 09:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Only because an alternate is available, and SVG is preferred over non-SVG in cases where both are available. Giggy\Talk 01:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- And where is this rule written down on Commons? We had discussions before, that we do NOT delete superseded images. --ALE! ¿…? 10:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the superseded image. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is a flag outline, different from the SVG-version. Havang 10:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image can't be self-license it's an art. Is it PD-art? if not maybe deleted OsamaK 11:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Changed to PD-Art MichaelMaggs 09:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of a copyrighted television character. I don't think these puppets qualify as utilitarian objects. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hm, I'd forgotten I uploaded this. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure. Looking at COM:DW... it's got utilitarian aspects, in that they're devices designed to perform a function, but copyright protection might extend to the specific design elements of the puppets even though their general puppet-ness isn't protected. I guess you could also treat them as sculptures of a sort, since they're currently objects on display in a museum, and not actively in use for their designed purpose. I don't know. Maybe it'd be better to upload them locally to the various Wikiprojects using them, with the free license to cover distribution and a fair use rationale to cover any copyright claims over their specific design elements? -Hit bull, win steak 14:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, it's being used on seven different projects (six in article space). Is there a master list somewhere of who accepts fair use and who doesn't? -Hit bull, win steak 20:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks; looks like EN is the only one where it's kosher. Is there a way to directly transfer this, or does it need to be deleted and re-uploaded? -Hit bull, win steak 15:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - This cannot be treated as derivative because it is moving from 3d to 2d - I.E. I could not use this image to cause the corporation that owns the copyright on the puppet to lose a commercial opportunity. - I could not go and use this image to make a muppet show with the Swedish Chef in it. I would have to make a puppet first, the puppet would be the breach of copyright, not the image of this one. Fosnez (Wikipedia) 10:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a good fair use claim can be made for en:Wikipedia, but I think this is still unfree derviative by Commons criteria. The only purpose of the image is to show the copyrighted character. -- Infrogmation 04:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It's a derivative. --GeorgHH • talk 16:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Also. Image:Tanum City Arms.svg
Although the top image is a specific pice of rock art the lower one is an artists composition of many different rock art images of ships ("Skeppet är en sammansmältning från alla de skepp som ristats på tanumshällarna"). As such the whole CoA becomes a copyvio. Lokal_Profil 17:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- A free alternative exists on Tanum vapen.svg. /Lokal_Profil 17:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Very fine alternative. Delete as creator/uploader / Fred J 18:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete // Liftarn
- Comment Wouldn't the reason for this request not also impact the SVG version of it? Deadstar (msg) 14:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- It would affect Image:Tanum City Arms.svg but not Image:Tanum vapen.svg. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tanum City Arms.png has now been directed here. /Lokal_Profil 14:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Same as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tanum City Arms.png Lokal_Profil 17:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete // Liftarn
Deletion request has been merged with Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tanum City Arms.png
Deleted / Fred J (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
PD-Self, but is a derivative work of image:Image:Wikipedia-logo.png and other non-pd content. --Syrcro 21:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept, w:de minimis. The logo is an insignificant part of the work, both in intention and substance. -- Polbot (by Quadell) 02:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
October 8
[edit]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.
Looks like a scan from a catalog. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S10.JPG gives no source, only PD-self tag. Image found at http://silvia14.fc2web.com/photo/silvia_car.html, the "home" link there is http://tv.ftn-jp.com/silvia14/ which says Copyright (C) 2002 Takamasa. --GeorgHH 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted : 19:55, 8. Okt. 2007 Flominator hat „Image:S10.JPG“ gelöscht (copyvio) --GeorgHH 20:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I think the background of this image is copyrighted by the French Geoportail or the Institut géographique national. I don't think, without explicit and proved permission, that the uploader has the rights regarding this image. --Hégésippe | ±Θ± 03:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. My picture respect the charter on the descended pictures of site géoportail: it makes less 1 millions of pixels and I specified in the legend of the photo © IGN PARIS 2007. Besides I have worked this picture while inserting the text.--Mathieu346 18:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Where is this "charter on the descended pictures of site géoportail", and where is the exact source? Without any real proof, it's impossible to be sure of the reality of what you say. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 00:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Images from Géoportail copyrighted and cannot be used on Commons. Image deleted. le Korrigan →bla 00:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. le Korrigan →bla 00:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I think this image is copyrighted by Patrickk CHEVALLIER, as seen on http://clochers.org/Fichiers_HTML/Photos_clochers/21/c21429_02.htm. I don't think, without explicit and proved permission, that the uploader has the rights regarding this image. --Hégésippe | ±Θ± 03:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted, clear copyvio (copied from website). le Korrigan →bla 00:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. le Korrigan →bla 00:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 03:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image seems to be a scan from a postcard, for example. I have doubts about the fact that the uploader has the rights regarding this image. --Hégésippe | ±Θ± 03:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep.This picture is well a scan from has postcard and I have the creator's permission.--Mathieu346 | 19:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Where is this permission? Hégésippe | ±Θ± 23:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Permissions should be forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The image will be restored if the permission is valid. le Korrigan →bla 00:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. le Korrigan →bla 00:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image seems to be a scan from a postcard, for example. I have doubts about the fact that the uploader has the rights regarding this image. --Hégésippe | ±Θ± 03:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep.This picture is well a scan from has postcard and I have the creator's permission.--Mathieu346 19:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Where is this permission? Hégésippe | ±Θ± 23:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Permissions should be forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The image will be restored if the permission is valid. le Korrigan →bla 00:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. le Korrigan →bla 00:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
uploaded identical version at Image:TransAmerica (board game).jpg to avoid name conflict with en wikipedia — Timothy (not Tim, dagnabbit!) 01:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC) ---
- deleted by ALE! - duplicate. Deadstar (msg) 08:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused bad cropping OsamaK 03:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned unencyclopedic OsamaK 03:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned, it same Image:Alvaro.jpg and no source (source gives this version) OsamaK 03:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
privat person fred Graphicos 08:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The nomination translates to personality rights, I can't see that that's an issue here though. If many are concerned about this I suppose we could blur some of the recognisable faces. Finn Rindahl 10:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Genügt das? Fingalo 19:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 15:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Real text: "Contributors or homosexualists: who's side are you on?" ~ putnik 14:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete this attack image. — Kalan ? 04:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted per nom as attack image. Deadstar (msg) 15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
mmm, is this encyclopedic? it's orphaned too. OsamaK 19:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted on 15 October 2007 by User:ALE! (deleted "Image:Beautifullybrokengirl.jpg" (as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/08 (out of scope))) Deadstar (msg) 15:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong title Sebastian Wallroth 20:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please use the {{rename image|bettername.jpg}} tag. --ALE! ¿…? 12:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong title (tabarz --> tambach-dietharz) Sebastian Wallroth 21:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
tagged with {{rename image}} --ALE! ¿…? 10:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image can't be self-license it's an art. Is it PD-art? if not maybe deleted OsamaK 09:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think you got confused. The work of art is in the PD (PD-Art, then), the pictures was made by the uploader, who uploaded it under a very normal Creative Commons license. Please don't nominate firther images for the same reason, since you have misunderstood the way licenses work. --User:G.dallorto 03:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 13:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
See Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2005/03#Swedish_money. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion discussion should also cover Image:200 kr swedish coin back.jpg and Image:200 kr swedish coin front.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The page on Sveriges Riksbank only talks about banknotes and not coins. /Daniel78 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at the previous deletion discussion, it looks as though the Riksbanken page may have changed. In any case, you would have to demonstrate that the coin is not protected by copyright or that its copyright holder has issued a license compatible with CC-by-sa for it. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sveriges Riksbank also provide high resolution images of the current coins without mentioning copyright, like at here. I'll write a mail and ask to see if I get any information about it, I can't see any clear message one way or the other now regarding coins on their homepage. It would be great to know for future discussions as well. /Daniel78 21:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- The Berne convention does not require a copyright notice for a work to be protected by copyright. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Reply from riksbanken
[edit]In Swedish:
Det gäller i princip samma regler för mynt som för sedlar. Då du redan hittat sidan som diskuterar efterbildning av sedlar har du säkert också sett att det inte finns några svenska regler som anger hur sedlar & mynt kan efterbildas utan att efterbildningen kan komma att falla under brottsbalkens bestämmelser. Du har antagligen också sett att Riksbanken varken kan godkänna eller avslå begäran om tillstånd att efterbilda sedlar & mynt då det alltid finns en risk för att efterbildningen kan komma att användas i bedrägligt syfte, d.v.s. som en penningförfalskning. Vad som är otillåtet bestäms ytterst av åklagare och domstol.
Till ovanstående kan läggas frågekomplexet med att efterbildningar utan tillstånd kan komma att strida mot den konstnärliga upphovrätten, designers/gravörers immateriella rättigheter. Det finns pågående rättsliga processer gällande sådana frågor.
Short summary: The same rules apply for coins as for banknotes. Thus not allowed.
/Daniel78 15:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Riksbanken's reply focuses mostly on the possibility of counterfeit, which is not a concern of ours because a copyright licence is never to be understood as an authorisation to create works that violate the law. Even ignoring those concerns, though, the most important point here is that Riksbanken notes that "unauthorised copying may violate the artistic copyright and the immaterial rights of designers and engravers." In other words, they do not feel that they are even authorised to sublicense the work. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per reply from Riksbanken. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image can't be self-license it's an art. Is it PD-art? if not maybe deleted OsamaK 09:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- it:Beato Angelico died 1455. Improve the descriptions and Keep (also those below). Lupo 13:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- nice, so {{PD-old}}?--OsamaK 13:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- The original fresco is certainly {{PD-old}}. I don't know whether {{PD-Art}} applies in Italy; if so, it might be applicable to some of these images (those that would be pure reproductions). Note that an image that shows more than just the fresco (as this one, which includes parts of the building) is not a case for {{PD-Art}} anyway. And if {{PD-Art}} does not apply in Italy, the current dual-licensing as GFDL and cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0 is fine. Just give {{Creator:Fra Angelico}} as the author of the painting, and the uploader as the author of the photo. BTW, interestingly, the painter appears to have produced several versions of this painting: Image:Fra Angelico 095.jpg. Lupo 14:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- nice, so {{PD-old}}?--OsamaK 13:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image can't be self-license it's an art. Is it PD-art? if not maybe deleted OsamaK 09:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think you got confused. The work of art is in the PD (PD-Art, then), the pictures was made by the uploader, who uploaded it under a very normal Creative Commons license. Please don't nominate firther images for the same reason, since you have misunderstood the way licenses work. --User:G.dallorto 03:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image can't be self-license it's an art. Is it PD-art? if not maybe deleted OsamaK 09:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think you got confused. The work of art is in the PD (PD-Art, then), the pictures was made by the uploader, who uploaded it under a very normal Creative Commons license. Please don't nominate firther images for the same reason, since you have misunderstood the way licenses work. --User:G.dallorto 03:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image can't be self-license it's an art. Is it PD-art? if not maybe deleted OsamaK 10:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- tag it as you want but please keep --Sailko 18:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think you got confused. The work of art is in the PD (PD-Art, then), the pictures was made by the uploader, who uploaded it under a very normal Creative Commons license. Please don't nominate firther images for the same reason, since you have misunderstood the way licenses work. --User:G.dallorto 03:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 12:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 12:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Template:{{PD-GermanGov}} should be the license of choice! --Herbert Ortner 20:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- As long as the source supports PD-GermanGov, keep. /Lokal_Profil 09:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as {{PD-GermanGov}} --DarkFalls talk 06:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept with license changed to PD-GermanGov per above. -- Infrogmation 19:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 12:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 12:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- As noted in the picture description, the author was notified on the use of a derivated work of this picture in WP on July 23, 2007. As he did not protest, I do not think there is real reason to delete. What other kind of PD or license might be more appropriate, I do not know. Maybe something like "attribution required"? But I'm through with it and won't care anyways. 213.47.146.118 08:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Someone needs to check the OTRS ticket and then the image can possibly be retagged as PD-Author. But the current license is simply wrong. /Lokal_Profil 13:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you're talking about "Commons:OTRS": there never was sent an email to Commons, and, for lack of any chance, not to the author, either. He was notified within his BLOG, within my (uploader's) capabilities, but did not answer up to now. Sorry. -- 213.47.146.118 17:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- OK, my misstake, I saw the link and the padlock and assumed OTRS. Anyhow I'm sad to say that informing and not getting a NO is not the same as getting a yes so therefor he technically has not allowed the image to be used. And as such I must suggest Delete. /Lokal_Profil 23:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, for the enWP, the "Fair-use" will apply anyways. As far as I see, it's just used in frWP, besides, so, do as you like. Maybe, however, one could just "forget" about deleting it for a while, say, 90 years or so -- in favour of the French ;). -- 213.47.146.118 14:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, my misstake, I saw the link and the padlock and assumed OTRS. Anyhow I'm sad to say that informing and not getting a NO is not the same as getting a yes so therefor he technically has not allowed the image to be used. And as such I must suggest
- If you're talking about "Commons:OTRS": there never was sent an email to Commons, and, for lack of any chance, not to the author, either. He was notified within his BLOG, within my (uploader's) capabilities, but did not answer up to now. Sorry. -- 213.47.146.118 17:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Someone needs to check the OTRS ticket and then the image can possibly be retagged as PD-Author. But the current license is simply wrong. /Lokal_Profil 13:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted:No permission to use the file with PD ineligible (which is sure wrong). --GeorgHH 09:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image can't be self-license it's an art. Is it PD-art? if not maybe deleted OsamaK 09:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think you got confused. The work of art is in the PD (PD-Art, then), the pictures was made by the uploader, who uploaded it under a very normal Creative Commons license. Please don't nominate firther images for the same reason, since you have misunderstood the way licenses work. --User:G.dallorto 03:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image can't be self-license it's an art. Is it PD-art? if not maybe deleted OsamaK 09:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think you got confused. The work of art is in the PD (PD-Art, then), the pictures was made by the uploader, who uploaded it under a very normal Creative Commons license. Please don't nominate firther images for the same reason, since you have misunderstood the way licenses work. --User:G.dallorto 03:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image can't be self-license it's an art. Is it PD-art? if not maybe deleted OsamaK 09:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think you got confused. The work of art is in the PD (PD-Art, then), the pictures was made by the uploader, who uploaded it under a very normal Creative Commons license. Please don't nominate firther images for the same reason, since you have misunderstood the way licenses work. --User:G.dallorto 03:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image can't be self-license it's an art. Is it PD-art? if not maybe deleted OsamaK 09:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think you got confused. The work of art is in the PD (PD-Art, then), the pictures was made by the uploader, who uploaded it under a very normal Creative Commons license. Please don't nominate firther images for the same reason, since you have misunderstood the way licenses work. --User:G.dallorto 03:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image can't be self-license it's an art. Is it PD-art? if not maybe deleted OsamaK 09:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think you got confused. The work of art is in the PD (PD-Art, then), the picture was made by the uploader, who uploaded it under a very normal Creative Commons license. Please don't nominate further images for the same reason, since you have misunderstood the way licenses work. --User:G.dallorto 03:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image can't be self-license it's an art. Is it PD-art? if not maybe deleted OsamaK 09:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think you got confused. The work of art is in the PD (PD-Art, then), the pictures was made by the uploader, who uploaded it under a very normal Creative Commons license. Please don't nominate firther images for the same reason, since you have misunderstood the way licenses work. --User:G.dallorto 03:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image can't be self-license it's an art. Is it PD-art? if not maybe deleted OsamaK 09:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think you got confused. The work of art is in the PD (PD-Art, then), the pictures was made by the uploader, who uploaded it under a very normal Creative Commons license. Please don't nominate firther images for the same reason, since you have misunderstood the way licenses work. --User:G.dallorto 03:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image can't be self-license it's an art. Is it PD-art? if not maybe deleted OsamaK 09:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think you got confused. The work of art is in the PD (PD-Art, then), the pictures was made by the uploader, who uploaded it under a very normal Creative Commons license. Please don't nominate firther images for the same reason, since you have misunderstood the way licenses work. --User:G.dallorto 03:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 12:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 12:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, nsd since 11 Nov. -- Infrogmation 23:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 12:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 12:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Angr: In category Unknown as of 11 November 2007; not edited for 17 days
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not see any reason why this map should not be eligible for copyright. ALE! ¿…? 12:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Was sollte an der Karte unter copyright stehen? Die Küstenlinie? die Farben? die Grenze? oder die Schrifttypen?
- Grüße, --Createaccount 19:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Das Gesamtwerk. --ALE! ¿…? 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Ich sehe keinen Grund diese Zeichnung als ein "Gesamtwerk" zu betrachten. Als Schüler habe ich mehrmals solche Landkarten gezeichnet. An einem Copyright habe ich nie gedacht. --Createaccount 19:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Du hast ehrlich gesagt keine Ahnung von Copyright. Lies hier mal im Community portal etwas. Vielleicht verstehst Du dann so manches. --ALE! ¿…? 23:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Kannst Du das bitte begründen ohne die persönliche Eigenschaften des Gesprächspartners anzugreifen?. Ich mag das nicht. (de:Ad hominem zu argumentieren).
Wenn ich eine Karte wie "Cabodehornos.jpg" erstelle, darf ich die Karte nicht zeigen ?. Solche Karten gab es vor der Isaac Rojas und wird noch weiter geben. Man kann mir nicht verbieten eine Karte vom Feuerland zu erstellen und der Unterschied zwischen meiner selbst hergestellten Karte und dem Foto aus dem Buch ist verschwindend klein. Die drei Karten die ich hochgeladen habe, haben keinen technischen, künstlerischen, typographishen, geographischen oder sonstigen Wert der heute unter copyright stehen kann. Das Interesse an die Karten liegt in ihrer politischen Brisanz.
--[[User:Createaccount]] 18:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Dass es ein Interesse gibt, diese Karten zu zeigen ist mir schon klar. Dass es aber auch Interesse der Urheberrechtsinhaber gibt müßte Dir auch klar sein, oder? Oder bist Du der Meinung, dass Du beispielsweise einfach eine Karte von Falk scannen und auf Deiner persönlichen Website verwenden darfst und dann ohne Strafe davonkommst? Überlege mal. --ALE! ¿…? 09:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Falk hat sich die Mühe gemacht die Strassen zu kartografieren oder diese Information zu kaufen. Diese Information, was in diesen Fall die Essenz des Schützenswertes ausmacht, ist woanders noch nicht verfügbar (de:OpenStreeMap). Deswegen bazahlen wir dafür.
Das ist nicht der Fall von Küstenlinien. Sie sind frei vorhanden (de:GMT), also ich bezahle nicht für die Küstenlinien. Auch nicht für die Farben oder die Schrifttypen. Es bleibt also die Frage ob das ein Kunstwerk oder eine komplizierte Theorie oder ein Werk, das zu schützen gilt. Ich kann da in deisem Sinne nicht schützenswertes sehen. Das einzig neue, originelles, ist die politische Aussage.
[[User:Createaccount]] 18:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Copyrighted book cover. --GeorgHH 17:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 12:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 12:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Tag has been changed to "PD-Germany"; closing as kept. -- Infrogmation 04:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 12:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 12:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted also unsourced. -- Infrogmation 04:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not see any reason, why this map should not be eligible for copyright. ALE! ¿…? 12:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Was sollte an der Karte unter copyright stehen? Die Küstenlinie? die Farben? die Grenze? oder die Schrifttypen?
- Grüße, --Createaccount 19:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Das Gesamtwerk. Zum Zeitpunkt der Erstellung (1967) war dies keine einfache Sache. --ALE! ¿…? 20:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Mit es:Generic Mapping Tools kann man heute dieselbe Karte in Sekunden zeichnen. Trotzdem sind sie frei. Früher waren die Logaritmen unverzichtbar und man mußte dafür die entsprechende Bücher mit dem Tabellen kaufen, aber heute jede Taschenrechner bietet sie an, ohne Gebühr dafür zu kassieren. --[[User:Createaccount]] 20:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 05:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:COE flag.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 12:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 12:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Retagged with proper PD tag. /Lokal_Profil 12:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, seen. VIGNERON * discut. 11:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 12:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 12:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've now corrected the license on this and Image:Barn-Ogi-Sensu.svg. For other license issues, could you please ping my talk page rather than simply proposing the file for deletion? Regards, Stannered 12:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about that it's just that I've discovered that unless the image is tagged for deletion no one seems to care. But if I come across any more of you're images I'll try to remember to go to you're talk page instead. /Lokal_Profil 12:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, seen, Keep. VIGNERON * discut. 11:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, seen,
- Sorry about that it's just that I've discovered that unless the image is tagged for deletion no one seems to care. But if I come across any more of you're images I'll try to remember to go to you're talk page instead. /Lokal_Profil 12:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
See Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2005/03#Swedish_money. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- In the discussion you are referring to, there is no evidence which would imply that images of Swedish coins would breach copyright. The document referred to in that discussion is concerned with avoiding unintentional counterfeiting of bills by reproducing images of same. Thus, the image of the coin should not be deleted. Alfons Åberg 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- There's no evidence to suggest that it wouldn't breach copyright; all creative works are covered by copyright unless somehow explicitly excluded. Also see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:200 kr swedish coin front white.jpg, wherein Riksbanken does mention copyright concerns. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per the letter from Riskbanken. Note that it in the last sentence says that there are court cases about "such cases" as the artistical copyright.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is not a license tag. It's only used for one image, which has no valid license tag. -- Prince Kassad 20:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No images on Commons seem to use it at present. -- Infrogmation 05:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Fred J (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
fr:Juliette Drouet says, that the author is not James Pradier, but Léon Noël. I have no idea, who is right -- Mutter Erde 08:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think I can make out a signature on the right that says "Noël". But that's not a reason to delete it. Re-upload under a correct name, give {{Creator:Léon Noël}} as the author, and then tag this one with {{badname}}. Lupo 13:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
kept, --Fred J (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 12:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 12:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Fred J (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 12:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 12:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- delete : no source + unclear copyright status Peter17 18:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
its a wrong picture, with mistake on it. the 23 rd letter , უ, ("U") does not have a numerical value. it wrong. and it makes a golden ratio, the point of golden ratio is made by this letter U უ in our alphabet. check out this [real] picture of Georgian alphabet : ka:Image:Anbani.png --151.202.35.228 20:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Majorly (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Upload error - not a free licensed file. Augustin B. 11:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
deleted by uploader's request --ALE! ¿…? 15:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This map could by {{PD-AR-Anonymous}} in 2032. But it is definitvly not PD-inelgible. ALE! ¿…? 12:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Por que?
- Warum nicht?
- Saludos, --Createaccount 19:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Maps are also copyrightable works. --ALE! ¿…? 19:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Ja, aber doch nicht diese: 224 × 167 pixel, file size: 79 KB. --[[User:Createaccount]] 20:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- We do NOT ha´ve a "fair use" policy on Commons. --ALE! ¿…? 15:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per ALE!. -- Cecil 09:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 12:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 12:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I did not found any legal text mentioning a copyright regarding the bills and coins emitted by the Central Bank of Tunisia. In addition, this bill has been emitted by the old regime of president Bourguiba and can't be found easily as all bills have been replaced since 1987. Moumou82 16:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- For most countries the rule of thumb is everything is copyrighted unless stated otherwise. The only info I can find about Tunisian copyright is {{PD-Tunisia}} which doesn't seem to apply in this situation./Lokal_Profil 23:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted - no valid license. A.J. 22:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 12:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 12:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- There's a higher-quality png version: Image:Avarian spiral-type intricate swastika.png. That one is apparently licensed as PD due to being folk art. Unfortunately, the png does not cite a source. --rimshottalk 15:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept per licencing template in Image:Avarian spiral-type intricate swastika.png. I recommend deleting this JPG as redundant, though, after the PNG is updated with the source. Sandstein 11:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 12:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 12:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept per licencing template in Image:Avarian spiral-type intricate swastika.png. Sandstein 11:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 12:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 12:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- The document falls, at least, into {{PD-Brazil-media}}. Dantadd✉ 13:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep
- The document is an official reward poster, issued by the Government of the State of Bahia. It is ineligible for copyright as per Article 8, IV of the Brazilian Copyright Law (Lei Nº 9.610, de 19 de fevereiro de 1998).
- Even if that not were the case, the poster was published more than 70 years ago, and is therefore in the public domain as stated by Dantadd above. Cinabrium 16:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep but rettag with {{PD-Brazil-media}} /Lokal_Profil 18:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept ans retagged as {{PD-Brazil-media}}. →Яocket°°° 09:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 12:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 12:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is a bunch of other Brasilian flags [43] uploaded by the same user and tagged with the same license. If this image is PD for another reason then they should all be jointly retagged otherwise they should all be jointly deleted. /Lokal_Profil 12:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Brazilian official symbols are Public Domain, see {{Template:PD-BrazilGov}}. --jed 08:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. giggy (:O) 09:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 12:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 12:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is a my work (Photographed by me) of a not artistic image, but in the public domain (because post-card) then 1931.Possibily PD-self ?--Faberh 12:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- On what do you base the fact that the postcard is public domain because it is from 1931 (also I'd definitly say that the image is artistic)? /Lokal_Profil 13:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. giggy (:O) 09:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Giggy: per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Cartolina31.jpg
I see no indication at UCSD's page that the cartoons are public domain. Davepape 20:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Same for Image:10526cs.jpg, Image:10602cs.jpg, and Image:10704acs.jpg. --Davepape 20:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe because UCSD would have no ability to make them available if they were not PD :-) More seriously, there were very, very few newspapers which renewed copyrights at the time. Before the end of WWII, only a few newspapers did, all from New York -- I think just the Herald/Tribune, Times, and Wall Street Journal. PM was a New York magazine, but wasn't on the list that I saw here (see section 15, newspapers -- the original powerpoint is also available for direct download here). I guess the question is if the cartoons were renewed separately, which may be hard to find. Most likely they are PD but it may be difficult to prove completely. Carl Lindberg 05:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete These seem to have been editorial cartoons published in commercial newspapers, NOT government funded works as the image page information suggests. (The website also includes some War Bond advertisements by the same artist which may well be government sponsored works, but none of those are included in this deletion request.) The cartoonist was a well known figure who lived until the 1990s and it is not unreasonable to think he may have renewed his copyrights. I see no evidence presented that these are PD; absent that we must assume that they are not. -- Infrogmation 00:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is definitely not PD-USGov. However, it is quite possible (even rather likely) that it is PD-US-not_renewed. The newspaper in question did not renew any copyrights to 1941 issues, so the only way this is not public domain is if a) the author was not a newspaper employee at the time but rather drew this on commission, AND 2) the author renewed copyrights on his own in 1969. The latter is hard to prove without a copyright search, but the UCSD page says he was the "chief editorial cartoonist" for the newspaper, and this page says he "worked" for the newspaper, which would strongly indicate that he was an employee. If so, these were works for hire, and copyright expired after 1969 when PM neglected to renew their copyrights (as mentioned above, almost no newspapers did at the time). I say Keep. Carl Lindberg 03:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, much US material from this era has fallen into the public domain due to lack of copyright renewal. Other material has not. It is not Commons policy to host images that might or might not be free. Either show some evidence that it is free licensed for one reason or another, or it does not belong on Commons. -- Infrogmation 17:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I gave links above which showed that the newspaper did not renew its copyrights in the issues in question. Since it appears that author was an employee, the newspaper would have been the copyright owner and so would have had to renew them, and did not. I think this goes well beyond "might or night not" and is in the "virtually certain" realm, enough so I think we can keep them. Carl Lindberg 23:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, much US material from this era has fallen into the public domain due to lack of copyright renewal. Other material has not. It is not Commons policy to host images that might or might not be free. Either show some evidence that it is free licensed for one reason or another, or it does not belong on Commons. -- Infrogmation 17:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is definitely not PD-USGov. However, it is quite possible (even rather likely) that it is PD-US-not_renewed. The newspaper in question did not renew any copyrights to 1941 issues, so the only way this is not public domain is if a) the author was not a newspaper employee at the time but rather drew this on commission, AND 2) the author renewed copyrights on his own in 1969. The latter is hard to prove without a copyright search, but the UCSD page says he was the "chief editorial cartoonist" for the newspaper, and this page says he "worked" for the newspaper, which would strongly indicate that he was an employee. If so, these were works for hire, and copyright expired after 1969 when PM neglected to renew their copyrights (as mentioned above, almost no newspapers did at the time). I say
- I don't think the situation is nearly as clear as you suggest. Copyright notices can be read on the fine print on some (not all) of the cartoons at the listed source on ucsd.edu. Some say copyright PM. In others it is visible as saying "Copyright [year] Field Publications", indicating the copyright was held by the Field Syndicate, not the newspaper. (Field Syndicate was one of the leading cartoon publishers for of the era and continued to be until about a generation ago; I think they were aquired by Murdock's News Corporation.) While no copyright notice is visible on some of the cartoons as copied at UCSD.edu, that should not be taken as any indication that they were not copyrighted in their original publication. UCSD mentions their Seuss images are not all from one source. The copies on Commons only mention UCSD as a source, inappropriately as that is an intermediate source neither the creator nor AFAIK the copyright holder. I will change my vote for deletion for any of these images which meet the following criteria: 1)Information on original publisher and copyright holder is included on the image page. 2)Specific indication is on the image page as to why the image is public domain (for example, that the copyright holder of record did not renew-- by the way, the template if such is the case would be Template:PD-US-not renewed). -- Infrogmation 02:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Author en:Dr. Seuss died 1991. --JuTa 19:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. (all of them) giggy (:O) 09:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Giggy: per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:10425cs.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 12:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 12:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
See Commons talk:Licensing#Logos of public transport for my opinion. Siegele Roland 12:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your opinion looks like a fair use rationale for me. I cannot see how this logo is not copyrightable. Delete Patrícia msg 20:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. It's not ineligible and I don't see any permission. →Rocket°°° 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 12:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 12:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, why should it be deleted then? Why not change the license? If this is not the proper license, and this causes this image to be deleted, why not delete all flags of Bolivia? They must surely share a common license? --Ysangkok 20:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Instead of marking the image for deletion I could have just removed the faulty license and tagged it no license but I figured by doing it this way it's more likely that someone who does know the license finds the correct one. If no one finds the correct license then this image does in fact have no licence and should be deleted. /Lokal_Profil 09:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- If we have someone here who speaks Spanish, there might be something interesting in bolivian copyright law -- Prince Kassad 09:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Instead of marking the image for deletion I could have just removed the faulty license and tagged it no license but I figured by doing it this way it's more likely that someone who does know the license finds the correct one. If no one finds the correct license then this image does in fact have no licence and should be deleted. /Lokal_Profil 09:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- That law doesn't mention a thing about national symbols such as flags or coats of arms, unfortunately. It does claim, on article 58 that whatever comes out of private copyright, belongs to the state (Patrimonio Nacional); and on article 60, that whatever belongs to the state and whatever is in public domain, can be freely reproduced but a certain amount (no less than 10%, no more than 50% of what the author or legal inheritants would get) has to be paid to the state. :/ Perpetual copyright?? Patrícia msg 22:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, so-called "domaine publique payant". Exists also in some other countries, but didn't really catch on (surprisingly) and is generally ignored here at the Commons. Would be enforceable only locally in the countries that actually implement this concept. Russia, for instance, has it in the law, but doesn't implement it, as there's no body collecting the fees. The whole concept doesn't even exist in the laws of many countries, including the European states, the U.S., Australia, and others. Lupo 14:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- That law doesn't mention a thing about national symbols such as flags or coats of arms, unfortunately. It does claim, on article 58 that whatever comes out of private copyright, belongs to the state (Patrimonio Nacional); and on article 60, that whatever belongs to the state and whatever is in public domain, can be freely reproduced but a certain amount (no less than 10%, no more than 50% of what the author or legal inheritants would get) has to be paid to the state. :/ Perpetual copyright?? Patrícia msg 22:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. This Bolivian COA was defined by the Decreto Supremo 27630, signed by President Carlos Mesa on July 19, 2004. It's the last of a series of minor modifications that have been made to the COA since its original definition in a decree from 1888. This version here looks sufficiently different from the official version used e.g. on the new Bolivian constitution that we may consider it an independent realization of that COA definition. The creator of this version apparently has released his work into the public domain. Lupo 15:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 12:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 12:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- The image is also tagged with GFDL but the image looks like a scan from a book so this license is not likely. Whatever decission goes for this image should also go for Image:Banderole Böhmen und Mähren.jpg, Image:Banderole Memel.jpg and Image:Banderole Sudetenland.jpg. /Lokal_Profil 12:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Someone changed license template to PD-Germany. A.J. 08:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Assuming that that license is correct I'd say keep, but then I have no clue about what things are covered by de:Amtliches Werk. /Lokal_Profil 13:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have no clue either, but these are in the same boat. →Rocket°°° 22:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. giggy (:O) 08:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "ineligible for copyright". Possibly PD for other non-stated reasons though. /Lokal_Profil 12:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is a free image from Flags of the World. (contents of these pages are offered freely to the Internet community) --MichałRadecki 15:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- From FOTW copyright page. "You can freely use any material copyrighted by the contributors of the website, provided that: [...] you use the material for non-commercial and non-political purposes only." Thats one of the many limitatipons to how their images may be used. /Lokal_Profil 18:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- True, most images from FOTW are not allowed here but maybe {{PD-Polishsymbol}} is enough. Rocket000 22:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure PD-symbol is suitable considering that it's not a polish flag. en:Republic of Central Lithuania doesn't seem to have been part of Poland, and the territory (or part at least) belongs to Lituania today. /Lokal_Profil 00:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Central Lithuania was created by Polish army general, Lucian Żeligowski because of order of Józef Piłsudski, just to be annexed by Poland. I think that the copyright belong to Poland, as Central Lithuania continuator... isn't it? --MichałRadecki 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure PD-symbol is suitable considering that it's not a polish flag. en:Republic of Central Lithuania doesn't seem to have been part of Poland, and the territory (or part at least) belongs to Lituania today. /Lokal_Profil 00:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- True, most images from FOTW are not allowed here but maybe {{PD-Polishsymbol}} is enough. Rocket000 22:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Where it belongs now is irrelevant, but indeed Republic of Central Lithuania became a part of Poland at a later stage. I doubt it ever had any law on copyright though. Halibutt 11:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- From FOTW copyright page. "You can freely use any material copyrighted by the contributors of the website, provided that: [...] you use the material for non-commercial and non-political purposes only." Thats one of the many limitatipons to how their images may be used. /Lokal_Profil 18:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Kept. giggy (:O) 08:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
October 9
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unused version with blue background which is wrong. background has to be white. correct duplicate is available. --129.187.45.97 07:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: Dupe of Image:Wappen Duenwald.png
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE. Dodo 07:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 20:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
nonsense --Fransvannes 11:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Siebrand 17:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I made a mistake in the name Kimdime69 23:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted /please use {{bad name|bettername.jpg}} next time--Fanghong 00:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong file name Escla ¿..! 17:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please use {{rename}}, {{duplicate}} or {{bad name}}. No need for a DR. Siebrand 17:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: Dupe of Image:Cemetry Santa Ifigenia Santiago de Cuba - Changing of the Guards.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong filename Escla ¿..! 17:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please use {{rename}}, {{duplicate}} or {{bad name}}. No need for a DR. Siebrand 17:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: Dupe of Image:Cemetry Santa Ifigenia Santiago de Cuba - Grave of Antonio Maceo.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Obsolete. Updated version is Image:Putnam Division map2.png --70.109.59.44 01:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
kept, image is in use --ALE! ¿…? 10:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
No longer in use. Obsolete. Updated version is Image:Putnam Division map2.png. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It would be good to keep because well know our train timetables. Tharnton345 06:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is a typo on the filename, which is also the person's name. Please delete this file. It will not be used. Thank you. Benjwong 05:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: duplicate or a scaled down version of Image:EmmeWong2005.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 13:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/09 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 13:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/09 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 13:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/09 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/09 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Merged Rainbow flag with Rainbow flags --Cott12 14:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: empty category
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 14:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/09 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 14:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/09 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 14:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/09 (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Mistakenly uploaded with a wrong image name. The correct image is Image:Venus Transit & Parallax.svg Ilia Kr. 14:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 found by Flickrreview 5 days after upload Siebrand 15:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Flickrreview error. Now fixed by another trusted user. RG2 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
done --ALE! ¿…? 12:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 22:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 22:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope Deadstar (msg) 09:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 22:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete looks like a promotional shot for dj ladylite: see here: www.badpoint.cz - when googling I found similar images there. Deadstar (msg) 09:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Low quality, obsoleted by Image:Jon Favreau, ComiCon 2007.jpg ˉanetode╦╩ 23:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted both because they are derivative works of the original video broadcast. --ALE! ¿…? 12:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 23:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 23:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 23:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 23:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 23:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 23:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 23:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The photo was used on a user page when uploaded onto Commons, but the user has not edited since 2006 and was not a regular contributor. That's why the photo is now orphaned (the user page has been blanked). Since Commons is no web host, and there is no other obvious good use of this image, I'm inclined to delete. PatríciaR msg 13:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 23:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 23:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 23:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 23:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
NO PERMISSION given for transfer from dutch Wikipedia to Commons --Erik Creugers 04:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is irrelevant. The image has a free license and all relevant information has been retained. Please STOP your vendictive actions and vandalism. Siebrand 06:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Agree to Siebrand - Not relevant for deletion. --FSHL 08:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I added a personality rights template, maybe that will keep him happy. Madmax32 08:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
kept, no such permission is needed --Polarlys 18:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 13:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image is pointless, it shows nothing. DarkFalls talk 09:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I guess a black rectangle might be of some hypothetical use, but unless some such is explaned and/or description and categorization is added, Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation 14:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete After modyfing curves in gimp there are some strange characters, see [44]. --Ludek 12:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- How did you modify the image to create those characters? I can't seem to replicate it. --DarkFalls talk 07:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Try to modify curves, see example. --Ludek 20:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- How did you modify the image to create those characters? I can't seem to replicate it. --DarkFalls talk 07:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 19:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright notice that appears at the bottom of the image that vandal forgot to remove? Connel MacKenzie 15:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It is copywrite by the uploader. Please don't use the word "vandal" casually. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for using the "v" word. Then again, how could it truly be owned the original uploader? When I name files, I generally use my native language for the filenames. The uploader's pattern of filenames suggests content haphazardly taken from elsewhere. If I were a commons admin, I'd delete (all contribs) first, ask questions later, in a situation like this. But perhaps you know your policies, worlds better than I do. --Connel MacKenzie 20:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I removed the copyright notice from the image and put it on the image description page. --Kjetil r 18:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: Per deletion requests; indef blocked user.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo uploaded with heavy restrictions to English Wikipedia on 7 October 2004. It has been removed from English Wikipedia. Subsequently it appeared here, added by a new contributor. I've contacted the person (User:ClockworkSoul) who originally gained permission from the photographer, but he is on a Wiki break. Original photo was limited by owner to the English Wikipedia only. Patrick Edwin Moran 02:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I went to check info for deleted image under the name Image:Brazilian-wandering-spider.jpg on en:Wikipedia and found no evidence such ever existed. Was it originally uploaded to en:Wikipedia under some other name, and if so do you know what it was? -- Infrogmation 14:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Here is an answer from the person who uploaded the original:
Yes, the image is copyrighted. The source page is http://www.spiderzrule.com/wandering.htm, which is annotated "Photos copyright ©Jon Triffo, 2000". I asked for and received Wikipedia-specific permission from Mr. Triffo, and to my knowledge he is not the person who uploaded the image to Commons. Hope that helps! – ClockworkSoul
- See the history of the English "Phoneutria" article, 7 Oct 2004. The original image was entitled "Brazilian wandering spider front.jpg" Patrick Edwin Moran 15:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Copyvio from http://www.spiderzrule.com/wandering.htm - Copyrighted by Jon Triffo. Deadstar (msg) 14:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
poor image --Ante Perkovic 07:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete yep Pibwl 18:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete --Suradnik13 13:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Poor quality makes it out of scope. Better images of Trogir available. Deadstar (msg) 14:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The screenshot is from the website Vozdipovo-online.com. I am doubtful whether this is a free screenshot, but the website does not make it clear on the license it is created on. Merely stating "Copyright © 2004 - 2007 VozDiPovo-Online". It does mention that "Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License", but I'm unsure whether is is directed towards this website. DarkFalls talk 10:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright notice, but no mention of it being free. Joomla!'s GPL statement only pertains to the software used (which we found out isn't completely GPL itself.) Rocket000 04:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This was tagged as {{logo}} in the speedy section. However, I think that {{PD-textlogo}} might be applicable. ALE! ¿…? 15:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. A perfect case of {{PD-textlogo}}. Rocket000 04:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This was tagged as {{logo}} in the speedy section. However, I think that {{PD-textlogo}} might be applicable. ALE! ¿…? 15:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- This also applies to Image:Logo Elba.JPG. --ALE! ¿…? 15:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Another easy case of {{PD-textlogo}}. I deleted the second one as a duplicate. Rocket000 04:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It looks old, so it can't be Self-license.. OsamaK 13:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Not a legitimate argument. I have uploaded some photos I've taken that dated back as far as the 1970s, and there are other contributors here who are older than me. I see nothing in the photo that makes it look improbably old. Also, for all I know that could be a recent photograph taken using an older style film technique. -- Infrogmation 15:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- So, I'll tag it with no source--OsamaK 17:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why? What would you do if my grandmother uploaded a picture that she took in the 1930s under this license? Can only people in their 20s and younger take pictures? Definitely Keep. Nyttend 19:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why? What would you do if my grandmother uploaded a picture that she took in the 1930s under this license? Can only people in their 20s and younger take pictures? Definitely
- So, I'll tag it with no source--OsamaK 17:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Kept. Majorly (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Macau Government images
[edit]- Image:Flag lowering ceremony at the Macau Government.jpg
- Image:Handover Ceremony of Macau Government.jpg
Maybe Not PD, copyvio. see Template talk:PD-MacaoGov, Macau Government PD only texts, no images. --Shizhao 13:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Therefore, you should request to delete this template, rather than these two images. Chanueting 03:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Attention! You should notice that the English version of this passage is an unofficial translation. With the Chinese words and no extra definition, we can assume that "官方作品" means all MacaoGov works. Can any Portuguese (or user) explain what is "obra"?
- From the Decree-Law n.o 43/99/M of Macau, article 6 describles that all the offical photographs are NOT protected with offically and NO any copyrights with them. Moreover, i would like to say that Shizhao always likely to delete all the Hong Kong and Macau's pictures all the time with unreasonable.--122.100.209.167 19:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It looks old, so it can't be Self-license, no source OsamaK 13:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- How old is the contributor? Is there some evidence that the uploader cannot be old enough? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 14:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment From what I understand from [45], the person in the picture is Ewald Marggraff. The image was very likely uploaded by the same user that created the aforementioned page, Boudewijn Reijenga. He states there that he worked for Mr. Marggraff on the Zion estate from the age of 16, first as a gardener, then in various other jobs. Ewald Marggraff died in 2003. On the page he states that he carefully preserved anything to do with his "mentor". If the image was taken in 1940 (as the name suggests) it would not be in the public domain yet, even if the photographer died in that same year. Hope that helps. Deadstar (msg) 14:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information. I'm not sure if this has clarified the status. Is there reason to think that the uploader is not the creator of the photograph or not, as claimed in the upload? If the uploader was indeed the photographer it doesn't matter if it is public domain by age, as the copyright holder can release it as they chose. -- Infrogmation 15:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I do not think that the uploader was the creator. The image is a passport photograph taken from "the WWII ID of the last inhabitant of Zionsburg" (this being Ewald Marggraff). I presume it would have been the photographer in the village (or similar) that took the image at the time. The uploader has come by it because he "collected" it, not because he took it. Deadstar (msg) 08:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information. I'm not sure if this has clarified the status. Is there reason to think that the uploader is not the creator of the photograph or not, as claimed in the upload? If the uploader was indeed the photographer it doesn't matter if it is public domain by age, as the copyright holder can release it as they chose. -- Infrogmation 15:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
A little bit more research unearthed a whole discussion on nl: wiki regarding these images. The uploader was a "friend of the family" and uploaded them into PD but had no right to do so as he was not the creator (this was explained to him). (Full story in Dutch)
After a bit more explanation from uploader about the images, an NL user then decided that the thing to do was change the license to {PD-reason|permission of Marggraff family} for the images still on Dutch wiki (as far as I can see all passport photographs, of which the above is also one).
There are more images with the same issue, uploaded by same user with the same subject. It states as source "private collection Boudewijn Reijenga". As said above, he was not part of this family, so unlikely he took the images himself. On the (Dutch) talkpage of Margraff, he states that they are "his property" and he "has permission from 2 of the 3 sisters to use these images". (On a sidenote: The images were removed from a gallery on the page in this edit.)
The images are
- Image:Kinderen Marggraff 1938.jpg year:1938 (GFDL)
- Image:Kinderenmarg39.JPG year:1939 (PD-author)
- Image:Fammarg68.JPG year:1968 (PD-author)
- Image:Fam marggraffzev.JPG year: "70s" (PD-author)
- Image:Kerstbfwo.JPG year: "before WO II" (PD-author)
So from all the above, I think the conclusion should be that the licensing needs to be changed as it is incorrect as uploader was not the author. As far as I can see it could be changed to include "Marggraff family" as the author rather than "Remember Ewald" in the PD-author tag. (Although in the case of the passport photograph, it would be incorrect as it was probably the local photographer that took it).
BUT we have no explicit written permission from the family that they ever intended to put them in the public domain. It is all based on the word of the uploader (who seems to be an expert on the family). Deadstar (msg) 09:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Was it ever suggested to the user to send us a written permission from the family? Otherwise, as Deadstar pointed out, we're keeping images without permission... Patrícia msg 11:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Per Deadstar. giggy (:O) 08:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
October 10
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I made a mistake in the name Kimdime69 23:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted /please use {{bad name|bettername.jpg}} next time--Fanghong 00:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Faulty image. GeorgHH 09:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Tja, irgendwie ist das Bild kaputt, warum auch immer, als ich es hochgeladen hatte, war es heil. Ich habe jetzt erstmal das Original auf de: wiederhergestellt. Dieses kann also gelöscht werden (oder von wem anders aus de: neu importiert werden). --Mogelzahn 11:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Das überschreiben mit einer neuen Version hat auch nicht geholfen. Habe das Bild jetzt als Image:Holsten-Brauerei Hamburg1.jpg komplett neu hochgeladen. --GeorgHH 18:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Uploaded with new name Image:Holsten-Brauerei Hamburg1.jpg. --GeorgHH 18:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The source says feel free to use the photo. That is not a free license. Kjetil r 17:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- you are absolutly right, "feel free to use the photo" must mean "you are not allowed to use the photo". I have written Prof. Ertl, I hope he'll find the time to aswer me.--Golf Bravo 18:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- The copyright holder is not the Ertl but the photographer. --Polarlys 20:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind support, Kamerat Golf Bravo. Maybe Professor Ertl can direct you to the photographer? If so, please ask the photographer if one is allowed to make derivative works and to use the work commercially. --Kjetil r 23:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, other sources say „Reuters“, license invalid --Polarlys 19:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Ertl is obviously not the author (copyright holder), so he can't grant permission. Furthermore "for Wikipedia" is not enough and it remains unknown where the CC license comes from. Polarlys 19:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously? Why? What makes it obvious that he is not the copyright holder of a portrait picture of him? Say he ordered and payed in full for the portrait to be taken, isn't he the copyright holder? The photo was on his website with the caption: "feel free to use the photo", that wasn't enough for you, and you were quick to erase it. I wrote him personally, and asked his permission for using the photo on Wikipedia. Grant him that he is inteligent enough to know what copyright means, and if there was any doubt in his mind that the copyrights on this picture do not belong to him, he would not have given his permission.
- In any case, even if all the above does not satisfy you, please write to him again, or to the public relations office at his institution, before you erase this image needlessly.--132.74.99.84 09:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is no work for hire concept in the European Union. When a professional photographer takes a portrait of you and you pay him for doing that, he still remains the copyright holder. See Az. 28 O 468/06 for example, a photographer successfully sued one of his clients for using a passport photography on a personal homepage. “Feel free to use” is a press license (we always need a permission to use a photo commercially and to create derivate works) and since Ertl is not the photographer he can't give a permission anyway. “For Wikipedia” is never enough, this is a project based on free content and we don't put such restrictions on our files. Where the uploader got the Creative Commons license from, remains mysterious. Being a great scientist doesn't go along with understanding of copyright law (why should it, physics and chemistry are all in all much more interesting). We deleted photos from Bruce Schneier and other experts before. We need a permission from the author and permissions are archived via Commons:OTRS. --Polarlys 12:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Without knowing the laws applicable in the UE, I guess even the parsimonious Europeans have the concept of a gift, surely they have heard of inheritance laws. And so a photographer may give his photograph, as a gift, or leave it in his inheritance, including all the rights that come with that photograph.
- If a person puts his photograph on the web with the caption: "feel free to use the photo" and later, once again, specifically grants permission to use his photograph on Wikipedia, I don't think you have an obligation to conduct a police inquiry to find out how those copyrights came to him. Under such circumstances, especially since this is not an anonymous person, you should assume good faith.
- Nevertheless, I have written Prof. Ertl again... Asked him specifically whether he is the holder of the copyrights to this picture (if he claims he is, it is none of your damn business how he aquired them), and if not, I asked him to provide me with the details of the photographer, or the copyrights holder. I feel ashamed and embarrassed for your nitpicking. Please wait for a week with the voting on this photo, there is no special urgency here.--Golf Bravo 06:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is no work for hire concept in the European Union. When a professional photographer takes a portrait of you and you pay him for doing that, he still remains the copyright holder. See Az. 28 O 468/06 for example, a photographer successfully sued one of his clients for using a passport photography on a personal homepage. “Feel free to use” is a press license (we always need a permission to use a photo commercially and to create derivate works) and since Ertl is not the photographer he can't give a permission anyway. “For Wikipedia” is never enough, this is a project based on free content and we don't put such restrictions on our files. Where the uploader got the Creative Commons license from, remains mysterious. Being a great scientist doesn't go along with understanding of copyright law (why should it, physics and chemistry are all in all much more interesting). We deleted photos from Bruce Schneier and other experts before. We need a permission from the author and permissions are archived via Commons:OTRS. --Polarlys 12:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, permission for Wikipedia only. --Kjetil r 11:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, there is a permission on his page H-Vergilius 13:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is no permission that fits the needs of Commons:Licensing. --Polarlys 13:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless there is proof that the permission on his page is the permission from the photographer. --Moonian 13:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Redeleted. -- Infrogmation 05:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 03:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I have uploaded a new version, i.e., Casere001.jpg, please delete this old version 84.226.32.242 10:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate image. Deadstar (msg) 09:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: In category Unknown as of 10 October 2007; no license
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 04:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 21:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copy from http://maluaires.multiply.com/ 201.37.156.216 23:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete © 2007 Multiply, Inc. Yuval Y § Chat § 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 21:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Personal picture having no value to Wikimedia projects. Kjetil r 23:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Unused and personal, not needed here. Try another image host. Giggy\Talk 07:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 21:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copy from http://maluaires.multiply.com/ 201.37.156.216 23:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 21:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
image has no source indicated 69.243.116.161 02:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-self}} = the copyright holder is the source. --Dezidor 21:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per Dezidor. User has uploaded a number of pictures of himself in zentai suit. Deadstar (msg) 10:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 03:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Likely not notable person. --Dezidor 21:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Pibwl 18:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 05:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's unlikely that this image is Public Domain. Code·is·poetry 07:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I found a source justifying use of Template:PD-Polish--Jarekt 16:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am closing this as a keep under the presumption that the above took care of the problem. If I am not correct with this, please relist. -- Infrogmation 05:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No rationale for PD. Quite the contrary, the license status indicate by LOC implies Fair Use. Duesentrieb ⇌ 14:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
From the description page: The John and Ruby Lomax 1939 Southern States Recording Trip. The Library of Congress is providing access to these materials strictly for educational and research purposes. The written permission of the copyright owners and/or other rights holders (such as publicity and/or privacy rights) is required for distribution, reproduction, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions. - http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/lohtml/lores.html (emphasis mine) -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 14:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Duesentrieb skipped over the most important sentence: "The Library of Congress is not aware of any U.S. copyright protection (see Title 17, U.S.C.) or any other restrictions on the materials in the Southern Mosaic: The John and Ruby Lomax 1939 Southern States Recording Trip" The subsequent sentences are simply a statement that IF a copyright holder should exist, the LOC's use of the materal is fair use. However, the first sentence makes it clear that this is a cover-your-ass statement Raul654 16:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- See also {{PD-US-record}}. --Davepape 19:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sound recording copyrights are rather complicated... the LoC may just be protecting itself in case some of the songs have songwriting ownership or other rights involved as well. They certainly seem to think they are PD but given all the possible complications it's almost impossible to be 100% certain. The recording itself was done by the U.S. government, so that should be OK, and the song was written long, long ago, so there is no copyright on the lyrics. The only question is if the performers have any rights (and they obviously permitted it to be recorded, by a government project for public use). I'll say Keep, given PD-US-record, and the lack of an explicit reason why that tag would not apply. Carl Lindberg 15:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's more obvious than that -- prior to 1989, copyrights were not automatic - you had to register them with the US copyright office. And guess what the Copyright office is a branch of? You guessed it - the Library of Congress. Raul654 16:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- U.S. recordings made prior to 1972 are not subject to federal copyright law at all (registration requirement and all). Instead, they are protected by individual states, usually on a common-law basis (though I think California has a somewhat vague law), and those are very unpredictable since they are determined by individual court cases. However, I think most of them protect the "owner" or "author" of the recording, which in this case is the U.S. Government itself, so I don't think there is an issue there either. But, since there is no real way to predict common law (maybe a performer could claim to be an "author" in some states) the LoC is guarding themselves against state-level lawsuits, no matter how unlikely. Carl Lindberg 15:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's more obvious than that -- prior to 1989, copyrights were not automatic - you had to register them with the US copyright office. And guess what the Copyright office is a branch of? You guessed it - the Library of Congress. Raul654 16:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this was about the performer's copyright - and {{PD-US-record}} has nothing to do with that, right? It's not quite clear to me, but it seems to talk about when recording as such became copyrightable (which is a dubious notion anyway, imho). I'd also like to point out that "The Library of Congress is not aware of any U.S. copyright protection" is not relevant in any way, which is why I didn't quote it.
Anyway... so, the content is PD, because the performers didn't register the copyright? In that case, what's all the "written permission is required" stuff about? I find this a bit confusing, especially since the LoC should know copyright law well enough to tell us that it's PD, because no copyright was registered. Hm.... does that mean that all pre-1989 bootlegs are PD, because the performers didn't register copyright for every single performance?
I'm happy if it can stay, but I'm confused by the rationale. -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 14:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how many rights, if any, performers had with sound recording copyrights prior to 1972. You would need a state-level court case ruling to demonstrate them. I'm not aware of any such case, but who knows. You can read this article for some of the gory details. Carl Lindberg 15:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hm, giving that a quick look, it seems to again deal with recordings, not performance, really - but then, without a recording there's nothing to copy (one of the many confusing points of copyright). The text seems to indicate that at least in some cases, courts have viewed pre-1971 material to be copyrighted. I don't understand the legal gibberish to well though.
- I'd also like to point out that "The Library of Congress is not aware of any U.S. copyright protection" is not relevant in any way, which is why I didn't quote it. - Uh, false. If the song or performance for a pre-1989 work wasn't registered with the copyright office in the Library of Congress, then it doesn't get copyright protection. Period. And, as others here have pointed out, performances were not even eligible for copyright protection until 1972. Raul654 16:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- for the first part - why then do they say they are not awarfe, and later even that permission is required, even though they should know that there is not copyright? That doesn't make sense. For the second part: others have pointed out that the situation is unclear - not that there is absolutely no copyright for performances before 1972.
- I know that copyright is a mess, and we have to make the best of it. But oversimplifikation doesn't help. -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 23:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- :-) Under current U.S. federal copyright law, I think any performance rights are in the sound recording -- there are no separate rights. The performer must authorize the recording, but once that happens the person or company doing the recording holds the rights for 35 years, after which they revert to the performer if requested. [As an aside, in 2000 the RIAA got Congress to slip in a change which eliminated the 35-year thing, granting permanent rights to the recorder as a "work for hire", but after an outcry the law was changed back.] However, the federal law only applies to recordings made after February 15, 1972. Recordings made prior to that are specifically exempted from federal copyright law until 2067; until then the copyrights are covered by state laws, which can differ in all 50 states. Since this is a pre-1972 recording, this is the situation here.
- As for state law, there are essentially no statutes (i.e. laws in the books). Several states have laws to deal with outright piracy of recordings, but copyright is generally dealt with by "common law" -- i.e. copyright is a generally understood concept, and people can sue if they feel they have been wronged, and a court will decide the case based on their opinion of what the general understanding is (and also previous precedent-setting court cases). Therefore, the shape of common law is built up through successive court cases, not by an explicit law on the books. Needless to say, the "general understanding" can change over time, and be different from state to state. It is impossible to predict with certainty. When it comes to copyright, it seems as though there are virtually no court case precedents even. The one precedent in New York was for a 1930s recording sold by another company; the court ruled that the recording label (and not the performer) still owned the copyright under common law. The California laws similarly seem to give ownership to the recording labels and not the performers.
- So, the situation here is: The recording is not subject to federal copyright law, but instead individual state laws. The only precedents, and there are almost none, seem to give ownership to the recording company (in this case the government) and not the performer, so there is nothing out there to indicate the performers have any rights in this recording. However, given the nature of common law and the difficulty of combing law decisions in all 50 states to find out if there are other precedents, there is a slim possibility that some rights exist (or some future court ruling will create some). The result is that you get a rights statement like the above. Secondly, some songs in the collection may still have a valid musical work copyright by the songwriter in effect -- in those cases you would probably need to get permission from them. Since this song was written in the 1700s that is not the case here. Carl Lindberg 05:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Carl for this insight into the terrible state of affairs. It sounds like we can keep the recording, although the situation is not clear at all. And it seems extremely strange to me that the performers should have no rights to their work, while someone holding a microphone should. But hey, who sais that laws have to make sense. Copyright laws, even. -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 12:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- With no new discussion in almost 2 months, I am closing this as a keep. If there is reason to think copyright problems remain, please relist. -- Infrogmation 05:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This, the logo of a school or organization, is NOT in the public domain, nor can any PD version exist. This image was probably downloaded by the uploader (who has a history of copyright violations), and then tagged as self-made PD. Alekjds 18:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted copyvio from http://www.sandhurst.mod.uk/ which is copyrighted as per http://www.army.mod.uk/copyright.htm Deadstar (msg) 14:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Because it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. 81.15.30.3 20:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Lol.. I agree to that. Pointless. --BiT 20:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 15:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images uploaded by Modelunitednationsvzla
[edit]All his/her images have no source/are (portraits of non-notable people used for vanity at es wiki, probably uploaded without permission). There is little use for that photos. There are also a couple of logos. ----jynus (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This was open for a while as request probably wasn't very clear. I have relisted it as it is a valid request. The below images are of user's friends/participants in the Model UN program, and are not used. I do not see how they can be used on Commons. Image:CMJ.jpg - Image:OMSsrimun.jpg - Image:LEA.jpg - Image:AlejandraB.jpg - Image:AnaCecilia.jpg - Image:Nessa.jpg - Image:Yubi.jpg - Image:Yova.jpg - Image:Sandra Pinto.jpg- Image:Maria Virginia.jpg - Image:Isa.jpg- Image:Gilda.jpg - Image:Gabriel Ascione.jpg - Image:Arian.jpg - Image:Patricia Tarre.jpg - Image:Alexandra Paty.jpg - Image:Clara Bastidas.jpg - Image:Alexandra Paty.jpg - Image:Karla Cabas.jpg - Image:JoseAntonio2.jpg - Image:JoseAntonio.jpg - Image:PedroCadenas.jpg - Image:Pedro Cadenas.jpg - Image:Marlene Rivas.jpg - Image:Maria Elena Grisanti.jpg - Image:Juan Andres Urguelles.jpg - Image:Jose A Dominguez.jpg - Image:Amanda Beaujon.jpg - Image:Ailed Fernandez.jpg -
And the following are probably not self-made: Image:SRIMUN 2006 2007.jpg, Image:LOGO SRIMUN.jpg and Image:COS.jpg (Author:Santa Rosa Intercollege Model United Nations, yet "PD-self") -- Deadstar (msg) 15:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope and/or with disputed copyright claims. But please note that COM:DEL have deletion requests not yet handled from at least five months ago. Lugusto • ※ 21:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 20:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Quadell: Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/10
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 21:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Quadell: Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/10
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Tagged as {{NoRightsReserved}}. The image has no information about the author and permission seems to be only for use in a Wikipedia article. Permission was given by a website author, but there is no proof that he is the copyright holder of this image. And it seems the source website is closed down. --88.134.232.95 02:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not a english languaje speaker, so you may excuse my english. This image was upload from the english wikipedia article about the Nagorno-Karabaj War. I check and double check the copyright information of all this images, and I upload only those who had an apropiate permission. I ask a spanish wikipedia administrator to conffirm the copyright permission and in that opportunity they where approbed. Later, when I upload this image, no one, never in all this time, had questioned the copyright permission to the image. I can't prof it now, since the website is down, but at the time all the images where ok and ths use of it where allowed in all cases. This is mad. Rakela 14:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- So what? Rakela 19:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to remove the tag, because nobody say nothing about it in 15 days. Rakela 23:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- So what? Rakela 19:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Kept. Majorly (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I have strong doubts that this image is originally a work of the United States Federal Government. ALE! ¿…? 12:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The tag is not correct; it is probably a mistake since the Library of Congress is involved with the collection. However, this is part of the Prelinger Archives, and the source does state that it is public domain. The collection was donated to the Library of Congress, although some of the copyrights are being held for 12 years. However some lower-resolution versions are being provided for free on the Internet Archives, which is where this is from, and there are no restrictions on those. The licensing agreement states: No permission is needed to download or reuse data files that you have downloaded from the Prelinger Collection at the Internet Archive. We warmly encourage you to download, view, and use the data files in any manner that you wish, although we ask that you not resell them as stock footage or charge anyone for the files that you have downloaded, as we wish them to remain free to all. You may download data files from the Prelinger Collection at the Internet Archive, incorporate them into your own production, and distribute, sell or license your own production in any way you please. We may need a separate tag for this, or maybe just use the PD-author tag. Carl Lindberg 15:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Even if is not a work of the United States Federal Government have a look at the film where it is from, the film allow free use. Licence Public Domain [46] --Jty 11:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Kept. Majorly (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I dubt uploader is creator. The image is watermarked. --Liftarn 12:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I have the righst to upload this. What do I need to do to prove it? --SeptemberWarning 23:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Upload a version without the watermark. // Liftarn
- Delete Version without watermark uploaded here: Image:Nationaldagen 36.jpg, but it's simply cut off from the bottom. Still no proof image is self made. Nominating both for deletion. Deadstar (msg) 15:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted both. Majorly (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There ist neither author nor date given. The biography of Krzystof makes PD most unlikely.Code·is·poetry 07:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- The License should have been PD-Polish this image was frequently used in textbooks and other books/articles about him. I will try to find if I can find a source.--Jarekt 15:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Problem still not solved (no source, no date, unknown author, just a proposed licence). If there is some solution, please notify me and I will restore it (or go to Undeletion Requests). -- Cecil 09:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no original artist provided Polarlys 12:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- ....so weit ich sehe weiss niemand mehr wer der Künstler war und das Kreuzwegbild ist weit über 100 Jahre alt.?!......--Bene16 10:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Das macht aber trotzdem nicht dich zum Autor des Gemäldes, und gibt dir auch nicht das Recht zu verlangen, dass jeder, der das Foto verwendet, deinen Namen angeben muss. Das hier wäre ein Fall von public domain (PD-Art), nur ohne Quellnachweis, dass das Bild wirklich vor 1907 entstanden ist und der Künstler auch wirklich unbekannt ist, geht auch das nicht. -- Cecil 09:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 09:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no original artist provided Polarlys 12:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- ....so weit ich sehe weiss niemand mehr wer der Künstler war und das Kreuzwegbild ist weit über 100 Jahre alt.?!.......--Bene16 10:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Das macht aber trotzdem nicht dich zum Autor des Gemäldes, und gibt dir auch nicht das Recht zu verlangen, dass jeder, der das Foto verwendet, deinen Namen angeben muss. Das hier wäre ein Fall von public domain (PD-Art), nur ohne Quellnachweis, dass das Bild wirklich vor 1907 entstanden ist und der Künstler auch wirklich unbekannt ist, geht auch das nicht. -- Cecil 09:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 09:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wallpaper is not public domain. It is anonymous work (-jkb- is not author as he declare), but it is not older than 70 years. --Cenev 07:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
An answer to this comment of an one-pourpose-user-account Special:Contributions/Cenev follows tommorow. -jkb- 22:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC) - - - see also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BulOpp 001.jpg - another case
Comment: it is a poster by an anonymous author or authors made on August 21st 1968 after the Soviet troops came to Czechoslovakia; This poster has been distributed widely in many thousands of copies in Prague, later it has been used also abroad in many books, papers, exhibitions etc.; it is one of the best widely known posters worldwide at that time; although several people made efforts to find out who is the author, nobody succeeded; I propose it could be ilegilible PD; the original PD-self has been added by the software - I do not claim I am the author, that is wrong. -jkb- 17:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think that this work could qualify for {{PD-ineligible}}. --ALE! ¿…? 09:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept with no prejudice to a future DR opening this case again. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 09:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
October 11
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
image:Buchenwald Survivors 74607.jpg has higher quality Pieter Kuiper 23:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
+
Deleted /Redundant, worse quality and no usage.--Fanghong 06:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicate. The same image Image:Icebergs cape york 1.JPG --Mbz1 13:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Obvious book cover --Patstuart 03:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - copyvio. Deadstar (msg) 15:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. - BanyanTree 06:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is outside of commons scope. It is simply a poem in Spanish, connected to a man whose face is blurred. Without much use unless it's on a userpage. no es muy util si no es una pagina de usuario.--Patstuart 00:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, not used anywhere and useless Kameraad Pjotr 20:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No reason to believe this is necessarily pd-old --Patstuart 03:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Deleted as per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Alice Bailey 2.jpg (No reason given.).
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A bunch of images by Vedran V, where pd-self is claimed. Author has said pd-self, but mostly they've been taken from the internet. Update: Uploader claims permission, at least for Filip Lolic. Patstuart 03:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image:M45 filip.jpg - Author is Filip Lolic, not Vedran V.
- Image:M46-47.jpg - Author is Boris Stromar.
- Image:M42filip.jpg - Author is Filip Lolic.
- Image:M35kruno.jpg - Author is Krunoslav Vardijan.
- Image:M31bobo.jpg - Author is Boris Stromar.
- Image:M8 M20 M21.jpg - : Author is Filip Lolic, not Vedran V.
- Image:M8-Lagoon-Nebula.jpg - Author is Boris Stromar. Patstuart 01:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image:M13 FL.jpg - Filip Lolić
- Image:M3 LRGB6.jpg - Filip Lolić
- Image:M1 RRGB.jpg - Filip Lolić
- Image:M5kruno.jpg - Krunoslav Vardijan
- Image:M22kruno.jpg - Krunoslav Vardijan
- Image:M17matija.jpg - Matija Pozojević
- Image:M56.jpg - Filip Lolić
- Image:M33FL.jpg - Filip Lolić
Permissions
[edit]I have permissions from Kunoslav Vardijan and Boris Štromar. I have contacted my other friends, Matija Pozojević and Filip Lolić to write me an email in which they give me permission to use their work. I don't know if it counts but Filip Lolić gave me permission on our local Astronomy Forum. Permission is on Croatian (not Dutch)language. Vedran
Permission from Boris Štromar
Vedran Vrhovac has asked me to share my photographs of Messier objects M8, M31, M46 and M47 for use on Wikipedia. I hereby state that these photos can freely be used for educational purposes on Wikipedia as long as I'm cited as the author of these photos.
Permission from Krunoslav Vardijan
With this statement i approve to Vedran Vrhovac from Velika Gorica/Croatia ,using of my astrophotographic material, which is published on my web page,Cloudy Nights forum or Croatian Astroforum,for educational purposes .. ..this statement can be authenticated on email swedruza.observatory@email.t-com.hr...
- These are educational-only or Wikipedia-only permissions. This is unfortunately not good enough. Lupo 13:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
More permissions
[edit]Permission from Filip Lolić
With this statement I, Filip Lolic, approve to Vedran Vrhovac full rights to use my astrophotographs.
and from Matija Pozojevic
With this statement I approve to Vedran Vrhovac from Velika Gorica/Croatia ,using of my astrophotographic material, which is published on my web page,Cloudy Nights forum or Croatian Astroforum, for non commercial purposes. This statement can be authenticated on email matija.pozojevic@zg.t-com.hr. Matija Pozojevic
For every permission I can provide a copy of email (or at least screenshot).
- Sorry, non-commercial-use-only permission is not good enough. "Full rights to use" (Lolić) is unclear: what does "use" mean? Does it include commercial uses? The right to make derivative works? Lupo 15:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- You people really like splitting hairs. I don't see where is problem. Is Wikipedia non-profitable educational organization or what? Vedran
- Our mission is to create/collect free content that can be used by anyone for any purpose, including commercial purposes. See the WMF licensing policy and the definition of what is "free". Content we host must be fine to use not only for us, but also for our downstream re-users. Part of this is that the WMF explicitly wants to allow commercial re-use of our contents, such as someone selling booklets containing print versions of selected encyclopedia articles in areas where people do not generally have Internet access. Lupo 07:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll ask them again. Vedran
- Sorry, it looks like it's splitting hairs, but the regulations are important and have been in effect for a while. Non-commercial use of images is not allowed. You might like to ask them to release the images under {{cc-by-3.0}}. Patstuart 20:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll ask them again. Vedran
Permissions again
[edit]Permission from Boris Štromar
Vedran Vrhovac has asked me to share my photographs of Messier objects M8, M31, M46 and M47 for use on Wikipedia. I hereby state that these photos can freely be used for educational and commercial purposes on Wikipedia as long as I'm cited as the author of these photos. Vedran is allowed to modify this photos.
Permission from Krunoslav Vardijan
With this statement i approve to Vedran Vrhovac from Velika Gorica/Croatia ,using of my astrophotographic material, which is published on my web page,Cloudy Nights forum or Croatian Astroforum,for educational and commercial purposes. This statement can be authenticated on email swedruza.observatory@email.t-com.hr
Permission from Filip Lolić
With this statement I, Filip Lolic, approve to Vedran Vrhovac full rights to use, and modify my astrophotographs for commercial and non-commercial purposes.
Permission from Matija Pozojevic
With this statement I approve to Vedran Vrhovac from Velika Gorica/Croatia ,using of my astrophotographic material, which is published on my web page,Cloudy Nights forum or Croatian Astroforum, for educational and commercial purposes. He is allowed to modify my photos but attribution is required. This statement can be authenticated on email matija.pozojevic@zg.t-com.hr. Matija Pozojevic
They also agreed on Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license, {{cc-by-3.0}}. I hope that this is enough. I can provide screenshot of email as a proof. Vedran Vrhovac
- I've modified uploaded files. I really hope that they are OK now.
- Licensing amended. Thank you very much for your patience Vedran. This license is good. Patstuart 18:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is explicit porn --Tognopop 15:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As long as there is no enourmous collection of it, even explicit porn can have an encyclopedic purpose. Garion96 18:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The picture illustrates the subject of a wikipedia article. If that article is deleted (which seems very possible) we can delete this. But, as long as Wikipedia article exists. and the images illustrate what the subject is notable for, and nobody's challenging the legitimacy of the license, than this image stays. We're not censored. --Rob 03:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Is because we are not censored that we have to admit everything ? In case yes, why don't we have hard porn scenes ? There is not interest of explicit porn for any Wikimedia project. Tognopop 10:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Of course we don't have to use everything. If Keeani Lei was notable for any reason unrelated to porn, then this image would be inappropriate. However, this image illustrates her doing what she does. We want pictures of boxers boxing, even though we'ld normally discourage people from filming violence and submitting it. Commons is a "servant project". It serves various WikiMedia projects, including Wikipedia. Wikipedia(en at least) has opted to cover a lot of pornography related topics. That coverage requires in many cases text and images of an adult nature. If Keeani Lei's career in pornography isn't worthy of coverage (text and image) it should be deleted from Wikipedia, and then deleted from here, in that order. --Rob 02:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- So if Keeani Lei were notable because she is a specialist in double penetration we should show her practising such sex ? When somebody comes on any Wikimedia Project this implies that he is not looking for sex. So we do not have to answer to such a need. Furthermore why this can't be applied for the others Wikimedia Projects ? Tognopop 22:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Simply because they are other projects. Also please note that US law (which is referred to on that page) is not valid all over the world; it seems you are French, so I would assume you should know that. --Rosenzweig 23:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Of course I know that but we need rules here, and we could be inspired from en.wp, we have to do better that just "we show this because she does it". In the french version we have something similar and this without reference to laws. Perhaps we may write something here on Commons, because french and english point of view don't seems absurd even for all the Projects. And writing guidelines may this kind of discussion not happen anymore. Tognopop 00:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Simply because they are other projects. Also please note that US law (which is referred to on that page) is not valid all over the world; it seems you are French, so I would assume you should know that. --Rosenzweig 23:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- So if Keeani Lei were notable because she is a specialist in double penetration we should show her practising such sex ? When somebody comes on any Wikimedia Project this implies that he is not looking for sex. So we do not have to answer to such a need. Furthermore why this can't be applied for the others Wikimedia Projects ? Tognopop 22:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Of course we don't have to use everything. If Keeani Lei was notable for any reason unrelated to porn, then this image would be inappropriate. However, this image illustrates her doing what she does. We want pictures of boxers boxing, even though we'ld normally discourage people from filming violence and submitting it. Commons is a "servant project". It serves various WikiMedia projects, including Wikipedia. Wikipedia(en at least) has opted to cover a lot of pornography related topics. That coverage requires in many cases text and images of an adult nature. If Keeani Lei's career in pornography isn't worthy of coverage (text and image) it should be deleted from Wikipedia, and then deleted from here, in that order. --Rob 02:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I agree that Commons should not be censored. But that does not mean that explicit content like this must be kept without questioning its usabilty. Will this image ever be usable on any Wikimedia project? It's obviously not usable in a serious encyclopedic article and IMHO only released by the copyright holder to promote this model. --88.134.232.95 04:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep just about As with Garion96 we are an encyclopedia but I still have difficulties with it. CommentWhat's next; does one limit to one example per subject, followed quickly by nominations for image of the subject!! Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 12:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep just about As with Garion96 we are an encyclopedia but I still have difficulties with it.
- Keep It's time to add some "beware of explicit nudity" sort of thing that could help parent's protection softwares... Moreover it's not what I call explicit porn. Just explicit nudity, not more shocking than Courbet's Origine du monde (1866!) --TwoWings (jraf) * Wanna talk? ;-) 12:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, it is not used to illustrate its subject in an article. Technically, it is prohibited from use by its listing at en:MediaWiki:Bad image list with no exception. Socially, it is prohibited from use by the third guideline at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Structure: "images should not be explicit in nature. Pictures with the genitals, bust, or buttocks of the person exposed should not be posted". While a WikiProject guideline to its members does not have the force of a community guideline or policy, it is very unlikely that this image will ever be used to illustrate en:Keeani Lei or any other en wiki article. - BanyanTree 01:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete On further thought, if I can't think of how this will ever be used, and if there is an ounce to truth to WikiProject Pornography's assertion that images of this sort are at risk of prompting 2257, I should be for deletion. - BanyanTree 05:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete! Not because of porn (I like porn), but it is obviously here for commercial purpose! —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.178.14.116 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18. Okt. 2007
- Keep Perhaps some other wikimedia project might be able to use it in an appropriate context (an article on pornography perhaps), aside from en.wp? If not now, then perhaps later. We don't have too many porn images with an OTRS permission. --Rosenzweig 23:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Free pr0n? Don't look a gift image in the _ _ _ _. I can think of plenty of uses for this image, and some of them even have nothing to do with my right hand. OK, seriously (hence the name), this could be used to illustrate articles on pornography, grooming practices, or even (cropped) girl parts, aside from the subject herself. A trusted user went to the trouble of clearing permissions for this image. What sort of message are we sending to him if we say "thanks but no thanks". This image is no more spamulous that an image of a singer singing or a batsman batting. Even though it is currently on the badimage list, exceptions can be requested. I know en.w is not censored; hopefully, that applies to the epicenter of free media that is Commons as well. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Plenty of uses? too much controversy for item(s) than can be used for nothing! --Kandar 17:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep especially with explicit OTRS permission. - Bemoeial2 20:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- This permission is for advertisement. Do you have rewared, on the file's description, the two links directly on his commercial website ? Tognopop 21:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, the permission is for the release of the photo under the GFDL license. That it is perhaps advertisement is irrelevant. Commons has plenty of publicity images released by the webmaster or the person in question her/himself. The only difference with this one that it is nudity. Garion96 16:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- And you think that we should let webmasters using Commons for publicity ? Tognopop 18:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- That is a nonsense argument. Are you going to nominate Image:Alina Ibragimova.jpg for deletion because it was released by the person in question. Are you going to nominate Image:Paul Haslinger.JPG because it was released by the webmaster/management of that person? Garion96 20:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- No of course but this case is particular. It seems like "Do you want to see more pictures of me ? Come on my commercial website and pay for it, you just have to click on the link below!" Tognopop 22:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- One one of the images above there is a link to the offical Haslinger site. On there is an advertisement for his new album. Seems the same to me. That it might be advertisement is not a good reason for deletion, the other reasons are perhaps (although I don't agree with them). Garion96 22:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- This two pictures are not comparable. The Haslinger one can't seems to say "look how smart I am, come on my website to buy my music". If there were an extract of a song of this man and directly bellow two links to buy the entire song, I would believe that it is clearly advertisment. The case of Keeani is much more explicit, his entire body seems to say "come on ! (and pay)". Tognopop 17:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your arguments are getting more ridiculous all the time. You are only describing what you associate with the picture. This it not part of any spam campaign, as you seem to think, the image is here because the uploader (Videmus Omnia) requested some images and got them, among them this. He mentions the source of the pictures, and I can't see anything incorrect in that. Quite on the contrary, it is commendable to state your sources. --Rosenzweig 21:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Your arguments are getting more ridiculous all the time" => personal attacks, please avoid. Do you really think that is a subjective point of view saying that this picture is like an invitation ? This is not because Videmus Omnia has requested some images and mentions the source that it can't be removed from Commons, isn't it ? Tognopop 23:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- I did not attack you, I simply called your arguments “more ridiculous all the time”. The first argument was “This is explicit porn”, now we are at "Do you want to see more pictures of me ? Come on my commercial website and pay for it, you just have to click on the link below!" I explicitly rebut your notion of the image being a case of “webmasters using Commons for publicity” by telling that it was uploaded by a user who asked for some pictures with permission, got them and uploaded them while mentioning his source, and the next argument is that this fact is no obstacle to deletion! (At least that's what I think you meant, your English is a bit hard to understand sometimes). What will come next? To me this seems to be a case of argument after argument being produced after the previous ones were rebutted, the only goal being the deletion. --Rosenzweig 01:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Even if I thought that your arguments were ridiculous I won't tell you because it cannot brings something positive to the debate and it may hurt you. I simply give "This is explicit porn" because I thought that this image will be deleted very quickly without need of others arguments. It's not because this image have been uploaded by a user who asked for it that the webmaster not uses indirectly Commons for publicity. Probably Videmus Omnia thought that uploading this image and giving links was a very good thing to Commons. But now it serves this commercial website giving more visitors and so, with this, Commons is indirectly used for publicity. You didn't answer my question, "Do you really think that is a subjective point of view saying that this picture is like an invitation ?". "What will come next?" => please be less agressive. Tognopop 02:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I thought the answer was obvious, but since it does not seem obvious to you, I'll spell it out: Yes, I do think that it is a subjective point of view saying that this picture is like an invitation. You're mistaking a source reference for spam. --Rosenzweig 11:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, according to my point of view it's obvious that picture is like an invitation. I didn't want to say that is spam, sorry for this mistake. Tognopop 15:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I thought the answer was obvious, but since it does not seem obvious to you, I'll spell it out: Yes, I do think that it is a subjective point of view saying that this picture is like an invitation. You're mistaking a source reference for spam. --Rosenzweig 11:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Even if I thought that your arguments were ridiculous I won't tell you because it cannot brings something positive to the debate and it may hurt you. I simply give "This is explicit porn" because I thought that this image will be deleted very quickly without need of others arguments. It's not because this image have been uploaded by a user who asked for it that the webmaster not uses indirectly Commons for publicity. Probably Videmus Omnia thought that uploading this image and giving links was a very good thing to Commons. But now it serves this commercial website giving more visitors and so, with this, Commons is indirectly used for publicity. You didn't answer my question, "Do you really think that is a subjective point of view saying that this picture is like an invitation ?". "What will come next?" => please be less agressive. Tognopop 02:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I did not attack you, I simply called your arguments “more ridiculous all the time”. The first argument was “This is explicit porn”, now we are at "Do you want to see more pictures of me ? Come on my commercial website and pay for it, you just have to click on the link below!" I explicitly rebut your notion of the image being a case of “webmasters using Commons for publicity” by telling that it was uploaded by a user who asked for some pictures with permission, got them and uploaded them while mentioning his source, and the next argument is that this fact is no obstacle to deletion! (At least that's what I think you meant, your English is a bit hard to understand sometimes). What will come next? To me this seems to be a case of argument after argument being produced after the previous ones were rebutted, the only goal being the deletion. --Rosenzweig 01:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Your arguments are getting more ridiculous all the time" => personal attacks, please avoid. Do you really think that is a subjective point of view saying that this picture is like an invitation ? This is not because Videmus Omnia has requested some images and mentions the source that it can't be removed from Commons, isn't it ? Tognopop 23:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your arguments are getting more ridiculous all the time. You are only describing what you associate with the picture. This it not part of any spam campaign, as you seem to think, the image is here because the uploader (Videmus Omnia) requested some images and got them, among them this. He mentions the source of the pictures, and I can't see anything incorrect in that. Quite on the contrary, it is commendable to state your sources. --Rosenzweig 21:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- This two pictures are not comparable. The Haslinger one can't seems to say "look how smart I am, come on my website to buy my music". If there were an extract of a song of this man and directly bellow two links to buy the entire song, I would believe that it is clearly advertisment. The case of Keeani is much more explicit, his entire body seems to say "come on ! (and pay)". Tognopop 17:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- One one of the images above there is a link to the offical Haslinger site. On there is an advertisement for his new album. Seems the same to me. That it might be advertisement is not a good reason for deletion, the other reasons are perhaps (although I don't agree with them). Garion96 22:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- No of course but this case is particular. It seems like "Do you want to see more pictures of me ? Come on my commercial website and pay for it, you just have to click on the link below!" Tognopop 22:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- That is a nonsense argument. Are you going to nominate Image:Alina Ibragimova.jpg for deletion because it was released by the person in question. Are you going to nominate Image:Paul Haslinger.JPG because it was released by the webmaster/management of that person? Garion96 20:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- And you think that we should let webmasters using Commons for publicity ? Tognopop 18:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, the permission is for the release of the photo under the GFDL license. That it is perhaps advertisement is irrelevant. Commons has plenty of publicity images released by the webmaster or the person in question her/himself. The only difference with this one that it is nudity. Garion96 16:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep A lot of full frontal nudity photos at Wikipedia might be looked at as pornographic. The photo in discussion is a full body shoot (unique feature compared to other photos of female genitals on Wiki!) of a nude women also showing her genitals. The fact that she is a porn actress is not relevant. Starburstdentrimer
- Delete I see no purpose of this pic. If you're interested in porn, visit an appropriate site. Why have porn in wikipedia? There's plenty of it on the web already... Iaberis 01:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Wikimedia isn't a censor. Marcus Cyron 09:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Look at the top of this discussion concerning censorship. Tognopop 18:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. And now? You have your opinion and your way to look at these things. It seems, I have an other understanding of such things. Marcus Cyron 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- You should explain why you think your point of view is better. Maybe I'm wrong but if you don't tell me why I will still believe that I'm right. Tognopop 23:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. And now? You have your opinion and your way to look at these things. It seems, I have an other understanding of such things. Marcus Cyron 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Wikimedia isn't a porn site. I highly doubt a photo of this nature will ever get used in a Wikipedia article. At some point you have to consider where to draw the line. We should draw the line at porn (i.e. images specifically created for the purposes of sexual arousal, not education). 82.35.167.93 02:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep see Marcus Cyron. --S[1] 17:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I'm all for porn, but educational value really isn't there, porn can be described in an article less graphically and promotionally (for want of a better word) --Pumpmeup 03:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Commons is not Wikipedia. For me, Commons should be independent, and everybody should be able to find free contents here without having to pass by Wikipedia. Keeani Lei has two articles (English and Spanish) concerning her. She is thus famous and any photo of her is thus important. Because she is a pornstar, it's normal to have this kind of photo. Okki 07:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC) ps: sorry for my really poor english
- Comment - correct. Not everything on Commons should be seen through the lense of Wikipedia. This is a repository of free images. If I want to use an explicit erotic image in a work of mine, why shouldn't I be allowed to get it from here? Ingolfson 19:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep--Mnts 22:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's not pornographic but explicit erotic. Like this one. --86.66.173.176 07:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - a) this image is not illegal in any sense I can see, and b) schools of thought which are willing to ban something such as this because its on the FRINGE of being problematic to SOME - I consider them contrary to the whole purpose of the Wikimedia project. Ingolfson 19:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Wikimedia does not want to offend (which is really, a companion rule for is not censored). However, not only is the "not censored", if in balance, more important (because SOMEBODY is always going to be offended - there are lots of people who object to images of woman's uncovered faces!), this image is also unlikely to be seen by accident, and is likely harder to stumble upon porn on Google. Therefore, any offense taken is mostly self-wrought. Ingolfson 19:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I'm offended by the promotion of guilt, shame and ignorance. --Simonxag 20:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep While I agree that Wikipedia's policies preclude the use of this image in Wikipedia at the moment, Commons does not exist only to serve Wikipedia. It is not too difficult to imagine something on Wikibooks that might want to use this, and more broadly it may be of use to the rest of the free-content world. Since it may be useful to Wikimedia projects, and the license is good, we should keep it. --Sopoforic 11:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I am about to close this as a keep, per the majority of the votes and lack of any particular Commons guideline which would require deletion. For those who think Commons needs clearer standards regarding images which may be considered pornographic, Commons talk:Project scope and Commons talk:Nudity may be useful places for further discussion. -- Infrogmation 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Inappropriate for public viewing. 66.151.148.225 00:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- speedy keep per previous keep. How do anons keep finding porn to nominate for deletion if they don't look for it in the first place? -Nard the Bard 00:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
A very speedy question. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
pornography 192.55.52.1 01:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Not a valid reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no reason to believe this is public domain; fair use claimed on same image: Image:Logo Solis AG.png --Patstuart 03:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Go ahead, not necessary to be present in the Commons. -- Хрюша ?? 10:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- May somebody explain me, why the .png file has been deleted very quickly and to delete the .jpg file there are doubts? -- Хрюша ?? 10:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Administrative issues only. I have marked it for speedy deletion now. Patstuart (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- May somebody explain me, why the .png file has been deleted very quickly and to delete the .jpg file there are doubts? -- Хрюша ?? 10:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture was painted by Birgitte Ohsten, who was born 1963. She can't be dead since 70 years which is indicated by the licence-tag. -- Cecil 18:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for hunting that down, but I'm not quite sure (I don't read Danish well) - are you certain the line on that page, "Birgitte Ohsten portrætterer Rumi" really means she painted the picture, or rather she "portrays" him through the article? (She's the article author, first of all.) The web article seems to be from 2006, and the image has been on Wikipedia since at least 2005, so she could quite possibly have taken it from us. But nevertheless, support deletion, because if this should not be the source then the source is still unclear. Future Perfect at Sunrise 22:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure myself either. It could also be that the Birgitte Ohsten which was born 1963 and the one who wrote the article are two different persons. As far as I got the writer is a fan of this poet. All the other pictures look rather old since the guy lived in the 13th century. Most of them are not colorized or the colors are bleached because of the long time. This one has fresh colors and a rather modern style. When I made the deletion request I assumed that Ohsten painted it based on the second one in the article, but it could be that the picture description is just a description of the article and the picture is 100s of years old.-- Cecil 23:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yep. My guess is she got the image from Wikipedia, but that still leaves us with the uncertainty of the painting's origins. The style definitely looks modern. It certainly isn't "old" in the sense of medieval Iranian (they had lovely painted miniatures back then, but they look entirely different.) This is from a heavily Europeanised style which can't really have existed much earlier than the 19th century, much more likely sometime in the 20th, possibly quite recent, so that we are left with a significant chance it's copyrighted. Future Perfect at Sunrise 23:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure myself either. It could also be that the Birgitte Ohsten which was born 1963 and the one who wrote the article are two different persons. As far as I got the writer is a fan of this poet. All the other pictures look rather old since the guy lived in the 13th century. Most of them are not colorized or the colors are bleached because of the long time. This one has fresh colors and a rather modern style. When I made the deletion request I assumed that Ohsten painted it based on the second one in the article, but it could be that the picture description is just a description of the article and the picture is 100s of years old.-- Cecil 23:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader blanked the page without explanation, so I request comment as to whether to delete. Jusjih 02:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, blurry as well; another image uploaded, I presume this one was a mistake. -- Infrogmation 21:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
If I follow correctly, someone seems to be under the misimpression that because this was on a (now apparently defunct) web page without copyright info, it is therefore in the public domain. Needless to say, it is not. --Jmabel | talk 00:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 05:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unusable image, due to the intrusive watermarking. Dodo 10:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; dubious licensing as well. -- Infrogmation 21:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 12:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Quadell: unused personal photo, per Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 12:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Quadell: unused personal photo, per Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work; see http://www.staples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/easybutton/index.html. --Patstuart 02:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also: Image:Easy button.jpg. Patstuart 02:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- You can delete the JPG version, the photo didn't turn out the way I wanted to, and the SVG is simply a gray circle, a red circle, and "easy" written inside it. It was self-made. Jonjonbt96 02:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's still pretty clearly derivative of a prominent trademark or something like that. Can you at least change the color? --AnonEMouse 21:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Just delete them, they're just not useful. Jonjonbt96 01:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's still pretty clearly derivative of a prominent trademark or something like that. Can you at least change the color? --AnonEMouse 21:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- You can delete the JPG version, the photo didn't turn out the way I wanted to, and the SVG is simply a gray circle, a red circle, and "easy" written inside it. It was self-made. Jonjonbt96 02:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Majorly (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Seems to be a derivative work, made from a video. ElinorD 00:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- It was also uploaded to en, where the uploader stated on the image page (which may soon be deleted): "I created this file".[47] See also the article in which it appears. ElinorD 01:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Non-notable biography written in Spanish, placed in the wrong Wikipedia anyway. --Patstuart 01:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also:
deleted (out of scope) --ALE! ¿…? 15:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
While I'm not familiar with Arquivo Pessoal, I'm quite sure it doesn't constitute self-made. May or may not allow free use. --Patstuart 01:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also:
Delete These images were solely used on a deleted article on pt.wiki (for being considered irrelevant by the community) and I would have just deleted them for being outside of COM:PS, as I usually do with any pictures that don't seem to have any encyclopaedic value and were only used in deleted articles. Patrícia msg 12:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted 3 (that were left) Majorly (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Imagen errónea ERoj 02:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- ¿Que quieres decir? No entiendo: ¿como es en error? Patstuart 02:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
La iba a subir de otra manera pero decidí mantenerla. --EDRJ 21:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 16:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused, can replaced with en:WP:MATH OsamaK 11:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A copy of this image (the original, I guess) was listed at PUI. . I agree that this image is most likely not free. The color printing technique used doesn't seem 84 years old, and Lebanon, the claimed printing source, wasn't an independent country until 1941, also seems unlikely that a book with Armenian language text, critical of the genocide would come out so soon after the events, and be printed in Lebanon. --Andrew c 14:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the style of the printing suggests 1960s or 1970s. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.126.166 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 8. Dez. 2007
Deleted. The picture has no source, date or author. There is no proof that it is PD. -- Cecil 11:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
If this is copyright foundation it should be removed as it's not being used for that purpose. Suggest replacing with cropped Image:Liquid Crystal Display Macro Example zoom cropped.jpg, or removing the copyright notice :) cohesion 00:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep There is no copyrighted logo on that image. Not even the trademarked (but not copyrighted) text "wikipedia" is visible, just the (generic) term "wiki" set in a common font. no reason for deletion, and {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} should be removed. it's contradicting the cc claim anyway. -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 16:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept / A.J. 08:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
User claimed "own work" on nl wiki it seems, the original text (as transwikied) states the name of the actual photographer as "Ad Wilschut". On the uploader's page on nl: wiki, user states that (translated) "The image is own work of Ad Wilschut, who with the permission of the Javelins released the image into print for public promotion. The photograph has permission of the owner and is free of copyright". This argument is invalid, as publishing a photograph does not mean that it's copyright free. "PD-self" is the wrong license in any event. --Deadstar (msg) 07:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / A.J. 09:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Initial uploader mentioned that he has "permission from the author", who is Daniel Baggerman. The license is "self", which would be incorrect, unless user Deksels! is of course the same person. I have left message with user, but user has been inactive a long time. Deadstar (msg) 11:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / A.J. 09:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source, but used too often to just delete (4000+ times in de.wp). Siebrand 13:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The author is claiming original authorship -- the PD-self tag is used, with an explicit argument -- so that would be the source. The fields in the Information template are not filled in, but that can be fixed. Carl Lindberg 14:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Although, as a derivative of Image:Qsicon Lücke.png, it needs to be relicensed as GFDL. --Davepape 14:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept as GFDL-licensed derivative of Image:Qsicon Lücke.png. --rimshottalk 13:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright foundation, replaced by cropped Image:Liquid Crystal Display Macro Example zoom cropped.jpg If people don't think this is copyright foundation that would be great, but also change Image:Liquid Crystal Display Macro Example.jpg cohesion 00:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept: Main subject is the pixels and the sole word Wiki is not eligible for copyright. -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Minerals
[edit](Fixing deletion request. Lupo 15:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC))
- Image:Pierre-img 0592.jpg
- There is no description and there is no way to recognize the mineral specimen shown. --Aangelo 18:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Used at en:Beryl, where it is said to be a Morganite crystal. Lupo 15:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Anyway, in my personal opinion, the photo is not significative for that mineralogical specie and it could be any other yellowish mineral. In addition all photos are quite blurry. --Aangelo 19:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Used at en:Beryl, where it is said to be a Morganite crystal. Lupo 15:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is no description and there is no way to recognize the mineral specimen shown. --Aangelo 18:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Pierre-img 0593.jpg
- There is no description and there is no way to recognize the mineral specimen shown. --Aangelo 18:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Pierre-img 0594.jpg
- There is no description and there is no way to recognize the mineral specimen shown. --Aangelo 18:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Pierre-img 0598.jpg
- There is no description and there is no way to recognize the mineral specimen shown. --Aangelo 18:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Pierre-img 0602.jpg
- There is no description and there is no way to recognize the mineral specimen shown (could be sanidine crystals in pegmatite?). --Aangelo 18:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Uploader's comment at en:User talk:Rama#Unidentified minerals. Lupo 07:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I left a note to Rama, reminding him of this... I'm not sure I understand what he meant with his reply on his en user talk. Anyway, some of the stones are identifiable, at least I can read most of the tags (or make good guesses)... Patrícia msg 11:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for being unclear on my en: talk page. I meant that on top of not being properly documented, these images are rather low-quality. I expect images of minerals to be quite crisp (it's not like they are swift-moving subjects for which you have to catch the right expression).
- Also, these images were taken in a museum close to my residence. It usually does not autorise photography, but I might write to them in the future and ask to be allowed a special session.
- In any case, these images are not irreplaceable, and as such rather unlikely to be used at all, so I'd delete them without a second though. Rama 13:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. We look forward to your next visit to the museum then. Patrícia msg 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
October 12
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
uploaded by me by accident --Mr.absurd 06:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted /Uploader asked.--Fanghong 07:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC) + +
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
image:Buchenwald Survivors 74607.jpg has higher quality Pieter Kuiper 23:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
+
Deleted /Redundant, worse quality and no usage.--Fanghong 06:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This cat was meant for monasteries in stead of cloisters. I doubt wheather Estonia had any cloisters at all --Fransvannes 08:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Typo in name (should then be Cloisters) + empty cat. Deadstar (msg) 08:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Former_GDR_border_near_Bad_Sooden-Allendorf.jpg I uploaded a better version myself. Nickelvd 11:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted as a duplicate. You can use {{Bad name}} the next time. Samulili 13:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The picture is not usable that way. Sure it could be rotated, but since it has a rather poor quality anyway and the user has uploaded a second picture under Image:Windm2.jpg I request the deletion of this one. -- Cecil 12:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Just get rid of it - I didnt find out how to, myself.--Bjørn som tegner 21:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Cecil 22:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's an exact copy of Image:Trauermücke.JPG --Python 15:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Copied license information from Gi.JPG to Trauermücke.JPG and deleted as a {{duplicate}}. Samulili 16:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
same as Image:RomaForoCesareDaNord.JPG --Roamata 16:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. You can use {{Duplicate}} next time. Samulili 19:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
CopyVIO, e.g. on http://www.a1kstyle.com/articolo477.html Nyks 18:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. You can use {{copyvio}} for obvious cases. Samulili 19:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is available on http://www.koelman.ch/heifetz.htm. Uploader claims that Rudolf Koelman took the photo, he however is the subject, so it's unlikely he took it. In "Permission" it states that "I give permission for publication of this photo in Wikipedia" which is not free enough. I left a message for user at nl: wiki, but user only ever made 3 contributions (in March this year). Deadstar (msg) 08:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. {{permission}} and no credible authorship information. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Albumcover for Ragnar Grímsson. No author mentions, yet "released into PD by author". On the recordcompany page, it states it's copyrighted (http://kvlt.urlauten.net/?page=ragnargrimsson). Deadstar (msg) 08:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence of permission after more than a week. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Margot Käßmann is the person on the left side, the one in the middle is a visitor according to the description at Margot Käßmann. The image is pretty much out of the project's scope. 32X 13:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I changed the image so that only Margot Käßmann being photographed is visible. So I hope it is not out of the project's scope any more. --Noebse 19:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not used anywhere, results shown are from another image Kameraad Pjotr 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Useless as vitnessed by the fact that it's not used nor categorized. Samulili 19:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - per samulili. Patstuart 21:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 07:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images by Nisar Khan
[edit]- Image:Preity Zinta 2007.jpg ()
- Image:Manisha Koirala.jpg ()
- Image:Divya Bharti by zureses.jpg ()
- Image:Aamir Khan in 2002.jpg ()
- Image:Aamir Khan.jpg ()
- Image:Fardeen Khan in 2002.jpg ()
- Image:Zayed Khan in 2003.jpg ()
- Image:Shahrukh Khan in 2007.jpg ()
- Image:Shahrukh Khan in 2004.jpg ()
- Image:Shahrukh Khan in 2003.jpg ()
Flick user who steals images of Indian film stars. Compare [48] to [49]. Kjetil r 11:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but 1 and 2 are not the same images, they are totally different. The image displayed on the right I uploaded is web-created by Vijay (Author), while the other one is a poster of the "Movie Lagaan". Every Indian movie star has 100's of different posters of themselves. The author who makes the art work usually has their name on the posters of the Indian movie stars, and the posters are intended for commercial use. You need to prove that the Flickr user "Nisar Khan" stole the images of the Indian film stars before you make such allegations.--Executioner 14:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Preity Zinta 2007.jpg was taken from indiafm. See [50] ([51]), and there is no indication that this image was released under those terms. I think that is sufficient grounds to believe the Flickr user does not own the copyright on these images. --Yamla 15:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- You can not seriously believe that 1 and 2 are totally different? There is no reason to think that "Nisar Khan" owns the copyright of all the photos he displays on Flickr. For example, this one is most likely © Coca Cola, not "Nisar Kahn". --Kjetil r 15:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're claim that image (Preity Zinta 2007.jpg) being taken from indiafm is incorrect, I can easily prove this. I believe Nisar Khan uploaded the Preity Zinta 2007 image from here. Nisar Khan has indicated to us that the actual "Author" is not him but abiyakhan. I don't see these computer-made images being copyrighted at any website, meaning they can be loaded on to Flickr as long as the original source is indicated. All of the above images are found at www.moviegupshup.net, which is an Indian image sharing site. The Amir Khan's images were created in 2002 by web-master Vijay, check here. According to the site, there are no restrictions on loading images from their site to other sites for whatever purposes. Mostly all of the images on that site (moviegupshup) are created by the authors who added them, using computer art. About the Coca Cola image,,,if I hold a bottle of Coca Cola in a picture, does that mean Coca Cola owns my picture? So far the images have no copyright violation, you are only assuming they do. To me it appears that Nisar Khan was walking down the street and saw these images in somebody's trash outside their home and decided to pick them and load them on to Flickr image sharing. This is not stealing under any circumstances. I don't think there is anything wrong with Nisar Khan's deeds. There is a clear "PD-cc-by-sa" license tag indicated, which allows us to use them here.--Executioner 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. I'm convinced that images were uploaded in breach of copyright. Thuresson 18:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see any copyright violation. The license from Flickr allows us to use these images on Wiki Commons.--Executioner 16:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. That moviegupshup site looks like one big collection of copyright violations. Lupo 12:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Obvious copyvio Flickr photostream. Videmus Omnia 15:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; see also COM:QFI. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - obvious copyvios. Can somebody from here look into all the images related to Bollywood on wikipedia. They're full of copyvios. Sarvagnya 03:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is an SVG version of a fair use image that I created ages ago. --Ta bu shi da yu 07:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- The graph itself isn't protected by copyright (it's too simple). The image as a whole should be licensed with LGPL and kept. Samulili 13:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, if you look at the diagram this is loosely based on, you can see that this isn't the same, and furthermore you can't really copyright a concept. The fact that the diagram is showing is true, it is like saying "I copyright the fact that pressing this button in my software will bring up the 'Open' dialog". It can't be done. > Rugby471 talk 16:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, that makes it fair use. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I should also note, that you also very poorly sourced this. Please cite the manual where I got the diagram from. You don't do this, instead you rely on the fact that a Wikipedia image will remain up forever, but because you orphaned it, it will get deleted. Thus the original source will be gone, all because you haven't been bothered to source where you got the info from. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- <retracted previous statement> Much better, I think this is now resolved. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I changed the author/source information to tell where the information in the image comes from and who assembled the image. I also removed cc-license because the icons are LGPL and they are the only work that pass the threshold of originality. Samulili 07:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to en:O sole mio#Other information not in the PD. -- kh80 12:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is a non-issue. One faulty legal decision in one country does not invalidate its public domain status in all of the others. Raul654 16:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why is this decision in your opinion faulty? -- kh80 16:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I question the factual basis of ruling that the translator, working in conjunction with the composer, had significant input into the creative process such that he deserves a copyright. Regardless, as I said, even assuming the judge's decision survives appeal, it does not invalidate the public domain status in any country but Italy. Raul654 16:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, if this Mr. Mazzucchi wasn't a coauthor, we don't have to care about the decision. But that's exactly the issue: Was he a coauthor? If he was one (and not just a transcriber), then the song is not in the PD – and that not only in Italy. -- kh80 19:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Incorrect. Even if we was a co-author, he never registered the copyright in any country, which was a requirement both for initial copyright and for copyright extensions in most countries until recently. Raul654 20:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- If by "most countries" you mean the US, that is true. Samulili 19:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Incorrect. Even if we was a co-author, he never registered the copyright in any country, which was a requirement both for initial copyright and for copyright extensions in most countries until recently. Raul654 20:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, if this Mr. Mazzucchi wasn't a coauthor, we don't have to care about the decision. But that's exactly the issue: Was he a coauthor? If he was one (and not just a transcriber), then the song is not in the PD – and that not only in Italy. -- kh80 19:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I question the factual basis of ruling that the translator, working in conjunction with the composer, had significant input into the creative process such that he deserves a copyright. Regardless, as I said, even assuming the judge's decision survives appeal, it does not invalidate the public domain status in any country but Italy. Raul654 16:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why is this decision in your opinion faulty? -- kh80 16:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- The song entered PD in 1970. Mazzucchi died in 1972, and his family filed in 1973 - 75 years after the song was written. Ignoring that he was a paid transcriber and this judge seems to have troubles with basic concepts, the song was in the PD for 3 years before the claim was filed. How does it go back out? My copy was made in 1971, I'm quite sure. 67.86.126.119 15:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Not PD in the source country. Samulili 06:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no reason given by uploader (and initial requester). He did however also upload Image:GranBsAs.svg, which is probably to replace this image. Deadstar (msg) 15:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
English version with google translator :
This picture is not representative of the airsoft, noted the confusion that reigns with the wearing of insignia of the Army regulations, as well as a bar that hides the eyes of the protagonists. This photo was used repeatedly on wikipedia.fr to end advertising of a team with the same name as the image. The BBEC is a team not recognized and that has no credibility in the middle of the french airsoft. He agree to withdraw the image that is not harmful to the eyes of our entertainment insiders, which could very quickly be accurate between games and militarism.
Version française :
Cette image n'est pas représentative de l'airsoft, noté la confusion qui règne avec le port d'insigne réglementaire de l'armée, ainsi qu'une barre qui masque les yeux des protagonistes. Cette photo à été utilisé à plusieurs reprise sur wikipedia.fr à des fin publicitaire d'une équipe du même nom que l'image. La BBEC est une équipe non associative et emergente qui n'a aucune crédibilité dans le milieu de l'airsoft français. Il conviens de retirer cette image qui est nuisible au yeux non initiés de notre loisir qui pourrait très rapidement faire l'amalgamme entre jeux et militarisme. --Croco 23:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Advertising as such is not a reason for deletion. It is, however, a reason to rename an image. What I agree with is that the image is not representative of airsoft. A major fault in the image is that the people are not wearing masks! en:Airsoft#Safety. Samulili 08:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It's not representative of airsoft (no safety procedures evident (like spectacles or masks)), the players eyes have been censored and the image looks more 'military' than airsoft.
- Deleted. Samulili 06:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images by Ratskiller
[edit]Images without permission
[edit]- Image:Quaife-ATB_free.gif
- Image:Train avant de Mini Cooper S.jpg
- Image:Mini Cooper S moteur pistons soupapes.jpg
- Image:Mini Cooper S échappement.jpg
- Image:Mini cooper s outside.ogg
- Image:Mini3 break.jpg
Images unlikely to be own work
[edit]These images are typically small and have no EXIF date. Some of them are of high quality or otherwise difficult to make while others have very low quality. The collection shows no consistency indicating that not all images are own work. Some can be found on the Internet, too.
- Image:Mini Cooper S avec Jacuzzi.jpg [52]
- Image:Mini One 95 cv 1,4L.jpg
- Image:Mini Cooper S rouge.jpg
- Image:Intérieur Mini3.png
- Image:Mini Park Lane.jpg
- Image:Mini Cooper Rouge.JPG
- Image:Mini Cooper.JPG
- Image:Moteur Mini Cooper S.jpg
- Image:Mini Cooper JCW - Mini2.jpg [53]
- Image:Intérieur Mini3.jpg
Samulili 07:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source given for original publication. It is impossible to verify that it was first published more than 20 years ago. --Taragüí @ 11:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - given that the subject died 44 years ago, I think it's a safe assumption. Patstuart 21:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- That goes for the "being taken more than 25 years ago" part quite clearly. But to qualify the image must also have been published through an Argentina-based publishing house no less than 20 years ago. I can see no evidence to that effect. 62.57.1.19 21:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence provided to confirm that it is free. giggy (:O) 08:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
October 13
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The original uploader, en:User:Nishishei, never gave the source, only said "the image is public domain". I also tagged as no source Fred J 15:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image is tagged with {{no source since}} which hasn't been disputed. No need for a separate deletion request. Samulili 17:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Same as Plaque à la mémoire de Rainer Maria Rilke.jpg Augustin B. 17:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: Dupe of Image:Plaque à la mémoire de Rainer Maria Rilke.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The same as Image:Apeldoorn door Jacob van Ruisdael.jpg Gouwenaar 19:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: Dupe of Image:Apeldoorn door Jacob van Ruisdael.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Flickr author has copyright issues - license is not reliable (e.g., http://flickr.com/photos/d_vdm/533449871/) --Patstuart 20:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, copyvio on flickr.--Polarlys 21:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Scan of postcard" --> Derivative work --schlendrian •λ• 12:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC) --schlendrian •λ• 12:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, clear copyright infringement mislicenced. -- Infrogmation 16:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Foto errada Pampa2007 20:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, request by uploader. --GeorgHH 19:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image damaged and source of image is missing or was lost --Rfc1394 22:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: upload damaged
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
impossible to verify public domain claim, no details given, source link doesn't work --Pibwl 18:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- DeleteCopyvio: http://www.inverclyde.gov.uk/GeneralR.aspx?id=818&s=1 Patstuart 20:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work: copyrighted image --Warko2006 00:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 09:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright infringement from [54] --LaNicoya 02:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 09:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright infrindgment from http://www.panamadeportivo.com/pd/articulos/articulos/articulos.asp?id=3008 LaNicoya 02:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 09:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
have new big photo --Billytanghh 05:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - replaced by larger and better named Image:MTRC to Lok Ma Chau.png. Please do not upload any more thumbnails instead of the full size images. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 08:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image was uploaded with the description for another image (Image:BidenMTP.JPG), and I've no idea where it is originally from or by whom it was created. It isn't used anywhere, and it's not of the greatest quality either. I would have asked the uploader to fix the information but they are blocked, I don't see any reason to keep the image around if it's unuseful and we have no information about it. -- Editor at Large • talk 15:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Bnai Israel Cemetery.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Scan of copyrighted picture --TwoWings (jraf) * Wanna talk? ;-) 15:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work. Patstuart 20:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 21:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Another example of the licensing confusion that can happens when users don't use the CommonsHelper for uploading files.. only if an admin happens to look into it it can ever get corrected. The image was deleted from English Wikipedia because "for non-commercial use only" [55] . The original source is not a user English Wikipedia, it is this flickr page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chill/48606336/. Fred J 16:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, non-commercial only restriction not allowed on Commons. -- Infrogmation 21:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Document is outside of scope of commons --Patstuart 19:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 21:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No indication given why this should be the uploader's own work. The same image exists on http://www.occultopedia.com/a/atlantis_page_2.htm --Valentinian T / C 10:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think its a nice image. Its' nice to keep it. It adds to the concept of Atlantis michael, from california —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.19.198 (talk • contribs)
- The issue here isn't whether it is a nice image or not. It is a beautiful image where we have no guarantee at all that the uploader is the same person that created it. On the contrary, this image was uploaded months earlier to the page indicated above which states rather bluntly that all of its content is copyrighted and that it will sue anyone that violates its copyright, see: http://www.occultopedia.com/rights Valentinian T / C 15:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Why should the public be denied the opportunity to comprehend the totality of what some privileged few aspire to duplicate at the expense of commonfolk? —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.250.115.216 (talk • contribs)
- Until we have definitive proof otherwise, this image is a violation of copyright = Plain English: "The Wikimedia Foundation can get its ass sued." The rules of this project are quite simple, anysuch images may not be kept on our servers. This is not a vote, the purpose of the deletion debate is to give others a change to find *positive proof* that speaks against the image being a copyright violation. Valentinian T / C 11:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 05:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It has been superseded by Image:Bandera de Castilla y León.svg, a better flag which is used in the official places of the Autonomous Community. If we search it in Google, 1 we look that in the 4 first flags, 3 are like the new image. Also, we can look that in photographs of places with the flag (1 and 2) we can see the new one. --Rastrojo 18:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Opposetheyr're diferent in style, so I don't think one of them is the best in all possible situations. -- Drini 19:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)- Oppose With all due respect, this is a question of taste: the only official description of this flag is made in the laws of Castile and León, and it only describes the characteristics of the flag in heraldic terms. Both flags (the old one and Rastrojo´s one) comply with the legal description (golden castle with 3 towers and blue openings, purple lion with a golden crown and red claws and tongue), so both are equally valid. -- Jgaray 06:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose To my point of view, the raisons mentionned above to deletion are not strong enought to justify such action: bad name? a name is not important in itself if the image can be identify anyway. Better dessing? I don't see why better: both models seems to be according to heraldic traditional drawings in both style and colors, I agree with Jgaray. However, there is some legislation called anexo I y II del BOCCL nº 77 de 21 de abril de 1989 donde se detalla la ORDEN de 20 de abril de 1989, por la que se dictan normas para la plasmación de los Símbolos de la Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León; unfortunatelly, I didnot success in finding a free copy on the net. If one of you can have access to this source, perhaps we can ammend any drawing to that official specifications.--SanchoPanzaXXI 19:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
corrupted during upload Sameboat - 同舟 03:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
kept Image looks fine to me. Deadstar (msg) 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
corrupted during upload Sameboat - 同舟 03:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept image looks fine to me. Deadstar (msg) 15:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
corrupted during upload Sameboat - 同舟 03:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image is used on more than one wikipedias. Its okay. Why do you think it's corrupted? ChristianBier 03:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
kept - image looks fine to me Deadstar (msg) 16:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
corrupted during upload Sameboat - 同舟 03:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
kept - image looks fine to me Deadstar (msg) 16:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
corrupted during upload Sameboat - 同舟 03:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
kept - image looks fine to me Deadstar (msg) 16:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
corrupted during upload Sameboat - 同舟 03:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
kept - image looks fine to me Deadstar (msg) 16:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
corrupted during upload Sameboat - 同舟 15:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
kept - image looks fine to me Deadstar (msg) 16:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
corrupted during upload Sameboat - 同舟 15:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
kept - image looks fine to me Deadstar (msg) 16:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:FOP: 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. --A.J. 09:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Sorry, that's some ridiculous overeagerness on your part. A work of art? One of the numerous similar figures in a thematic entertainment park for children? Give me a break. tsca [re] 10:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- What is definition of "work of art" in Danish copyright law? (Anyway: following your argument your photo is just a "point and shoot" simple picture and should be PD not GFDL or CC-BY-SA: Ask yourself: who put more creative effort: the sculptor or you, as the photographer? I do not think that your photo isn't work of art, that's just a consequence of your argument). Their copyright law may look ridiculous, but it protects sculptures put in public places, Commons must obey that per COM:FOP. A.J. 11:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per A.J. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Has anyone an idea who was the sculptor of this lady? Mutter Erde 09:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Simonxag 23:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. FOP in Denmark does not extend to sculptures. MichaelMaggs 14:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
PD-US does not apply - Alice B. Woodward worked in England, and source book was apparently published in England. Woodward died less than 70 years ago. Davepape 03:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, doesn't US law apply to Wikipedia? Isn't it on American servers? FunkMonk 03:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is Commons which goes by copyright status of country of origin, not en:Wikipedia. -- Infrogmation 05:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Does that mean the image could be re-uploaded to English Wikipedia then? Also, if it actually was published in America first, I believe American copyright would apply. Do we know anything about where it was first published for sure? FunkMonk 06:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- It would seem rather unlikely for a publisher 100 years ago to commission an illustrator overseas. Woodward's biography confirms that she worked for publishers in London and Glasgow. But for your first question, yes, it seems en.wp accepts PD-US for works published anywhere before 1923, which would mean the image can be uploaded there. --Davepape 15:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Awright, then this file just needs to get deleted, then I'll upload it again on the English Wikipedia. FunkMonk 18:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Use {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} at the English Wikipedia if you do re-upload it there. Lupo 22:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image was once tagged PD-AR-Photo, but it looks like a scan of a newspaper, thus not a photo. Jusjih 01:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- PD-AR-Photo is wrong. PD-AR-Anonymous could work but only if the article was more than 50 years old, which is not the case. --ALE! ¿…? 16:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a tourist map (stated inside the image), and one wonders why it should be GFDL Fred J 14:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- When I uploaded it to Commons, the licence of the original version on english wiki (now deleted) was GFDL. Croquant 16:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. / Fred J 17:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- So, I don't understand clearly the reasons why GFDL licence is unsuitable, and why the image should be deleted. Croquant 18:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Because the original uploader was not the creator. / Fred J 18:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Croquant 07:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unknown source, probably copyrighted. Deadstar (msg) 16:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
deleted (copyvio) --ALE! ¿…? 16:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong naming Sameboat - 同舟 03:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on COM:DR (wrong name, not used)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong naming Sameboat - 同舟 03:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on COM:DR (wrong name, not used)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:FOP - "no freedom of panorama in France" --A.J. 09:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- When did the sculptor die? If it's less than 70 years ago then they own the copyright. Earlier it's PD. If there's no info then we'll have to delete. --Simonxag 23:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Have to assume it's fairly recent, as it appears to be, absent any info. MichaelMaggs 18:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image does not seem to be offered under a free license (see [56]). There has been a prior deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2005/08#Image:Somerights20.png, but I cannot see any conclusion of the debate (other than the image is still here). But as we already have a free replacement that is used almost everywhere. There are currently very few uses of this image. So that I see no reason to keep it. Mormegil 14:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete / Fred J 14:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The image is used in protected templates. This can't be closed until it is been properly removed on all wikis. It is been still mass used. -- Cat ちぃ？ 16:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. It is just used in four protected templates on en.WP, which are used all together on about 10 user pages (so I really don't know why they are protected). Hardly anybody will ever look at them (one is already broken quite some time). I left a message at all four, so if anybody of the users notices it somewhere in the future, they know with what to replace it. There is no reason to protract that ad infinitum just because of a few user pages (the text as the important part is after all still there). -- Cecil 13:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
self-nom, too low quality and there's already Image:Ou_ligature.svg which is infinitely superior -- Prince Kassad 18:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 12:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work 200.29.192.180 00:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- From where? Nishkid64 (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- From voto verde. Patstuart 20:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't know about the derivative work problem. I guess the picture I took of that flyer is a derivative work as the flyer itself is supposedly copyright (I say supposedly because in fact nobody would denounce it now, as it was part of a popular campaign to take human rights violators to justice in Uruguay).
- From voto verde. Patstuart 20:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
--Ernalve 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Patrícia msg 12:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
maps.live.com is copyrighted material --Patstuart 19:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I might be doing something wrong here, but when I looked for Jaén (España), I couldn't zoom in that far. Deadstar (msg) 09:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't try, but it is listed as the source. Rocket000 17:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- The only question would be, are the underlying images in the public domain? I tried looking it up on maps.live.com, but it appears that service of live.com is defunct. Patstuart (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't try, but it is listed as the source. Rocket000 17:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Source is false and even if it wasn't maps.live.com is copyrighted. Patrícia msg 12:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work --Patstuart 20:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I uploaded this picture, and I don't think it should be deleted, since, to my knowledge, the "Colorado" brand has been resold to a company named Colorado International (whose headquarters are in Guadeloupe), so that normaly, McCain no longuer holds any right on this brand, and is not linked anymore to it. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoplaaaa (talk • contribs)
- I'm pretty sure that even if the brand has been sold, it's still copyrighted. Patstuart 20:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment So we should delete everything that shows a brand on the can (e.g. those under Category:Soft drinks or its subcategories)? --Moonian 01:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- If it is the primary focus of the work, then yes. See Commons:Derivative works. Also see en:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Patstuart 19:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- en:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply to me, as I was neither supporting nor opposing the request, but just purely making a comment. --Moonian 13:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- en:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a valid reason here on Commons in regards to copyright. Rocket000 17:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- The question is whether or not the cans and the brand name on them are the primary works or not. If it was just about soda cans, it may or not be permissible. If it's just about the logo and the company, it's probably not. Patstuart (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure how it's different from most of the stuff in here... but this is one area I never know what's allowed or not. →Яocket°°° 09:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. giggy (:O) 08:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
October 14
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation. Source "Reuters, via CBS" SEWilco 02:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Besides this being a bogus request (the image is courtesy of CBS, and not the Washington Post nor Reuters as described in the deletion request), there are other "factors" involved here: please see this notice at the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 15:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Changed to {{No permission since}}. Samulili 19:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Presumably a copyrighted image, taken from a website without permission. --S[1] 17:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Changed to {{subst:npd}}. Samulili 19:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong version of file uploaded llywrch 19:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- What is the correct version? Samulili 19:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I uploaded the proper version over this one; I need more practice at this. Thanks. -- llywrch 03:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Kept. Ok. Samulili 05:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
empty --MB-one 12:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: empty category
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image on the right part should be copyrighted (COM:DW) Matt314 09:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I've uploaded another version of the image which does only show the RFID part of the image, not the copyrighted part, and deleted the deletion notification (Sorry if that's not the right procedure). IIVQ 16:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry, you had about the right idea. What I did, was that I edited your original image by removing the copyrighted part and replaced this file with it. If you want to, you could upload your second image as a new file. Why this is a better way to fix the problem, is explained in this template: {{Do not overwrite}}. Samulili 08:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Kept after editing image. Deleted the original version. Samulili 08:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
experement —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmustafa (talk • contribs) at 23:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC) (uploader) and rescued by Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Cecil 10:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Personal image, i don't like to see this more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jrc261094 (talk • contribs) at 21:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (uploader) and rescued by Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - insufficient reason for deletion. It's PD now. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- I say delete as inappropriate for Commons, shouldn't have been uploaded in the first place. - Jmabel | talk 01:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Apparently the uploader hasn't been aware of what PD means. Also, the image is not useful because of its low quality. Samulili 08:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 20:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I think the license info has been falsified, motivated by a dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tatum_Reed&action=history. --Epbr123 20:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Image license ref on pw blog http://www.ilovepopwhore.com/blog/?p=84
- Delete. Assertion of author permission is not enough; there should be an e-mail or other documentation, and it must specify what license the photographer releases the image under. Chick Bowen 05:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously my vote is withdrawn if an OTRS ticket is indeed confirmed. Chick Bowen 03:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know much about licensing, but based on that blog post (which is definitely hers), it looks like she released it into the public domain. Frankly, I prefer the other picture, but if the subject of the article has a preferred picture of themselves and is willing to release it for use, I don't really think it's worth fighting over. -76.103.104.106 13:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - Clearly released on the blog; confirmation now sent to OTRS as well. Shell babelfish 16:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept - OTRS permission, feel free to template. Patstuart 22:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence that the photographer died more than 70 years ago --72.43.122.119 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The photograph of the 1927 Solvay Conference has been released in the public domain by the Institut International de Physique Solvay. Furthermore, that particular picture is posted all over the internet, and it is unlikely that Wikipedia will encounter any difficulty in using it as well. There is no reason to diminish the value of Wikipedia by deleting pictures of well known scientists that are used all over the place. JdH 14:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- The first, that the image has been released in the public domain, is important. However, we need evidence of that. The second point though, that Commons won't get in any trouble, is not something we base our decisions on. A third point is that according to the source page, the author of the image is unknown and therefore we can use {{Anonymous-EU}}. Keep Samulili 09:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- The first, that the image has been released in the public domain, is important. However, we need evidence of that. The second point though, that Commons won't get in any trouble, is not something we base our decisions on. A third point is that according to the source page, the author of the image is unknown and therefore we can use {{Anonymous-EU}}.
- The source KØBENHAVNERFORTOLKNINGEN indicates it is in the public domain: "Billederne herunder kan frit benyttes af pressen". JdH 20:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Marked with Template:delete with reason "may be thought of as a derivative work, and thereby deletable". I am not sure if it is a derivative since the pipes are very different. Ö 16:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It was already speedily deleted once because of that.
Until now I thought the user finally understood Commons:Derivative works.The picture of Magritte is not yet in PD, so this copy of it can't be free yet. And that has nothing to do with the pipe modell or that he used a pencil for the drawing. For people who don't know the original: en:Image:MagrittePipe.jpg. The reason why this picture got so famous was not the pipe, it was the pipe in combination with the sentence. That kind of art is called Surrealism. The uploader of this drawing could have drawn a cigarette or something totally different and it would still be a violation of Magrittes right because of that sentence. In this drawing here is no originality, no own inspiration, it is just a copy of Magrittes art, and somebody trying to cheat this right by changing minor details. Or in other words: it's like drawing Marge Simpson, but instead of blue hair make it yellow, and then dress her in pants and instead of the comic style paint it in impressionist style. It's still Marge Simpson, no matter what you change. -- Cecil 17:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)- Just noticed this, so strike part of my statement above. -- Cecil 20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't quite agree with Cecil's interpretation of what makes a derivative work, but I think we should Delete it because it's not within the project scope. Samulili 18:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- I made the drawing, and submitted it because I thougt it would be too bad not to have illustrations where I saw a possibility. Next I must admit I got annoyed that anyone would think this a wrongness, so I put it back after having seen it deleted, before thinking. But Cecil is right, so there is no reason from my side to protest, but I owe you an apology for being hasty and causing double work.
- I think I found a way to get around, by using the pipe with no text inside the frame, and explain as well as possible what made the brouhaha in the 1920s on the outside of same frame. If that also is disagreeable, I will have to rethink my role in the Wikipediaproject. Hopefully still inside of acceptable limits: --Bjørn som tegner 20:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC) of the Norwegian Wiki.
- Thanks, and I don't think there is a problem with the new drawing. After all, now it is just a pipe. I think in that case you could have even drawn a picture of the same model as Magritte has. -- Cecil 21:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Won't. Too much respect for Magritte for that.(and maybe not comparable technically)(;--).--Bjørn som tegner 21:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC) PS: Dont put a match to my "pipe"! DS
- Thanks, and I don't think there is a problem with the new drawing. After all, now it is just a pipe. I think in that case you could have even drawn a picture of the same model as Magritte has. -- Cecil 21:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
up load error —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Txo (talk • contribs) at 10:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC) (uploader) and rescued by Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep until the error is explained. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete misplaced {{Badname}} request - duplicates Image:Anboto,_vista_de_Zabalandi_e_Ipizte_desde_la_cumbre_2.JPG --Tony Wills 12:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unused, just delete it. Patstuart 22:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Badname. Samulili 07:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
up load error —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Txo (talk • contribs) at 10:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC) (uploader) and rescued by Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep until the error is explained. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete misplaced {{badname}} request, duplicates Image:Ipizter_visto_desde_Zabalandi.JPG --Tony Wills 12:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unused, just delete it. Patstuart 22:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Badname. Samulili 07:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyrighted image. "(R) on the image" Leandromartinez 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Copyvio. Samulili 07:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON(mandatory) --teacoolish 00:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Deletion request submitted by the uploader; no proper license. --Moonian 01:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- The original license was GFDL-self. There must be some good reason for deleting the file, otherwise Keep Samulili 09:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Bryan: wrong pronunciation of the first consonants
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON(mandatory) --teacoolish 08:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- The original license was GFDL-self. There must be some good reason for deleting the file, otherwise Keep Samulili 08:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Bryan: dirty sound-not really authentic
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON(mandatory) --teacoolish 00:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Deletion request submitted by the uploader (it has no license anyways, although it was claimed as "own work" by the uploader previously). --Moonian 01:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- The original license was GFDL-self. There must be some good reason for deleting the file, otherwise Keep Samulili 09:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Other speedy deletions; not edited for 1 days
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
per www.3dpregnancy.com admitted source Copyright © 3DPregnancy.com. All rights reserved. stating image created under a share alike is untrue 205.145.64.64 22:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The Image is Okay
[edit]This image should not be deleted. The owners of this image donated it to Wikimedia. The original version that the owners donated had a watermark which has subsequently been removed according to Wikimedia policy. See here. The present image (without watermark) was donated by Wouter Vergeer <wouter.vergeer@tribal.nl> on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 on behalf of 3DPregnancy.com. Mr. Vergeer stated in an email to Ferrylodge on that date:
| “ | For now we are only willing to share these four 3D pictures under the CC-SY-BA license. Lets first see how this goes before we decide to share more or, perhaps in the future, all our works....I noticed you changed the picture and removed the CC-SY-BA notification. Which is fine by us. We just added them to make sure everybody saw they were released under CC-SY-BA license and nobody would delete them. We did notice, however that the quality of the images has decreased
quite a lot due to the cropping. I enclosed new versions of the images at better quality with this email. Would you be so kind to upload these? Or should we do this? The company behind 3DPregnancy.com is Tribal Internet Projects. We are Dutch based publisher of family websites. We are working on a corporate website containing more company information. If you have any more questions, please let me know. And thank you for your involvement. With kind regards / Met vriendelijke groet, Wouter Vergeer Managing Director Tribal Internet Projects BV Larenweg 24 5234 KA 's-Hertogenbosch The Netherlands Toll Free form U.S. and Canada: 1-888-766-5577 Tel.: +31 (0)73 6158113 (NEW NUMBER) Fax.: +31 (0)73 6124756 Internet: www.tribal.nl E-mail: wouter.vergeer@tribal.nl |
” |
This image should not be deleted.Ferrylodge 00:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This was uploaded in good faith, after Ferrylodge contacted the copyright holder to obtain these (low resolution compared to the 3D Pregnancy site) images under a free license. If you doubt the veracity of the permissions email provided by Ferrylodge, you could ask for it to be sent to OTRS or contact the owner, but I see no reason to doubt it. This image and the similar ones did not come from the website, but from the copyright owner to Ferrylodge, with explicit relicensing for use on Wikipedia. The fact that the higher resolution images on the website are not freely licensed is not relevant.--Ragesoss 01:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my deletion request, however I will note that the information stating explicitly that the image was donated was not added to the image page until after my deletion request was made, and in regards to copyright that information should have been made explicit at the start.205.145.64.64 01:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
User withdraws deletion request. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Scan of copyrighted ticket Tomtheman5 08:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No way to determine date or copyright status of the image, and the logos etc. would be copyrighted. Chick Bowen 05:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Tomtheman5 --Dezidor 11:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 07:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Press licence only as outlined at http://www.stadt-koeln.de/koelnbildarchiv/nutzungshinweise.html?language=en William Avery 19:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- right underneath the image it says Rechtefrei. the link you give is only related to the conditions bitte beachten Sie unsere Bedingungen (among other things for journalists). obviously they state that you may not distort the material - the image is still "rechtefrei". Foundert 19:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- I already deleted this once because I thought that the language on the Web page is clear: "The photos in the Cologne Picture Archive have been released for journalistic use. However please note the copyrights. Digital processing may not distort the material or in any way jeopardise the intellectual or personal interests of the copyright holder to the material." "Die Fotos des KölnBild-Archiv sind für die journalistische Nutzung freigegeben. Bitte beachten Sie jedoch die Urheberrechte. Die digitale Bearbeitung darf das Material nicht entstellen oder in irgendeiner Weise die geistigen oder persönlichen Interessen der Urheber an dem Material gefährden." I can't find the term "rechtefrei" on the homepage of the city of Cologne. Samulili 19:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Rechtefrei" is self-explanatory and i dont think you will find the City of Cologne explaining it! The city simply publised the image with the mentioned conditions. Foundert 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Terms like "rechtefrei" or "frei verwendbar" typically mean "you can use our images in newspapers, magazines, websites etc.. when reporting about this event". Yes, "rechtefrei" could be interpreted as "public domain or "do whatever you want with it", but unfortunately there have been many cases in the past where such an interpretation of the publisher's intentions was wrong. In most cases, when asked about commercial use - like printing the image on a t-shirt or print it out and sell it - they will outright deny any permission for such uses ("of course not!"). The best solution would be to contact them and ask if commercial use and derivative works are allowed or not. --88.134.232.95 01:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well; i know this is not the first image here on commons where the owner permits its usage but keeps some rights (like mentioning phtographer and mentioning the source=Presseamt der Stadt Koeln) If you keep with those rules and you would like to print the image onto your t-shirt (i personally would say that is already against the rules not to distort the charachter of the image) then your t-shirt has to at least include something like "provided by Stadt Koeln" plus the name of the photographer. And your t-shirt print may not distort the image. 2) if you keep with those rules and say image "provided by Stadt Koeln": how do you want to charge people for the image! Bottomline: since there are legal phrases to express what is permitted and not permitted - i dont understand that you suggest to ask for something that is 1) already clearly expressed as "rechtsfrei" and 2) further explained within the here given Nutzungsbestimmungen. Foundert 02:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- But the word "rechtefrei" does not appear on the source site. That is an interpretation by someone else than the city of Cologne. The only explicit permission on the web page is one given to press - and that is not enough. Samulili 05:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I dont interpret anything and as said above: the City of Cologne has put "rechtefrei" right underneath the image: here the link: http://www.stadt-koeln.de/koelnbildarchiv/anzeige.html?bild_id=/koelnbildarchiv/bilder/00248/index.html&kat_id=14,57 (see under Nutzung at the bottom of the page!) and again: Rechtsfrei is underneath the image; the explicit permission for press is only part of the general conditions not the exclusive right on this photo; please dont repeat your arguments in this discussion Foundert 12:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, can we then keep this image? Foundert 01:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- A third party, another admin, will eventully evaluate the arguments put forward here and close the deletion request either as "keep" or "delete". This may take a while because we don't have that many admins on Commons. Samulili 05:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. I seriously doubt that "rechtefrei" is what we understand as "gemeinfrei", especially since the Benutzerbedingungen have the confinement of "only journalistic use" which eliminates each use except that one. That does not interact with our licence/project scope. -- Cecil 12:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
We need to know who sculpted the bust to keep it, since it was offered in 2002. France has no freedom of panorama. --User:G.dallorto 23:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand. It wasn't the bust that was exiled 200 (well, 205, now) years ago. The subject was! Toussaint Louverture was arrested on Haiti in 1802 and imprisoned at the Fort de Joux in France (Doubs departement), where he died in 1803. Delete unless the sculptor died more than 70 years ago. Lupo 21:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand. It wasn't the bust that was exiled 200 (well, 205, now) years ago. The subject was! Toussaint Louverture was arrested on Haiti in 1802 and imprisoned at the Fort de Joux in France (Doubs departement), where he died in 1803.
- Oops, you must be right. Tell me, though, could not that sa in the French text refer to the buste? Grammatically, that is. Samulili 06:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Grammatically, yes. But it just doesn't make much sense. The bust was on display before at the Palais National in Haiti. Lupo 07:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I'll try to found the sculptor... Stephane8888 08:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't easy ! Stephane8888 09:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- According to [57], "le buste, premier coulé d'après une sculpture commandée voici une dizaine d'années à un artiste noir américain..." ("the bust, an original cast after a sculpture commissioned about ten years ago from a black american artist...") Hence the bust is a derivative work of an original sculpture. It is unclear whether the bust or the sculpture was created about "ten years ago", i.e. 1992. Lupo 13:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, the other bust of Toussaint Louverture at Bordeaux was sculpted by Ludovic Booz (born 1940).[58] Lupo 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Well, born 1940 makes the copy derivative work. -- Cecil 12:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(Not public domain, because it was published by L. D. Trotsky, who died in 1940 and author of the text is not unknow, but his article is undersigned) --Tamofni 19:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
An answer to this comment of an one-pourpose-user-account Special:Contributions/Tamofni follows tommorow. -jkb- 22:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC) - - - See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SocAnoOkNe.jpg - just another case
Comment: 1. it does no matter who was the publishing editor as such one has no copyrights like an author has - and Trotsky is not the author; 2. there is no article on the page; 3. there is a content and a statement named „from the publishing house“ which is not signed. Thx, -jkb- 06:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The text is public domain under Russian law. Should be retagged {{PD-Russia}}; the current tag is incorrect. Chick Bowen 05:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept / A.J. 09:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image was first marked for deletion because of its low quality. That, and the fact that the image may be a copyvio as a derivative work, speak for deleting this image. A central question is, when were the original photos, that are on display in this image, taken. Samulili 09:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Quality isn't too bad, picture can be (and is) used. The subject died in 1932, so the images in the photograph are probably in the public domain (70 years+). Whether or not the fact that it is an image taken of an installation in a museum (making it derivative work), not sure. Deadstar (msg) 09:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Kept: Over 70 years old. -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
October 15
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
redundant to Image:PA-191 map.svg --JA10 T · C 21:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep invalid reason for deletion. Tag it with {{vector version available}} and move on. O2 (息 • 吹) 22:40, 15 October 2007 (GMT)
- OK, I'll use that vector one. You can close this if you want to. --JA10 T · C 22:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
kept. -- JA10 T · C 22:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong version of image, correct image should be turned 90 degrees to the right —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hannibal (talk • contribs) at 06:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC) (uploader) and rescued by Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and {{rotate}} instead. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have already uploaded a correct version of this image, see Image:Ilon Wikland 2.JPG - hence my deletion request.//Hannibal 07:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted as a duplicate. Samulili 07:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
corrupted 203.198.93.225 00:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm the uploader, making the request. Correct version will be uploaded after deletion granted. -- Sameboat - 同舟 00:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, the corrupted file is making hundreds of railway diagrams in Wikipedia dis-aligned, and that isn't pretty. But please, after this file has been deleted, have the new file uploaded as soon as possible. --Raphaelmak 15:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why not just upload a new version? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- maybe the user is to new to overwrite the image? --Matt314 19:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
deleded --Matt314 19:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unsourced. Used *very* often (~3000 times), so converted to deletion request so there may be a chance to provide a source. Siebrand 09:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Added the info. Lupo 09:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
attack/copyvio... Doodle-doo Ħ 22:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deleted Obvious prank image made from composite of copyrighted material with no source nor licencing. -- Infrogmation 05:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probably copyvio: I can't find this image on either of the source pages listed, and neither of them mentions GFDL anyway. --—Angr 17:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Changed to {{No permission since}}. Samulili 19:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Like other uploads from this Flickr user, the Flickr user does not seem to have the right to release this image unter a free license, because he did not create it himself ("Tomado de “Conversación con Allende” de Regis Debray" ) Matt314 19:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - flickr copyvio. Patstuart 21:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work, depicting the label of a soda bottle; clearly copyrighted --Patstuart 19:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Image consists of nothing but copyrighted label. -- Infrogmation 05:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Licensing unclear - derivative work and commercial use not specifically allowed. Low-resolution watermarked image appears to be from a museum. Uploader notified over a week ago, but did not respond satisfactorily. No email for uploader. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, also front page of site seems not to support claimed free licence. -- Infrogmation
- Delete - bottom of page at http://www.guerradelpacifico1879.cl/ specifically gives stringent warnings about copying photographs. Patstuart 21:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. Yuval Y § Chat § 00:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This image is a copyright violation, so I'm deleting it. Yuval Y § Chat § 01:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Yuval Y: copyrighted image
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
corrupted 203.198.93.225 00:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm the uploader, making the request. Correct version will be uploaded after deletion granted. -- Sameboat - 同舟 00:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
seems like a corrected version has been uploaded. If the current version is not correct, please upload a correct version over this one. --ALE! ¿…? 11:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unencyclopedic, not in COM:SCOPE MECU≈talk 16:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Agree. Samulili 18:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No indication Argentine money is free; derivative work --Patstuart 19:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
we had this discussion before and there was no consensus, so keep until a consensus on money copyright is found. --ALE! ¿…? 11:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Per http://www.posadas.gov.ar/ (see copyright notice at bottom of page) - images from this site are not free --Patstuart 19:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Licensing unclear - derivative work and commercial use not explicitly allowed. Uploader notified over a week ago. No email for uploader. Orphaned image. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the author is acknowledge. No other restriction. May be use for anything.. Abundantly clear. Patstuart 21:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, no source. --Kjetil r 17:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've tagged it nsd for now; let's see if the uploader complies. Patstuart 18:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - No source given. Despite what the template reads, we need some sort of proof that the template speaks the truth, and here we have none. Giggy\Talk 08:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, no source --ALE! ¿…? 14:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Licensing unclear - derivative work and commercial use not specifically allowed. Uploader notified over a week ago. No email for uploader. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - my photos are in the public domain. Quite clear. Patstuart 21:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
kept and tagged with {{PD-Author}} --ALE! ¿…? 08:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Licensing unclear - derivative work and commercial use not specifically allowed. Uploader notified over a week ago. No email for uploader. Orphaned image. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the author is acknowledge. No other restriction. May be use for anything. That's pretty clear. Patstuart 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
kept and {{self}} added to the license --ALE! ¿…? 14:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Licensing unclear - derivative work and commercial use not specifically allowed. Uploader notified over a week ago. No email for uploader. Low resolution. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Uploader notified? how can he help you? Please adress the author (Poor Yorick). Gridge 16:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC).
- I have notified Poor Yorick and changed {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}}. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, possible copyvio --ALE! ¿…? 14:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Mounted specimens are subject to copyright as scuptures. Licensing unclear - derivative work and commercial use not specifically allowed. Uploader notified over a week ago. No email for uploader. Low resolution. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
kept, license looks good to me --ALE! ¿…? 14:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
from [59], "EMBASSY OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA IN THE REPUBLIC OF ICELAND ALL RIGHTS RESERVED", copyvio. Not PD --Shizhao 07:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The fact that this picture appeared on a copyrighted website is irrelevant. Was the license tag correct in its interpretation of the law? Was the license tag applied correctly? I think both answers are probably yes, so it should stay. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Template:PD-PRC-exempt does not say that photographs are public domain, hence delete. Thuresson 18:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - image was taken at copyrighted website. Images are not automatically under PD according to that license. Patstuart 21:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete {{PD-PRC-exempt}} is not a valid license for this image. Samulili 08:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 08:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Low quality, not useful, not used even on a user page. --Samulili 10:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uplpading error, file not named. Now replaced with correct image and name. BuzzWoof 18:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- For things like that there is speedy deletion. Just put a tag {{bad name|Image:richtiger Name.xxx}} bzw. {{duplicate|Image:anderes Bild.xxx}} to the picture. -- Cecil 19:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: duplicate or a scaled down version of Image:Port de Sóller.JPG
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work; copyright belongs to the Subway of New York; no indication it's free without a source --Patstuart 19:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
kept, utilitary object, own photo --ALE! ¿…? 14:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source website clearly states copyright at the bottom. I can find no law stating that Peruvian flags are free --Patstuart 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Licensing unclear - derivative work and commercial use not specifically allowed. Uploader notified over a week ago. No email for uploader. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - © National Bank of Ukraine, 2004 - Yuval Y § Chat § 00:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I fix license - {{PD-UA-exempt}}. Ukrainian money is in PD --Butko 09:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Kept; license fix seems consistant with other images of Ukranian money. -- Infrogmation 21:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Sharing with "Wikipedia" is not enough. Unable to verify claim of sharing. Website http://www.quest-l.com/aboutskh.php is nc and nd. Licensing unclear - derivative work and commercial use not specifically allowed. Uploader notified over a week ago. No email for uploader. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - nc, nd. Patstuart 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted nc/nd on source [60]. Deadstar (msg) 16:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Licensing unclear - derivative work and commercial use not specifically allowed. Uploader notified over a week ago. No email for uploader. Orphaned image. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept {{copyrightedfreeuse}} "for any purpose, provided that the author is acknowledged with the work (it is not neccesary to be IN/OVER the work, but it may be)". Licensing free enough for commons. Deadstar (msg) 16:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Licensing unclear - derivative work and commercial use not specifically allowed. Uploader notified over a week ago. No email for uploader. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - released under license compatible with GFDL. Patstuart 21:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. for any purpose as the licence-tag says. That includes derivative work and commercial use. -- Cecil 13:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unsharp, badly lighted picture of a side entry of an office building. Crooked detail. Picture is frequently used to vandalize articles in de:WP. Uploader is not the owner of picture. --84.58.67.131 18:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the quality is bad, the image can be useful, and I don't see anything that points to Da Mundl not being the author of that image. Keep Samulili 19:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Picture was uploaded before under a different name (can't recall) by the original author Sacre Blue. --84.58.36.36 14:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Judging by this log, you refer to de:Benutzer:Sacre Bleu? It seems that he has uploaded some copyvios from http://www.europlaza.at/jart/prj3/euro_pl/website.jart?rel=de&content-id=1140015438278&reserve-mode=active . However, I can't find this image on europlaza.at and I also see that most of the images he has uploaded on de:WP are shoot with the same camera as this image. Samulili 17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Da Mundl and Sacre Bleu are (also according to the users page here) most probably the same. There are (or rather were) a lot of incarnations of that user. Quality is not bad enough for being out of scope. The vandalism is a local problem, could be done with any other picture too. -- Cecil 13:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work, clearly illustrating copyrighted logo --Patstuart 19:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I've added the {{Trademarked}} template to the image desc page. --Moonian 14:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Not enough. Clear derivative work Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"do NOT make a joke of it" is a restriction on derivative use. Licensing unclear - derivative work and commercial use not specifically allowed. Uploader notified over a week ago. No email for uploader. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - no less restrictive than many other commons licenses we have - e.g., personality rights. Patstuart 21:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, wording seems to place use restrictions beyond attribution & licencing. -- Infrogmation 05:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete --Liby 12:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Claims to be PD-USGov, but very unlikely that a high school is federal. Possibly old enough to be PD, but then that claim needs to be made. --Jmabel | talk 01:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I claim that it is {{PD-Old}}. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's not enough to claim it, there must be some proof for the claim. Samulili 07:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- It dates from 171 years ago. Go ahead and prove that the logo's designer was, say, 5 years old in 1846 and lived to the age of 106 (until 1947). I think both are very unlikely. I thought we had a 100 year assumption here for unknown artists. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know if we have a 100 year assumption but before your message there was no date. Samulili 06:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - If it's pre 1923, it would be {{pd-us}}. However, how can we prove that the logo didn't change since then? I think we can, and I lean toward delete. Patstuart 22:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Leaning towards keep on this one - the school has been around since 1846, and I see no evidence that the logo has changed in that time (it certainly doesn't look like the newest logo around) - if evidence is found, delete, but until then I think we'll have to assume good intentions and let it go. Giggy\Talk 08:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think it is safe to keep this logo unless we are contacted and asked to remove it as to a copyright vio. I think the reasonable assumption can be made that it is free due to the age of the school. If we are informed otherwise then of course we will comply with the request. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Licensing unclear - derivative work and commercial use not specifically allowed. Uploader notified over a week ago. No email for uploader. Orphaned image. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Derivative work of what? Keep, I see no reason to doubt the self-made claim. Just delete the spurious {{Copyrighted free use provided that}}, the CC license is good enough. Lupo 08:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There are a lot of similar deletion requests below but I'll comment here that I don't understand these deletion requests. "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that (nothing)". What is wrong with that? If I understand it correctly, the copyright holder allows anyone to use the images for any purpose and sets no conditions (that is what an empty parameter must mean). That this is an acceptable license on Commons was established here: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Copyrighted free use provided that. Samulili 09:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This template is misleading because it can make sameone think that there is something special about seals and copyright and that seals can't be copyrighted. Licensing information should be told with regular license templates, such {{PD-because}}, {{PD-old}} etc. To warn people not to misuse seals can be done with a separate template, e.g. {{Seal}}. Samulili 07:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Agreed. Doodle-doo Ħ 23:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Replace with {{insignia}} and an applicable PD rationale if one exists, otherwise tag as {{nld}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. As LX. I've seen some users using this template instead of the Swedish fair use version (before it was dissalowed on sv.wiki) and I'd expect similar things happen with users from other wikis. /Lokal_Profil 00:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Closing as deleted, however the template will only be deleted after going through all images using them, so it's going to take a while... any help is greatly appreciated!! Patrícia msg 12:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photograph taken in 1948; not gfdl-self --Patstuart 20:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as stated by nom. I do not think this editor understands Commons lic policy since his first uploads had no lic at all and evidently we switched to gfdl-self after discussion on his home Wikipedia established that he took the pictures. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Question Is there something I'm missing somewhere, some age restriction of users on commons? It maybe unlikely that this user is old enough to have taken these pictures, but I find it rather strange that someone should assert that a 1948 picture can not be PD self. Has anyone bothered to ask the user how old they are? :-) (having had someone in the family live to 102, I do not readily assume that 70 something people are not active enough to be wikipedians :-) --Tony Wills 02:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, 'author' is set to "E. Krygier (udostepnił Sebastian Rózga)", what does "udostepnił" mean? Can we help this user find the right license? --Tony Wills 02:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'll take care of that, please wait some more time. A.J. 09:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, 'author' is set to "E. Krygier (udostepnił Sebastian Rózga)", what does "udostepnił" mean? Can we help this user find the right license? --Tony Wills 02:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Could we please have someone who speaks Polish check with the user on this? If we have some older users uploading photos they took 50+ years ago under free licences, my reaction is Excellent!; this should be encouraged. -- Infrogmation 21:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: no response from uploader. A.J. 13:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
October 16
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
corrupt svg --Patstuart 17:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
spam --Patstuart 18:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: spam
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photo of copyrighted ticket tiZom(2¢) 06:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Obvious copyright violation, deleted / A.J. 10:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work. Kjetil r 17:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It is an advertisement and it is at the street. Wouldn´t this affect Category:2004 advertisements, Category:2005 advertisements and Category:2006 advertisements too? --Balbo 17:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - absolutely a derivative work. This is simply a photograph of a photograph. Claiming this is PD is akin to having me take a copyrighted photo and doing a close-up of it with my camera, and saying it's PD. Patstuart 17:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I insist, not knowing much about the subject: what makes this image different to, for example, Image:Audi_werbung-NewYork.jpg?--Balbo 17:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- It depends on how that Audi picture is being used. It the Audi is the subject of the photograph, it should be deleted (I can't tell; the check usage tool is down). However, if it's a picture depicting the billboard itself, it may be OK as a free image. This image, on the other hand, has the primary subject of the photograph itself. Patstuart 19:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I insist, not knowing much about the subject: what makes this image different to, for example, Image:Audi_werbung-NewYork.jpg?--Balbo 17:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The only purpose of this image is a reproduction of copyrighted commercial advertisement -- Infrogmation 05:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Commons:Derivative works. --Dodo 14:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
excuse to post an attack piece --Nate1481 12:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: attack image
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Incorrect name. Uploaded under correct name already. Fountain in Pucallpa, not in Huánuco. ErickAgain 19:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Pucallpa Plaza San Martín Fountain by Night.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Same and larger image is already on Commons. (Image:Jablunkov-znak.png) --Darwinek 15:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - better image. Patstuart 17:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - yes, the other one is better but I like more this colour on this image. --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 00:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, Image:Jablunkov-znak.png isn't good enough.--OsamaK 11:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
kept and tagged with {{superseded}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Also:
Presumaby the text on the infoboard is copyrighted by whoever wrote it. (Besides that it's quite hard to read anyways, which would make the images then out of scope as they wouldn't be usable) Deadstar (msg) 15:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The photos had been made of a paper kept for information in the church in 3 different languages. I have checked it. There is no information about copyright on it. Unfortunately this can not be seen on the photos itselves. When I made the snapshots I was not aware that the text on the paper is also available on the webside of St. Foillan itself which will be cited in the article as reference. I simply collected information as a tourist. Therefore I do not mind deleting the photos. There will be no loss of information but I am sure there is no violation of copyright as I checked this. BBKurt 06:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
all deleted as derivative works --ALE! ¿…? 12:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is unknown who took the photograph, so it cannot have been released into the public domain by the author. Uploader says on his nl: talkpage: (TheoDeKlerk, 16 okt 2007 17:16 (CEST): De foto is door Barry Gray in opdracht vervaardigd en aan mij gegeven. Fotograaf onbekend. "The photo has been created at request of Barry Gray, and given to me. Photographer unknown". Deadstar (msg) 15:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Likely copyrighted. Patstuart 21:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Exceptionally bad quality. Since filename includes date, I cannot upload a new picture instead. (I uploaded the photo myself). Rune Kock 18:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You should be able to simply load over the old image; your account is mature enough. Patstuart 21:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Nonsensical low-quality image, not educational or informative, no relation to what the title implies ("Butlins" were a chain of holiday camps run by "Billy Butlin", whose name is used here for apparently humorous purposes) Yottanesia 21:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, likely prank/vanity joke image. -- Infrogmation 05:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Non-educational, non-informative image, possible in-joke. Also probable copyvio, as uses likeness of 1980s childrens character "Wizbit"(!!), which in itself is probably a copyvio, whether or not it was taken from a copyrighted promotional image. Yottanesia 21:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, likely prank image/vanity joke. -- Infrogmation 05:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Mona_Lisa.jpg again
[edit]Copyright Infringement
- OK, let's try this again, as some major arguments were ignored in the previous one. Let's try to proceed in logical steps so that people may oppose the deletion if they wish to by referring to a point in particular:
- 1 What is the source of the image ?
- 2 Is the above server located in France ?
Yes: whois
role: ATOS MULTIMEDIA Contact technique address: Atos Worldline address: zone industrielle A rue la Pointe address: 59113 Seclin address: FR
- 3 Does the Louvre claim copyright of this image ?
- Yes: "© Musée du Louvre/A. Dequier - M. Bard" on the source page
- 4 Is their claim illegal in France ?
- No:
- CA Paris, 27 janvier 2006 SARL Éditions Arfise c/ SARL Descharnes
« L'article L. 112-2 du Code de la propriété intellectuelle précise que les œuvres photographiques et celles réalisées à l'aide de technologies analogues à la photographie sont considérées comme œuvre de l’esprit ; qu’il n’est pas fait d’exception pour des photographies qui sont la reproduction de tableaux ; qu’il suffit que les photographies présentent un caractère d’originalité ; que le seul fait que de multiples reproductions de mêmes tableaux existent ne suffit pas à démontrer que les photographies seraient dénuées d’originalité ; qu’en effet, le photographe conserve le choix de la luminosité, de la distance de prise de vue, de l’objectif, des filtres, des contrastes. »
- Also all Louvre copyrights are registered at the BnF, which only accepts legal registrations.
- 5 What is the relevant policy on the commons?
Commons:Licensing:
The safest way to apply international copyright law is to consider the laws of all the relevant jurisdictions and then use the most restrictive combination of laws to determine whether something is copyrighted or not. The jurisdictions that might need to be considered are:
- The place where the work was created;
- The place where the work is being uploaded from;
- The place that any web server the work has been downloaded from physically is;
- The United States.
A work is only allowed on Commons if it is either public domain in all relevant jurisdictions or if there is a free licence which applies to the work in all relevant jurisdictions.
Please if people who disagree reply can you name the particular point you are disagreeing with, for simplicity. Jackaranga 14:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also on a side note, what were people thinking in the previous discussion ? What did the people who voted keep believe the disclaimers that come with PD-Art are for ? It clearly says: "'OK' means that under national law such 'faithful reproduction' photographs can have no copyright, regardless of how much skill and effort went into taking the picture." ! France is not 'OK' Did people not read this or what is the whole PD-Art thing for if it is not applied ? Someone just needs to go take a picture of the painting it's no big deal, there must be thousands of free images out there, why choose a copyrighted one ? Jackaranga 14:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, clear copyright infringement. If we are going to keep such images, we will have to delete Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag --Kjetil r 15:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I've looked at the google translation of the French page (surprisingly good): [61]. It's abundantly clear that French laws says that some form of creativity must be involved. In this case, there is no creativity whatsoever, not even for lighting, etc. It is simply a picture. In order to show creativity, the following is necessary:
- (bad French translation) It is enough that the photographs show a sense of originality; the mere fact that multiple copies of the same tables are not enough to show that the photographs would be lacking in creativity; that Indeed, the photographer retains the choice of brightness, the distance shooting, the objective, filters, contrasts. "
- However, further down the page, it is made quite clear that there are photos that miss the criteria for establishing originality:
- The choices claimed were primarily designed to reproduce the natural environment and blue original artwork, and do not constitute elements likely to express an original work and staff but with the sole purpose of reproducing the artwork (etc.) with as much precision as possible in order to represent him as the public perceives.... Moreover, the mission entrusted to the photographer was to make a faithful reproduction of works of art to form the fund documentation Gallery (etc.) which excludes a priori any subjectivity or interpretation by the photographer. "
- This last statement, in bold, says it all: because the mission is solely to reproduce the photograph, the photo taker can claim no copyright. If any representation follows this last criterion, it is this one. Pd-art, clearly. Keep. Patstuart 21:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- The copyright is registered at the BnF, they don't accept illegal registrations. Also the source photo includes the frame, so there was some creativity involved. Even in the USA it can't be PD if the frame is in the photo. Simply cropping the frame doesn't make the image become PD, even in the USA, especially as you can't modify a copyrighted work. Jackaranga 09:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Adding a frame around a non-copyrighted picture, then claiming the underlying scan of the picture is a sad piece of lawying. I stand by my position: the current photo shows no creativity, and this is a cheap attempt to take the copyright not belonging to them. I truly doubt that this would hold up in court, even in France, which seems to be protective of its copyrights. The point is, the academy may have allowed a copyright of the Mona Lisa with a nice looking border, but I don't think they meant that they could claim the underlying scan is a copyright. Patstuart 19:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- The copyright is registered at the BnF, they don't accept illegal registrations. Also the source photo includes the frame, so there was some creativity involved. Even in the USA it can't be PD if the frame is in the photo. Simply cropping the frame doesn't make the image become PD, even in the USA, especially as you can't modify a copyrighted work. Jackaranga 09:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous! The mona lisa "copyright" (if there was such a thing at the time) has _long_ since expired, and it makes no sense to attribute an additional copyright to a photo of it.. we can't upload the mona lisa itself can we? How would we upload a canvas? --65.161.73.250 19:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody is disputing the PD status of the Mona Lisa. What is being disputed is the PD status of this particular reproduction by the Louvre. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Can I ask a dumb question? What difference does French law make here? This is an American site hosted on servers in Florida. This image is pretty clearly PD in the United States, whatever the rules are in France. I believe there are laws against depicting Muhammad (or Jesus, for that matter) in Saudi Arabia, and restrictions on swastikas in Germany... but we don't worry about those laws here.Chowbok 19:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- We do. PD images on Wikimedia Commons should be PD both in the US and the country of origin. See Commons:Licensing for more information. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Could someone get (another) reproduction of this paiting? The day this file will be deleted, people will focus on local uploads again (where they often don't care about copyright) and the remaining support for Commons will be gone. --Polarlys 19:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there's Image:Leonardo da Vinci 042.jpg from the Yorck project. And Image:Mona Lisa-gutenberg121 1.jpg from the Gutenberg project. (Although the Gutenberg people don't say where they got it from...) The Yorck project one could maybe be improved in Photoshop, the colors are terrible. Lupo 20:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- This one is not bad Image:Mona Lisa.jpeg Jackaranga 04:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The Louvre photo shows a frame, the version uploaded here, however, has that frame removed. The Louvre photo, which includes the frame, is copyrightable, and of course it can thus be registered at the BnF. However, if you remove the frame, what remains is a reproduction of the painting and no frame anymore. Hence, the cropped version looses copyright status. The argument is based on the incorrect assumption that if a photo is copyrighted as a whole, then any cropped version of it must be so, too. --rtc 11:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Are you serious? This painting is over 500 years old, I am pretty sure the copyright is expired. See also: w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. --Indolences 21:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete We can't just vote ourselves a new legal position. We can disagree with the law but we have no power to change it. The image in question is not the Mona Lisa but the photo; if this had been published in the US it would have been PD; but it was published in France and it's copyright there; the US accepts French copyrights, so the photo is copyright in the US. --Simonxag 12:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept, nomination withdrawn. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a user-made drawing, but the underlying design is from a movie and therefore protected by copyright. This might be fair use, but it is certainly not free. Butseriouslyfolks 17:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is non-copyrightable. Too simple of a design. -- Cat ちぃ？ 15:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Would you be so kind to provide some proof that this is a derivative work? Without a proper source, I cannot decide whether this is a copyvio or not. Which movie, which design? Patrícia msg 16:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- The description on the image page is "Fleet Captain insignia from the original series era Star Trek films." That's all I know. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by WJBscribe: per OTRS ticket #2007110910014659 (copyright Paramount)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No reason to believe that http://www.toseproeski.info/ is GFDL --Patstuart 22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note: uploader has changed details. Patstuart 19:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note:source:[63]
- The photo has been requested by Tose's management, right after his death, the answer was that the photo may be used for encyclopedic needs of Wikipedia, and for media exposure, as it was used by all major media in the world when reporting. please also check news.google.com (search string tose proeski) and compare the photos of the website given for free use and the photos published by all major media. Kind regards78.157.17.177 12:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- "May be used for encyclopedic needs of Wikipedia" is, unfortunately, not the same as a free license, so this will have to be deleted here, sorry about that. We might consider if it could work under "fair use" on enwiki, but in that case it would have to be re-uploaded there, not here on commons. Future Perfect at Sunrise 20:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted; image is not free enough for Commons. —Angr 20:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source listed, no proper copyright tag, likely copyvio. Butseriouslyfolks 04:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Wehrmacht Generaloberst.gif
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Obviously not created by the US government, no proper copyright tag. Butseriouslyfolks 04:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 13:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Main subject of this photo is copyrighted material. Photo of copyrighted tickets to Live 8. tiZom(2¢) 06:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
In the USA (which is where the wikimedia servers are located), there is no freedom of panorama for artworks such as statues. Per Commons:Freedom of panorama#USA, "For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, ... any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork." -- Seidenstud 09:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The photo is taken in Spain (here). According to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Spain, there is freedom of panorama in Spain. --Kjetil r 17:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. We normally apply the freedom of panorama laws of the country where the sculpture is located. This one is located in Spain. —JeremyA 12:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader is not the author. ALE! ¿…? 12:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is a pretty old request...how do you know?--65.74.26.175 17:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Because Drew Walker is not Ale flashero. --ALE! ¿…? 14:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No information on the author, the date of creation, and the data of first publication available. ALE! ¿…? 13:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source is AirSerbia forum; not self-created --Patstuart 22:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No license. Flickr user is not the author, image comes from www.chesternovello.com according to the Flickr page. Lupo 22:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It HAS license tag. It is under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License, as it was in Flickr. I just copied from Flickr the image under this Wikimedia-acceptable license. undoubtedly, the uploader to flickr is not the author: Albéniz died in 1909!--Balbo 20:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- No criticism of your actions intended. I'm saying the Flickr user is not the copyright owner, and thus cannot license it as CC whatever. The Flickr user just ripped this off some other webpage. We need to know who the photographer was and when that photographer died to ascertain PD status of the image. The death of the subject doesn't matter much. Lupo 07:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining, I see your point. Cheers!--Balbo 19:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- No criticism of your actions intended. I'm saying the Flickr user is not the copyright owner, and thus cannot license it as CC whatever. The Flickr user just ripped this off some other webpage. We need to know who the photographer was and when that photographer died to ascertain PD status of the image. The death of the subject doesn't matter much. Lupo 07:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Screenshot shows the English Wikipedia from 7 August 2006 with an image of Schabir Shaik trial. That image is only licensed under fair use and has no free licence (see en:Image:Schabir Shaik.jpg for details and the discussion under Commons:Forum#Screenshot mit Fair Use Bildern? (German)). --Innenrevision 18:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Move the image back to en.WP and delete it here. The image might have a useful historical note for the English Wikipedia (article count) but with this fair use item it cannot stay here. --32X 14:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Anyway, how did a "fair use" image get onto the main page?? Last time I looked the main page was to contain only freely licensed images. "Fair use" was not allowed. Lupo 17:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not free. -Nard 17:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Contains non-free photo. (Image was removed at en.WP, too.) →Яocket°°° 10:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source listed, no proper copyright tag, likely copyvio. Butseriouslyfolks 04:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep German militry insignia are PD. Affix tag and that's it. -- Wo st 01 (2008-01-28 14:56 CEST)
Deleted. No source, no copyright tag for the last four months. MichaelMaggs 06:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source listed, no proper copyright tag, likely copyvio. Butseriouslyfolks 04:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no copyright tag for the last four months. MichaelMaggs 06:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source listed, no proper copyright tag, likely copyvio. Butseriouslyfolks 04:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no copyright tag for the last four months. MichaelMaggs 06:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source listed, no proper copyright tag, likely copyvio. Butseriouslyfolks 04:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no copyright tag for the last four months. MichaelMaggs 06:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source listed, no proper copyright tag, likely copyvio. Butseriouslyfolks 04:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep German insignia are PD, thus source irrelevant. -- Wo st 01 (2008-01-28 14:55 CEST)
Deleted.No source, no copyright tag for the last four months. MichaelMaggs 06:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source listed, no proper copyright tag, likely copyvio. Butseriouslyfolks 04:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no copyright tag for the last four months. MichaelMaggs 06:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source listed, no proper copyright tag, likely copyvio. Butseriouslyfolks 04:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no copyright tag. Unfixed for the last four months. MichaelMaggs 07:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source listed, no proper copyright tag, likely copyvio. Butseriouslyfolks 04:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted.No source, no copyright tag. Unfixed for the last four months. MichaelMaggs 07:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source listed, no proper copyright tag, likely copyvio. Butseriouslyfolks 04:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted.No source, no copyright tag. Unfixed for the last four months. MichaelMaggs 07:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source listed, no proper copyright tag, likely copyvio. Butseriouslyfolks 04:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no copyright tag. Unfixed for the last four months. MichaelMaggs 07:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source listed, no proper copyright tag, likely copyvio. Butseriouslyfolks 04:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no copyright tag. Unfixed for the last four months. MichaelMaggs 07:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source listed, no proper copyright tag, likely copyvio. Butseriouslyfolks 04:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no copyright tag. Unfixed for the last four months. MichaelMaggs 07:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source listed, no proper copyright tag, likely copyvio. Butseriouslyfolks 04:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no copyright tag. Unfixed for the last four months. MichaelMaggs 07:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source listed, no proper copyright tag, likely copyvio. Butseriouslyfolks 04:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no copyright tag. Unfixed for the last four months. MichaelMaggs 07:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source listed, no proper copyright tag, likely copyvio. Butseriouslyfolks 04:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no copyright tag. Unfixed for the last four months. MichaelMaggs 07:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source listed, no proper copyright tag, likely copyvio. Butseriouslyfolks 04:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no copyright tag. Unfixed for the last four months. MichaelMaggs 07:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source listed, no proper copyright tag, likely copyvio. Butseriouslyfolks 04:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep.The German Armed Forces rank insignia are a part oft the service regulations ("Zentrale Dienstvorschrift") ZDv 37/10 Anzugordnung für die Soldaten der Bundeswehr. This service regulation is publicly available. Images from these official service regulations and remakes from other are in the public domain. --Sonaz 12:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no copyright tag. Unfixed for the last four months.MichaelMaggs 07:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source listed, no proper copyright tag, likely copyvio. Butseriouslyfolks 04:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep.The German Armed Forces rank insignia are a part oft the service regulations ("Zentrale Dienstvorschrift") ZDv 37/10 Anzugordnung für die Soldaten der Bundeswehr. This service regulation is publicly available. Images from these official service regulations and remakes from other are in the public domain. --Sonaz 12:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no copyright tag. Unfixed for the last four months. MichaelMaggs 07:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source listed, no proper copyright tag, likely copyvio. Butseriouslyfolks 04:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep.The German Armed Forces rank insignia are a part oft the service regulations ("Zentrale Dienstvorschrift") ZDv 37/10 Anzugordnung für die Soldaten der Bundeswehr. This service regulation is publicly available. Images from these official service regulations and remakes from other are in the public domain. --Sonaz 12:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no copyright tag. Unfixed for the last four months. MichaelMaggs 07:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source listed, no proper copyright tag, likely copyvio. Butseriouslyfolks 04:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep.The German Armed Forces rank insignia are a part oft the service regulations ("Zentrale Dienstvorschrift") ZDv 37/10 Anzugordnung für die Soldaten der Bundeswehr. This service regulation is publicly available. Images from these official service regulations and remakes from other are in the public domain. --Sonaz 12:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no copyright tag. Unfixed for the last four months. MichaelMaggs 07:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source, Husnock images have been a problem at w:en. Butseriouslyfolks 06:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. US military. MichaelMaggs 07:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source; who took the picture? Butseriouslyfolks 06:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept.We don't know who took the picture but Bridgeman should apply anyway MichaelMaggs 07:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source; who took the picture? Butseriouslyfolks 06:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. We don't know who took the picture but Bridgeman should apply anyway. MichaelMaggs 07:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looking at the history of copyright violations, no source, and no permission uploads of this uploader, I just do not believe, that this COA is his own work. ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 07:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Spanish stamps are not in the public domain, see: Stamps/Public_domain#Spain. ALE! ¿…? 12:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 07:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Doubtfully self-created; no source --Patstuart 22:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I only has copied the image from te English wikipedia wherefrom the image comes. In that wiki is not in deletion requests.--Kurrop84 23:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- But you didn't copy everything from en wikipedia, because the license of the image there is {{PD-release}}, not {{PD-self}}. Please don't claim works as {{PD-self}} if you are not the author, thanks. Also, "In that wiki is not in deletion requests" dosen't automatically implies that the image is really OK. --Moonian 16:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept as PD-Old. MichaelMaggs 07:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This screenshot seems to be of a program named World Community Grid. I am unsure of whether the software is free, but the logos present in the software are probably unfree and therefore invalid under GFDL or the Creative Commons licenses. DarkFalls talk 07:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
:>Reason for the deletion request: This screenshot seems to be of a program named World Community Grid. I am unsure of whether the software is free, but the logos present in the software are probably unfree. My answer is: To participate to WCG project is all free of charge or free in cost for any one and it is a kind of contribution to society, very little but very valuable. http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org I want you to study more about WCG and WCG want you to be member one more to 329,094 members around the worlds as of Oct/5/2007. "Task" process and all necessary programs are free at all, screensaver is a kind a appendix or present to contributor. If unfree, not many people to be member for WCG's projects. "FIGHTAIDS@HOME" is none profit organization to fighting AIDS, and ask people to let your PC idle time participate social contribution. I do not think having WCG screensaver image on Wikipedia is infringing WCG's copy right at all. To edit Wikipedia as you do, is kind of social contribution , as far as my position is, and also to be a member of WCG is a social contribution too. As far as any one become member of WCG, he/she may have similar sscreensaver on his/her display. My intention to have screensaver image of WCG on Wikipedia article is to tell how WCG participation looks like including task process window and screensaver window. WCG does not mention screensaver is copy right. This screensaver image is not sold by WCG, it is free and consequence of task process. Do not confuse subject WCG or FIGHTAIDS@HOME screensaver with other screensaver sold by some one with pricing.--Namazu-tron 01:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, unless the company specified otherwise, a logo for a software licensed under a free license is still not free content. The free license specifies that a image can be used for any purpose, whether it is commercially, socially or otherwise. Please be aware that when releasing an image to Commons, you are allowing it to be modified and used in any other website, granted that the source has been properly attributed, and licensing is correct. When uploading an image to Commons, please be aware that the content does not only go to Wikipedia. --DarkFalls talk 09:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Would you explain the difference bwteeen other two photos that you are not talking about licensing?--Namazu-tron 00:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Clear image up date:
Information
Description=Screensaver of World Community Grid solving the FightAIDS@Home projects.
Source=Self shot, my Screen as member of World Community Grid and
during participation to FightAIDS@Home program.
Date=Nov., 12, 2007
Author=Namazu-tron, member of World Community Grid
Permission=World Community Grid & FightAIDS@Home, portion:Single screenshot of instant., Low_resolution:High enough and clear with guessing, Purpose:To demonstrate how the World Community Grid member look it like., World Community Grid software might be became open-source due to individual's volunteer.license:World Community Grid & FightAIDS@Home client and it's screen image are licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License, aiming have this image is to call for voluntary participation to be a member that everyone can be.
other_versions= up date for previous file name "WCG_screensaver_FIGHTAIDS@HOME.jpg.----Namazu-tron 01:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the World Community Grid software is non-free and so screenshots of it are not suitable for the Commons. Poor quality (JPEG instead of PNG) as well. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 15:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contradictional license statement (public domain <-> CC license) ALE! ¿…? 08:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Author may upload public domain photo, and license his own version under cc. And if not, this can be changed to public domain, to accomodate old photo. Patstuart 21:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Depends on the country. You can't do that in most places. →Яocket°°° 09:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and strip CC license, which was never in the originally uploaded file on en.wikipedia (according to a en.wiki admin I contacted through IRC and that had a peek in the deletion log). Patrícia msg 13:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. PD-user appears to be the case. Fixed license. →Rocket°°° 21:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Tagged PD-ineligible but clearly eligible for protection. Butseriouslyfolks 18:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Clearly eligible ?? Nonsense ! Keep !--Fornax 18:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- DELETE: Image is taken from a World War II textbook but the description states it contains no original authorship. Cleary not the case. -OberRanks 13:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Unsourced and wrong license. May be undeleted with source proof and adequate licensing. Patrícia msg 14:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is eligible for copyright, tagged PD-ineligible. Butseriouslyfolks 08:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Quadell (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not know what copyright status postage stamps in Argentina have. But the license is definitvly wrong from the work shown. ALE! ¿…? 08:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Quadell (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no source, no author, no date ALE! ¿…? 08:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's clearly from the mugshot, compare [64]. Given that he was arrested in 1913, that should be the year the photograph is from. That leaves the question of copyright ownership. Given that it was made by a state employee in the course of work, the copyright should have been owned by the state or the police. Now it is either {{Anonymous-EU}} or {{PD-ItalyGov}}. --rimshottalk 18:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- The result was keep - source information added, properly tagged. Patstuart (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Why Swedish copyrights law is applied to work of German soldier? EugeneZelenko 14:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - photo by German soldier, in the Ukraine. Copyrighted. Patstuart 17:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Per below, if it's owned by someone on Wikimedia commons, 99.9% chance it was meant to be PD (even if pd-self). Patstuart 19:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The picture is owned by the uploader and according to Swedish law a picture is free of use 50 years after it was taken (and this actual picture was taken 66 years ago). In case it's a picture taken by a professional photographer it's 70 years after the photographer's death. But that doesn't apply to this picture. Narking 19:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- But law of which country: Germany or Sweden should have priority in this case? --EugeneZelenko 14:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Nazi-German law of 1941 can be applied in this case. Narking 17:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Narking, if you are the sole owner of this photograph, I think it would be OK to mark it pd-self. Patstuart 17:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm the sole owner of this picture. If it's better and if everyone agrees I can of course change to pd-self. Narking 21:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would agree to that; certainly no one else will claim intellectual rights to it, unless it's a widely distributed photo. Patstuart 23:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- No. Mere possession does not make you the copyright holder. Only the author or his heirs could release it into the public domain. As the photographer was a German, it will become PD 70 years after his death. If the author is not known, it becomes PD 70 years after publication. --91.65.124.174 16:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Quite honestly, if the original author is unknown, and only he owns, it, then it's a moot point, because no one knows who that author is, so his heirs can hardly claim copyright of it. This man is the closest anyone comes to an owner. Patstuart 17:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- If we could prove that the author is truly anonymous, then the image would still be protected by copyright until 70 years after publication. --91.65.124.174 19:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Quite honestly, if the original author is unknown, and only he owns, it, then it's a moot point, because no one knows who that author is, so his heirs can hardly claim copyright of it. This man is the closest anyone comes to an owner. Patstuart 17:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see why present German law should be applied here. But if you insist on that, the present German state has a similar law as Sweden. A non-publicated "Lichtbilder", which this is, looses its protection 50 years after it was taken (Bei einer Nicht-Veröffentlichung innerhalb von fünfzig Jahren nach der Herstellung erlischt die Schutzfrist.) Narking 20:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a "Lichtbild", but a "Lichtbildwerk", which means it becomes public domain 70 years after publication (or if it's not published, 70 years after the photo was taken) (§66 UrhG). --91.65.124.174 21:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this picture can be considered to be a "Lichtbildwerke" since it's an amateur photographer's snapshot. To be a "Lichtbildwerke" it has to be "über das Alltägliche hinausgehen und sich durch Individualität auszeichnen." Narking 21:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- See de:Lichtbildwerk. It seems even simple amateur snapshots are considered Lichtbildwerke now. --91.65.124.174 12:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
1) I still doubt that your tourist pictures taken in Paris can be considered to be a "Lichtbildwerke" or "Fotografiskt verk" according to German or Swedish law.
2) I own the original picture and I'm a Swedish citizen living in Sweden. Then why do you think present German law should be applied to this picture? It's impossible to know who actually took this picture even though it's most probably a soldier in the German army. This soldier could have been from present Germany, but also from what is now Austria, Poland, Czech republic, the Netherlands or even Sweden. So why should you use present German law in this case?
Narking 16:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Image:Afghanistan Ethnolinguistic Groups 1997.jpg
- Image:Ethnolinguistic Groups in Afghanistan.png
- Image:Afghanistan Ethnolinguistic Groups 1982.jpg
- Image:Afghanistan Ethnolinguistic Groups 1972.jpg
There are already 4 different ethnolinguistic maps for Afghanistan above, which are made by CIA and other government sources. There is no reason for this incorrect and unreliable self-made map to be on Commons, this map is not trustful and shows wrong information. The uploader is an ethnic Tajik himself, and he tries to make his ethnic group more while trying to make ethnic Pashtuns appear less, he is on Wikipedia as User:Beh-nam (Special:Contributions/Beh-nam), spreading propaganda against ethnic Pashtuns everyday, without editing anything else. Since this causes edit war, we should only use the latest 1997 CIA map that shows the different ethnic groups in Afghanistan, which is the most reliable source. I find it very strange that the reliable maps from CIA are not used in any Afghanistan related articles on Wikipedia but only this self-made one is used. On top of all this, the uploader's tag team vandal User:Anoshirawan (Special:Contributions/Anoshirawan) is going around vandalising articles on Wikipedia everyday, changing ethnic make-up of places in Afghanistan to show more Tajiks and less Pashtuns. [65], [66], [67], [68], [69] How can we depend on such people to make an ethnic make-up of Afghanistan?--Executioner 16:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - after studying it, it seems clear to me that this map is not too unrealisitic; however, the other map is better, so I would advise simply using the CIA map on the Wikipedias. Patstuart 17:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment' - I am a kunduzi pashtun from the momand/mohmand tribe there is a lot of pashtuns in Kunduz and most of them are of the Mohmand/Momand tribe, kunduz is an intresting province since they are many differnt kind of province
- Comment - You're also misled, Kabul province (14), Ghazni province (9), Kunduz province (32) always had Pashtun majority, they should be colored brown instead of green. What do you know about Afghanistan's ethnic make over? Even provinces (20 and 24) suppose to be brown because the majority there are Pashtuns. I can show you detailed UNHCR reports or data for every district of each of the provinces I pointed out here. The data is written by UN employees who went to every single village in all those provinces and counted the number of people living there which includes the mentioning of ethnicity of the people of those provinces. See example here All this is found at AIMS (Afghanistan Information Management Services), which is the most reliable source for Afghanistan's census and ethnic reports. This self-made map is incorrect, so it should be deleted. If you don't delete this map then I will create another map which will show different colors for some of the provinces.--Executioner 13:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The uploader (User:Le Behnam) keeps removing the deletion tag from the image after I had already told not to do it, the uploader is purposely avoiding to come here for discussion.--Executioner 06:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - This user, as an ethnic Pashtun, just has a problem with this map not showing his ethnic group at the distribution he'd like it to be. I've actually check AIMS and added up all the numbers in each province and colored the province with the largest ethnic group. And my map is based on this [70]. and this map by National Geographic. Adding up all the numbers by AIMS in each district, and using the National Geographic map for Kabul Citiy's population, and using the other map to fill in missing info... this is the result. He just wants the map removed because he doesn't like it. He has removed other maps by other users that he didn't like also, even though they were based on real sources. And the 4 maps he has uploaded are all the same map, just updated slightly with different colors and that is no reason to remove other maps anyways. -- Le Behnam 23:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I do because the map was created by you, someone who is purposly making the Pashtun population appear less when in reality more than 70% of Afghanistan's population is Pashtun. However, I am not pushing for this and I kindly accept the CIA's findings for now that 42% of the population of Afghanistan is ethnic Pashtun, which is not updated yet. Next year in 2008 there will be a national census in the country, and it's likely that the correct numbers will be revealed. My 70% number is what most Pashtuns believe. The politicians of the country are over 70% Pashtuns, the Governors of the Provinces are nearly 70% Pashtuns, etc. You think Pashtuns are only in the south, they are also in the north of the country, in Badghis Province, Balkh province, Kunduz province, Badakhshan province, etc. This is something you don't know because you were born in Germany who now live in Canada. What would you know about Afghanistan if you are the same as other people of the west who never seen the country?--Executioner 16:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Afghanistan's ethnic distribution is not determined by provinces but by specific areas or regions. Also, the uploader is having trouble understanding the difference between Province and City, while the smaller cities (Kabul, Ghazni, Herat, etc.) may have more Tajiks, however, the larger Kabul Province, Ghazni Province, Herat Province and several others have larger population of ethnic Pashtuns, which is shown in the CIA official maps. The Pashtuns are land owners and farmers, most of them live outside the major cities. For example: The uploader colored en:Ghazni Province yellow as totally Hazaras, en:Kabul Province and en:Herat Province green as totally Tajiks, if we go by his false map it will be misleading us because the provinces of Ghazni, Herat and Kabul are mostly Pashtuns with Tajiks and others living in the capital cities of those provinces. They should not be colored yellow and green but brown. I've travelled myself in those areas and you see nothing but ethnic Pashtuns everywhere.
Below is a list showing the ethnic distribution of each district in en:Kunduz Province in north Afghanistan:
47% Pashtun, 20% Harzara, 45% Tajik, 18% Uzbek, total current population is 45,850 http://www.aims.org.af/afg/dist_profiles/unhcr_district_profiles/northern/kunduz/ali_abad.pdf
40% Pashtun, 15% Tajik, 35% Uzbek, 10% Turkmen, population is 99,000 http://www.aims.org.af/afg/dist_profiles/unhcr_district_profiles/northern/kunduz/archi.pdf
55% Pashtun, 25% Tajik, 12% Uzbek, 8% Turkmen, population is 69,251 http://www.aims.org.af/afg/dist_profiles/unhcr_district_profiles/northern/kunduz/chahar_dara.pdf
45% Uzbek, 25% Pashtun, 25% Tajik, 5% Turkmen, 1% Hazara, population is 250,000 http://www.aims.org.af/afg/dist_profiles/unhcr_district_profiles/northern/kunduz/imam_sahib.pdf
40% Pashtun, 25% Tajik, 20% Hazara, 10% Uzbek, 4% Other:Pashai, population is 110,000 http://www.aims.org.af/afg/dist_profiles/unhcr_district_profiles/northern/kunduz/khan_abad.pdf
No ethnics data available, population is 259,497 http://www.aims.org.af/afg/dist_profiles/unhcr_district_profiles/northern/kunduz/kunduz.pdf
90% Turkmen, 10% Pashtun, population is 120,000 http://www.aims.org.af/afg/dist_profiles/unhcr_district_profiles/northern/kunduz/qalay_i_zal.pdf
You see Pashtuns make up the largest ethnic group in Kunduz Province. This uploader wants the public to think that there are no Pashtuns in Kunduz Province and that all the people living in that province are Uzbeks and Turkmen. He also wants the public to think that there are no Pashtuns in Ghazni Province, Herat Province, Kabul Province, along with several others provinces, this is an attempt to mislead the public. He himself claimed that he got the information from http://www.aims.org.af but the aims links above prove him wrong because Kunduz Province has more Pashtuns and should be colored brown instead of orange. By the way Kunduz Disrict for which aims has no ethnics data is mostly Pashtuns, despite the false ethnic information written by someone in the article. Furthermore, the Pashtun population in Afghanistan is increasing every year because en:Afghan refugees (over 80% Pashtuns) are returning from Pakistan each year back to Afghanistan. Pashtun population will reach to over 50% of total population of Afghanistan by December 2009 after all former refugees return to their country. CIA factbook has been explaining since 2003 that 42% of the total population of Afghanistan is Pashtun but Encyclopedia Britannica states that Pashtuns are already 49%. [71]
The Encyclopædia Britannica gives a list for various ethnolinguistic groups in Afghanistan:
The uploader of this false map could not accept the above list so he kept removing it from the Afghanistan article on Wikipedia. [72] That further proves that his intentions are to mislead the public.--Executioner 14:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Not sure what's up with all the statistics above. This isn't Wikipedia. All but two of the maps are being used so there's we shouldn't delete regardless of if they're right or not. You don't delete things that are wrong, you fix them. →Яocket°°° 09:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Wikipedia can decide which map they use, data is sourced for the images Gnangarra 11:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No reason to necessarily believe uploader is author without better evidence; subject died 17 years ago, and a host of similar images are online: http://images.google.com/images?q=%22Dexter+Gordon. --Patstuart 18:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This uploader is a retired university professor[73]. Based on our experiences with him on nl.wp, I have no doubts whatsoever about his claim. Siebrand 18:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Siebrand, are you absolutely sure that this user understands what it means to tag something as own work and is aware of copyright issues? I'm somewhat not comfortable with the fact the same picture appears elsewhere on the internet and that the user has received some warnings for uploading images without information. I want to assume good faith, but it might be that he did a mistake? Patrícia msg 14:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. will AGF, can find only one other copy of the image via google, while its was uploaded to a blogg 1 month before this one its smaller and doesnt simply upscale to the size of the image here. Gnangarra 12:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
October 17
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
uploaded over existing image; not properly labeled; uploaded again under unique name Ecpclio 11:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Imaged over-uploaded deleted. --Tarawneh 15:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please have a look at licencing at http://flickr.com/photos/idealterna/770965485/ . It seems to be a copyvio. --Paulokoko 13:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dodo 14:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture belongs to the site http://www.metro.df.gob.mx/red/logos/muzquiz.jpg --19:15, 12 October 2007 User:189.145.7.112
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:X1pbglk-vqL4BvZb4ndxURlA5aTxsqiA1H0RqrcygENEi4kwhBcgUrhUVEXoqMCV3m4u2Ei1HgOvOv7kEq7KbfwvwPAencCV7BIwveJMAZrCTgdaK6Q-ZRsgWtcAr-RNCAEtv4TMIsBuQ0.jpg
[edit]Se está usando para vandalizar artículos rafax 06:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Personal photograph (so out of scope) + ridiculous filename. Deadstar (msg) 07:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
its being used to vandalize articles rafax 06:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete personal photograph - Out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 07:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete clearly out of scope. Megapixie 14:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
In the USA (which is where the wikimedia servers are located), there is no freedom of panorama for artworks such as statues. Per Commons:Freedom of panorama#USA, "For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, ... any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork." This photo page does not offer the name of the sculptor, but I suspect he did not die more than 70 years ago, since the subject of the sculpture was born in 1920 and is depicted as an older man. Seidenstud 08:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Megapixie 14:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per Herbert. Apparently there is freedom of Panorama in Brazil. Megapixie 22:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep OK with freedom of panorama in Brazil: Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Brazil - that's where the statue is located! --Herbert Ortner 19:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 11:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
With Image:Wikimedia logo for newsletter.png a better picture is avable. --Alkab 14:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
discriminatory upload, personality rights injured Polarlys 15:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
so what is discriminatory about that? that fact that he's fat? or gay? well, he wouldn't go topless on a gay pride parade if he was ashamed of that! and which personality rights, he's is obviously aware of the picture being taken. --Buster Baxter 15:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- The pic seems acceptable to me as, for example, an illustration for en:Chubby culture. Man vyi 16:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
kept, no copyright issue --ALE! ¿…? 11:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Doubtful taken by uploader at en.wiki, been floating around the internet for a while, seminude image of multiple nonnotable private citizens . . . Butseriouslyfolks 20:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - even if it was taken by that uploader (can you find any URL showing it's been around for a while?), I seriously doubt that this would pass the muster of personality rights. Girls might have been doing something stupid, but I doubt they'd want their naked poses posted all over the place under cc-by. Patstuart 23:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ha -- you just want at the website! ;-O Seriously, I'm not sure, but it's one of those "here's a bunch of normal looking college students half naked" pictures you see around. I may have seen it at http://www.entensity.net/ or some similar silliness. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I knew I should have phrased that better... :sigh: ;) Patstuart 17:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ha -- you just want at the website! ;-O Seriously, I'm not sure, but it's one of those "here's a bunch of normal looking college students half naked" pictures you see around. I may have seen it at http://www.entensity.net/ or some similar silliness. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete questionable commons scope and dodgy sourcing. Megapixie 23:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, unless the first uploader can give specific and documented replies to certain questions (which I very much doubt is going to happen). AnonMoos 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep is used to illustrate en:handbra so it's clearly within the scope of Commons. Original uploader was en:User:Backstab55 claiming own work. Unless otherwise can be found we could assume good faith. // Liftarn
- "Assume Good Faith" simply doesn't apply when there are plausible prima facie reasons to suspect significant problems with an image. AnonMoos 09:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless the uploader can explain where and under which circumstances the image was taken, provide an image with intact EXIF data or explain why the image doesn't have them and prove that he/she has the consent of the subjects to publish the photo. Samulili 09:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete at the very least as a user-made image with a watermark. —Angr 17:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Doesn't really have a watermark in the most objectionable sense -- it has an automatically-generated timestamp thingie. AnonMoos 19:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep agf, no proof this image is not taken by person claiming to have taken it. -Nard 20:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- 1) Assume good faith is does not refer to something like copyrights. We need to be cautious, and put the onus of proof on the uploader. This is why we require sources.
- 2) The uploader appears to be a male. Do you really think this was a guy in the women's bathroom taking a picture of these women?
- 3) According to above, the image has been around for a coon's age on the internet, and it was just uploaded.
- 4) If we keep this, we might as well throw personality rights and BLP out the window. Or do you really see no problem with pasting an image of these unknowing ladies all over Wikipedia articles? Can you imagine if you or someone in your family did something silly, and had is posted all over the internet? Patstuart 17:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Depending on the purposes for which an image of identifiable living persons is used, it may require not just permission (release of copyright) from the photographer but also a model release from those appearing in it. News photos would be exempt from this, advertising photos would not; there are countless other places where a Commons image may be subject to re-use that have nothing legit to do with the manufacture of an encyclopædia. I'd suggest then that the original photog endeavour to supply appropriate model releases for a non-newsworthy image of such identifiable non-notable persons. --Carlb 22:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The photo is stamped "01.02.2005", probably 2 January 2005, but perhaps 1 February 2005, and lacks metadata. It was probably taken by a person trusted by the subjects of the photo, who then stabbed them in the back by posting it without their consent 15 June 2007 in its first act on English Wikipedia, hence the text part "Backstab" of the name of the uploader "Backstab55". That uploader was contacted about this image via its user talk page at 20:23 on 17 October 2007 (UTC), but has yet to respond, and has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users. The uploader to Commons, Liftarn, has uploaded many copyvios and images with dodgy licensing or sourcing in the past. Surely, a photographer and model can get together (or a photographer-model can use a self-timer or remote) to produce a truly free image worthy to illustrate w:Handbra, which has survived attempted deletion twice. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per logic used in Jeff G.'s response. I am also doubtful that "Backstab55" was the one in the bathroom taking this picture. Cumulus Clouds 19:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Well founded suspicions were raised that this might not be a work by Backstab55 (at least five users) or that he might not have a permission to publish the image (at least four users). User nor no one on his behalf has been able to answer these serious questions. Samulili 20:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
In the USA (which is where both the wikimedia servers and this artwork are located), there is no freedom of panorama for artworks such as statues. Per Commons:Freedom of panorama#USA, "For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, ... any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork." Seidenstud 02:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I took the image from the Flickr collection of a user named "jepsculpture," which echoes www.jepsculpture.com, a Web site run by the sculptor of the work. The user had released the image under CC2 license. It seems to me that if the artist himself releases the image, then Wikipedia should not fear to use it. I propose to leave a message for "jepsculpture" via his Flickr collection, asking for him to explicitly claim ownership of the image and its release under CC licensing. Would that satisfy WP? PRRfan 21:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I guess so, but is there a way to confirm that the Flickr user is actually the sculptor? While the name similarity makes it very likely, I'm not so sure that it is rigorous enough to call the image "free." And, he wouldn't have to claim ownership of the image (that is already implied), but would have to claim that he created and therefore owns the copyright of the actual sculpture. -Seidenstud 08:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Right, well put. PRRfan 13:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The sculptor has explicitly posted permissions at his web site, so I'm removing the deletion request. PRRfan 16:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Kept Nomination withdrawn. Deadstar (msg) 09:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=upload&user=Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff&page=&pattern=&limit=500&offset=0
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=upload&user=Genius+2&page=&pattern=&limit=20&offset=0 (uploads of sockpuppet Genius 2 (talk • contribs))
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=upload&user=Genius+3&page=&pattern=&limit=500&offset=0 (uploads of sockpuppet Genius 3 (talk • contribs))
- Category:Art of Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff Collection
- Gallery of Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff
- Gallery of Genius 2
- Gallery of Genius 3
All of the uploads of Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff should be deleted because of his own restrictions on derivative works "No part of the image can be removed or changed" as posted here and "The images can be used in Wikiprojects without any changes, with reception of the written permission" as posted here. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if Mr. Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff means that all his uploads are nonderivatives or Wikimedia only. You should ask him for a clarification. --Kjetil r 17:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Whichever he means does not matter, both restrictions are against COM:L. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Kjetil, there have been long discussions about this, both in English (witj Jeff) and Russian (Eugene). I support Jeff's current view. Aside from Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff's uncivil behaviour for which he has been blocked several times (including sockpuppetry and anonymous edits - also leading to blocks), he appears to have an incorrect understanding of Wikimedia's concept of free. I have only been involved at the beginning of this issue and I think that both Eugene and Jeff should add some links here so support this request, so that we can better understand its background. Cheers! Siebrand 17:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- http://tools.wikimedia.de/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?lang=en&user=24.168.39.49 and http://tools.wikimedia.de/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?lang=en&user=Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff for starters, along with Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/User problems 4#24.168.39.49_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 and Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff. I've got to run, sorry I didn't finish adding delete tags to all his images yet. Is that adding even necessary? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, it seems clear that the restrictions are against policy. Delete, then. --Kjetil r 20:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, it seems clear that the restrictions are against policy.
- I am including his art collection category Category:Art of Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff Collection, which only includes his work and may make automated processing easier. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hurrah!!! The truth and lie has started to be shown! One of greedy thieves of another's intellectual work, being covered with the defender of copyrights and wishing to make profit for the account of others, was frightened! Only... It is not all! Search more. Very soon by your hands, by such rates and methods as at you, this project will disappear also. Works of users do not belong to you, even if it for them a hobby! You can not copyright their job. I give and I allow to use my illustrations only in such with what you them to see and no more that. You can use my illustrations or not - the right of everyone. Other users of the given projects will begin to see clearly also, creating the new web-sites. --Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff 17:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- The above reply appears to confirm my interpretation that he restricts derivative use of his work. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- For calling us "greedy thieves of another's intellectual work" after being warned against personal attacks, he should be blocked. Indefinitely. On all projects. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- User has been blocked; also, a suspected sock. 68.48.230.9 01:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Criticism towards User:Jeff G.
[edit]It is a part of work of the author and the part of personal family archive, and also my personal collection. According to copyrights to all these works the instructions a name of the author which are specified are required. GNU is GNU, but each work has the author (even not known inhabitant of a planet the Earth, but he was or is).
Dear Friends, I ask to pay attention to User:Jeff G.. I understand, that the specified participant of our community (User:Jeff G.) very much loves me and "roughly breathes" because of me, hinting at a number of "gay photos" (his reproach was transferred to archive) which are not present and never was, but so is simple to him I will not be given.)) Any of my works does not break and did not break whose copyrights and is loaded here for articles of various language sections 'Wiki/s', and not just for the English version. Please, people, take care of User:Jeff G. that he would not prevent to work. --Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff 13:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I will not dignify such uncivil personal attacks with a response. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have tried to remove the PAs in the above... Siebrand 15:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- User has been blocked; also, a suspected sock. 68.48.230.9 01:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have tried to remove the PAs in the above... Siebrand 15:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
More on image licenses
[edit]Several images uploaded by Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff show a link to an external website in the source and/or permission field (e.g. Fauset2.JPG and Alexandroffs v9p140.jpg). The images on those sites are provided with these licenses terms:
- Link to http://fotoplenka.ru/users/tnaia/ (most images uploaded by Genius 3)
- "О себе: поищите в инете Ps: Материалы принадлежащие автору и опубликованные здесь могут быть перепечатаны в любом виде и использованы любым некоммерческим образом, но без нарушения Закона об Авторских правах и с обязательным указанием имени автора. При коммерческом использовании, выплата автору гонорара должна быть обязательно произведена. Указанные даты не означают первичную дату публикации -- многое из публикуемого является перепечаткой прошлого и из других источников автора."
- ... which Google translates to:
- "About me: look for unwanted Ps: Proceedings of the author and published here may be republished in any form and used by any non-profit, but without violating the Law on the Rights of All and a name author. In commercial use, the author of the fees paid to be done. These dates are not the primary date of publication -- a lot of typing is published by the past and from other sources author."
- ... which is not compatible with Commons.
- Link to http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/pogrebnojalexandroff/
- "No part of the image can be removed or changed. The name of the author should be present at any photo or other author's image at all places where they take places. The images can be used in Wikiprojects and for any other sites or in printing without any changes or other should be personally discussed with the author, with reception of the written permission."
- ... which is not compatible with Commons too.
These images must be deleted unless Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff change their license. — Xavier, 22:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - non-derivs, Wikipedia only. Continued rude responses only hurt cause. Patstuart 23:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The user's page seems to state no derivs. Either it's free, in which case we won't delete it, or it isn't free and we will delete it. I can't see how the user can object to that. Megapixie 23:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
* If the given project noncommercial also is registered as not-for-profit organisation about what commerce there can be a speech? If it is a hobby of users about what commerce there can be a speech? And if someone wishes to receive benefit from use of another's work why not to pay to authors for their work? Something rules specified by you are not joined to the International law and common sense. Your rules and many of you uncivil, but not Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff! Pogrebnoj-Alexandrff just it is more for the people, instead of commercial interest of separate people. And why you block at once users as soon as see danger to your inventions in a deceit of naive people? Where the report on the collected donations which it is collected more than one million dollars? I wish to see this financial report. Genius#1 1:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC) faked. —The preceding incompletely signed comment was added by 72.11.218.137 (talk • contribs) at 05:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and a 2 or 3 day block on Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff for personal attacks, rudeness, disruption and harassment of Jeff G. (Harassment is not Wikistalking). Shuch behavior is not tolerated. --Jonas Dalton Rand (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- He now has a three month block (4th block) for incivility, using sockpuppets, and disruption. Siebrand 06:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I definitely vote for deletion of COAs images (most likely derivative works from scanned books/magazines/etc images). Unfortunately uploader didn't provide details after many requests. Other usual images (vegetables, places) could stay if terms of use on http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/pogrebnojalexandroff/ and http://fotoplenka.ru/users/tnaia/ will adjusted accordingly to terms declared on Commons. --EugeneZelenko 14:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- The user is now indefinately blocked from Commons, but seeing his sockpuppetry we can safely assume he is reading this. I propose we give him 2 weeks to change the notice on http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/pogrebnojalexandroff/ and http://fotoplenka.ru/users/tnaia/ to reflect a free license, as defined on COM:L. That is until 2 November 2007. If it has not been done by then, and I think you are the right person to check Eugene, the uploads will be deleted. If it has been done, the original work can be kept. Any objections? Siebrand 15:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! No objections. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good call. Patstuart 18:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As of 6th November, the licenses on those sites are still unchanged. I'm afraid it's now time to delete Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff's work. — Xavier, 19:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- The user is now indefinately blocked from Commons, but seeing his sockpuppetry we can safely assume he is reading this. I propose we give him 2 weeks to change the notice on http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/pogrebnojalexandroff/ and http://fotoplenka.ru/users/tnaia/ to reflect a free license, as defined on COM:L. That is until 2 November 2007. If it has not been done by then, and I think you are the right person to check Eugene, the uploads will be deleted. If it has been done, the original work can be kept. Any objections? Siebrand 15:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Derived work is marked as own work like here: Image:Gsn.jpg, source is Image:Schwalbenschwanz_Raupe01.jpg, rotated vertical. I wonder what's the source of that Image:Butterfly.jpg --Hsuepfle 20:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Gsn.jpg should be saved from deletion as it is a regular derivative work with a correct CC-by license. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find out the source of the butterfly. — Xavier, 19:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Can this be closed? Other related DRs exist, e.g., Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Buttocks.jpg. I closed and deleted that one since a consensus was reached.Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Closing as Delete. User was indefinately blocked some time ago. Possibly this wasn't closed earlier due to the number of images involved; see links above. I will get a start on deleting them; assistance from other admins is encouraged. -- Infrogmation 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Closed; delete per nom. Deletion of relevent images not yet completed at this time. -- Infrogmation 17:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Over 500 deletions later, Finished, deleted. -- Infrogmation 22:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Creator of image is not identified, Husnock's images have been a major copyvio problem at en.wiki. Butseriouslyfolks 07:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Source is not identified. Since Husnock has already gone away from en.wikipedia, an additional information on the source of the image will not be available. I'm sorry to have uploaded such a problematic image.--Sciss 13:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Videmus Omnia: Copyright violation, http://uniforminsignia.net
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. In the USA (which is where the wikimedia servers are located), there is no freedom of panorama for artworks such as statues. Per Commons:Freedom of panorama#USA, "For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, ... any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork." Seidenstud 07:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Megapixie 14:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as it appears that the Philippine copyright law, which follows the U.S. model anyway, does not have any "freedom of panorama" rules. Lupo 19:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Just because the Philippine IP Law does not have any panorama clause, does it mean that we automatically follow the US law? --Seav 02:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. per LupoMichaelMaggs
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence of public domain; not authored by listed author (US NARA); uploaded to en.wiki by uploader with extensive copyvio problems Butseriouslyfolks 03:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - no source; it would be nice if we had a URL and the original uploader, but this wasn't provided either. Patstuart 23:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No source. PxMa 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
site license explicitly prohibits commercial use: http://www.valdemoro.es/servicios/galeria/AvisoLegal.asp --Patstuart 19:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Discussion see
- Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Estación Valdemoro 1900.jpg
Deleted. No OTRS mail available for three months. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
site license explicitly prohibits commercial use: http://www.valdemoro.es/servicios/galeria/AvisoLegal.asp --Patstuart 19:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
But, it is Wikimedia Commons considered commercial use? I understand you could not obtain some profit using this picture, but that there is no problem in using it in a place like this...--Ajracing666 21:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Per Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses, Commercial use of the work must be allowed. For various reasons, such as downstream usage (i.e., anyone can use commons material). Sorry. Patstuart 21:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've asked for permision, please wait until they answer me if it is allowed or not. --Ajracing666 22:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been answered that the pictures can be published in Commons if they include the following text: “Foto cedida por el Excmo. Ayuntamiento de Valdemoro”. I think this is enough to keep the pictures. --Ajracing666 12:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds like enough, however, if you could forward the email to the office, that would be helpful. Please follow the instructiosn at {{Image permission}}. Patstuart 17:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Mail sent. Thanks for your help. --Ajracing666 17:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Por favor lee Commons:Modelos de mensajes. Edub 15:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No OTRS mail available for three months. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Claims own work, but different author below. Confusingly, uploader has said "own work" for different authors. --Patstuart 20:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete --Dodo 13:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Vamos a ver... no tengo ni idea de que me estas hablando. Esta imagen ha sido creada por Alfredo Sotelo Arcos a partir de datos libres del INM y me ha cedido gentilmente la imagen para que la coloque en el artículo de la wikipedia de Huétor-Tájar. Asi que no se muy bien donde está el problema. Lo mismo está en la forma de documentar la imagen. Aclárame el problema. --Jompy 11:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It appears unlikely that the author of the original work has been dead for more than 70 years. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Obviously not pre-War graphics. -- Infrogmation 22:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - looks like, given the username, he's the same person as the author. Just a heads up - probably meant pd-self. Patstuart 23:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
this drawing is a perversion of John Norman's work Juiced lemon 11:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- First off, I have no idea what Juiced Lemon's stated deletion "rationale" (if you can even call it that) is even supposed to mean. Second, the image is not a copyright violation, because it's based on purely verbal descriptions in the Gor books, and the verbal descriptions are kind of vague, and allow much room for individual latitude of interpretation. Third, the image is to some degree a loose reinterpretation of an image at http://www.jonrhus.com/gor/brands.php?brand=dina which has been rather widely disseminated among the on-line Gorean community (as has been previously discussed at en:Talk:Gorean). However, it isn't a violation of Jonrhus's copyrights either, since it was made completely from scratch to achieve a quite different visual appearance than Jonrhus's symbol (using five-fold rotational symmetry and vesica piscis geometry, to mention only the most obvious factors). Fourth, this deletion nomination has an appearance of being a spiteful revenge maneuver on Juiced lemon's part, in retaliation for my pointing out problems in Juiced lemon's categorizations, and then having the temerity and gall to complain about Juiced lemon's tendencies towards unilateralism and not working well with others... AnonMoos 11:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- While I'm not agreeing the rationale has merit, it seems to me fairly obvious what Juiced lemon's rationale is. He/she is saying it's a derivative of John Norman's work and as such is a copyvio as John Norman I presume has not released the work John Norman under a free license. If you description is correct then I don't THINK there's a problem but I just wanted to point out that Juiced lemon's rationale seems fairly obvious to me even if it is without merit. Also, unless JL has nominated several of your files and nothing else, please just assume good faith whatever your experience with him/her are. It is easily possible that JL simply saw the image in an interaction with you and felt it was a copyvio. Nil Einne 12:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- It was not clear to me that Juiced Lemon was raising derivative or copyright issues at all, and from his comments below, it seems that he actually wasn't. In any case, it's hard for an image to be "derivative" (in a copyright sense) of something which has only been rather vaguely described, purely textually (with descriptions which are perhaps even slightly contradictory -- see below). AnonMoos 14:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I see what JuicedLemon want to say (I understand his/hers rationale), but that reason doesn't have merit. To my experience, if you don't like some FREE image on wikipedia (commons etc) you correct it, not delete. So, do the same as all other users on wikimedia projects, get keyboard in hands and do some job! SpeedyGonsales 17:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]This drawing claims to be the fictional Dina rose, as described in John Norman's works. This webpage gives some information about the Dina :
- Small, multiple petaled flower of the northern regions akin to the earth rose. It is sometimes referred to as the slave flower and its print is commonly used as a brand.
- followed with an excerpt from the book Slave Girl of Gor.
This drawing is not in connection with this description:
- a multiple petaled flower cannot be a flower with only 5 petals
- the Dina rose is akin a earth rose, which have always a round pistil. The draughtsman has intentionally made up a vulva symbol in the center, though there is no reference to that in John Norman's works.
This drawing gives an erroneous view of these works and would not be kept in Commons as long as it is associated with the writings of John Norman. --Juiced lemon 12:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- You know, it would really not be advisable to try to set yourself up as an expert on a subject after nothing more than a little quasi-random superficial Google searching. In chapter 3 of book 11 of the Gor series, Norman says of the Dina flower of the planet Gor: "in its budding, though in few other ways, it resembles a rose; it is an exotic, alien flower" -- so there's no reason whatsoever to expect the fictional abstract quasi-floral "Dina" symbol of the fictional alien planet of Gor to have a close resemblance to the structural anatomy of real earth plants. However, in other books in the series, Norman does say briefly that the symbol is somewhat "rose-like" (without further explanation), which I took as a reason to impose an overall five-fold symmetry on the symbol (since roses are usually depicted as having five petals in heraldic representations: see category:Roses in heraldry).
- As for the feature to which you object, that was loosely inspired by (though not directly visually copied from) the image http://www.jonrhus.com/gor/brands.php?brand=dina which has had a somewhat wide dissemination among the on-line Gorean community (as indicated above) -- and it's by no means clear whether Norman would object, since in another book in the Gor series (#18), he discussed a Gorean symbol which "resembles a pair of parentheses enclosing a vertical line. It seems to be a stylized representation, rather brazen, I think, of delicate female intimacies. -- AnonMoos 13:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Personaly i did not see any reason to remove this artwork :
- -> It's not a copyvio
- -> It's belong to a drawing artist to interpret a sign/heraldic description.
For example, check how many cross-like symbols exists, did we have to remove from commons most of them because they are just "perversion of cross sign" ? Did we also have to remove all Mona-lisa derivative works because theyre are "perversion" of the orinal one. Etc. 134.59.61.138 17:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep No reason to delete. There's nothing wrong with the image. Also, according to the description, I can't see how it's erroneous. "One personal artistic interpretation of the Gorean "Dina" abstract flower symbol (as very vaguely verbally described in John Norman's series of "Gor" science-fiction books). Depicted with five-fold rotational symmetry because of the comment in books 11, 22, 23, and 25 that it is "rose-like"." Sounds fine to me, but if there is a problem change the description, don't the image.
P.S. There's also en:Image:Dina-gor.png on the English Wikipedia (not-used, though). Rocket000 03:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Kept, no clear reason for deletion. --rimshottalk 16:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Claims own work, but different author below. Confusingly, uploader has said "own work" for different authors. --Patstuart 20:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete --Dodo 13:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
reviewing other images by the uploader. I think it is his own work. --ALE! ¿…? 08:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photo took in 1930, author unknown, so there is no evidence that's PD-old. Even if author made this photo when he was 50 y.o. and he died 10 years later then it's copyvio. Herr Kriss 11:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep It is only a matter of changing template into {{Anonymous-EU}}. That's all. Piasecki was arrested in 1939 and shot in Palmiry in 1940.
Andros64 11:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment A-EU doesn't apply to all images. If author isn't provided it dosen't mean that it's anonymous work. Herr Kriss 13:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Anyway the publication of anonymous photo , not contested be anyone for such long time has legal presumption of full legality. Anyone who wants to contest such presumption has to prove his attitude – not in contrary. In civil law it is named presumption of good will ( good faith ) and legality (equivalent of presumption of innocence in criminal law). So always the charge of proof is on the contesting side.
Andros64 17:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with Herr Kriss. There is no strong reason for {{Anonymous-EU}}. I was beginner when I was uploading that photo so I thought that's enough for PD, now I think it should be proved that author is really anonymus. Pilecka 19:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Patrícia msg 14:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I see no indication this photo is reserved under cc-by-sa, though I could be missing something. I can't read Dutch, but it looks like at the bottom it says all rights reserved. --Patstuart 22:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- This page has Attribution-ShareAlike in Detailid under the word avalik. By the way, I think it's Estonian — but I'm not sure. Thierry Caro 22:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- While one might infer from the words "Attribution-ShareAlike" that the author has probably intended to publish the work under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license, I'm afraid it's not clear and explicit enough to be considered an actual licensing statement. (And yes, that's Estonian.) Please do not attempt to close the deletion discussion until consensus has been reached. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - it seems fairly obvious that the author mean cc-by-sa. However else in the world would attribution-sharealike ever appear together like that? Patstuart 23:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Thierry Caro 23:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Assumptions like that are reasonable but dangerous. Should the author change their mind and take action against Commons, we don't have a legal leg to stand on. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think that the site modeled its licenses after the CC licenses, but that they are not the same. Nevertheless, it looks like the license should be acceptable on commons. If it is, then we have a new source of free images ;) We'll never know without someone who speaks Eesti, though. I have therefore asked someone who does speak it. --rimshottalk 14:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Translations are presented below (with some minor misspelling mistakes)
Attribution. Sa lubad teistel kopeerida, levitada, näidata ja kasutada oma autoriõigustega kaitstud tööd - ja töid mis baseeruvad sinu tööl - aga seda ainult juhul, kui sulle ja sinu tööle on viidatud selliselt viisil nagu sina seda nõuad (autori nime äratoomisega).
Attribution. You allow others to copy, distribute, show and use your work that has protected by the copyright laws and the works that are based on your work but only in the case if there has been referenced to you and to your work in the way you want it to be (with mentioning the authors name).
- Share Alike. Sa lubad luua teistel töid mis baseeruvad sinu tööl tingimusel, et tulemuse levitamise tingimused ja kaasnevad autoriõigused on täpselt samasugused kui sinu tööl.
- Share Alike. You allow others to create works that are based on your work in the condition if the result will be distributed under the conditions and the copyrights indicating to that will be exactly the same as they were for your work.
- P.S: In Estonian the names of languages are written in small caps and there is usually added the word "keel" (language) in appropriate case [74]. So it would be: someone who speaks eesti keelt (Estonian).
- Suur aitäh! This is really quite odd. There is no official Creative Commons translation in Estonian, so I'm guessing this is an attempt to create that (but only for the summary). So the question remains if we can really claim that this is {{CC-by-sa}}, or if it's just something similar. If it's a case of the latter, are the terms clear enough to use as a licence, and how do we tag the image? This could have been avoided if the website had indicated clearly what the precise legal terms were. Unfortunately, I'm not sure it's a change they could make retroactively without asking all contributors. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- We could tag it as {{Copyrighted free use provided that}}. I don't really like saying some was released under a certain license without explicit consent of the copyright holder, even if the terms are identical. Either way, I would say this image is allowed here. →Rocket°°° 23:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Suur aitäh! This is really quite odd. There is no official Creative Commons translation in Estonian, so I'm guessing this is an attempt to create that (but only for the summary). So the question remains if we can really claim that this is {{CC-by-sa}}, or if it's just something similar. If it's a case of the latter, are the terms clear enough to use as a licence, and how do we tag the image? This could have been avoided if the website had indicated clearly what the precise legal terms were. Unfortunately, I'm not sure it's a change they could make retroactively without asking all contributors. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. And changing to {{Copyrighted free use provided that}}. Patrícia msg 14:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader makes several mutually contradictory and seeminly incorrect statements. There is no evidence that V.V. Sapar, who is cited as the author of the work, has been dead for more than 70 years, as it is claimed. There are fair use claims, which is inconsistent with public domain status and with Commons' licensing policy. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- To the best of my knowledge, V. V. Sapar is not the author of this work. In fact, there is no indication of the artist on this work. The deletion notice was applied with undue haste in this case; only minutes (5 to be precise) after I uploaded the image, and while I was still editing and customizing the copyright info! Although every physical indication is that this print is quite old, the issue of who the artist may be, and whether he or she has been dead for 70 years is actually irrelevant under Title 52 of the Indian Copyright Act, as cited in the tagging. By the language of the act, these are not "fair use" claims, but rather exemptions from copyright protection.
- This matter was referred to Advocate N. Shankara Menon, of Cochin, Kerala, who delivered this opinion based on a quarter century of practice including Indian copyright issues. I would argue for removal of the deletion tag as it was premised upon inaccurate and incomplete information. Thank you. - DB (Devi bhakta 21:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC))
- I brought the image up for discussion here based on the information you supplied when you uploaded the image. It is your duty as the uploader to provide correct information at the time of uploading, so please do not get offended if images get nominated for deletion if you supply incorrect information.
- Now, there are still several problems:
- The permission section still makes reference to fair use for non-commercial and educational use. Works on Commons must not be restricted to such uses, so any such claims are irrelevant.
- The licensing section still makes the claim that the author died more than 70 years ago. If this claim is not relevant, as you say, then why is it still there?
- It is claimed that the image is not protected by copyright because it is permanently situated in a public place, but there is no evidence to support that this is the case, nor any mention of the public place in which it is supposedly situated.
- Indian copyright is limited to 60 years after publication for anonymously published works only. For other works, it extends 60 years after the author's death. The fact that the author's name does not appear on the work itself does not necessarily mean that the author is anonymous.
- As explicitly stated by {{PD-India}}, this tag requires the year of publication and the author of the work to be provided, but this is not done.
- For the copyright to have expired, the work must be published no later than 1946. There is no evidence to support this. In fact, the text at the top of the image appears more modern than that.
- —LX (talk, contribs) 00:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Now, there are still several problems:
- If irrelevant, then ignore.
- I am a newbie at Wikimedia Commons, and you are coming on strong. But I am not a newbie at Indian copyright law.
- Catch a plane to India sometime -- any time, any place, any city -- and walk down any street, and look in any direction, and you will see such images on every wall, in every shop, in every temple.
- These are devotional works, copied and copied and copied.
- It is not given, and it is inapplicable.
- It is not given, and it is inapplicable.
- Your interpretation of Indian copyright law appears to be based on Wikipedia's one-sentence summary, and to ignore both the tagging and the law itself as cited. There is, as I noted earlier, no issue of copyright expiration as it is not a copyrightable image. If there are parts of the tagging that strike you as redundant, feel free to erase. If the picture offends you, delete it - but it is just crazy-making. I am a new member and an easy target. But what I am telling you is legitimate.(Devi bhakta 05:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC))
- Please make your comments after mine, not inside my comments, as this makes it difficult to see who wrote what.
- The reader shouldn't have to guess which statements are accurate and relevant. If it should be ignored, don't write it.
- As above.
- I'm not talking about "such images". I'm talking about this image. Copyright exists not just in a theme or motif, but in the specific interpretation of it as well.
- Copyright extends to "devotional works" as well, and previous copyright violations are no excuse.
- It is applicable, as it is required by the licensing tag that you've chosen.
- It is inapplicable, because every work on Commons must provide a verfiable original source per Commons:Licensing.
- Actually, I haven't even read the Wikipedia article on Indian copyright law; I went and looked at the relevant sections of the full-text copy of it instead, and I've also read a fair bit about Common Law copyright law in the past. How is it not a copyrightable image?
- Please understand that this deletion request is not to be taken personally. Of course I am not offended by the image. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not free, not compatible with Commons. -Nard 04:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Gone. 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 03:48, 17 March 2008 (GMT)
October 18
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
In the description it states "borrowed it from IMDB"? --Deadstar (msg) 10:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image on IMDB "Photo by Dimitrios Kambouris - © WireImage.com - Image courtesy WireImage.com". Wireimage states "Copyright © 2007 WireImage (A division of Getty Images, Inc.) All Rights Reserved." and its terms "You are specifically prohibited from: (a) downloading, copying, or re-transmitting any or all of the Site or the WireImage Content without, or in violation of, a written license or agreement with WireImage". Thus, speeding. Platonides 12:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
From [75] (NSFW). --Noddy93 11:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 15:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
From [76] (NSFW). --Noddy93 11:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 15:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyrighted images --Jarke 16:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Drini: Copyright violation
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request: please remove. made some erros uploading it. --Sjef 12:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Majorly: user request
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source and authorship informed. However no authorization is given and there's no proof that the author released his work under the informed license. Dantadd✉ 16:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{no permission since}}. Samulili 17:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- This has already been done. Now I hope the user does not remove the warning. Dantadd✉ 15:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like a derivative work. It's a photograph of a photograph. William Avery 21:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. I wonder if Magnus Make (or whatever his name is) is supervising what this bot is uploading. Patstuart 18:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Copy of another photograph which does not appear to be free. MichaelMaggs 21:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work; not enough information on the original; subject is ca:Antoni Roca Flaquer, died 1900; no information on painter --Patstuart 18:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to understand which is the problem with this image but i just speak a little english, I'm spanish. This is a family painting, is the father of my great grandfather, and the painter is not very famous, in fact we just now his name. Could you explain me the problem and what can I do. Thank you.--Carles garcia-roca 19:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- If indeed the painting has been granted to this man's family, as he states, I do believe that he would be eligible to release it under public domain, as the rights to the painting have probably been given to his family. In any case, if the painter is dead, his family has as much right as any to claim a posthumous copyright. Patstuart 23:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- That way I understand that the topic remains tidy and I can remove the notice of erase the picture. Thank you.--Carles garcia-roca 09:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Kept Patstuart 16:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work; not enough information on the original; subject is ca:Antoni Roca Várez, died 1925; no information on painter --Patstuart 18:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to understand which is the problem with this image but i just speak a little english, I'm spanish. This is a family painting, is my great grandfather, and the painter is not very famous, in fact we just now his name. Could you explain me the problem and what can I do. Thank you.--Carles garcia-roca 19:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- If indeed the painting has been granted to this man's family, as he states, I do believe that he would be eligible to release it under public domain, as the rights to the painting have probably been given to his family. In any case, if the painter is dead, his family has as much right as any to claim a posthumous copyright. Patstuart 23:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- That way I understand that the topic remains tidy and I can remove the notice of erase the picture. Thank you.--Carles garcia-roca 09:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Kept 16:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Very possibly pd-old, but that's impossible to assert, and I the uploader is clearly not the author --Patstuart 18:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to understand which is the problem with this image but i just speak a little english, I'm spanish. Could you explain me the problem and what can I do. Thank you.--Carles garcia-roca 19:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ah. El problema es que usted puso la plantilla {{pd-self}} en la foto. Probablemente quiere poner {{pd-old}}, si es correcto, y, además, toda la información sobre la foto que tiene (autor, fecha, y fuente) para ayudar a averiguar la licensia. Patstuart 00:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Kept Patstuart 16:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong file Mailangel 16:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reopen. Was closed by a non-admin with explanation. Samulili 17:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: In category Unknown as of 16 October 2007; no licence
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong file Mailangel 16:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: In category Unknown as of 16 October 2007; no licence
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Mailangel 16:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reopen. Was closed by a non-admin with explanation. Samulili 17:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Uploader nominated pdf after a "no license since" warning. No reason given for deletion request. I assume it will get deleted as "no license". Deadstar (msg) 13:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: In category Unknown as of 16 October 2007; no licence
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Me parece que infringe Derechos de Autor Leandroidecba 23:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, apparent non-free screenshot -- Infrogmation 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted http://www.rhino3d.com/ - copyrighted software. Deadstar (msg) 16:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Because it is mine and jorn asked me Bramme 14:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No permission for publication. Samulili 15:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per request (& personal image). Deadstar (msg) 08:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Quality is too low for this image to be useful. The drummer could be anyone. Samulili 15:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with bad quality. Easily replaced by better image. Deadstar (msg) 13:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept Low quality, easily replaced, but used on es: wiki to illustrate "Los Natas". Deadstar (msg) 08:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
PLIS GET A REAL BAND FOTO, THIS ONE IS NOT ACCURATE! FIND AT WWW.LOSNATAS.COM BIO PAGE THANKS
I AM SERGIO CHOTOSURIAN, LOS NATAS CREATOR
THANKS
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by its painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 03:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, the subject is the Capitol Records Building. In much the same way you can photograph other buildings in America from a public place, even if they have a statue or other public artwork outside them. -- Solipsist 11:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept; no consensus was obtained for deletion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The owner of the image, SJ, does not seem to allow this picture for commercial use other than for media. Under the permission page, it states free to use for private persons and media. --Kildor 19:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Svenska: Här finns bilder för medier och privatpersoner att ladda ned utan kostnad, förutsatt att fotografens namn anges vid publicering.English: These photos are for media and private people to download without cost on the condition that the photographer's name is given when you the images. Delete Samulili 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete --Svens Welt 13:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 05:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The owner of the image, SJ, does not seem to allow this picture for commercial use other than for media. Under the permission page, it states free to use for private persons and media. --Kildor 19:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Svenska: Här finns bilder för medier och privatpersoner att ladda ned utan kostnad, förutsatt att fotografens namn anges vid publicering.English: These photos are for media and private people to download without cost on the condition that the photographer's name is given when you the images. Delete Samulili 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete --Svens Welt 13:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 05:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is a replacement at Butterworth_Filter_Orders.svg, which is language neutral and does not have jagged lines like this one. --Inductiveload 23:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The new version certainly does have merits, but I see no need to delete the original which would be more appropriate for an en:wp entry where you are talking to a mass audience and do not want to present them with something that looks to come from an advanced engineering text book (eg using "A(w)/db" instead of "Gain") --Tony Wills 09:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by it's painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. Seidenstud 05:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No freedom of panorama. Art in question is clearly central. Megapixie 14:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Does this really mean that most of the 24 images in Category:Murals in the United States, and Category:Murals for that matter, should get deleted in some sort of mass purge? Just curious. Evrik 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It depends on context and copyright status. If the photo is nothing but a reproduction of copyrighted artwork reproduced without a free licence provided by the creater of the artwork, yes, it should be listed as copyright problem. -- Infrogmation 00:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unless there is a PD release or free license for the artwork depicted. There seem to me to be two aspects on which there is theoretical room for difference of opinion. Did the author die more than 70 years ago? I think it highly unlikely. Is the art central? Yes. William Avery 20:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I went ahead and nominated all the other murals in this category for deletion. I think they should be handled as a group. Evrik 14:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 20:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by it's painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 01:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 20:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by it's painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 01:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Clearly the image is nothing but an attempt to reproduce a contemporary 2 dimensional artwork, and the copyright should rest with the artist, not the photographer. -- Infrogmation 21:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 20:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by it's painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 01:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 20:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by it's painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 01:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 20:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by it's painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 01:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 20:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by it's painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 02:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 20:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by its painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 02:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 20:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by its painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 02:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- The image is of a mural painted in the 1940's specifically for the City; it's permanently affixed in the entry stairwell. I thought that permanent fixture made the image permissible. Mrrxx 19:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 20:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by its painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 02:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, the copyright would be owned by the Bull Durham Tobacco Company, not the painter. The question is, does painting a mural on a wall count as publication? If so and if we assume that it was painted before 1977 (quite likely), then it would have required a copyright notice in order to actually be copyrighted, and I don't see one in the painting. If this doesn't count as publication, then the copyright period is 120 years after creation and it would have to be deleted. howcheng {chat} 16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Photo shows building with historic advertisement. Trademark may be a concern, but as this clearly well predates the 1970s I would think that copyright for the advertisement visible is not. I will add a trademark notice to the image page, which I think in this case is sufficient. -- Infrogmation 21:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 20:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC). Since undeleted. --MichaelMaggs 15:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by its painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 04:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed.
- I think the muralist is Richard Haas.
- (As an aside, isn't it arguably a 3-dimensional piece of art?)
- —141.219.94.36 01:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever. I took a picture of a building with a mural on it, with three dimensional perspective and elements not a part of the mural. Anyway, it was commissioned by Kroger, so they should own the copyright rather than Richard Haas. Nice detective work. --Tysto 19:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what is the line between depicting copyrighted artwork and depicting a public structure on which artwork is placed? If this photo had been taken from a greater distance, or from an oblique angle, could it be published as an encyclopedic illustration of that particular location? I can't imagine that placing a piece of art in a public space makes it impossible to publish photos of that physical space. --160.79.219.133 17:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you'll have to start imagining, because the US does not have freedom of panorama. Buildings themselves completed before 1990 are not protected by copyright, but a mural would be, so its inclusion would have to be de minimis. There is no clear line for that, but a good rule of thumb is that if an image could be used to illustrate an included item, the inclusion is not de minimis. This image would fail that test. Delete. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 20:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Was uploaded by User:大友ディミトリ with a bogus PD-self claim. I replaced the description with PD-textlogo, but am not sure if this really would be simple enough not to be copyrighted, although it consists of plain text and a simple geometric shape. --Hautala 10:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete copyviol uploaded with false licence. -- Infrogmation 21:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I said, but could we still keep it? --Hautala 00:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- We should not keep copyright violations. Was that your question? -- Infrogmation 02:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- My question is: is this copyrighted? --Hautala 12:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- The front page of YouTube.com says "© 2007 YouTube, LLC". I have seen zero plausible arguement that this is not a violation that should be deleted. -- Infrogmation 15:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- YouTube may claim to have copyright on anything they want. But let's look at the logo. It has the name of the company (and their tagline) only in plain text, and one simple geometric shape with shading. And the PD-textlogo template says that such things are ineligible for copyright. --Hautala 10:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- The front page of YouTube.com says "© 2007 YouTube, LLC". I have seen zero plausible arguement that this is not a violation that should be deleted. -- Infrogmation 15:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- My question is: is this copyrighted? --Hautala 12:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- We should not keep copyright violations. Was that your question? -- Infrogmation 02:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I said, but could we still keep it? --Hautala 00:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- DeleteThis "one simple geometric shape with shading" contains only "Tube" rather than all the site's name, "YouTube", that is a unique point of this logo. I think it can be copyrighted.--miya 04:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- delete, the PD claim is a complete nonsense. MaxSem 12:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 15:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free, it is a compilation of two graphics (different drawing-style) and an own text with a wrong counted first class on the 747. The creators of the graphics are unknown. --134.100.170.81 15:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The 747 seat chart looks like it's ripped off of Eva Airways Corporation.
- See this link for reference: http://www.evaair.com/NR/rdonlyres/DCD8B996-1B76-4D2A-A951-5FB7EA2A47D9/0/B747_400_372seats.jpg
- I'm not sure about the A380 drawing. 128.61.72.118 08:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The presence alone of the copyvio 747 pic is grounds enough for deletion. -Seidenstud 06:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Delete as copyvio unless the uploader can show evidence that that they have gained permission to use the image. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The graphic looks like it was designed by Airbus, IMHO. The A380's seating capacity in practice (three-class) is said to be 525, not 555, and is actually lower as configured by the first few carriers. The Boeing 747-400 is said to have a seating capacity of 416, not 372, in the three-class configuration according to the Wiki article itself.
- Delete, sorry, but this can't be self made. The two drawings are too different. --my name 15:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. --rimshottalk 17:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Because is old image 84.120.138.184 16:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I don't quite understand what the problem with it being old is, unless it is to say that it shows outdated technology. However, the utter lack of source information does make it a good candidate for deletion. The fact that the anonymous IP user who nominated the image first removed the {{PD-self}} tag does I do find fairly curious though. -Seidenstud 06:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I reverted the un-explained removal of licensing. PD-Self surely implies own-work, and we of course assume good faith :-) --Tony Wills 11:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yeah. PD-Self does imply own-work, so it should probably be kept, but I was still curious as to the motives of the anonymous user who deleted the tag, and nominated the image for deletion. Was it a simple case of vandalism, or is it the author/uploader inadvertently acting anonyously trying to take down his/her work? In any case, is there a more legit reason for deletion that simply hasn't been communicated well? -Seidenstud 09:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Perhaps 'Because is old image' refers to it having been superseded, but obviously if we don't know by what, we can not check it out. Without more explanation, and no valid reason for deletion, I think it should be kept. --Tony Wills 10:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yeah. PD-Self does imply own-work, so it should probably be kept, but I was still curious as to the motives of the anonymous user who deleted the tag, and nominated the image for deletion. Was it a simple case of vandalism, or is it the author/uploader inadvertently acting anonyously trying to take down his/her work? In any case, is there a more legit reason for deletion that simply hasn't been communicated well? -Seidenstud 09:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I reverted the un-explained removal of licensing. PD-Self surely implies own-work, and we of course assume good faith :-) --Tony Wills 11:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept, no clear reason for deletion.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image is licensed under public domain but it neither specifies why it is considered such. The source is specified to be the Minnesota Historical Center, which specifies that the image could not be used commercially without prior written permission.[77] The image does not specify the date of creation, therefore is invalid under {{pd-old}} DarkFalls talk 07:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Samulili 15:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment US image, looks like it may predate 1923. If evidence is offered showing it was published before 1923, the museum copyright claim is irrelevent and it is PD-US. If not, delete. -- Infrogmation 21:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 07:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Template for the Marina of Italian Ministry of defense. Images from the Ministry of Defense were deleted by Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:ItalyDefense. The link provided showing that the content is PD is to a disclaimer. --Platonides 12:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Work of Italian Gouvernement is Public Domain and Navy is a work as Italian Gouvernment!
- Delete Where's the proof of that? As far as I can see, that's just not true. The Italian Government can and does hold copyrights. The extlk says nothing about the materials being PD, but displays "© 2003 Ministero della Difesa". And it's not even about copyright but is a disclaimer denying all and any responsibility for the site's contents. Lupo 09:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Oh please, don't start this again. The italian ministry of defence allows the use of all those pictures that you want to delete. Again and again and again we have had these discussions and every time it turned out that you were wrong. I´m getting so sick of putting pictures into the articles and then... Empar
- Keep It's true that the link of italian ministry of defence says nothing about the materials being PD, but before sayed it, and the law isn't changed and then the italian ministry of defence allows the use of all pictures. I'm italian--151.32.192.178 11:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The link of italian ministry of defence before sayed: ""Tutte le informazioni fornite su questo WEB sono considerate informazioni per il pubblico e possono essere distribuite o copiate." Now that isn't writed, but the law isn't changed, then the italian ministry of defence allows the use of all pictures. --Gaetano56 14:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The Italian Navy clearly stated in the past his unwillingness to release his data with a free license (according to Wikipedia Commons definition), i.e. the commercial use of Italian Navy images was and is forbidden. We checked in these days with an it.wiki administrator the answer to a specific request recently given from Italian Navy and submitted to it.wiki permissions board. Italian Navy clearly states, once again, images from Italian Navy website ARE NOT FREE USE and mainly any kind of commercial reuse is fully forbidden. The Italian phrase quoted above means All information on this website must be considered released for public knowledge and can be distributed or copyed. Unfortunately, any part of this statement declares the Italian Navy copyright release, nor any permission for commercial reuse or even modifications rights. For any further clarification please contact it.wiki administrators like it:User:Trixt who saw the recent Italian Navy statement. Present day Italian law also empower a national agency (SIAE) to pursue legal actions against misuse like ones derived from a wrong licence attribution --Eh101 19:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- KeepWhere is writed that Marina Militare states that images from Italian Navy website ARE NOT FREE USE?--151.32.198.192 11:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Please see the the template:Permission Marina Militare--Gaetano56 18:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The images from http://www.marina.difesa.it/default.asp are not in the public domain. On it.wiki there is a permission only for non commercial use. This permission is not valid, because there is an attribution request (so is not public domain). Also, via OTRS we have sent an information request for this permission, but there is not yet an answer.--Trixt 22:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Please see this correspondence and you can see than is written "non c'è copyright" that means no copyright Use of this image is free provided the source Marina Militare is mentioned see complete correspondence--Gaetano56 16:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --F l a n k e r 20:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as Trixt says. ----ßøuñçêY2K 20:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep If the use was always allowed and we can see that exist a permission of italian navy too Why delete? —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.56.131.222 (talk • contribs)
- Delete Please show where the images are in the public domain. -Nard 11:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as gaetano56 says you can see the complete correspondence from italian navy and it says that the use of photos of italian navy is allowed if the source is mentioned —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.56.163.230 (talk • contribs)
- Always nice to see the SPAs from dynamic IPs showing up. -Nard 21:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. This license is unclear. First the navy officer says that the images are available for you. Then they require attribution but renounece copyright. There is a reason why we have and why we suggest using Commons:Email templates. Samulili 07:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've seen this template was debated before and debate was closed. Why now was debated again? Samulili is an administrator? Can he delete a template?--Gaetano56 22:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me. I've seen that Samulili is administrator--Gaetano56 22:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Nominated by User:Nick for speedy deletion as a copyright violation giving "Non free 3D artwork" as a motivation. As far as I can see, it's a photo of a utilitarian object (a bottle; cf. the Skyy Vodka case). Any copyrightable work on the labels appears to be de minimis. Therefore, I'm converting it to a non-speedy deletion discussion. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something, but why would a photo of a bottle be a copyright violation? --Fxer 20:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be (except, conceivably, its primary focus was on a copyrightable, non-utilitarian label on the bottle) for the same reason that a photo of a fork or a car isn't: utilitarian objects are not copyrightable. See Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000), specifically section C 30. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This also covers the following images:
- Image:Glenfarclas.jpg
- Image:The Macallan 12 year bottle.jpg
- Image:Lagavulin.jpg
- Image:Royal Brackla (Hart).jpg
- Image:The Macallan cask strength scotch whisky.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 20:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep See in particular paragraphs C 41 and following of the Ets-Hokin v. Skyy decision. The court seems to argue that the depiction of the label was an "incidental inclusion": they say that since the intent of the image is to depict the bottle as a whole, the copyrightability of the label doesn't matter and the photo was not a derivative work of the label (C43). In the Ets-Hokin v. Skyy case, the label wasn't even copyrightable (text only, see C41). Hence such shots should be fine under U.S. law. If the photo showed only the label, it would be a derivative work, though (C42). I'm confident that courts in other countries would also decide in that way unless the bottle itself were considered a copyrightable work. (What about the classical Coca-Cola bottle with its distinctive shape?) Since this is about Scotch Whisky: do we have any similar UK decisions? Lupo 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have added the "with trademark" template; I leave it to others to determine if it is sufficient in this case. -- Infrogmation 21:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The purpose of these images is not to show what a bottle of whisky looks like, it is to show the details of the specific distillery and bottling, these images would not have been uploaded if the label was not present on the bottle, which takes us away from incidental inclusion, and takes us into the area of deliberate inclusion and this must make the image a derivative artwork. Nick 18:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Per Lupo (reference to C42) and Nick. Samulili 06:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image was deleted on the en Wikipedia as a copyright violation. Videmus Omnia 23:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete from en: 21:51, 18 October 2007 Sam Blacketer deleted "Image:Subedar.gif" (CSD I9: Suspected copyright infringement with no claim of fair use.) Deadstar (msg) 08:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 06:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possibly a copyright violation Rocket000 15:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Tagged by {{Logo}}--OsamaK 15:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: fair use, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possibly a copyright violation Rocket000 15:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Tagged by {{Logo}}--OsamaK 15:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: fair use, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by its painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 04:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. →Яocket°°° 10:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by its painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 04:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation 21:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. →Яocket°°° 10:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am sure, screenshots of programs were discussed here before. I found a screenshot of Visicalc Image:Visicalc.png in Commons, which is not a free software, although its tag says opposite. Is the tag OK? See lisence of Visicalc. Miraceti 10:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- If the software is not free licenced, the screenshot is not either and so should be deleted. -- Infrogmation 21:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine in theory but the screenshot is textmode with o graphics or anything. 72.15.95.101 16:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep PD-ineligible --rimshottalk 17:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - A screenshot of a 25 year old program made by a company that no longer exists for an obsolete platform is just about the worst thing I can imagine. --71.84.8.177 01:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep And that is why to keep it--younger generations, such as myself, would have never been able to see this program otherwise. 162.6.233.158 05:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Screenshots are not copyrighted, otherwise don't you think Microsoft would have sued like 5 billion people by now?! I guess according to Infrogmation no one should ever be allowed to see a picture of a program before they use it or buy it! Think of all the reviewers of software and all the unofficial help guides and tips on websites! Should they all be sued because people want to share information about some software! Also, if she would read the license for the software, she would see that it is in fact free. 168.6.23.18 21:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's not a very good argument - screenshots can be copyrighted, in general, it's just that this one probably isn't. --rimshottalk 11:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Sceenshots most definitly can be copyrighted. This one just happens to PD-ineligible. →Яocket°°° 10:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Falsely tagged as US military award. This is an award of the State of Texas. See the en.wiki article re same. Butseriouslyfolks 21:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment To simple of a design to talk about copyright. Could be renamed to a better filename. -- Cat ちぃ？ 17:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I'm with White Cat. Too simple - probably pd-ineligible. Patstuart 18:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks to be a modern made up image --Gustav VH 14:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete PD by way of old age is pretty specious without source information. -Seidenstud 06:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 22:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by it's painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 01:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Failed Flikr review - All Rights Reserved MichaelMaggs 07:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by it's painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 01:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This one might be debatable; image is of section of building, rather than just mural, and a good number of the paintings visible seem to be reproductions of old posters for acts ranging over a century or so. What criteria turns inclusion into a derivative work? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 21:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Unfree mural. The photo was clearly taken to show the murals not the building per se. MichaelMaggs 07:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by it's painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 02:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The image depicts the entire mall, and the artwork is part of the mall. Notice the walkways and grass. The mall is one of the most notable parts of the campus. Maybe the image could be cropped to only part of the artwork. I was the uploader. Royalbroil 04:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agree that this one is at least debatable, and the main subject visible in the mural seems to be a derivative of a well known public domain drawing by Leonardo DaVinci in any case. -- Infrogmation 21:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. The subject of the photo is clearly the mural, not the walkway or grass. It's partly derivative but by no means totally so. MichaelMaggs 07:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by it's painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 02:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No FOP in the US for muralsMichaelMaggs 07:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by its painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 04:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Unfree mural. MichaelMaggs 07:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by its painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 04:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No FOP in the US for murals MichaelMaggs 07:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by its painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 04:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's a fair use detail of public art commissioned by a university to educate the public about its history. Not free enough for the commons?ContactHigh 02:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. No fair use here. →Яocket°°° 10:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No FOP in the US for murals MichaelMaggs 07:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by its painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 04:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted.No FOP in the US for muralsMichaelMaggs 07:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by its painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 04:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- The identity of the painter is absolutely not unclear. Check the caption, it is a painting by Scott LoBaido. But this is not a reproduction of a 2D painting, its a picture of a public street corner with person walking by and a graffiti in the background. The image is a juxtaposition of the rather shabby surroundings and the very patriotic graffiti. In any case I could try to contact the artist. --Dschwen 19:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No FOP in the US for murals. Could be undeleted if the artist can be contacted for permission, but 4 months is long enough. MichaelMaggs 07:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by its painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 04:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Failed Flikr review - All Rights Reserved MichaelMaggs 07:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by its painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 04:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The identity of the painter IS clear, it is Peter Max, as the image clearly states. Max is, AFAIK, still active. If this were a simple photo of the mural I would vote for deletion, but as the mural is visible as part of a photo showing several buildings and I am unclear on the criteria for when such inclusion becomes violation, I refrain myself to that comment for now. -- Infrogmation 21:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. The mural is clearly integral to the photo, and was the reason it was taken. Not free MichaelMaggs 07:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possibly a copyright violation Rocket000 16:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why should this be a copyvio? --ALE! ¿…? 10:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Derivative work of the Gmail logo? The logo might be ineligible, though. --rimshottalk 14:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry. I should have clarified. This is part of the Gmail logo. I made this DR awhile ago, and now I'm leaning towards keep because it's lacking the stylistic effects and most likely is ineligible. →Rocket°°° 23:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Derivative work of the Gmail logo? The logo might be ineligible, though. --rimshottalk 14:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, re-tagged with {{PD-textlogo}}. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 10:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
© Claude Thériez --Teofilo 13:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- This copyright is whitout fondment. The french minister always indicates the photograph who make a "very good" reproduction of a painting but the french lesgislation stipulate that a copyright could be appose only on a new ouvrage not a reproduction. So this copyright is in violation of the french lesglisation. In simple words : Nobody could applicate a copyright on a reproduction he made of a public domain things... but the french gouverment do it... --Gdgourou 14:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it is necessary to decide about the future of this (and also, as a precedent, of many other) French PD-old pictures at Commons!!! --Šandík 11:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- The french law seems to be vague on that subject, but there has been contadictory rulings in French justice courts about this. As a safety measure, I would advise to delete this image,as well as all PD-old pictures or PD-Art pictures taken in France. At least this should apply to anything coming from Base Joconde, for which a copyright for the photograph is mentioned. --Zen 38 15:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your decision, your worse... --Šandík 18:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. While I can reconcile the dates and make assessment that each obvious date falls prior to 1923, subject died 1916, author died 1922, at which time some form of copyright could obviously be asserted, the closure of this isnt a precedent for other images as each should be treated individually Gnangarra 12:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Rbkinar
[edit]Please remove all my images (pencil portraits) from Wikimedia Commons. I believe they are not usable for Wikipedia purposes. Rbkinar 15:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[78] recovered by Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Hello Jeff,
Thanks for your response. You may find out about the reason I decided to remove my images here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Modernist. The title of the discussion is "Pencil portrait" The deletion is on my own request. Sincerely, Rbkinar 18:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest, I respectfully disagree with modernist. I think your portraits are very well done and artful (many major newspapers and magazines use such portraits). And there are some articles they might be useful for: see en:Bertrand Russell, which only currently has a photo from his early years; this photo would be nice to add. Please resconsider your decision. Patstuart 19:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Like Patstuart, I, too, feel that you have been somewhat mislead by some. Your image are well drawn and they all have a potential value for Wikimedia projects. If the English Wikipedia doesn't want to use them we accept that, but other projects might love to use them. By the way, what Knulclunk said on your talk page is quite a good idea: with your talent you can help the most by making drawings of people we have no photographs of. Samulili 19:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me. I agree that these portraits are very well done. (Congratulations! I wish I could draw like that.) But, from which originals did you draw those? If the originals are in the public domain, all is fine, but then, we might just as well use the originals. If the originals are not in the public domain, publication of your drawings is subject to the consent of the copyright owner on the originals, since your drawings are derivative works. Image:Edith Piaf 1915-1963.jpg, for instance, is clearly a derivative work of this photo. Image:Bertrand Russell (1872-1970).jpg is clearly a derivative work of this photo. Hence: Delete unless PD sources of the originals are given. Lupo 07:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I doubt it matters. This is not a derivative work. One piece of art that inspires another need not claim all copyrights over the second. Patstuart 17:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Inspiration" is one thing, but such close copies are not just inspired by the photos. They're copies realized in a different medium (pencil drawing instead of photo). Lupo 20:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Lupo. -Seidenstud 06:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not only because it is a copyright violation, but also because commons is not an art community and because the use of these pictures in wikipedia is a crime against encyclopedic integrity. To use user generated art as a substitute where no free picture is available is cheap. Let us be proud of our strict policies concerning free licenses and not display any picture at all in such cases. User-generated content is okay in Wikipedia only if not primarily artistic, because that would be original research. --rtc 10:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Copyright violations must be deleted. But some of the stuff stated here is not right. This is not the Wikipedia, it's the Wikimedia Commons and we collect material useful for all current and future Wiki projects and beyond. Supposed content rules from the English Wikipedia must not limit this collection and looking at the uploader's talk page I would think that these "rules" are merely the opinions of a few other editors: the Wikipedia uses lots of editor drawn illustrations in its excellent scientific articles. Are all the pictures in this gallery copyright violations? The uploader should keep drawing and uploading, but strictly non-derivative works or those based on PD or free-licensed works. --Simonxag 21:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- That is simply ridiculous given the fact that I said explicitly that "User-generated content is okay in Wikipedia only if not primarily artistic, because that would be original research." and that it is not merely a problem of Wikipedia, but of "commons is not an art community" I never claimed that "editor drawn illustrations in its excellent scientific articles" are a problem; on the contrary. You must make a sharp difference between artistic and technical illustration. --rtc 09:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
To which I say again that this is not the Wikipedia. Supposed limitations applying to the Wikipedia do not apply here. Please read Commons:Project scope and have a look at Category:Abstract paintings to see just how far outside these we go. --Simonxag 13:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have in fact read this policy with great care: "Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for [...] self-created artwork without educational purpose and such". Here, "without educational purpose" refers exactly to aforementioned "sharp difference between artistic and technical illustration". Pointing towards Category:Abstract paintings is not an argument for Category:Abstract paintings, but an argument to delete the paintings from Category:Abstract paintings that are not done by relevant artists. No Original Research applies to Commons as much as it applies to Wikipedia. Here at commons, it means primarily no original fine art (but a novel, non-trivial technical illustration about some scientific topic may well be problematic in the same way, too). Sometimes it may not be quite easy to distinguish a photo of an apple that is a still-life and a photo of an apple that is a technical illustration of an apple, and if there is some legitimate use that does not make the artistic elements primary, then we should be liberal. There is no such problem is this case, though. --rtc 13:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The criterion, stated at the end of the paragraph you quote and accepted by the consensus of editors, is usefulness. The definition of usefulness is way wider than the needs or rules of the Wikipedia. Because this is not the Wikipedia, it is a media repository for all current and potential Wiki projects and beyond. We have one drip painting (from a non-notable artist who put it on Flickr) and to delete it would leave none, though a surfeit of drip paintings might justify its removal. And whether the intention is artistic or otherwise decent illustrations are about the most useful things we can have for the Commons at the moment. --Simonxag 15:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Let's get back to the querstion whether the original photos were PD:
- Image:Alfred North Whitehead (15 lutego 1861 - 30 grudnia 1947).jpg from Image:A N Whitehead.jpg, which has no author and is still claimed {{PD-old}}.
- Image:Alban Maria Johannes Berg.jpg from photo from 1930 by Trude Fleischmann (1895-1990) (mirrored) Not PD since photographer died 1990.
- Image:Anton Webern.jpg from here (photo of unknown date/author)
- Image:Witold Lutosławski 1913-1994.jpg from Photo at NNDB, no date/author.
- Image:Gustaw Studnicki.jpg from here. Recent photo, not PD.
- Image:Maria Skłodowska-Curie 1867-1934.jpg from this photo (probably from a better reproduction, though). No date/author.
- Image:Adam Małysz.jpg, Image:Arnold Schoenberg.jpg, Image:Max Roach 1924-2007.jpg: no photo found, but that doesn't mean that these were not done from photos. It just means I didn't find the photo.
- I don't have the time now to hunt for the remaining ones. But I think we cannot keep these drawings unless we can determine that the underlying photos are in the public domain. Lupo 15:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Richard Strauss 1864-1949.jpg from this image at that page, no date/author; judging from the images here: ca. 1930s.
- Image:Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill.jpg is very clearly from Yousuf Karsh's famous photo taken on December 30, 1941: [79]. Unfortunately, the photo is PD in Canada, but not in the U.S. or in the EU.
- Lupo 22:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Let's get back to the querstion whether the original photos were PD:
- Delete Copyvios (and sorry for the digression) --Simonxag 22:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Pablo Picasso 1881-1973.jpg from [80] (mirrored), no date/author, but clearly an elderly Picasso.
- Image:Franklin Delano Roosevelt 1882-1945.jpg no image found. (However, there are enough PD photos of him.)
- Lupo 08:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: derivative works / A.J. 10:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Nazi SS rank insignia images
[edit] Delete Copied from http://uniforminsignia.net/index.php?p=show&id=100&sid=383, not NARA. Original uploader had major copyvio problems at en.wiki. Butseriouslyfolks 21:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Incidentally, those major copyvio problems were among the issues that caused him to be desysopped over at en.wiki. --Butseriouslyfolks 22:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I was d.s.ed for sharing my password, actually, not for copyvios. I'll be happy now to explain where these images came from. -OberRanks 11:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed that the images uploaded here have transparant backgrounds, the ones you linked to on uniforminsignia.net do not Movieevery 08:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio, not from NARA. Butseriouslyfolks 21:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio, not a work of the US government. Butseriouslyfolks 21:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Flag of Canada Keep per the following reasons:
- The designs of the images are very simple by very nature of rank insignias and are hence ineligible of copyright.
- Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional original works cannot attract copyright.
For example the flag of Canada pictured here is in the Public Domain no mater who draws or redraws it. I can "steal" it from any website, or use any scan of it at my leisure legally. en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case is the foundation behind the logic of this approach. So if the source object in question is ineligible of copyright all faithful reproductions of the image are also ineligible. - "Stealing images" is not a crime provided the images have a free copyright status. The site you linked for certain does not own the copyright for the images in any case. The copyright in any case would be held by the millitary or government of the country that own the rank insignia.
- Nazi era material such as rank insignia of NAZI officers may also be free of copyright since any "image shows (or resembles) a symbol that was used by the National Socialist (NSDAP/Nazi) government of Germany or an organization closely associated to it, or another party which has been banned by the en:Federal Constitutional Court of Germany." Who would you go to file a lawsuit?
- -- Cat ちぃ？ 17:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also Nazi Germany (1933–1945) "died" at the end of the second world war. If we count the Prague Offensive as the last remains of a legitimate Nazi German government, 11 May 1945 was the day of "death". Ignoring the reasons above, the target objects will be PD-old as of 11 May 2015. -- Cat ちぃ？ 17:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, especially the images from http://www.uniforminsignia.net. Those are not works of a particular government, but copyrighted derivative works of a commerical website. If the digitization of an image contains creative elements, which these do, a claim of copyright could be valid. Anyway, it's morally wrong to simply steal someone else's hard work for use here at Wikipedia, especially since that site is an encyclopedia also, and we are directly competing with them. Find a public domain source, or make your own versions, instead of hijacking someone else's work. Videmus Omnia 18:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
| “ | Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality. Even if accurate reproductions require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element for copyrightability under U.S. law is that copyrighted material must show sufficient originality. | ” |
- Morality is not an acceptable rationale. It is morally wrong to have "naked" (not wearing an islamic turban) images of women in Iran. We do not delete images for that reason. Discussions should be based on international law and commons policies and guidelines only.
- As I explained earlier, unless the website in question is the legitimate arm of the Nazi Germany government (which I do not believe they are), they cannot claim copyright over these. Even then these images are far too "simple" to be subject to copyright.
- Digitization of images do not contain any creative work. Just because say I scanned the Microsoft logo does not mean I can claim ownership over it.
- Wikipedia contains plenty of information as an exact copy of Britannica's PD-old version. Also this is Wikimedia Commons, a free image repository, not an encyclopedia.
- -- Cat ちぃ？ 19:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- We should be very careful not to expand Bridgeman beyond its holding. Bridgeman dealt with "high quality photographs" of the original works of art. Bridgeman never uses the word "faithful". It uses a stronger word -- "slavish". The court emphasized that the creator of the photographs at issue had taken great pains to make them look exactly like the original works of art. The court specified that if the new image had a "distinguishable variation", it was original, suggesting that images that could be distinguished from the original were outside of its holding. ("Only 'a distinguishable variation' -- something beyond technical skill -- will render the reproduction original.") Keep in mind also that Bridgeman is a trial level opinion that has never, to my knowledge, been cited approvingly by any appellate court.
- The images we have here are slick, stylized, almost cartoonish graphics drawn on a computer to represent the original patches and badges. Nobody would mistake them for the originals, or for photographs of the originals. They are readily distinguishable. Here's a photo of a guy with an original patch on his uniform collar. Here is another one.
- The creative representations of the original military patches at issue here are entitled to copyright protection. They are neither slavish nor faithful copies, but have distinguishable variations that render Bridgeman inapplicable. Accordingly, they should be deleted. --Butseriouslyfolks 22:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I copied the text from our template {{PD-art}}. A cartoonish representation of the Canadian flag presented above is ineligible of copyright. Not because the author says so, but because the source Flag is PD. With inverse logic, you are suggesting that we can upload cartoonish version of copyrighted material with a brand new copyright which is not right. In any case the copyright holder is not the site in question and instead the owner of the insignia itself. -- Cat ちぃ？ 00:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have to agree with BSF here. These are not scans or photographs of the original insignia, but enhanced derivative works, so Bridgeman does not apply. If the source of the insignia design is in the public domain, then the images can either be replaced with freely-licensed images from another source, or by user-created ones. There's no need to use images that are encumbered by a copyright claim here, especially not when our mission is the creation and distribution of free content. Videmus Omnia 00:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- The copyright status of the source image is not irrelevant. If the copyright claim is void, that does not hurt our mission at all. If the copyright claim is not void, we can create a cartoonish version of corporate logos. I do not believe the logic works. I do want to point out that you (or anybody else) is not prohibited from creating alternate freely licensed version of the images. Same thing happened with FOTW images. -- Cat ちぃ？ 00:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- The copyright status of the source image is not irrelevant, but not for the reason you claim. Images can have multiple levels of copyright. A cartoonish representation of a public domain item is absolutely entitled to copyright. Otherwise, a drawing of an actual tree or landscape or ancient monument could never be protected by copyright, because those items are in the public domain. Now, take the case of an original item that is protected by copyright. If you take the Wikipedia logo, for example, and create a modified, cartoonish version, the resulting work is protected by two copyrights -- Wikipedia's copyright in the underlying work and your copyright in your cartoonish modifications to it (i.e., the derivative work). You can't use your image freely, because of their copyright, but neither can they use it freely, because of yours. The analogy here is COM:FAN, not FOTW.
- Where am I going with this, you ask? Well, we can create a cartoonish version of corporate logos, but they would still be protected by the corporation's underlying copyright in the logo, so they would be non-free images even if the cartoonizer licensed them freely. So VO's logic works fine.
- As for the issue before us, the original Nazi insignia may be in the public domain, or they may be copyrighted. But regardless, somebody's modified, cartoonish version of these images is protected by the modifier's copyright at the very least. So we have non-free images. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think as per this (machine translation of the official source) German insignia are PD. So that probably settles the discussion on the copyright of the source images.
- When we draw a picture of trees and etc we create a unique work of art. Let's be more specific. Photographs of public domain objects can indeed be copyrighted. Different pictures of the same tree by different people can have different copyright. If you take the photo of a PD-old painting up close, you will not retain a copyright. If you take few steps back and take the photo then you may argue about your own copyright since more objects would enter the frame. The Nazi insignia images are upclose "photos".
- Also a tree is a rather complex object with leaves and branches. A rank insignia is too simple to be eligible for copyright.
- I may easily agree that this is an unnecessary Grey area which we can easily avoid by creating new versions just like the deal with FOTW images. SVG versions of the insignia can be created. Images can then be deleted as per "being nice" rather than over a legal copyright issue. This would be a win win since I like svg over any other format any day.
- -- Cat ちぃ？ 03:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- The copyright status of the source image is not irrelevant. If the copyright claim is void, that does not hurt our mission at all. If the copyright claim is not void, we can create a cartoonish version of corporate logos. I do not believe the logic works. I do want to point out that you (or anybody else) is not prohibited from creating alternate freely licensed version of the images. Same thing happened with FOTW images. -- Cat ちぃ？ 00:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have to agree with BSF here. These are not scans or photographs of the original insignia, but enhanced derivative works, so Bridgeman does not apply. If the source of the insignia design is in the public domain, then the images can either be replaced with freely-licensed images from another source, or by user-created ones. There's no need to use images that are encumbered by a copyright claim here, especially not when our mission is the creation and distribution of free content. Videmus Omnia 00:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I am the original uploader of most of those images. They came from a CD that was at my office at the National Personnel Records Center. They do appear to have been copied (at least some of them) from the uniforminsignia website but that website does not own the copyright to Nazi SS insignia. Also, I believe these are so simple to create (black b-ground with silver pips) that should be ineligable for copyright. At the very least, someone on this site chould be able to recreate them from scratch. -OberRanks 11:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
DeletedThe threshold for originality under US law is very very low and images appear to meet it (there is more than sweat of the brow involved in their creation). Source is unclear enough that we cannot assume that image id PD due to sourceGeni 01:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
October 19
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Screenshot of non-free software. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Screenshot of non-free software MichaelMaggs 21:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Same image exist as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Serbian_Armed_Forces_Organization.png Boki13 21:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Serbian Armed Forces Organization.png
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. Clearly content from Blender magazine/website. Seidenstud 05:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unfree. derivative work (photo) of unfree work of art. Seidenstud 07:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Marcus Cyron: Copyright violation
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
may copyvio, not free license --Shizhao 03:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio - Prisonbreak tv series. Deadstar (msg) 09:23, 22 October 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.
Low quality (JPEG format instead of PNG) screenshot of non-free software. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:08, 19 October 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.
Release is Wikipedia only and from a gallery owner rather than the artist. William Avery 07:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete release not enough for commons. Quite poor quality too unless it's actually painted to look fuzzy... Deadstar (msg) 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The painter Antonio Blanco has passed aay many years ago, so the permission can only come from the musuem's owner. The painting does looks fuzzy as any other paintings of Blanco. Check www.blancobali.com Rudana 00:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Accoring to this source he died in 1999 [81] --Simonxag 22:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
As the artist died in 1999, this image is not eligible for {{PD-old}} and therefore it is still copyrighted. This image has been axed. O2 (息 • 吹) 00:27, 28 October 2007 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
States:"Portrait of Jim Beaver as Ellsworth in TV series Deadwood; photo by Michael Helms, copyright held and permission to Wikipedia granted by Jim Beaver." Is there OTRS permission? Deadstar (msg) 15:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. -- Cecil 01:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author started to nominate for deletion then blanked page, I'm just completing deletion request --Tony Wills 11:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: In category Unknown as of 19 October 2007; no licence
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Its current description page states that this map is based on the book "Ilustrowany Atlas Historii Polski". It seems to me it was scanned from the book and then modified which would make it a derivative work. As such its a copyright violation unless it can be proved that the original publisher authorized such works. Victor12fromWikipedia 13:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep You have to base map on something, or you will have OR! --WarX 14:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, but you can't take an existing copyrighted map make a few modifications and claim it as your own. --Victor12fromWikipedia 15:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- So show us original map, and point those modifications. I have this atlas at home and when I find it I will check. If map is showing something real it's shape cannot be copyrightable cause scientific discoveries cannot be copyrighted. --WarX 22:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- So historical maps cannot be copyrighted? Are you sure? --Victor12fromWikipedia 22:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not the shape of the map, only style of drawing cause it can be state of art, shape is scientific research. --WarX 22:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Could you find the map? Is it in the same style as the one at Commons? --Victor12fromWikipedia 05:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- So historical maps cannot be copyrighted? Are you sure? --Victor12fromWikipedia 22:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- So show us original map, and point those modifications. I have this atlas at home and when I find it I will check. If map is showing something real it's shape cannot be copyrightable cause scientific discoveries cannot be copyrighted. --WarX 22:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, but you can't take an existing copyrighted map make a few modifications and claim it as your own. --Victor12fromWikipedia 15:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep All maps must based on sth. --Lestat 22:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above. —dima/s-ko/ 00:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, you can't copyright your country's borders, just like you can't copyright the shape of the seas. Halibutt 14:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Stated permission from rights holder is for Wikipedia only. William Avery 06:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Stated permission does include the Commons. Unfortunately it's not from the copyright holder, but from the uploader who appears to currently posses the painting. The painter, according to the image description, died in 1978, so their estate will have the copyright and no permission whatsoever has come from that quarter. This seems to be a consistent problem with this uploader. --Simonxag 01:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence that the person granting permission is the copyright holder, and there is no mention of the GNU Free Documentation License in the permission statement. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This pretty much the same as Category:Playing card suits. There's a lot of overlap and the category's not large enough to be sub-divided. I think it would be better to have all these images in one place. -Rocket000 12:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirected - kept and redirected. Category is still in use. Deadstar (msg) 09:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Associated Press photo; not by World-Telegram & Sun staff photographer - not public domain. Davepape 13:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Associated Press cablephoto. (b&w film copy neg.) cph 3c11271 http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3c11271 Deadstar (msg) 09:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not good quality Bananabeat 21:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Hard to tell the quality because it is such low resolution (68x90 px)! Deletion request is from uploader & author, no description is given so we don't even know who it is of (the author?). No reason to keep. --Tony Wills 10:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per user request. Subject of image unknown and image not used. Deadstar (msg) 09:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source for this Image could not be verified. Therfore the origin from the "Melisende Psalter" is doubtful, therefore PD-Art is not sure. The original upload has been also deleted for no sure source could be given [82] GDK 10:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Melisende of Jerusalem.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Studio199 uploads
[edit]- Image:Deloirracional024s.jpg ()
- Image:Deloirracional021s.jpg ()
- Image:Deloirracional030s.jpg ()
- Image:Stand en IFEMA Sep2007.jpg ()
- Image:AlBosque.jpg () - not studio199, but still the same painter's work.
At the moment, I don't see any notice at http://studio199.com releasing these images into the public domain or another compatible license. Si usted es él que subió estos imágenes, por favor, ponga una noticia en su sitio que dice que los imágenes allí son bajo la licensia cc-by; véase a http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/. 18:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted 25 October 2007 User:Zirland (In category Other speedy deletions; no license)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Doublon (already uploaded by me) Augustin B. 18:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have requested the name of the other file from the user Deadstar (msg) 09:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, The duplicate file is this one. Thanks for your help. Augustin B. 11:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate. --rimshottalk 17:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
NBC publicity photo; not by World-Telegram & Sun staff photographer - not public domain. Davepape 13:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Does not fall under WTS gift. Image used on 5 pages. Deadstar (msg) 09:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - ok. If it is not WTS then delete --Clockwork Orange 16:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as possible copyvio. --Tom (talk - email) 00:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Berenice Abbott was not a NYWT&S staff photographer - not PD by the NYWT&S gift. Davepape 13:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as possible copyvio. --Tom (talk - email) 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Pointless, and it isn't used anywhere --Hornetman16 (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think you would not regard the image as "pointless" if you had watched the game, and were familiar with the criticism of Manny as a "showboat." He did not run on the hit wrongly ruled "in play" because he knew he hit it out of the park. My illustration shows the most likely mechanism for the observed trajectory. Cgmusselman 21:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I stand by what I said, Pointless.--Hornetman16 (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept --Tom (talk - email) 00:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free enough. The source only says "When using these photos, please give credit". No explicit mention of derivative works or commercial usage. ---91.65.124.174 20:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 91.65.124.174 20:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Something else would have been stated otherwise. Thierry Caro 22:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- What would have been stated otherwise? If derivative works or commercial usage are not explicitly mentioned, you can't assume that it is allowed. --91.65.124.34 12:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete website states "© Copyright 1996-2007 Iowa Beef Industry Council All rights reserved.". Deadstar (msg) 09:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted - no permission for derivative works. --Tom (talk - email) 00:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COPYVIO. Please see http://www.katu.com/news/national/5040131.html - "AP Photo/Jerome Delay." Timeshifter 20:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note that the two photos are not identical. This one was taken from a position to the left of the AP photo, and so could certainly be by an Armed Forces Press photographer. --Davepape 21:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- You may be right. I see now that the statue pedestal and the base of the mosque dome have no sky visible between them in the copyrighted photo. There is a clear section of sky between them in the photo from the military site:
- http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15524 --Timeshifter 23:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nice catch with the mosque dome. There's also a small black dot in the sky in the upper-right (a speck of dirt on the lens?) that wouldn't be there if it was digitally cropped from the other one. There are imperfections on the AP photo, but not in the same place. Ipankonin 05:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep it's certainly identical to the army press photo as such is probably Public Domain. Oren neu dag 23:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep it looks the same as the Army photo; as stated above. 24.192.246.37 19:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept --Tom (talk - email) 00:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to the source website the photo was taken by Giacomino Parkinson, who sells his photographs on that website. I see no reason why this image is licended as "Copyrighted free use". --91.65.124.174 20:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 91.65.124.174 20:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; no evidence seen of supposed free licence. -- Infrogmation 20:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion 23:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep!! Its an image of a building. I find it hard to believe this is being debated.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possibly unfree. This is apparently Nike Mexico Headquarters. Is this a building, in which case the image would be free, or is this a work of art, in which case this image would not be free? Seidenstud 07:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:FOP#Mexico. Lupo 07:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply according to COM:FOP#Mexico (in the English translation), it states "invariably citing the source and without altering the work." Does that not prevent derivative works, and therefore make the image unfree by Commons standards? -Seidenstud 16:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think so. I think it's a reference to the moral rights of the author of the depicted work (right to the integrity of the work). I think it'd be fine to create derivatives of the image as long as the depicted work is not distorted (and especially not distorted in disparaging ways). The same restriction also exists for FOP in Germany and in other countries. Lupo 20:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- That does not sound very "free" to me. Restrictions on context such as non-disparaging lights are as good as non-commercial limitations which strictly make media unfree, by Commons definition. And besides, it does not seem that "without altering the work" even implies that certain derivative works are acceptable at all. -Seidenstud 22:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Take a look at the discussion at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama. In some countries, the moral rights are even perpetual, and thus persist even after the economic rights have expired (and the work has thus entered the "public domain"). Lupo 12:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- That does not sound very "free" to me. Restrictions on context such as non-disparaging lights are as good as non-commercial limitations which strictly make media unfree, by Commons definition. And besides, it does not seem that "without altering the work" even implies that certain derivative works are acceptable at all. -Seidenstud 22:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think so. I think it's a reference to the moral rights of the author of the depicted work (right to the integrity of the work). I think it'd be fine to create derivatives of the image as long as the depicted work is not distorted (and especially not distorted in disparaging ways). The same restriction also exists for FOP in Germany and in other countries. Lupo 20:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP!! I'm not sure if my opinion is even relevant for a discussion like this, but the answer to this question seems simple to me. Nike's Mexico headquarters is a building before anything else. If you take away the 'art' you still have a building, but if you take away the 'building' there is obviously no longer any art.. It's simple logic: the building's existence is not dependent on it's appearance as a "work of art" and furthermore, it's status as a "work of art" is a matter of opinion, not fact. If this can be defined as a work of art, then every building in existence should be considered art. Who is the judge to decide which buildings are and which are not "works of art," and why don't the architects of simpler buildings get credit as artists. If this image is deleted I strongly believe that all images of buildings on the site must be removed. My opinions may be incorrect but my logic certainly isn't: The only thing to separate this building from all the rest, is that the architect decided to use a faux soccer ball instead of a spire, arch, statue, pillar, or any other distinguishing feature we see when we look at a building. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoso1618 (talk • contribs) 02:58, November 23, 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per unsigned comment above. No reason to consider this building as different from any other building; all architecture is art; but this doesn't prevent photos of it from being published without the architect's consent. Any conclusion otherwise would either necessitate deletion of all photos of buildings, or all photos of Mexican buildings. Seidenstud suggests that the building has special status as "art;" that's simply not true. It should be considered as any other building would. -Peteforsyth 04:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wow - KEEP - this image is a fair use image if I've ever seen one. 66.194.72.10 18:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think this image should not be banned it fits well with the article maybe they want to delete for racism against Mexico —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/{189.141.243.6 (talk • contribs)}|{189.141.243.6 (talk • contribs)}]] ([[User talk:{189.141.243.6 (talk • contribs)}|talk]]) 15:14, December 13, 2007 (UTC)
- Now that's what I call copyright paranoia. Great attempt at improving the encyclopedia Seidenstud. BanRay 11:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP - A photograph of a building is not subject to the copyright associated with the building's plans.71.177.218.172 13:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
KEEP - total fair usage, absolutely no problem with it being there —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/{71.102.158.95 (talk • contribs)}|{71.102.158.95 (talk • contribs)}]] ([[User talk:{71.102.158.95 (talk • contribs)}|talk]]) 18:37, December 31, 2007 (UTC)
- Um, yeah. We don't allow fair use. →Яocket°°° 10:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, despite IP users going on about fair use, the discussion points to this being under FOP. --rimshottalk 16:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
75 years after the death of the author, not after recording the picture! --Flominator 16:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence that the photographer died long enough ago for this to be PD.MichaelMaggs 07:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
cambio de tamaño Rdfmedanos 15:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader's request. Unused and missing source/author information. →Rocket°°° 23:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No proper source. Uploader removed NSD tag. William Avery 10:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ottó Herman died in 1914, the pic has to be public domain by now. Alensha 12:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment What is the relevent Hungarian copyright law? If 1914 or earlier are copyright expired by Hungarian law, keep. -- Infrogmation 03:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- 70 yrs after death of creator. Alensha 11:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, delete unless source information can be found showing public domain status. -- Infrogmation 14:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note a source has been added to the image page, saying from book "Varga Domokos - Csaba József: Vér és Arany - Magyarország 1848 -1914 között, Móra Ferenc Könyvkiadó, 1982 ISBN 963 11 6398 9." The current copyright tag of PD-self by hu:user:Pilgab is wrong as Pilgab was clearly not the creator of the image. We have an intermediate source but the copyright status is still undetermined as far as I can see. -- Infrogmation 14:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. After almost four months, still no clear status on copyright or authorship. Patrícia msg 15:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No proper source. Uploader removed NSD tag. William Avery 10:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Source has since been added, however it seems to be in the public domain because of age rather than because the uploader is the copyright holder. (Uploader has removed the deletion tag). Deadstar (msg) 09:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No clear status on copyright or authorship, we can't claim other type of PD (such as PD-old) without knowing for sure. Patrícia msg 16:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader/editors claim {{PD-because|it is a work of the Thai government.}} I'd like to see some translations so this claim can be verified. Siebrand 12:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is w:user:east718, I'm the editor who made that claim. [83] Section 7 of the Thai Copyright Act of of B.E. 2537 states—and here's my poor translation—that Thai state rules, regulations, announcements, and correspondence, as well as the constitution, laws, court decisions, examinations, reports, and works of law enforcement are "not copyrightable." My Thai is very serviceable, so you might want to find a Thai editor on enwiki or vice versa. 68.193.199.114 13:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I just grabbed a much better translation from here.
- Section 7.
- The followings are not deemed copyright works 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 legislation;
- (3) regulations, rules, announcements, orders, explanations and official correspondence of the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units;
- (4) judicial decisions, orders, rulings and official reports;
- (5) translation and compilation of those in (1) to (4) made by the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units.
- Yep, and another (or probably the same) translation is here. Another section says The Ministries, Departments or other government or local units shall be the owners of copyright in works created in the course of employment, order or control unless otherwise agreed in writing, so not all Thai government works are copyright-free. But, if this is considered "correspondence" (since it was sent to Interpol), or a judicial report, then I guess it's OK. Carl Lindberg 13:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- We should create a template with references to the justification of these claims. I have the use of {{PD-because}} because it can easily be used for all kinds of abuse. Based on the above: Keep. Siebrand 16:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- We should create a template with references to the justification of these claims. I have the use of {{PD-because}} because it can easily be used for all kinds of abuse. Based on the above:
- OK sorry, found the template: {{PD-ThaiGov}} Jackaranga 20:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, and another (or probably the same) translation is here. Another section says The Ministries, Departments or other government or local units shall be the owners of copyright in works created in the course of employment, order or control unless otherwise agreed in writing, so not all Thai government works are copyright-free. But, if this is considered "correspondence" (since it was sent to Interpol), or a judicial report, then I guess it's OK. Carl Lindberg 13:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I took it of En.wikipedia but I forgot to put the source :S. Sorry. Rastrojo 16:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The correspondence referred to in the act refers only to official written correspondence, as in letters and memorandums, etc. Also see User:Lerdsuwa's comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Thailand Coup 2006 announce.jpg (2). The exemptions in section 7, when taken in the original Thai context, almost exclusively refer to text. Paul_012 (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- His comment says nothing about images. 68.193.199.114 05:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- If the image is deleted, can somebody please upload it to enwiki and contact me on my talk page there? I think this is a pretty slam-dunk case for fair use. 68.193.199.114
Deleted by Zscout370: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Interpol Christopher Paul Neil.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
On Flickr this photo is part of a set called Blog Thumbnails, which I don't think are the Flickr user's work. See http://www.flickr.com/photos/caboindex/sets/72157600454803697/ William Avery 19:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and I'd like to add the other images of this Flickr user and website on Commons:
- Image:Panu di tera (S Vicente, Cape Verde).jpg
- Image:Mindelact (S Vicente, Cape Verde).jpg
- Image:Volcano (Fogo, Cape Verde).jpg
- Image:Kiki Lima painting (S Vicente, Cape Verde).jpg
- Image:Fernando-quejas-e-paulino-vieira.jpg
- Image:Victor borges.jpg
- Image:Susan-hurley-glowa.jpg
- Image:Corsino fortes.jpg
- — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please standy by with this deletion request, since the uploader of these photos was not warned of this. I have just told him about it on pt.wikipedia, and asked if he knows something about the website. Maybe we can get permissions; he's very active with Cabo Verde related issues and may know the people creating such contents. Patrícia msg 21:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid things are not this simple... I've had problems with caboindex's images on flickr before, which I uploaded to commons but some were deleted (rightfully) by user:LX as "flickrwashed copyvio". See relevant link. The problem is, that site contains a lot of great original images that could be very good to illustrate Cape Verde-related articles, but it also contains a lot of copyrighted images, such as album covers, official pictures from Cape Verdean artists, etc. Caboindex at Flickr marks many of the images with creative commons licenses, and some of these are copyrighted (not by the website!). Due to that incident, I suppose, the flickr2commons tool (there are two I guess, I am not sure which one) has blacklisted that user (maybe LX did contact the bot owners after our conversation but I didn't check that), and now his "good" images have to be uploaded manually.
I even sent an email to Flickr requesting that that user be warned to remove its copyright infringing images from flickr, so his sets could be imported to commons (the reference is Flickr Case 386515, in case the records are publicly acessible). In any case, their response was:
Hello, Flickr is subject to the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and will take down any infringing material upon receipt of a complete Notice of Infringement. This is handled by the Yahoo! Copyright Team. There's more information available at this URL: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/copyright/copyright.html We'll review the account to see if any further action should be taken.
"upon receipt of a complete Notice of Infringement".. well I din't send one as I know nothing about this issue and honestly it looked as it would be a bureaucratic procedure with little efect, but I might be wrong. Should I do it? Waldir talk 16:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- It would be nice of them to ctually explain what that is... Anyway, since this looks like flickrwashing of licenses, or maybe simply lack of knowledge about proper licensing from the Flickr user, I'm closing this and deleting the images. Patrícia msg 15:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Patrícia msg 15:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Deleted. Quadell (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Source is not identified. This image was originally uploaded at en.wikipedia by Husnock, but original uploader has already gone away from wikipedia. Thus I think that an additional information on the source of the image will not be available.--Sciss 12:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No source on original upload on en.wiki (confirmed by local admin). Patrícia msg 17:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Deleted. Quadell (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Source is not identified. This image was originally uploaded at en.wikipedia by Roitr, but original uploader has already been banned from en.wikipedia. Thus I think that an additional information on the source of the image will not be available.--Sciss 12:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This doesn't look good at all, and image was originally uploaded by a problem user, uploading untagged or falsely licensed images. No reliable source. Patrícia msg 16:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source is not identified. This image was originally uploaded at en.wikipedia by Husnock, but original uploader has already gone away from wikipedia. Thus I think that an additional information on the source of the image will not be available.--Sciss 12:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Anyone knows vietnamese? No source on original upload on en.wiki (confirmed by local admin). Patrícia msg 16:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I upload new version with source, keep --sk 17:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. --Panther 08:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence that this photograph falls into the category mentioned in the Rights and Restrictions Information: viz. 'A small portion of the photographs were taken by NYWT&S staff photographers, and are in the public domain per the instrument of gift. These photos can be recognized by such stamps as "World-Telegram photo" or "World-Telegram photo by Ed Palumbo."' William Avery 11:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. source states that Forms part of: New York World-Telegram and the Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection (Library of Congress). as such is correctly licensed Gnangarra 13:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source is not identified. This image was originally uploaded at en.wikipedia by Husnock, but original uploader has already gone away from wikipedia. Thus I think that an additional information on the source of the image will not be available.--Sciss 12:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No source on original upload on en.wiki (confirmed by local admin). Patrícia msg 17:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I upload new version with source --sk 18:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept / A.J. 11:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo comes from a person who owns the physical photo. As he is not the copyright holder, he simply can't "forfeit any and all copyright restrictions". Note: the photo could of course be in the public domain due to its age, but I think to verify that we would need information about the country of origin and the original source where it was published. --91.65.124.174 20:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 91.65.124.174 20:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Country of origin: Italy. Age: very, very old! This is incontestably in the public domain. GiovaneScuola2006 03:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Publicity photo... could this mean that the author is not traceable, and thus it is anonymous work? Because then it might fall under {{Anonymous-EU}}... Patrícia msg 15:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept as anonymous / A.J. 11:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source is not identified. This image was originally uploaded at en.wikipedia by Husnock, but original uploader has already gone away from wikipedia. Thus I think that an additional information on the source of the image will not be available.--Sciss 12:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a copyright violation. It shows a copyright building and nothing else. No FOP is available in France. MichaelMaggs 20:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong oppose there is no such thing as a copyright building. The image file says it is self-made and releases the right to use the work as long as it is attributed. What is a FOP? Blue-haired lawyer (aka en:Caveat lector) 17:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please tell the U.S. that.[84] And FOP=Freedom of Panorama. →Rocket°°° 23:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Copyright vests in the building as an original work of architecture; the owner is the architect, unless the rights are assigned. You may want to read up on French copyright law. See Freedom of panorama. --MichaelMaggs 21:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Very Strong Oppose - will this mean that we will have to delete every photo of a French building? ChrisDHDR 15:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, only those where the architect's copyright still exists. Older buildings are fine. By the way, this is not a vote. If you wish to oppose, please provide a legal basis for your opinion that this image is OK to keep. --MichaelMaggs 18:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me add another viewpoint to this discussion: This building is owned by the EU, isn't it? So could it be that the building and the ground it stands on is actually extraterritorial like embassies? Which would mean that French law does not apply. --ALE! ¿…?
- But what ground the photographer stood on? A.J. 11:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
October 20
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is copyrighted, and no information about the "free use"-term is given. hangy 13:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, {{copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No indication that J. Marcin Krzęsa died before October 1937, 6 years after painting --Patstuart 18:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete You're right, he died in 1939 (source). --Christian NurtschTM 19:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I've made mistake. Sorry. Author was Józef Męcina Krzesz. I've found information, that he died in 1934. Please visit http://www.desa.art.pl/aukcje/aukcja29/KATALOG.HTM. Thank you and I'm really sorry. WłosProsiOGłos
- OK, you got this file from somewhere, and we need to establish this as the author. Can you please provide the URL source? Patstuart 21:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Rüdiger Wölk: Dupe of Image:Antoni Laubitz-portrait by Józef Męcina Krzesz.JPG
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Commons:Project scope. Not useful for any Wikimedia project. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - n00b test. Patstuart 21:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Deadstar (msg) 13:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyrighted press photo ˉanetode╦╩ 08:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It had a no source notice on en:Wikipedia, and should not have been transfered to Commons. -- Infrogmation 19:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Infrogmation. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted - copyvio. Deadstar (msg) 13:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright by sony and is totally useless. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.170.6.74 (talk • contribs)
Deleted Composite image, one of which is copyrighted by makers of American Pie, the other a personal image. Out of scope as well as copyvio. Deadstar (msg) 13:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bad name. See Category:Tombolos --Rémih 12:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: empty category
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON(mandatory) --teacoolish 19:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Media:Exemple.ogg
Deleted by Zirland: In category Other speedy deletions; not edited for 5 days
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Also: Image:TEDDY~FREGOSO~2~.jpg.
Author has uploaded plenty of copyvios, this image is source cat fletcher (different author than others he has uploaded), and it appears professional. --Patstuart 18:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also add Image:TF & SEKI SANO GROUP.jpg, Image:SEKISANOGROUP.jpg, and Image:Miriam 001.jpg to the list.
- Image:Miriam 001.jpg: User:Cartof (who claims to be Cat Fletcher) is not the photographer. Whether it's a movie still or TV capture is unclear; the low quality makes it look like that, but actually, he just says "at RCTV in August 1968". See en:Miriam Fletcher May also be a photo taken somewhere in the station's rooms; these people were not actors. Also, the image file is 1944 × 1433px, which is a bit large for a screen capture from the 1960s. I think it's a scan of an old photograph.
- That is correct, it is an old picture, Cartof
- Image:TF & SEKI SANO GROUP.jpg, Image:SEKISANOGROUP.jpg: look like a professional promotional shot of that band. Photographer is given as es:Teddy Fregoso, but he appears on the image. Cat Fletcher cannot have been the photographer, he wasn't born yet.
- You are right again, this was a rare 1940's shot of Seki Sano's drama class, property of Teddy Fregoso.Cartof
- Image:TEDDY~FREGOSO~2~.jpg: it's actually possible that cat Fletcher took this photo. After all, he is or claims to be (there are no verifiable sources yet...) a cameraman, and apparently Teddy Fregoso is Cat Fletcher's uncle.
- Again correct, I shot that picture this year. Cartof
- Image:Cat Fletcher.jpg: might this have been taken with a self-timer?
- The user is rather emotional about these articles and the images. Probably because they all concern himself and his close relatives. Lupo 07:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: In category Unknown as of 17 October 2007; no permission
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader and author (one and the same) added free license tags one day, but the next added "This image may not be reproduced for commercial use without the artists permission". This is a UK upload and I suspect a UK court would back the author if they said they intended only non-commercial use. If the author is not willing to remove the condition, the image must be deleted. --Simonxag 12:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - noncon, clearly against licensing, and a legal threat to boot. Patstuart 21:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Non-commercial violates commons guidelines. -- Avi 04:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, the condition was not removed. Deadstar (msg) 09:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Obviously scan from a book, probably not GFDL? Omerzu 13:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - not gfdl. Patstuart 21:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No affirmation of free-use. -- Avi 13:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Back of "Raise the Titanic!" novel, 3rd Edition, copyrighted. Deadstar (msg) 09:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source, there is better version Image:Guido Reni 031.jpg OsamaK 16:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've no objection to deletion based on the fact that the image is superseded by a better quality version (though I would first be interested to know which one reproduces the true colors of the original, there seems to be some discrepancy), but the author is specified as Guido Reni and the source website as the English Wikipedia. Both of these are in fact true. Seraphimblade 06:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- But Wikipedia can't be the source.--OsamaK 10:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Of course it can. It was a transwiki, taken and uploaded originally by a Wikipedia editor. I've uploaded my original work to Wikipedia before, were an image to be copied here, Wikipedia would absolutely be the source. No website displaying that image is the real, original source, if you want that listed, that source is, well, the original painting! Seraphimblade 06:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Some website is clearly the original source of the photo, and it wasn't Wikipedia. Lupo 08:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- The original source beyond that is that it was the uploader's own work. (Or so the original on Wikipedia seemed to indicate.) Regardless, the image (and thus all copies of it) are in the public domain, so regardless, any "source" would not be the copyright holder. But my source, for the image I uploaded here, was the English Wikipedia. That may have been gotten from somewhere else, just like any website anywhere may have gotten an image somewhere else. "Source" means "Where did you (the uploader) get this image?", and in the case of a transwiki, that question is properly answered by citing the wiki being transwikied from. Any other answer would be false, as I did not get it somewhere else. Seraphimblade 06:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Some website is clearly the original source of the photo, and it wasn't Wikipedia. Lupo 08:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Of course it can. It was a transwiki, taken and uploaded originally by a Wikipedia editor. I've uploaded my original work to Wikipedia before, were an image to be copied here, Wikipedia would absolutely be the source. No website displaying that image is the real, original source, if you want that listed, that source is, well, the original painting! Seraphimblade 06:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- But Wikipedia can't be the source.--OsamaK 10:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No proper source. -- Cecil 18:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unsourced (not even in the original en: description page) -- Drini 07:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- If the original uploader cannot provide source information, delete. --Ahellwig 10:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 05:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not own work; appears professional, has watermarks at top and bottom --Patstuart 17:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Pibwl 13:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 05:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The source says feel free to use the photo. That is not a free license. Kjetil r 17:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- you are absolutly right, "feel free to use the photo" must mean "you are not allowed to use the photo". I have written Prof. Ertl, I hope he'll find the time to aswer me.--Golf Bravo 18:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- The copyright holder is not the Ertl but the photographer. --Polarlys 20:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind support, Kamerat Golf Bravo. Maybe Professor Ertl can direct you to the photographer? If so, please ask the photographer if one is allowed to make derivative works and to use the work commercially. --Kjetil r 23:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, other sources say „Reuters“, license invalid --Polarlys 19:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Ertl is obviously not the author (copyright holder), so he can't grant permission. Furthermore "for Wikipedia" is not enough and it remains unknown where the CC license comes from. Polarlys 19:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously? Why? What makes it obvious that he is not the copyright holder of a portrait picture of him? Say he ordered and payed in full for the portrait to be taken, isn't he the copyright holder? The photo was on his website with the caption: "feel free to use the photo", that wasn't enough for you, and you were quick to erase it. I wrote him personally, and asked his permission for using the photo on Wikipedia. Grant him that he is inteligent enough to know what copyright means, and if there was any doubt in his mind that the copyrights on this picture do not belong to him, he would not have given his permission.
- In any case, even if all the above does not satisfy you, please write to him again, or to the public relations office at his institution, before you erase this image needlessly.--132.74.99.84 09:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is no work for hire concept in the European Union. When a professional photographer takes a portrait of you and you pay him for doing that, he still remains the copyright holder. See Az. 28 O 468/06 for example, a photographer successfully sued one of his clients for using a passport photography on a personal homepage. “Feel free to use” is a press license (we always need a permission to use a photo commercially and to create derivate works) and since Ertl is not the photographer he can't give a permission anyway. “For Wikipedia” is never enough, this is a project based on free content and we don't put such restrictions on our files. Where the uploader got the Creative Commons license from, remains mysterious. Being a great scientist doesn't go along with understanding of copyright law (why should it, physics and chemistry are all in all much more interesting). We deleted photos from Bruce Schneier and other experts before. We need a permission from the author and permissions are archived via Commons:OTRS. --Polarlys 12:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Without knowing the laws applicable in the UE, I guess even the parsimonious Europeans have the concept of a gift, surely they have heard of inheritance laws. And so a photographer may give his photograph, as a gift, or leave it in his inheritance, including all the rights that come with that photograph.
- If a person puts his photograph on the web with the caption: "feel free to use the photo" and later, once again, specifically grants permission to use his photograph on Wikipedia, I don't think you have an obligation to conduct a police inquiry to find out how those copyrights came to him. Under such circumstances, especially since this is not an anonymous person, you should assume good faith.
- Nevertheless, I have written Prof. Ertl again... Asked him specifically whether he is the holder of the copyrights to this picture (if he claims he is, it is none of your damn business how he aquired them), and if not, I asked him to provide me with the details of the photographer, or the copyrights holder. I feel ashamed and embarrassed for your nitpicking. Please wait for a week with the voting on this photo, there is no special urgency here.--Golf Bravo 06:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is no work for hire concept in the European Union. When a professional photographer takes a portrait of you and you pay him for doing that, he still remains the copyright holder. See Az. 28 O 468/06 for example, a photographer successfully sued one of his clients for using a passport photography on a personal homepage. “Feel free to use” is a press license (we always need a permission to use a photo commercially and to create derivate works) and since Ertl is not the photographer he can't give a permission anyway. “For Wikipedia” is never enough, this is a project based on free content and we don't put such restrictions on our files. Where the uploader got the Creative Commons license from, remains mysterious. Being a great scientist doesn't go along with understanding of copyright law (why should it, physics and chemistry are all in all much more interesting). We deleted photos from Bruce Schneier and other experts before. We need a permission from the author and permissions are archived via Commons:OTRS. --Polarlys 12:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, permission for Wikipedia only. --Kjetil r 11:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, there is a permission on his page H-Vergilius 13:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is no permission that fits the needs of Commons:Licensing. --Polarlys 13:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless there is proof that the permission on his page is the permission from the photographer. --Moonian 13:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Redeleted. -- Infrogmation 05:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Redundant to Category:Penguin icons and Category:Tux. --Rocket000 20:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit: Suggested move. Images in Category:Penguin icons to Category:Tux icons or Category:Bird icons, which ever is appropriate; then delete Category:Penguin icons. Rocket000 01:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Tux is fictional character, not a icon. We have tenths of icons showing Tux, so a special category is entirely justified. We can have images of Tux displayed on books, boxes, advertisements, tee-shirts, or Tux as a toy. It is nonsense to refuse to sort icons from all these various items. Category:Tux icons is normally categorized in Category:Penguin icons, which most of the content would be moved to Category:Tux icons. --Juiced lemon 21:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, how bout this then. All the Tux icons in Category:Penguin icons will be put in Category:Tux icons, as it is mostly Tux. Having two extremely similar categories is all I wanted to avoid. The rest of the penguin icons can be merged into Category:Bird icons, as there's like four. That way we can put Category:Tux icons in both Category:Bird icons and Category:Tux as a sub-category. Would this be ok with you? Rocket000 13:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't support your desire for destruction:
- 1. All penguin icons are not Tux icons, so Category:Penguin icons is useful for any icon of a penguin which is not identified as Tux. Most users can recognize a penguin, but cannot identify Tux when the description doesn't specify a particular character.
- 2. Category:Penguin icons is useful to browsing and understanding of the classification structure.
- 3. Destruct and rebuild a category leads to important waste of human and computer resources, while an unused category uses an insignifiant amount of resources.
- --Juiced lemon 11:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Unused categories are pointless to keep. My goal isn't destruction, it's to restructure the classification system in this one minor area with the purpose of allowing users to find images easier. Right now there's an unnecessary split. Let me state again what I'm proposing, since it changed since the nomination. I don't really want to relist this for the sake of keeping the discussion in one spot.
- Category:Bird icons (includes the few penguin icons that aren't Tux)
- Category:Tux icons(needs it one because there's so many, and we can also put it in Category:Tux and others without including non-Tux penguins)
- Category:Tux
- Category:Tux icons (pretty much unchanged)
Thank you for your input Juiced lemon, but I would like at least one more opinion on this matter. Rocket000 01:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I don't care whether 'Tux icons' is under 'Penguin icons' or under 'Animal icons', I don't see any need to delete 'Penguin icons'. I don't think it matters, don't get carried away with some idea of tidyness or minimalism. Equally if 'Penguin icons' didn't already exist I probably wouldn't create it (but that's not the same as saying it should be deleted :-). My main question is what should be in these categories - many tux files in 'Penguin icons' are rather large for icons. But then what *exactly* is an icon :-) --Tony Wills 09:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you Tony. I admit, my nomination was most likely done out of excessive tidiness, but I hate when things are overly subdivided. It takes too long to navigate though them all. I think we should only create subcategories if they're necessary (3 images out of 33 isn't what I would sat makes it necessary). It's hard to define whats classifies as a "icon", but I think most people know it when they see it. If you would use it for an icon, it's an icon. Size isn't really an issue when your talking SVG, anything else is usually less than 128x128px (or now 256x256px). Anyway, there's understandably little interest for this change and only opposition. I'll let it drop. I officially withdraw my nomination. I don't like closing my own nom. even though there were no other "deletes", so someone else please close it up. Thanks! Rocket000 00:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Too late. I'll close it. Withdrawn. Rocket000 20:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture was released at Luke Ford's site, but not photographed by him (see http://www.lukeisback.com/images/photos/010110.htm), so there is no permission. Rosenzweig 16:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as uploader. Sorry, I didn't notice Luke wasn't the photographer. Epbr123 22:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete No permission; mistaken identity. -- Avi 23:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 18:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A simple Wikipedian can hardly be the copyright holder of a satellite picture --Teofilo 19:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per author, wrong license. Patstuart 21:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom MichaelMaggs 18:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The template contradicts the summary (US government or Venezuelan government?}. Fair use is not acceptable on commons and images given out as "free" press kits cannot be assumed to be in the public domain. High on a tree 02:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Contradictory incompatable claims; delete unless some free licence is clearly explained. -- Infrogmation 02:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This situation applies to a lot of Venezuelan head of state images, so can we hold off deleting this until things are sorted, or a lot more will have to go the same way. Some Venezuelan head-of-state images are crops from US-PDGovt images which might explain the origin of the type of license used here. There does not seem to be any PD-Venezuelan type templates which might also explain using the US-Govt one for want of an appropriate one. Can anyone point us to an appropriate license template for Venezuelan government images or any info about Venezuelan copyright. ? --Tony Wills 10:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
For the same reason:
COM:DW, COM:PS. Commons is not an art community and it is a copyright violation since it is derived from a copyrighted photograph (you cannot circumvent copyright this way; if you use a photo as a template to take the characteristic elements and make a painting out of it, you need a license and need to pay license fees, since you are building upon the work of the photographer. And such pictures are strictly forbidden in Wikipedia anyway, as they are original research and a crime against encyclopedic integrity. --rtc 11:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have some problems with all of these arguments:
- These pictures are not derived but inspired on the photographs. There is no mechanistic process used here. Every line is a new choice of the artist. Each new illustration is unique.
- It's since the Renaissance common that artists use reflections of reality to create a new image. Most important example is the work of Andy Warhol of Marilyn Monrou
- Every image and every illustration can be seen as a work of art.
- Every image in Wikipedia has to be original. There is no law and crime here.
- It seems to me, that according to your rules all illustrations should be forbitten. And even every original pictures is questionable as original research.
- I wonder if there is a law in Wikipedia, that forbits artists to draw new illustrations inspired on current pictures. I like to stipulate: the qualiy of these kinds of illstration are questionable. I'm not aware of any legal items here. But probably you have more experience here. Maybe you can tell me about similar cases? - Mdd 13:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly there are technical illustrations created by users, but as long as they are mere representations of some technical idea for which similar illustrations already exist (such illustrations, if of average simplicity, are not copyrightable), then it is perfectly okay. It is a question of whether artistic or technical elements are the primary subject of the image. Your pictures are all artistic, not technical. Your pictures are certainly inspired by the photos, but they are also derived from them. A mere inspiration would have been to create something new instead of merely basing it on the photo, such that, if the photo and the new work are put besides each other, no apparent similarity is visible. A similar case is Commons:Deletion_requests/The_images_of_User:André_Koehne. --rtc 15:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the images of the case, you mention here, were not deleted...!?
- But more important: I think you are forgetting some things. Formally:
- These illustrations are inspired on copyright pictures
- These illustrations are derived from them
- ... and these illustrations fit the discription of original works of art, made by a professional artist, who has been making this line of work for some 15 years.
- Now the thing is, that both the inspiration and originality are rather big. The derivation, however, is rather small. Here a 40.000k JPEG bitmap file is transformed into a 5.000k SVG file with only about 50 lines. The technical transformation here is also rather big. If you really want to talk about legal considerations, I think all these arguments should be taken into consideration.
- But more important: I think you are forgetting some things. Formally:
- Now it seems to me that there is only one tiny argument for deletion here and seven arguments for keeping this picture. - Mdd 21:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your calculations are nonsensical. Copyright talks about creative elements of a work, not about the way they are encoded in digital file formats. In essence, you copy the characteristic features from the photo by stylizing them with rough lines. If we try to think your picture without these characteristic features, nothing but senseless lines remain. That is, this is a case of a derivative work that could hardly be more clear. As long as an apparent similarity is visible if the photo and the new work are put besides each other, it is a derived work. We do not need to discuss about that. Being "a professional artist, who has been making this line of work for some 15 years" does not make it less a derivative work. --rtc 10:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Now it seems to me that there is only one tiny argument for deletion here and seven arguments for keeping this picture. - Mdd 21:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Remember:the photo is a copy of the original, which is a person. So is the design. Havang 12:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nonsensical = onzinnig, kolderiek, gek, vreemd...!?
- Again Rtc's word doesn't make any sense to me.
- I didn't copy the charateristic feartures of the picture, I copied the charateristic facial recognition points of the persons.
- Characteristic features of a picture are the composition, tone, contrast, lightning resulting in a typical realistic portret of a person.
- Characteristic features of a person are its face and expression, shown in multiple pictures.
- My computer animations are artist impressions, highly abstract, minimalistic, with a typical own style. Almost the opposite of the realistic objective photographical representation.
- So first of all. Your try to eliminate that there are more criterea then just "derived pictures": inspiriation, artistic transformation, artistic freedom & the technical transformation...
- And second: the characteristic features of the picture where not derived. There is no copyright on the face and expression of a real person. - Mdd 13:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is a copyright on the photo of the face and expression of a real person. You have not copied the face and expression (you're not a pantomime, after all, are you), but you copied their photographic projection. This projection of this factial expression is a) unique (hence, a characteristic feature of the photo) and b) copyrighted. You derived your drawing from it. Please stop denying the obvious. --rtc 13:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Again Rtc's word doesn't make any sense to me.
- The obvious is that pictures of Wolkers now appearing in Dutch journals are all look-alikes. Havang 14:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Dear RTC, It seems to me that you just try to MAKE UP YOUR OWN NEW RULES..!?
- First: Show me the source where copyright is so specific written down.
- Second: You make no sense. First you tell face and expression are protected, then you try to state that I didn't copy them...!?
- Third: It's clear and almost proven here below, that I did recreate the facial expression. William Avery here below is confinced that I used an other picture.
- And forth. I never denied I inspired myselve on a picture... this situation is far from obvious.
- You still seems to pretend that, the "derived" argumented is all that counts. - Mdd 19:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- When I said that face and expression are copyrighted, I of course didn't mean that they are actually so; I was referring to their photographic projection, of course. So I wanted to make that clear. You are really splitting hairs here. As an intelligent person, you have understood perfectly well what I mean, so I'm not going on with that. William Avery did not look close enough. That can happen. It is not a proof that it is not a derived work. If someone denies similarities if shown your work and the photo besides each other, then that is perhaps a "proof". I am not making up "my own" new rules, I am merely trying to explain to you in detail the conflicts of your drawings with copyright. I am sorry; I have no source where copyright is so specific written down. --rtc 20:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Dear RTC, It seems to me that you just try to MAKE UP YOUR OWN NEW RULES..!?
- Delete derivative works of copyrighted photographs. Another current similar case is Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Rbkinar. Do we need to spell out somewhere in our policies that such drawings are not OK? Lupo 17:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Gerard Heymans.svg is based on a copyright free picture, see here here. So this picture should not be listed here. - Mdd 20:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Gerard Heymans.svg is not copyright free. The photographer is not listed, but I suppose he did live for more than four years after publishing the photo? Even if we make the incorrect assumption for a moment that the picture does not have a copyright anymore, why do we need the user-generated replacement if we have the original? --rtc 10:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- At this moment the picture is copyright free, and so is my drawing. - Mdd 21:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Gerard Heymans.svg is not copyright free. The photographer is not listed, but I suppose he did live for more than four years after publishing the photo? Even if we make the incorrect assumption for a moment that the picture does not have a copyright anymore, why do we need the user-generated replacement if we have the original? --rtc 10:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Designs inspired on copyrighted photographs are original work and have there own copyright. Havang 21:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Inspiration is free. - .Aiko 13:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The Popper image is clearly derivative of the book cover w:Image:Karl Popper.jpg. William Avery 17:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I inspired myselve on this picture which I wrote down (in Dutch) at the original description page.
- This is one more sign, that I created a new image almost independent from the original picture. - Mdd 19:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, it is not. If William Avery sees the actual source image, he will be convinced even more, not less, that it is a derived work. --rtc 20:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The "inspiration" from one source picture is down in black and white and can be used in evidence in a court case. If the author had been wise enough to say they were inspired by the many images of Popper they had seen, the fact that viewers have different opinions on the identity of a supposed "original" image, might have been enough to establish it as OK.
- Does any artist ever exactly knows, what his inspiration is? I do know that when I draw that image, I was aware that Popper had become a very old man and I was asking myselve how you can give expression to that idea? Which lines would I have to draw to bring this into the picture? I'm also aware that I have seen multiple pictures of Popper before. And I have a general idea in my mind what he looks like. And in the drawing process I am working to recreate that image.
- I do know that even the philosophers of art don't agree on the artistic process, and the question: Does the artist draws what he sees, or does he sees what he draws? - Mdd 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nicely put and more importantly the sort of statement one should use to accompany an original artwork. Not "I based it on / derived it from / was inspired by such and such copyrighted item." Hello lawyer, bye bye money. --Simonxag 21:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for this feed back. I guess it doesn't help, that I'm working both as a artist, designer and scientist. As a writer of scientific articles I quote other authors, giving them credit in the references... but I quote only just these words I want to write the story, I already have in my mind. Now I used certain existing copyrighted pictures in my artistic process. I kind of automatically wanted to give them some of the same credits.
- When I drew these pictures I never gave it much thoughts, that I was making minimalistic line drawings, which I've have made thousands in the past decades... but very little like these portraits. The typical "yellow paper and gray lines" is a very minimalistic technique I discovered a decade ago inspired on the blue yellow works of Matisse. Should I have written it all down here...!? I guess nothing matters anymore I someone says the two magic words "derived work". - Mdd 23:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I deliver frequently photographic pictures to be used as model for a group of painters. They all use it for making paintings, not one is alike, although all of them ressemble the photograph; several of them have been sold for more or lesds money, always the painter is considered the artist having the copyright of the painting. I as photographer state here that the designs are original work inspired on a photograph. Havang 07:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- And even if you were the head of the copyright office, it wouldn't change the facts. --rtc 09:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I deliver frequently photographic pictures to be used as model for a group of painters. They all use it for making paintings, not one is alike, although all of them ressemble the photograph; several of them have been sold for more or lesds money, always the painter is considered the artist having the copyright of the painting. I as photographer state here that the designs are original work inspired on a photograph. Havang 07:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- @Havank. There is something I definetly don't understand. The situation you describe seems almost the same. Only now I am the painter (designer/ drawer) and not the photographer. And with the Popper image I stated as source:
- As an artist I consider to have the copyright of the drawing, given the original very specific own kind of explicit minimalistic computer-animation...!? - Mdd 09:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I am saying: you really are the artist: the designs are your original work and have to be keeped on wiki. Good luck. Havang 11:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Of course he is the artist and of course it is his original work. Yet this original work is a derived work. Without building fundamentally on the photographer's work he wouldn't have done it in this way. He owes royalties to the photographer . --rtc 09:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I am saying: you really are the artist: the designs are your original work and have to be keeped on wiki. Good luck. Havang 11:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This discussing is losing all rational/legal perspective
[edit]This discussion has turned into a rather interesting discussion about "original work" versus "direved work". However, the user Rtc, who brought this discussion up, hereby is using to many fantasy arguments. That is why I want to make a clear statement here, that I think this is not aceptable. I'm refering to the following arguments, broough forward in the past discussion, but as the comments show, are highly questionable:
- "There is a copyright on the photo of the face and expression of the real person." Comment: No copyright law is that explicit.
- "Your calculations are nonsensical... this... case... could hardly more clear." Comment: When the artist (me) starts explaining that there is more in copyright law then the "derived work" idea, I should not be call an idiot.
- "The copyright free picture nl:Afbeelding:Gerard Heymans.JPG is not free, because the photographer is not listed and could be alive." Comment: In the Dutch Wikipedia this is already taken into consideration and the picture is etablished as copyright free. This can be questioned again, but at the moment there is a status quo.
- William Avery see an other picture as original, and he is still right because If he sees the original he will be convinced even more. Comment: user:Rtc has no authority to speak on user William Avery his behave.
- "Of course he is the artist and of course it is his original work. Yet this original work is a derived work." Comment: No copyright law shall determine "an original work as direved". A picture is either the one or the other.
I think this situation is becomming rather embarrasing, that user:Rtc continues to fantasize all he wants. I think this is a serious matter, that earns serious consideration. For me it is even not clear, which law in Wikicommons has to be obeyed. At the moment it looks like every illustrator is a sitting duck here. - Mdd 13:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Here we have the Copyright Law of the United States of America. I don't think that Rtc could make any connection between what he was saying and this law. Or maybe I'm mistaken!? - Mdd 23:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
What is derived work?
[edit]The main question here seems to be, what is derived work? Now I made a new picture derived from four images. Now I want to ask, if this is derived work? As far as I know it isn't... because you can make derived work from one original, but you can't make a derived work from four separate original images... Then it is a new image? - Mdd 13:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, it's 4 copyright violations. A picture can be copyrighted, a person cannot. You need to produce a new piece of work that is of Popper and not of any picture of Popper. Any lawyer representing any of the 4 photographers could prove to any court that you copied their work (just by pointing to 1 of the corners). If the illustration was original which photographer could sue? How would they prove that you derived your image from their one rather than some other? --Simonxag 23:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- But if I get information about Poppers features from several different sources (pictures and/or video images), to design or paint or sculpture a portrait of Popper, I am making an original work. Havang 08:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
@Simonxag. You have to produce a new work of Popper, you say, and this isn't. This is just a copy of 1/4 part of 4 picture. The whole idea of this picture in the first place was and still is, that if you add together four different angles, you get a new kind of kubistic image of the person. This of course is a rather unortodox artist impression.
It is only the traditional idea, that sais an image has to be a whole of direct interconnecting lines and flats (?). In artschool we learned about two other ways: seperating the parts in one frame, and separtating the parts in different frames or even places. I used (again a very minimalistic) the second method... Now there are also different ways of looking at the image. The most common is just seeing four different (stolen) parts. If you however look at it like a new whole, it's also frustrating in a way because your mind can't put these parts togehter as one whole. Now the picture looks like just some random four images thrown together. But it took quiet an artistic proces of selection, transformation, balancing and controling to bring this to an balanced picture, that looks very natural (as four stolen parts...!?). - Mdd 08:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Legal advice & three images withdrawn
[edit]I have received some legal advice, which gave some interesting perspectives, which I would like to share elsewhere. Based on that advive I first want to withdraw the following three images:
I would like to request that the following image be kept.
Because of the following to reasons:
- The image is based on a copyright free image
- I want to use this picture in the continue the discussion about the possiblities of making illustrations of known persons. - Mdd 12:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted Image:Karl Popper.svg, Image:AD de Groot.svg and Image:Jan Wolkers.svg, based on what appears to be consensus and based on your request. (While there is no obligation to delete an image simply because the uploader requests it, it seems prudent to respect an uploader's concerns that he or she may have uploaded a copyright infringement.)
- I'm leaving the deletion discussion open because there seems to be disagreement over whether Image:Jan Wolkers.svg is based on a work that's free or not. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, for deleting the pictures. Further I guess you mean the Image:Gerard Heymans.svg, based on Gerard Heymans.jpg, and that picture is established as copyright free. - Mdd 20:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Image:Gerard Heymans.svg was kept. →Яocket°°° 10:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Photo for press release used in 1992. Self-made." Doubtful uploader is press agent. --Patstuart 18:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
These webpages (1 and 2) proove this image shows a boxing-topical label (look for labels with another country's name), not a US postage stamp. Copyright is owned by the designer : engraver en:Czesław Słania, died 2005, nationalities : Polish, perhaps Swede. This kind of graphic work is certainly not in public domain. Sebjarod 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- The label picture on Image:BobFitzsimmons.JPG is not an US stamp.Read more carefully : "Slania's love for boxing prompted him to engrave a series of twenty-three Heavyweight Champions of the World, all in stamp format. (...) The labels are numbered consecutively in the upper left corner." They are not postage stamps of any country (On this picture, you can see some of these labels have names of the boxer's country, not only the USA.... "Germany" and "Sweden" for example). He worked for himself as an artist too, the US Post did not seem to be implicated in these artworks (or proove otherwise). Sebjarod 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Proofs of no part of the USPS : "In his spare time, he did portraits of sweetly smiling movie stars and manly boxers for his own amusement, and for income; he would sell a stamplike label showing Marilyn Monroe for as much as $50." (New York Times, 24.03.2005). "With over 1000 postage stamps to his credit, his output was even more amazing when one considers that this does not include his banknotes, private labels (such as the "Boxers"), art engravings, test stamps, postal savings and revenue stamps, etc. To collect Slania's works is to enter a world of miniature art." (Jay Smiths & Associates). Sebjarod 16:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I was wrong - vote changed. --Simonxag 23:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Not a real stamp, but an artistic work. Could have fooled me :). Patrícia msg 21:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
invalid reason for license Doodle-doo Ħ 23:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I contacted the uploader and he explained the copyright details, which I now fixed in the image page. – rotemliss – Talk 14:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep it's licensed as http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ Yuval Y § Chat § 01:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Image lacks information as to what it depicts. -- Infrogmation 15:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Kept. All good (except for the description). →Rocket°°° 07:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploaded by User:ManoloCaminos and tagged as a copyright violation from http://www.buziosturismo.com/saudimap/, which cites the author as Manolo Caminos, by 218.186.8.13. I see no reason to doubt that User:ManoloCaminos is Manolo Caminos, so I'm converting the speedy deletion to a regular deletion discussion instead. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am Manolo Caminos (mcaminos@buziosturismo.com; webmaster@buziosturismo.com; manolo@buziosturismo.com)author off the Saudi Map, Image: Mapa_arabia_web.jpg. I hereby assert that I am the creator of this contribution and it does not violate any third party rights. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by ManoloCaminos (talk • contribs)
- I'll e-mail the webmaster to get an OTRS permission. Patrícia msg 15:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I got a reply confirming that the user is also Manolo Caminos, the webmaster, I'll forward it to OTRS. Patrícia msg 10:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll e-mail the webmaster to get an OTRS permission. Patrícia msg 15:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- OTRS ticket link: [85]. Identity is confirmed. howcheng {chat} 19:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Not deleted. howcheng {chat} 19:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
October 21
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I mispelled "drummer", and have created a correctly titled entry. Floyd davidson 18:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, Files was uploaded new as Image:Inupiat drummers at Eskimo dance.jpg. --GeorgHH 19:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Illustration of face of Prophet Mohammed is against the Islamic rules. No true Illustration of Prophet's Mohammed is ever done in the history. 61.1.244.86 12:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- speedy keep. The Islamic artist who created this work more than 700 years ago apparently had a different interpretation of Islamic rules, and it is not the role of Wikimedia Commons to make any judgements as to who has the correct interpretation in matters of religion. Your observation is therefore not relevent to any deletion procedures on Wikimedia Commons, as these are simply based on mechanical and legal concerns, not on matters of religious faith. (Note as well that there is no claim to be a "true Illustration", it is clearly just an artist's depiction of a person used to illustrate an historic point, similar to those that can be found in thousands of artworks done where the exact appearance of a historical figure is not known.) -- Infrogmation 15:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As above --Simonxag 23:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep These issue have been widely discussed in a previous deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315 bew.jpg of a modified version. Perhaps a note on the talk page would help. --Tony Wills 22:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Speedy keep. Encyclopedic picture, historically significant, no copyright problems. Wikipedia and Wikimedia aren't censored, and the deletion request is merely a political statement. Valentinian T / C 21:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It was taged with CC but the source says it's copyrighted. --Steinninn ♨ 01:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- It was licensed under CC but the source has since changed the license. See also Image:Fatboy Slim in 2004.jpg or Image:Hook, Morris, Sumner in New Order.jpg from the same source. Thuresson 10:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- These should also be deleted since the flickr uploaders are most likely not the copyright holders. --Steinninn ♨ 13:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- The Flickr user Shoko Ishikawa describes herself as a "freelance music/conceptual photographer since 1999, based in London UK" Thuresson 16:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Copyright violation; no license
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(Informação de copyright incorreta (Ver:http://www.faefi.ufu.br/index.php?id=169) --Talk2lurch 05:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Dantadd✉ 16:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC) - The uploader made several copyvios before. In fact, I suspect that most of his files are copyvios, but it's hard to prove. Dantadd✉ 16:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Copyright violation; no license
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploads of Liftarn
[edit]- upload log of Liftarn
- Gallery of Liftarn
- except those in Category:Files by Liftarn
All of the uploads of Liftarn should be deleted because, time and time again, this user has disregarded this project's policies and transwiki'd copyright violations. Enough is enough. See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems and its archives. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- ... except those in Category:Files by Liftarn. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 12:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep What is the exact nature of your problems that it require such drastic action? Considering the high number of images I have transwikied the number of images with possible problems have actually been quite low and I don't see why the images I obviously have taken myself should be included. // Liftarn
- Keep Inappropriate deletion request, if user is violating policy they should be dealt with appropriately, a mass deletion of all their images sounds vexatious (ie trying to 'punish' the user, rather than dealing with the images on merit) --Tony Wills 11:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Any measures taken to deal with the user's violation of policy have obviously not gone far enough. I have tried at User talk:Liftarn, various deletion requests, Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Files by Liftarn, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Liftarn, and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections#Image:Gathering_of_eagles.jpg, but I am sad to write that nothing has worked so far. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- "violation of policy"? Sure, I may have had a bit too low sense of copyright paranoia sometimes (we can all make mistakes), but you make it sounds like a major problem. May I point out that on English Wikipedia I even got a barnstar for "all your work on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images". Your suggestion for a cruel and unusual punishment seems way blown out of proportion. It looks more like a personal vendetta than an acual issue. // Liftarn
- On what basis did you write "It looks more like a personal vendetta than an acual issue." (which feels like a personal attack)? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 12:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Since it's an inappropriate deletion request as Tony Wills noted. Since you give spurious arguments. Since deletion of every image a user uploaded as a punishment is not mentioned in Commons:Deletion guidelines. Since a small percentage of images there have been some issues with should not require such drastic actions. // Liftarn
- What "spurious arguments"? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Using the disagreement over if islamophobia is a form of racism or not as an argument for image deletion. That is very odd. // Liftarn
- I referred to my try at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections#Image:Gathering_of_eagles.jpg to get you to abide by this project's policies. How do you feel about this project's policies? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's utterly irrelevant to this issue and as far as I know there is no policy against adding relevant categories. That you bring it up here hints that is a bad faith nomination. // Liftarn
- I referred to my try at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections#Image:Gathering_of_eagles.jpg to get you to abide by this project's policies. How do you feel about this project's policies? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Using the disagreement over if islamophobia is a form of racism or not as an argument for image deletion. That is very odd. // Liftarn
- What "spurious arguments"? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Since it's an inappropriate deletion request as Tony Wills noted. Since you give spurious arguments. Since deletion of every image a user uploaded as a punishment is not mentioned in Commons:Deletion guidelines. Since a small percentage of images there have been some issues with should not require such drastic actions. // Liftarn
- On what basis did you write "It looks more like a personal vendetta than an acual issue." (which feels like a personal attack)? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 12:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- "violation of policy"? Sure, I may have had a bit too low sense of copyright paranoia sometimes (we can all make mistakes), but you make it sounds like a major problem. May I point out that on English Wikipedia I even got a barnstar for "all your work on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images". Your suggestion for a cruel and unusual punishment seems way blown out of proportion. It looks more like a personal vendetta than an acual issue. // Liftarn
- Any measures taken to deal with the user's violation of policy have obviously not gone far enough. I have tried at User talk:Liftarn, various deletion requests, Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Files by Liftarn, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Liftarn, and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections#Image:Gathering_of_eagles.jpg, but I am sad to write that nothing has worked so far. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As above --Simonxag 12:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - not inappropriate. Countless times I have seen this person upload images or transwiki them inappropriately. He has shows little regard for proper sourcing, or, when it fails to exist, he often uploads it anyway and just places some tag on it, leaving the rest of us to actually deal with the fallout. A perusal of the history of thie person's talk page should show this. Enough is enough - if he wants any specific images saved, he needs to source them all better now. Patstuart 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- As said above, that is an image by image issue as you can tell from the history[86] I have transwikied a lot of images, but as you can see the number of images there may be an issue with is low. It's a numbers game. If you do nothing you can do nothing wrong, is that what you are suggesting? Sure, I can leave the move to Commons project if that's the problem. I also fail to se why the images I've taken myself have anything to do with it. // Liftarn
- If you had separated them out into more categories, they would now be easier to deal with. You wrote "Category:Files by Liftarn", which intimated that you had created the files, no one else. You wrote the text "Files provided by User:Liftarn" in that category's page, no one else. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the files in Category:Files by Liftarn is pictures I have taken myself. I created them using my own camera. Is there a problem with that? Pictures I transwikied and those based on other images are not in that category. // Liftarn
- What category or categories are the pictures you transwikied in, then? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 12:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Would it be so difficult to put them in a category like Category:Files transwikied by User:Liftarn, Category:Media transwikied by User:Liftarn, Category:Files transferred by User:Liftarn, or Category:Media transferred by User:Liftarn? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Now? Yes! Do you have any idea how many good images I have transfered to Commons? // Liftarn
- I have some idea; you have 16,715 edits in the Image namespace[87][88]. You could use a bot or AWB. Please see what I'm doing manually with User:Jeff G.#My_Categories. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The images are innocent, really. We shouldn't take it out on them. Instead, I would like to see us prohibit Liftarn from uploading any more images until he has helped us to sort out this mess. Samulili 19:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Support - This measure taken to deal with the user's violation of policy would go beyond previous such measures, and it would certainly limit the damage and the necessary cleanup work. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)- Support a similar measure: let's temporarily sanction this user, so that he does not upload any files that he did not take himself until he cleans up behind him. His gallery shows a lot of confusion; most of these aren't bad uploads but many are tagged badly, missing source information, etc. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please provide a list of images you feel need more information. // Liftarn
- I don't need to do that since there are so many. In short, "no u". Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please provide a list of images you feel need more information. // Liftarn
- Support - user uploads unfathomable amount of images; he should take a break to sort out licensing, etc. on all the old ones. Patstuart 18:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- So you suggest I get punished for high activity? // Liftarn
- It's not about punishing but working together, samarbete. You must be aware that you have made quite a number of mistakes when transferring images. Don't you think it's fair that you help us in fixing those errors? I hope that when you do that you will also be able to calibrate your "sense of copyright paranoia" (as you put it) so that you will have a better success rate in the future. Samulili 05:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- That depends on if we talk about percentage or raw numbers. I think the percentage of questionable images are indeed very low. However since I have transwikied a lot of image even with a low percentage it may be a number of images with errors. I'm not a copyright lawyer so I can only make reasonable judgements. If someone say they made the image themselved and they release the rights and it's not obviously fasle I think I can transfer the image to Commons. I don't require them to sign a written statement in their own blood, in triplicate saying they did take that image. // Liftarn
- It has nothing to do with punishment. I think your misunderstanding the problem. It has to do with the fact that so many of your uploads are either copyright violations, or are valid, but aren't well enough marked to establish the license (e.g., no source, no information on when it was taken, etc.). Patstuart 17:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- What images are you refering to? Take it on a case by case basis. I do try to check the license is valid but I'm neither a copyright lawyer nor all knowing. For instance I don't have the ability to know if an image claimed PD-self really is taken by the person or not. I am forced to make a guess and yes, sometimes I guess wrong. The logic thing would be to fix that image when there is a problem. // Liftarn
- Yes, that would be the logical thing. That's exactly what we're suggesting you do, before uploading any images that were not taken by yourself, rather than expecting other people to clean up behind you. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Then there should be no problem since that's what I do. // Liftarn
- Apparently not, since there are plenty of screw-ups in your uploads. You don't check them before checking for problems. Instead, you wait for someone else to find them, and I find that distasteful. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 20:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Appearances can be misleading. There are a small percentage of screw-ups and I gave you some examples of how easy it is to make mistakes. I do check them before and I find your insinuations distastefull. // Liftarn
- Apparently not, since there are plenty of screw-ups in your uploads. You don't check them before checking for problems. Instead, you wait for someone else to find them, and I find that distasteful. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 20:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Then there should be no problem since that's what I do. // Liftarn
- Yes, that would be the logical thing. That's exactly what we're suggesting you do, before uploading any images that were not taken by yourself, rather than expecting other people to clean up behind you. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- What images are you refering to? Take it on a case by case basis. I do try to check the license is valid but I'm neither a copyright lawyer nor all knowing. For instance I don't have the ability to know if an image claimed PD-self really is taken by the person or not. I am forced to make a guess and yes, sometimes I guess wrong. The logic thing would be to fix that image when there is a problem. // Liftarn
- It has nothing to do with punishment. I think your misunderstanding the problem. It has to do with the fact that so many of your uploads are either copyright violations, or are valid, but aren't well enough marked to establish the license (e.g., no source, no information on when it was taken, etc.). Patstuart 17:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- That depends on if we talk about percentage or raw numbers. I think the percentage of questionable images are indeed very low. However since I have transwikied a lot of image even with a low percentage it may be a number of images with errors. I'm not a copyright lawyer so I can only make reasonable judgements. If someone say they made the image themselved and they release the rights and it's not obviously fasle I think I can transfer the image to Commons. I don't require them to sign a written statement in their own blood, in triplicate saying they did take that image. // Liftarn
- It's not about punishing but working together, samarbete. You must be aware that you have made quite a number of mistakes when transferring images. Don't you think it's fair that you help us in fixing those errors? I hope that when you do that you will also be able to calibrate your "sense of copyright paranoia" (as you put it) so that you will have a better success rate in the future. Samulili 05:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- So you suggest I get punished for high activity? // Liftarn
- Keep -- he really has uploaded a lot of images and why waste so much effort on deleting them if there is no actual problem with them. I also don't currently support any restrictions on his uploading abilities. / Fred J 10:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
--Kurosawa.jpg){kind=link}
--Kurosawa.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Wall_Painting.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){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}
![[27]](http://www.halgal.com/graphics/PUR/Eurethnic.jpg){kind=link}
![[28]](http://www.cjcr.cam.ac.uk/gateway/maps/Ethnic16.gif){kind=link}
![[29]](http://raven.cc.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/lect11_files/11pic2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_3.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[33]](http://www.johnrozum.com/images/snidelywhiplash.jpg){kind=link}
![[34]](http://mcgonnigle.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/snidely1.jpg){kind=link}
![[36]](http://www.isntlifeterrible.com/uploaded_images/Snidely-774178.JPG){kind=link}
![[37]](http://www.dogwoodvalley.com/images/snidelynellsp.JPG){kind=link}
![[38]](http://www.stuffucrave.com/image/snidleybobble.jpg){kind=link}
![[39]](http://www.stuffucrave.com/image/dudley.JPG){kind=link}
--Kurosawa.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Kurosawa.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
--Kurosawa.jpg){kind=link}
--Kurosawa.jpg){kind=link}
--Kurosawa.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Kurosawa.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
--Kurosawa.jpg){kind=link}
--Kurosawa.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
![[44]](http://xs220.xs.to/xs220/07421/trmavrma-commons-obrazek1.jpg){kind=link}
![[47]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Violatorregime.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[49]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lagaan.jpg){kind=link}
![[52]](http://faimg1.forum-auto.com/mesimages/58716/Mini%20XXL%20001%20retouchee.jpg){kind=link}
![[53]](http://nouvelles.autonet.ca/FR/Nouvelles/nouveau-modele/2006/09/05/mini_1_big.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[54]](http://www.ilisa.com/panama/pa-images/pics/skyline-night.jpg){kind=link}
![[55]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Image%3AGreathallpeople.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![[62]](http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/4/157972.jpg){kind=link}
![[63]](https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Toseproeski.jpg){kind=link}
![[64]](http://www.yourbrushwiththelaw.com/_pictures/csac/perugia_mugshot.jpg){kind=link}
![[70]](http://hazara.net/hazara/geography/ethnic/ethnicmap1.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[80]](http://www.stonie.org/Bilder/picasso.jpg){kind=link}
![[82]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Messalinde-Jerusalem.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
- Keep -- Some of the transwikied images will have been deleted on the source wikis, so the proposed action would be disruptive to other projects and bring Commons into disrepute. William Avery 12:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Any transwikied image that is only objectionable to Commons on the basis of Fair Use should be deleted on Commons. It should be put back on its source project and could be put on other projects that accept Fair Use, but IFF when put back it is fully compliant with the individual project's policies, including its Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) as described at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Two such EDPs are English Wikipedia's w:en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and Polish Wikinews' n:pl:Wikinews:Dozwolony_użytek?uselang=en. Any pointers to lists of more EDPs (and lists of projects that don't have EDPs) would be helpful; I know Spanish Wikipedia doesn't have one per per es:Wikipedia:Uso legítimo, es:Wikipedia:Votaciones/2006/Cambiar políticas y reglas de uso de imágenes, es:Wikipedia:Sobre el uso legítimo, and es:Fair use, but there are something like 738 projects now. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but you are proposing to delete all this user's uploads, including genuine free content. William Avery 16:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Many of this user's contributions are bad apples. Without a way to segregate the bad apples, they spoil the whole crop. I share the frustration of Patstuart about this user's disregard for proper sourcing. What do you think of Samulili's informal proposal above? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not many, only a small percentage of them. It also utterly unfair to claim I disregard sourcing. For instance I thought PD-self was good enough sourcing for images that are obviously not promo images, but nooo... // Liftarn
- Many of this user's contributions are bad apples. Without a way to segregate the bad apples, they spoil the whole crop. I share the frustration of Patstuart about this user's disregard for proper sourcing. What do you think of Samulili's informal proposal above? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This request is not based on an existing Commons policy, so I think it is unfair. You cannot argue an user violates Commons policy and designs arbitrary measures against him or her at the same time. --Juiced lemon 16:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Commons:Licensing, a member of Category:Commons policies, states very clearly "The information given on the description page should be sufficient to allow others to verify the license status." In many cases of this user's uploads, "[t]he information given on the description page" is not "sufficient to allow others to verify the license status." — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- The issue is: “What do we deal with breachs of this statement?” You cannot work out a special treatment which makes us think that you are acting due to some grievance against user:Liftarn. The treatment must be consensual, and applicable to any similar case. --Juiced lemon 17:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Commons:Licensing, a member of Category:Commons policies, states very clearly "The information given on the description page should be sufficient to allow others to verify the license status." In many cases of this user's uploads, "[t]he information given on the description page" is not "sufficient to allow others to verify the license status." — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep You don't burn the whole orchard for some bad apples. --Magnus Manske 12:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think this is a more general problem then that of a single user transwiking images. To a large extent it is simply to easy to transwiki images. By suggesting the use of the CommonsHelper tool a lot of users are probably led to believe that the only thing they need to do is enter the image name into CommonsHelper and copy paste the output to the Summary field. The result is an image which has almost no useful source information what so ever. "Source = Originally from x.wikipedia; description page is/was here" although useful says nothing at the first glance about where the image is actually from. "Author = Original uploader was Mr. X at x.wikipedia" is even less useful since it fills out the author field with information that doesn't necesseraly have anything to do with who created it. The end result is an image page which doesn't trigger any warnings flags such as "Category: Media lacking a description" but which might in fact contain nu useful information at all. Also whether the uploader has evaluated the information on the original image page doesn't become apparent in the current scheme.
- Wouldn't it be better if all of the info gathered by the CommonsHelper tool instead ended up in the "Original upload log" section and all of the information fields were left blank, then uploaders would be forced to fill out the proper fields and images lacking in source/author information could easily be identified. Also along the same lines of reasoning a bot should probably add every image containing Author=Original uploader was to Category:Transwikied images without source or something similar since the majority of these images don't actually (currently) have a valid source. For a typical example of what I've been talking about see e.g. Image:160SignalBdeDUI.gif, feel free to go to the original image page on en.wiki to doscpver the full joy of badly transwiki'd images. /Lokal_Profil 00:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that CommonsHelper is being misused a lot. That's even a reason why decided to apply for adminship in en:wp (with success) and it has been a useful tool. If only we had more people to patrol... While we don't we might want to be a tad harsher to those who are not up to the job of transferring images ("we've seen you can't do it right, please don't do it anymore"). Another thing that would help in patrolling is if we could tell what other admins have already checked, like with newpages here. (This message is off-topic here...) Samulili 05:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Further comments
[edit]Moved to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Liftarn_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Close. This is leading nowhere. If you have problems with a user, the proper forum is Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Mass deleting all the user's uploads is not a proper solution. If you see images without proper sourcing or licensing, tag them with {{nld}}, {{nsd}} or {{npd}} or fill an individual deletion request. If somebody wants to sanction Liftarn, I refer you to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. We don't deal with that on deletion requests. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I don't know if the image can be used for the Portuguese Wikipedia and I will wait for an answer regarding this issue. --Ravscool 01:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please provide the source and license of this image. If it is not released under a free license, it could not be kept in Commons. --Moonian 13:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like promotional (and thus copyrighted) image for the band. Deadstar (msg) 14:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No licensing information provided; likely copyrighted advertisement copy. -- Avi 22:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio unless proved otherwise.--Londoneye 13:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Copyvio. Deadstar (msg) 15:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Flickr image was uploaded but not reviewed until after the image and the photographer's account were deleted from Flickr. License can never be reviewed/confirmed, and since the description here is incomplete the required atribution (CC-BY-SA-2.0 is claimed) is unknown. Seidenstud 06:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Londoneye 13:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 15:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
image duplicate of image:Zagreb Uspinjača.jpg --Ante Perkovic 14:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate --Suradnik13 13:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate --Londoneye 13:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 15:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of a copyrighted figure 216.145.247.124 19:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- And Image:Schulz Museum lobby.jpg is allowed? -- Fabi 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - and the other one has also been flagged for deletion!--Londoneye 13
- 34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Creator of the character de:Chales M. Schulz died 2000. --JuTa 21:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 15:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no visible permission Kameraad Pjotr 10:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Londoneye 13:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
As stated on the website of the Senate and in the license template that was added to the image, no prior authorisation is required to use the image if it illustrates an article, provided that the source is mentioned.--Ganchelkas 14:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Lupo: per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Senate.be
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Completely useless user image, only used for vandalism twice: [89] and [90] and added in several Wikipedias on similiar pages, mostly in homosexual context without any benefit for the articles.
--RokerHRO 23:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete COM:SCOPE --Moonian 13:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep A very useful image to illustrate a certain sort of emotion. The fact that it can be used for vandalism while having absolutely no X-rate content says something for its power. This is not the Wikipedia. We collect useful material for all existing and potential Wiki projects and beyond. Please Wikipedia editors, if something is inappropriate on a particular page then remove it from there, but don't pursue it into the Commons and try to censor it out of existence. --Simonxag 23:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I initiate the deletion request here because this image is only used by the image uploader for vandalism in several Wikipedia articles. So I suppose it is only uploaded for this purpose: Vandalism. :-( --RokerHRO 15:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete A piece of cloth is emotionless. Bad quality image lacking in description or feature of some interest. --Juiced lemon 17:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've added it to en:Shame, as an illustration, to see what others think. --Simonxag 23:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's a perfectly innocuous image. Do we delete everything that could be misused? If we do, people will just start posting the more obscene images. --Londoneye 13:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is a difference whether an image could be misused or whether an image is uploaded only for the purpose of misuse by the same person. The first one is not a reason for deletion, the latter is IMHO. --RokerHRO 14:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Being used.→Яocket°°° 10:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Superseded by png --ClausG 16:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Londoneye 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded and the image is used. Multichill 21:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted (unused, superseded and bad file format) --ALE! ¿…? 08:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Porque já existe uma versão melhor desta imagem sendo usada. Ela é image:Euphoria editor 2.PNG Ricvelozo 00:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete although not identical, the other image is better and this unused imaged should be deleted. --ALE! ¿…? 08:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"This document can be freely copied and distributed, but you can use it only for personal purposes and non-commercial applications, without modifying it, and with proper citation to the original source. Every other form of distribution and utilization requires a permission from the author/owner. If the document and its cover page contains a Creative Commons licence, then it grants the forms of free use." The is no such license on the source page of the document. Polarlys 13:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Londoneye 13:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 21:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The same for Image:Ravenstone.jpg and Image:RaveCover.jpg
misleading copyright statement on http://www.ravenstoneband.com/terms.shtml
This page states: You agree that all materials displayed and/or contained on ay portion of this web site are our property. You understand that you may not modify, copy distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer or sell any of the materials contained on this site.
Two paragraphs later it states: All files, photos, images and artwork contained on this site not in the public domain are copyrighted by Ravenstone. The copyright holder of these files, photos, images and artwork allows anyone to use them for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted.
I'm sure the images are copyrighted, but unsure about the second clause, which the uploader has refered. GeorgHH 19:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not a lawyertm but the first statement binds the website user to agreeing with something and asserts they know something. Whatever it means it is between the website viewer and the website (a bit like an entrance agreement seen at some museums etc). The later paragraph clearly and explicitly gives anyone a pretty standard attribution required type free license to use the images (however they were obtained) --Tony Wills 11:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep At worst, the site has inadvertently created two different copyright licences. If so, we can rely on the less restrictive one!--Londoneye 13:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Until we can get an OTRS confirmation of what licence cluase the site is using for this specific content, this file has to be deleted as missing permission. Because of the discrepancy of the two paragraphs, the rights released are inherently unclear. If OTRS confirmation has been recieved, then the file can be undeleted. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 21:53, 14 February 2008 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Feel free to download anything you like." is not releasing all rights. --Multichill 21:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- That is correct. I'm going to send a nice email to the author asking for permission. Please wait. Bawolff 21:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I sent an email, but there has not been any response. Based on their website design, I'd say they've abandoned their website (or at least the email address. Imagine how much spam that must get). Any suggestions for contacting? user:Bawolff06:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Sorry, but it's a lot of time without permission, by now. Patrícia msg 10:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Modified versions of UNCS maps may be used provided that the UN name and reference number does not appear on any modified version and a link to the original map is provided." On the left bottom you see the UN name and reference number, so this image doesn't follow the rules. It is also a duplicate of the larger Image:Former Yugoslavia Map.png. Jeroenvrp 20:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as duplicate. The main reason is not valid, though, as it would be easy to trim off the wording.--Londoneye 13:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment the two maps are not identical. --ALE! ¿…? 16:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I've cropped off the name and reference number. And ALE! is right that they're not exact duplicates: this one is from before Montenegro broke off from Serbia.--Damian Yerrick (☎) 22:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're right. Hereby I cancel this nomination. --Jeroenvrp 23:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's a small detail here. From what is stated on the template (which comes from the OTRS permission pasted on the template's talk), the UN maps themselves are UN documents and must not be modified. However, you can draw a new map based of UN maps, because they are a open source (not because they're open source, mind the small difference). However, this just seems contradictory to me, since you can make a new map which will look exactly as the cropped one. Or am I missing something here? Patrícia msg 15:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- The result was keep (withdrawn). This map falls within commons guidelines, as outlined by the template. If anything, the template should be put up for deletion, though, again, it clearly falls within the guidelines. Patstuart (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
October 22
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is owned by Honda making a creative commons license virtually impossible. The same image can currently be seen on Honda's global news site and various car sites. Dusk Knight 03:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, copyvio --Siebrand 09:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please delete it, the correct name is Dimos Elafinas and there the category has been moved. Thanks, User Lemur12.
Deleted - error in name. Deadstar (msg) 09:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
i did not take the photo --20 October 2007 User:Suke2881
- Also for:
- * Image:Bluemink.jpg (a duplicate of Bluemink.JPG)
- * Image:Bluetabbymink.JPG
- * Image:Brownmink3.JPG
- deletion fix Deadstar (msg) 09:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deleted; mistaken upload, uploader deletion request.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image was made in the NRJ radio studios by an employee and was definitely not released to the public domain. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-22 10:56
- Could you provide some source for your claim? --Dezidor 10:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- The image was copied from nl.wp and I just checked the deleted item: the uploader claims PD-self. He has not made that many contributions, 1 edit and the image (nl:Speciaal:Bijdragen/Rob_owned). Siebrand 11:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted, copyvio --Siebrand 11:30, 22 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}
Mail from the artist
- Delete Apparently derivitive; simple photo of someone's contemporary artwork. Artist has complained; See User talk:Immanuel Giel. -- Infrogmation 11:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Speedy deleted. As the artist has come to Commons to make the request, and the uploader requested deletion as well, the case seems clear. -- Infrogmation 11:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright unclear ("Página de Tursimo de Osnabrück") --Fransvannes 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Changed to {{No permission since}} Samulili 18:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright infringement taken without permission from www.deactivated-guns.co.uk 81.149.82.208 17:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: cv
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
uploaded by me by mistake -- 6 October 2007 User:Maveric149
- Delete fix request. Delete at user request (+sign etc. probably copyrighted). Deadstar (msg) 10:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Requested by uploader, and not used. --Kjetil r 23:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Can't be both PD and GFDL, it's a press image so most probably a copyvio. --18 October 2007 User:85.231.127.121
- Delete Looks like copyvio. The site http://www.massproduktion.com/press/pics.htm#USE states clearly that they retain copyright to any materials. Deadstar (msg) 14:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Press photo. --GeorgHH 14:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 10:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong spelling; empty article --Sten 18:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: empty category
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a unneeded category. --17 October 2007 User:Abdullah Köroğlu
- Deletion fix Deadstar (msg) 09:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Why would this category be unneeded? A dozen of images from w:Buoyancy and corresponding articles on other wikis could be placed in it, like
etc. — Xavier, 11:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep User:Abdullah Köroğlu is a new user and has not demonstrated his knowledge of fluid statics: according to this history, he created a duplicate category of Category:Fluid statics. So, his assessment “unneeded category” is worthless. Buoyancy is an encyclopaedic subject, and before Abdullah Köroğlu emptied the category, it was linked to 25 encyclopaedic articles in different 25 languages. We have media files to categorize there, and at least the category Category:Ship stability, which is a special application of buoyancy.
User:Abdullah Köroğlu wants also to destroy the links in this other category, so I strongly suggest to restrict the disruptions made by this user. --Juiced lemon 21:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Kept per consensus. Giggy\Talk 07:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
None of the licenses given are applicable to this image. (They all refer to two-dimensional art, old texts etc.) It appears that two other images uploaded by user were also deleted for the same reason: Incorrect licensing information. Deadstar (msg) 10:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- A bit strange, not the sort of image you would think someone would have to steal, is the user just confused about licensing?. As the licenses chosen are French ones does someone want to post a query on her talk page in French checking whether they are indeed 'self-made' as described in 'Source' --Tony Wills 10:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Other speedy deletions; no license
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader removed PD-self tag. I cannot readily tell if this should stay or go. Need comment. Jusjih 00:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader removed tag within hours of upload, so release to PD was not his original intention. --Simonxag 12:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There is now no copyright licence. Anyway, it lools too much like the Adobe Reader logo.--Londoneye 13:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Also out of scope. Samulili 07:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
claims to be the photographer, but the image is also found at http://www.kprm.gov.pl/s.php?bio=72&path=3252 Evil Monkey 03:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless the uploader can provide better quality - which they can if they are the author. Samulili 18:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 07:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Even if the composite picture is made by uploader, the shots used are not sourced. Delete. Deadstar (msg) 08:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation 09:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Could use {{derivative}}. Samulili 18:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 07:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
mistakenly created. There is already a file named "Fire symbol.svg" 21 October 2007 User:Reame
- Delete I can't see any other svg with the 'same' name, but the image renders the same image as Image:Water symbol.svg although the file size is different, so can probably be deleted as a duplicate. --Tony Wills 10:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Broken SVG. Samulili 07:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
mistakenly created. There is already a file named "Water symbol.svg" 21 October 2007 User:Reame
- Comment Doesn't that strange image mean that the image is broken? If yes, delete. Samulili 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- DeleteAs a blue blob I had assumed it was something to do with water, but yes it appears to be showing an icon for SVG images. The file turns out to be a misnamed bitmap image similar to Image:Water symbol.jpg. So delete as a 'corrupt' SVG image. --Tony Wills 21:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Broken svg. Samulili 07:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Leaving wikipedia, hoping for my user page to be speedily deleted --8 October 2007 User:Tmh
- Fixed deletion request. Deadstar (msg) 09:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think we usually delete user pages, but there are no significant contributions or history by this user, nothing would be lost by the deletion --Tony Wills 10:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Samulili 18:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. User's own request. Samulili 07:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Requested by author, waiting to identify species exactly and determine usability -- 20 October 2007 User:EHM02667
- Deletion fix. Not sure whether user wants it to be identified or deleted? If not identified, then delete as image cannot be used. Deadstar (msg) 09:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It has been identified as a Datura (possibly Datura stramonium), It is actually quite a good illustration of a Datura plant and seed capsule, I see no need to delete, just rename it to something more meaningful (there is no need for an exact species/variety identification for it to be useful to commons. --Tony Wills 10:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay--I was on the fence about whether it was good enough to use. Still, we have to delete it and upload a new one with a new name, yes? I read the other day that a rename feature has not yet been developed. --Eric my en:wp talk page 13:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- @EMH: Yeah, rename isn't possible - so if you could upload it again, and put the new name in this request, we can delete this one as being "badly named duplicate" of the other one? Thanks in advance! Deadstar (msg) 14:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- User just needs to add {{rename|Datura with seed pod}}, which saves having a deletion discussion --Tony Wills 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi all- I took a couple new pics today and have uploaded one of them instead as the plant now has a blossom in addition to the pod. I wish it were easier to temporarily upload a few for comparison. It's not superb, but if you all agree it is preferable, we can delete the first, keep the new and put it in the Datura category, right? --Eric my en:wp talk page 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I find if you don't know exactly what a thing is, upload it with a descriptive filename (eg "Plant with spikey seed pod"), then it doesn't need to be renamed later. (Despite the protestations of some) there is not any real need for a filename to be the name of the plant as the search facilities also look at the descriptive text and a filename is only in one language and searchers could be using any language, much more important to have a good description (and translations). Now we have two images showing different stages of development, still no need to delete the original :-) --Tony Wills 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Tony- I see you added the rename template. I didn't know that existed--is it brand new? I didn't really want to delete the original if it had value, just couldn't find any mechanism for renaming other than delete and re-upload. Are you familiar with the bug I linked above? If the rename feature is now working, I should update that bug. --Eric my en:wp talk page 02:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- {{Rename}} was apparently created in Aug 2006, but like many things here, it may be difficult to find, probably listed on one of those nice intro templates posted on new user talk-pages, too bad if you're an old user :-) --Tony Wills 08:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I posted the rename template link on the above bug page. Thanks again. --Eric my en:wp talk page 12:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- {{Rename}} was apparently created in Aug 2006, but like many things here, it may be difficult to find, probably listed on one of those nice intro templates posted on new user talk-pages, too bad if you're an old user :-) --Tony Wills 08:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Tony- I see you added the rename template. I didn't know that existed--is it brand new? I didn't really want to delete the original if it had value, just couldn't find any mechanism for renaming other than delete and re-upload. Are you familiar with the bug I linked above? If the rename feature is now working, I should update that bug. --Eric my en:wp talk page 02:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I find if you don't know exactly what a thing is, upload it with a descriptive filename (eg "Plant with spikey seed pod"), then it doesn't need to be renamed later. (Despite the protestations of some) there is not any real need for a filename to be the name of the plant as the search facilities also look at the descriptive text and a filename is only in one language and searchers could be using any language, much more important to have a good description (and translations). Now we have two images showing different stages of development, still no need to delete the original :-) --Tony Wills 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- @EMH: Yeah, rename isn't possible - so if you could upload it again, and put the new name in this request, we can delete this one as being "badly named duplicate" of the other one? Thanks in advance! Deadstar (msg) 14:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay--I was on the fence about whether it was good enough to use. Still, we have to delete it and upload a new one with a new name, yes? I read the other day that a rename feature has not yet been developed. --Eric my en:wp talk page 13:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Kept. Tagged with {{rename}}. Samulili 07:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please delete. I accidentally uploaded the wrong file. Jack1956 09:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per user request. Image is out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 12:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 07:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture is from many decades ago. This is not the creator but a fake sockpuppet account. --20 October 2007 User:Le Behnam
- deletion fix Deadstar (msg) 13:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete {{No permission since}}, {{No license since}}. Samulili 18:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 07:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader is not the author of photo. ALE! ¿…? 13:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 07:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader is not the author of the image. ALE! ¿…? 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 07:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader is not the author of the photo. ALE! ¿…? 13:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 07:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:FOP EugeneZelenko 14:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted, COM:FOP#USA. Samulili 07:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
por quality, nodescription —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.178.15.101 (talk • contribs)
- Descriptin (and category) added. Try to find a better picture of a white german shepherd. They are very rare. // Liftarn
- Kept. So far it's our best close up of the head of a white German shepherd. Samulili 07:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No indication author died before 1957 or this was taken before 1923 --Patstuart 18:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Mabel Normand died in 1930, but her last movie is from 1927. // Liftarn —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC).
- Original uploader listed source as a tripod.com page that no longer has anything relevent, and listed as PD-US. I will place a request for information on the talk page of the en:Wikipedia Mabel Normand page. If no evidence surfaces that this predates 1923 or is PD for some other reason, delete. -- Infrogmation 22:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- We could ofcourse just replace it with a suitable image from http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0635667/photogallery like this that is from 1918. I also found a very simmilar image at http://www.angelfire.com/mn/hp/picsb.html (may be from the same set or just cropped differently) // Liftarn —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
- I've uploaded the first one and a few others into a Category:Mabel Normand -- there is no shortage of Mabel Normand images pre 1923 easily found online, plus some other PD photos on loc.gov. -- Infrogmation 17:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- We could ofcourse just replace it with a suitable image from http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0635667/photogallery like this that is from 1918. I also found a very simmilar image at http://www.angelfire.com/mn/hp/picsb.html (may be from the same set or just cropped differently) // Liftarn —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 23:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Tagged no source, turned down. Only source is ms.wikipedia, and it appears likely to be a copyvio --Patstuart 19:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- My mistake, I thought the image had been fully transferred from ms:wp including that is was deleted there. It was tagged with nsd on 6 October, so you may delete it right away. Samulili 19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No source given at http://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imej:Abby.jpg --GeorgHH 20:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 20:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bad file version --Darius Bauzys 08:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please specify the "good" file version. --ALE! ¿…? 10:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedily deleted per author request - not in use, doesn't appear to be problematic to delete this, feel free to restore/request restoration if necessary ~ Riana ⁂ 17:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
failed attempt --16 October 2007 User:Slashme
- deletion fix. Deadstar (msg) 13:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Slashme 09:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - User requested. Giggy\Talk 07:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 15:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is privative software, subject to copyright. It is not allowed to use it in Commons. --Jgaray 14:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Indeed. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 06:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The text illustrated by this screenshot is copyrighted. The Citizendium does not license its content under the GFDL, or any free license, for that matter. This is a copyvio. Boricuæddie 18:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete {{derivative}}. Samulili 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Since one of their potential options is NC, it cannot be said that it is certain that the licensing will be acceptable for Commons. -- Avi 15:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I can tell you that no one at Citizendium is even remotely concerned. Stephen Ewen 09:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- It'll be about two weeks from now when the license is chosen. Stephen Ewen 23:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted — obvious copyright violation. --Boricuæddie 18:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Obsolete. Updated version is Image:Putnam Division map2.png --70.109.59.44 01:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
kept, image is in use --ALE! ¿…? 10:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
No longer in use. Obsolete. Updated version is Image:Putnam Division map2.png. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It would be good to keep because well know our train timetables. Tharnton345 06:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Koalorka
[edit]- Image:Smith & Wesson Model 5906.jpg ()
- Image:Sterling SMG.jpg ()
- Image:Enfield P14.jpg ()
- Image:Jungle carbine.jpg ()
- Image:Webley revolver.jpg ()
- Image:MAB pistol left.jpg ()
- Image:Walther P38 left.jpg ()
- Image:Arwen right.jpg ()
- Image:Beretta Px4 Storm.jpg ()
- Image:Browning PRO-9.jpg ()
- Image:Smith & Wesson Model 5906.jpg ()
- Image:Draganov leftside.jpg ()
- Image:SIG 2009 left.jpg ()
- Image:SIG 2009.jpg ()
- Image:XD rightslide.jpg ()
- Image:XD right.jpg ()
- Image:PPK left.jpg ()
- Image:PPK right.jpg ()
- Image:Glock 17 tact light 2.jpg ()
- Image:MP5K left.jpg ()
- Image:MP5A3 left.jpg ()
- Image:MP5A3 right.jpg ()
- Image:M3 leftside.jpg ()
- Image:M3 rightside.jpg ()
- Image:Draganovkit.jpg ()
- Image:Draganov leftside.jpg ()
- Image:Draganov rightside.jpg ()
- Image:Galil 9.jpg ()
- Image:Stechkin 9.jpg ()
- Image:Stechkin 5.jpg ()
- Image:Mp41 2s.jpg ()
- Image:BNZ-MP40s.jpg ()
- Image:Spas12dd.jpg ()
- Image:GalilSAR.jpg ()
- Image:Sig 542-10.jpg ()
- Image:SIG 710-3-2.jpg ()
- Image:SIG 710-3-1.jpg ()
- Image:SG552-4.jpg ()
- Image:SG552-3.jpg ()
- Image:SG552-2.jpg ()
- Image:SG552-12.jpg ()
- Image:SG552-4.jpg ()
Every single one of this user's uploads has been a copyvio from http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk. The uploader has lied about them in the past: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mp41 2s.jpg. I've been going through tagging them, finding the URL, but I've ultimately just lost patience, as it's become obvious they're all going to be copyvios anyway. The style is always the same (white background), and the image can invariably be found by doing a google search on the deactivated-guns.co.uk site for the name of the gun (e.g., http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.deactivated-guns.co.uk+Browning+pro-9 produces Image:Browning PRO-9.jpg ) . Patstuart 18:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Unless uploader promptly comes up with some reasonable explanation, delete all and indefinately block uploader as serial copyright violator. -- Infrogmation 22:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
All deleted; user blocked. O2 (息 • 吹) 03:10, 23 October 2007 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author died 46 years ago, not 50 years ago. Author is from England, and this was probably done there, so pd-old-100 doesn't apply either --Patstuart 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Looks like there is still some years left before this is PD. -- Avi 20:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 08:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image description says it all: Presumed to be in the public domain. If copyright exists in this image, use here is asserted to be fair use. --Patstuart 19:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete According to en.wp, the first BMW 801s ran in 1939, so chances are someone still has the copyright on this picture. :/ Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
No idea, needs someone with expertise in German copyright laws. // Liftarn —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC).
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 08:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
License is wrong (no indication author died 50 years ago), original upload states {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|the use is non-commercial and that copyright is attributed.}} Permission to use: [91], clearly showing non-commercial disallowed. --Patstuart 19:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- the owner of http://www.koepenick.net/ only scanned the picture, imho he can not restrict any use of the picture because he is not the copyright holder. The question is how old the picture is. It is from around 1900 but i can not say it more accurate. --BLueFiSH.as 04:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Images with unknown author are from the date of publication, right? Otherwise images like Image:Haljesta.jpg may be a problem since don't know when the artist died. // Liftarn —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC).
- Images with unknown author should have a source that says that the author is unknown. Just because we don't know the author doesn't mean anything. For a postcard such as this one, diligent research in archives can be used to find out who took that photo. At the very least, the photographer's studio can be identified by getting hold of the original (it's usually mentioned on the back).
- As to your point regarding Image:Haljesta.jpg: I hope you were joking. Cave paintings such as these are not copyrighted. (Usually. But see Himmelsscheibe von Nebra#Urheber- und Markenrecht and Editio princeps#Der Fall Himmelsscheibe for some real perversion of copyright law!!!) But photographs of such cave painting may be copyrighted. In our case the photographer himself created and uploaded that image, so it's fine.
- In general, for images of older artwork, I think we can safely assume that the author died more than 70 years ago if the artwork is older than about 150 years. (Assuming the author was 20 when he produced the work, and lived another 80 years). If the work was published way back, it should be fine in general (modulo some special cases). If it remained unpublished until recently, it may be copyrighted all the same. See Publication right, and WP:PD#Unpublished works. Lupo 10:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 08:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Postcard from the 1920's; no indication of public domain --Patstuart 19:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 08:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation, uploader is not the original photographer -- User:Mazbln 19:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC) (deletion request fixed --Tony Wills 22:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC))
- It´s A photography of an election poster. What is the problem? --Modzzak 21:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- The question is: Is the photography on the poster (which is the main part of the immage) under a free licence or public domain? Otherwise, the original photography is a copyright violation and cannot be used within Wikimedia. --Mazbln 07:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I also have photos that are more distant from the election poster so that you can see more of the surroundig behind it. Would it be useful to upload these ones? --Modzzak 11:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- As long as the aim of the photograph is to show the picture of Franjo Tudjman I have my doubts. --Mazbln 22:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- But on that pic is also the slogan.--Modzzak 20:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 08:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
we (cnum.cnam.fr) are the copyright holders of 163.173.229.158 10:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This engraving is one of many done by Louis Poyet (1846-1913); see [92], [93], [94]. The IP resolves to CNAM. Si vous pensez sérieusement d'avoir des droits d'auteur a ce scan d'une publication de 1882, veuillez s'il vous plaît contacter notre "designated agent". Lupo 11:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC) ("Please contact our designated agent if you really think you had a copyright on this scan of an 1882 publication.")
- BTW, a print of this engraving is also for sale at here... Lupo 11:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
too poor of quality --5 October 2007 User:165.139.131.1
- deletion fix. Quality isn't great, I agree. Deadstar (msg) 14:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Could be worse. Maybe it's the best one we have of this place? Samulili 19:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
kept, image is used --ALE! ¿…? 16:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There are two problems with this image:
- The permission in OTRS is "Our materials are not copyrighted and may be redistributed freely." This is clear but the permission also points to http://www.PETA.org/about and at http://www.peta.org/about/site.asp it says "Unless otherwise indicated, PETA materials are not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely for personal, noncommercial use" which can't be right. Question #1: Do we accept images from peta.org?
- On en:wp the give source was http://fakty.interia.pl/gal/galeria?photoId=260384&galId=6805&nr=1 not PETA.org. Question #2: Do we accept the claim that this image comes from PETA.org? Samulili 18:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, because:
- PETA don't understand copyright law. That they can say "not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely for personal, noncommercial use" without experiencing severe cognitive dissonance from contradicting themselves in the same sentence shows this. Until they make up their minds whether their images are copyrighted or not, delete this and all images from peta.org.
- No, we don't, unless someone finds that same image on peta.org—the source information is misleading. It should be nuked for that reason alone.
- Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems there are two licenses, one obtained from the site (with the NC, personal requirement) and one we got via OTRS that says they are free to distrubute. That means we can choose what license to use. // Liftarn —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC).
- As Samulili said, the permission in OTRS points to the page on peta.org. The terms on the aforementioned page are unacceptable for the commons. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 20:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 20:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader is surely not the author of the badge. ALE! ¿…? 13:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 22:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
mala imagen con ordenador detras Lagrasia 17:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted as a derivative --ALE! ¿…? 10:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Better picture available -- Sloyment 00:38, 6. Okt. 2007 (CEST)
deleted (bad quality, probably a scan, unused and superseded) --ALE! ¿…? 08:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Publicity --13 October 2007 User:85.57.69.50
- deletion fix. Deadstar (msg) 09:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The can design is simplistic, the Coke logo long ago expired. -Nard 01:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete We in Commons cannot decide what it simplistic and what is not. This can artwork comprises a Coke logo (expired), a zero logo (not expired, copyrighted) and some artwork that obviously, and even, simplistic, is copyrighted. Therefore, delete as derivative. --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 15:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. There is more to this than the out-of-copyright Coke logo. MichaelMaggs 06:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looking at the upload history of the uploader, I have strong doubts that the uploader is in fact the author of this COA. ALE! ¿…? 13:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
And whwre is the proof that the uploader isn't the author of this COA? Respect the work of other. I say don't delete and i say thank you to uploader for his work--Gaetano56 17:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Kept. I have my doubts too (it looks scanned), but no substantial grounds on which to delete. →Rocket°°° 07:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Kein Panoramafreiheit für Wahlplakate (No en:Panoramafreiheit for election ads) --User:Petar Marjanovic 19:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Bild gehört zu einem Artikel in der deutschen Wikipedia. Der Gegenstand hier ist schon eher das sich die SVP keine Freund macht in der Schweiz, und viele der Plakate vandaliert wurden, so auch dieses! behalten --Fundriver 01:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, this is interesting. Both German and Swiss law consider "freedom of panorama" to apply to works that are placed permanently on public spaces; "permanently" means in both countries "for the natural lifetime of the work". It could be argued that the natural lifetime of an election poster extends only to the end of the election. (It won't be used for future elections.) Hence, despite the fact that the poster was displayed only for a few weeks, the photo might actually be covered by FOP... Note that in Swiss copyright law, FOP also applies to two-dimensional works, if they're permanently installed in a public place. I wonder what User:Historiograf would say on that case... Lupo 10:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Off-topic: the image title is pretty bad, the poster has not been "randaliert" but "verunstaltet" ("vandalized"). Lupo 10:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
In de WP we didn't accept such items (Werbung für zeitlich begrenzte Veranstaltungen, wenn die Plakate danach wieder abgeräumt werden bzw. werden müssen) --Historiograf 10:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- +1; siehe dazu auch de:Panoramafreiheit#Das_Kriterium_.E2.80.9Ebleibend.E2.80.9C --77.133.13.109 17:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Imho this is not "Werbung für zeitlich begrenzte Veranstaltungen" but - because of the vandalism - an historical document showing the public disput during the campain of federal election 2007 in Switzerland. Keep it. -- 84.75.241.71 00:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per Historiograf's comment. Lupo 14:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader is not the author of this COA. (See source) ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- The same applies to:
- --ALE! ¿…? 13:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. All rights reserved in all site contents.Patrícia msg 10:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No indication author died before 1957, or this was taken before 1923 --Patstuart 18:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Kathryn Adams stopped making films in 1925. // Liftarn —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC).
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Furmeyer
[edit]
- Older images and other images appearing as falsely tagged pd-self
- Added information from German wikipedia as image is from there. --Svens Welt 11:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- keep - all license information was available at de: and copyied, de-file deleted due to "nowcommons" --Schwalbe 21:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- kept - above image was tagged in error.
- Image:Viefville.jpg ()
- Image:Roy004.jpg ()
- Image:Mottet agathe plaque.JPG () (not much proof on this one, but given uploader's other history of incorrect statements)
- Image:Mottet agathe.jpg ()
- Image:Roy christian.JPG ()
- Above appear kosher, per below. 18:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Apparent seals, without a source or proper tag explaining why the seal is public domain.
(many appear to be pd-old, but I can't tell without better information than "self"; these may simply need relicensing and proper summaries)
- Image:Blason Jean II des Barres.jpg ()
- Image:Blason gaucher II.jpg ()
- Image:Blason chatillon.jpg ()
- Image:Blason montholon.jpg ()
- Image:Blason barres.jpg ()
- Image:Blason Groult des Rivières.jpg ()
- Image:Blason la fare.jpg ()
- Image:Blason gannay chancelier.jpg ()
- Image:Blason ganay.jpg ()
- Image:Blason le flamenc.jpg ()
- Image:Blason viefville.jpg ()
- Image:Blason le clerc.jpg ()
- Image:Blason lyrot.jpg ()
- Image:Blason d'allonville.jpg ()
- Image:Blason toulongeon.jpg ()
The first group of photos is pretty obviously wrongly tagged as pd-self, and has no source. The second group is a lot of seal; this may or may not be public domain in the said countries, and some appear to be pd-old (i.e., the seal for a king from 1480), but it's impossible to tell without better sourcing. Patstuart 17:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Patstuart. I don't speak very well English, but this images come from my family. Antonin Lecouteux was the father of uncle's wife and there is no problem of copywright. I'm the last member of this family (with my son, but he is very young !). Antonin Lecouteux taked this images in Barcelone, and they are not official. If you don't understand me, I can't take a dictionary o escribir en español, no hay problemas de copywrigt, las imágenes vienen del padre de mi tía y no hay problemas para mi cara tía. Su padre les tomaba en Barcelona en 1936.
- If you don't understand, I have an other uncle's wife who comes from Buffalo. Para traducir, tengo una otra mujer de tío norteamericana.
- Furmeyer 20:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have crossed out some images on top (they look good). However, can you name the source from which you found these seals? Also, several of the pictures could not have been taken by your great uncle, and we need to know where you originally got them from: (e.g., Image:Roy004.jpg). Gracias. He tachado los imágenes de arriba (la licencia es buena). Aún así, puede nombrar la fuente de donde consiguió los sellos? Además, varias fotos no no pudieran ser sacados por su bis-tío (e.g., Image:Roy004.jpg), y necesitamos saber la fuente. Patstuart 18:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Dear Mr Patstuart,
- First of all, thank you for the great interest you took in consulting my sites. The seals and drawings you're mentioning are mine. I did draw them myself. I must also emphasize the fact that the photos were taken by me just as well.
- I remain at your disposal for any further information you may desire.
- With best regards,
- Comment Are the ones crossed out above OK-ed? Deadstar (msg) 12:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The result was kept. I may nominate other images in the future separately to avoid confusion. Patstuart (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The person shown is a former Uruguayian President. Therefore I doubt that Argentine copyright applies. ALE! ¿…? 15:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- The same also applies to:
- --ALE! ¿…? 15:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
If those photograps were first published in Argentina, the Argentinian copyright laws applies. So the question seems to be: ¿where they were first published? --Zeroth 06:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete if there is no proof that the pictures were first published in Argentina (which I also regard as somewhat improbable). Patrícia msg 10:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted / A.J. 11:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photo might not be old enough for PD-old. ALE! ¿…? 15:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- This also applies to a serie of other photos showing former Uruguayian Presidents tagged with {{PD-old}}. Due to time restrictions I am not listing all of them here. --ALE! ¿…? 15:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Born 1863, died 1934, was in office until 1916, age in photo late 40s early 50s? So taken about 90 years ago? --Tony Wills 10:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- And who was the photographer and when did he die? Copyright usually does not care abou the age of the photo but about the time that has passed since the death of the photographer. --ALE! ¿…? 11:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Is there an anonymous law in Uruguay? {{PD-Uruguay}} only says 50 years since the death of the author, yet the university itself says nothing about authorship, and given the appearance of the earlier images, it may be a modern sketch. There Delete until we can get better info on the image. Patstuart (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- PS. Anyone want to email university? Patstuart (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is there an anonymous law in Uruguay? {{PD-Uruguay}} only says 50 years since the death of the author, yet the university itself says nothing about authorship, and given the appearance of the earlier images, it may be a modern sketch. There
- And who was the photographer and when did he die? Copyright usually does not care abou the age of the photo but about the time that has passed since the death of the photographer. --ALE! ¿…? 11:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Born 1863, died 1934, was in office until 1916, age in photo late 40s early 50s? So taken about 90 years ago? --Tony Wills 10:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / A.J. 15:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It seems that the uploader is not the author of the photo (see the word: "Colection"). ALE! ¿…? 13:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree - probably not on balance uploaded by Martín Otero. But is it worth at least considering changing the licensing instead of a straight deletion? How many chances are we likely to have a pictured of a scuttled submarine just post its scuttling, which is basically located on a deserted and not often visit island? To my mind, a wrong choice of licensing by the original uploader, but could qualify for Fair Use rational. Rgds - 86.138.218.57 23:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 12:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The words "Colección Martín Otero" in the author field suggest that the uploader might no be the author. ALE! ¿…? 13:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Notice that the uploader user name is Martin Otero. His user name in Spanish Wikipedia is Miotero and he contributed several articles about Argentine militar ships and harbors. So I assume good faith and that he is the author of this picture. Best regards, Alpertron 11:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. A number of earlier uploads of his have already been deleted. They were all also marked as coming from his collection, but it turned out they weren't his images. Lupo 12:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The permission look to me like a Wikipedia only permission. This is not mentioned explicitly but the text of the e-mail asking for permission might have created this impression. ALE! ¿…? 13:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
El permiso fue obtenido siguiendo las indicaciones de la Wikipedia. El texto del mensaje es el que Wikipedia pone a modo de ejemplo. Por favor, te pido si es posible, que me respondas en castellano. Muchas Gracias. Emilianot221 19:00, 04 Nov 2007 (GTM-3)
- Te pido que mandes el permiso a OTRS para que la gente alli lo guarda y lo evalua. Si fuera necesario un cambio en el permiso o algo asi, ellos te diran. --ALE! ¿…? 08:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Mantener/Keeep el permiso dice claramente que acepta GFDL. Si se puede verificar que ha sido emitido por quien sea responsable de darlo, es suficiente para mantenerlo. Barcex 19:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ya se ha enviado el permiso a OTRS? Si no, podemos marcar la imagen con {{npd}}. Patstuart (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have left a note on the uploaders talk page. If that doesnt work, the uploader has email enabled, so an admin should email the user before deleting the image. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have sent an email with specific instructions on how to do this. Si tenemos un mes más, sugiero que lo borremos. Patstuart (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have left a note on the uploaders talk page. If that doesnt work, the uploader has email enabled, so an admin should email the user before deleting the image. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - uploader has sent copy of emails to me; I am forwarding to OTRS. "Tienen el permiso para reproducir estas imágenes del nuevo estadio de Estudiantes de La Plata, y aceptamos la licencia GFDL." This is quite easily enough. I am asking for the source from the uploader as well. Patstuart (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)`
Kept. giggy (:O) 03:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
October 23
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request --Chdeppisch1 21:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 11:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Exact Duplicate of Leaning Tower of Pisa JD03092007.jpg, but wrong name --JDrewes 22:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC) --JDrewes 22:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Unused exact duplicate. Deadstar (msg) 11:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request --Chdeppisch1 21:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This picture is from the Website of the friends of Radio Vatican.--Chdeppisch1 21:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I listed this for speedy deletion yesterday; oddly, it's still around... Patstuart 17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Copyright violation; no license
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request --Chdeppisch1 21:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Copyright violation; no license
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Already deleted once; uploader claims it doesn't violate intellectual rights, because it simply follows the set pattern described in Article 5 of some statute: a circle divided by three vertical sections of the color green, white and red .... I'm fairly sure, however, that it's still a copyright violation. I see nothing on the PRI website stating it was free usage; in fact, it states "Todos los Derechos Reservados" - "All Rights Reserved". I have placed up for deletion so that author has time to establish permission, if possible --Patstuart 17:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dodo 13:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No author of the photo is named, only a scan from a book. The model is from the 1930s/1940s, the photographer is surely not 70 years dead. The creator of the model probably also has rights. BLueFiSH.as 03:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I transferred this one from Wikipedia. I think the best thing to do is to delete the one here, and I'll change the licence on the one there to non-free historic image instead. Hellbus 21:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would propose that. --BLueFiSH.as 02:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- What is the procedure for doing that? Hellbus 21:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- An undeletion of the image in en.wp should work. I don't know where to request this in en.wp, probably en:Wikipedia:Deletion review could be the right place. --BLueFiSH.as 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- The original image is still there; it just has a different filename. The one here can go away. Hellbus 02:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- An undeletion of the image in en.wp should work. I don't know where to request this in en.wp, probably en:Wikipedia:Deletion review could be the right place. --BLueFiSH.as 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- What is the procedure for doing that? Hellbus 21:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would propose that. --BLueFiSH.as 02:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: Copyright violation
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bad file version --Darius Bauzys 08:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please specify the "good" file version. --ALE! ¿…? 10:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedily deleted per author request - not in use, doesn't appear to be problematic to delete this, feel free to restore/request restoration if necessary ~ Riana ⁂ 17:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Apparent derivative work of copyrighted image [95]. Darkwind 21:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
![[95]](http://www.unice.info/unice/images/header.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Mormegil 17:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is my photo and I uploaded the wrong one! Littlemama 21:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, although the photograph doesn't look as though it's homemade. Deadstar (msg) 11:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Looks more like a graphic image than a photograph. -- Avi 14:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader's request. (unused) Rocket000 03:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
misspelling during the transfert, corrected with Image:Sisikon - Axenstrasse.jpg Oblic blabla 00:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted - Alison ❤ 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Who is the photographer, and did he license the work under those terms? 83.64.118.178 17:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / A.J. 14:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It looks like fake. Not just to me. See: [Image talk] and [Talk at en.wikipedia.org page about LiOn] --Jary 11:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Very much so. It looks like someone's stuck a couple of pieces of burnt firewood to it... Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Infrogmation 21:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This image does not represent the outcome it suggests. -- 76.199.96.175 21:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It looks fake, but even if it were real, what is the purpose of including this image? The battery is placed on top of the keyboard, makes no sense at all. Please delete this!
I believe this is the original source: [96]
There are additional photos of this laptop here: [97]
Well, it's white because of fire extinguisher chemicals. To me, that looks consistent with a burned battery. Now I don't understand why the battery is melted onto the keyboard rather than burning through the internal battery bay area. It doesn't wholly make sense that a person would eject a burning batt only to place it back onto the laptop, in fact it seems unlikely a person would pick up a burning batt once ejected at all. Perhaps it began only smoking and the person simply used the laptop as a tray to carry the burning batt out of the building. While it's illogical to use such a valuable item to dispose of a burning batt, it would hardly the first time somebody did something weird when a fire starts in front of them. Could the batt have been placed on top of the laptop before catching fire, perhaps it had been removed because it's malfunctioning? Again, unusual though certainly not impossible. --Danny Miller 00:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
--I think the battery was inside the laptop, it caught on fire, and he used a fire extinguisher to put it out. Later on, he took the batteries out of the laptop, and put them ontop the laptop to show what had happeend to the laptop and the computer in one picture.
David Van's response...
IT IS REAL!!!!!!!!!
71.108.30.163 05:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Outside project scope.Nilfanion 22:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author is not mentioned. {{PD-GermanGov}} does not apply to images taken by government employees. The photo is copyrighted until 70 years after the author's death. 91.65.124.34 15:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- ACK. {{PD-GermanGov}} does not make any sense here. --Svencb 00:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- This should not delete it. The reason is because there has been already the same image.--GooGooDoll2 01:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Photo from 1942. (Other sources give 1943.) Lupo 15:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photo by en:Heinrich Hoffmann who died in 1957. So it's copyrighted until January 1st 2028. 91.65.124.34 15:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I object to deletion. It is him to have photographed this photograph. But, as for this image, processing is considered to be it.
And it is me to have done the processing.--GooGooDoll2 01:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Processing does not give you any copyright. And even if it were so, Hoffmann's heirs would still be the copyright owners and you would need their permission to publish this photo under a free license. --88.134.141.133 15:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Hoffmann photos are copyrighted in the source country (Germany) until 70years p.m.a. Lupo 15:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
{{PD-GermanGov}} does not apply, as this is not "part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment". The Bundesanstalt Technisches Hilfswerk cannot be the author as only natural persons can be authors. And the date 1955 shows that it is not old enough to be {{PD-old}}. 91.65.124.34 15:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- The picture ist work of the german goverement. It is presented on an official website of the german goverment. So it is public domain.
- It is wrong the only natural persons can be authors, in germany non natural persons, like companies and institutions can be have right's on pictures.
- This image is in the public domain according to German copyright law because it is part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment (official work) issued by a German federal or state authority or court (§ 5 Abs.1 UrhG).
- Please look up the German Urheberrechtsgesetz!
- Explanations you will find in Wikimedia Commons Commons:Lizenzen#Deutschland or English Commons:Licensing#official_works
- 91.89.199.124 12:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- There was still a request for deletion in June 2007 it was stopped, because i have added the correct licence information!!! I wrote in June:
- This Imagine is Public Domain, because it is from a GO (Govermental Organisation), Bundesanstalt Technisches Hilfswerk I had writen this to the licenc. HBR 07:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Look the diskussion on june on: User_talk:HBR#Image_Tagging_Image:Otto_Lummitzsch.jpg
- HBR 16:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- There was still a request for deletion in June 2007 it was stopped, because i have added the correct licence information!!! I wrote in June:
Keep
- Nobody votes for a deletion between 23. October 2007 an 21. Nov. So I close the discusion after 4 weeks of no comments for a deletion. HBR 08:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- The THW can't be the author of the image, only a real person can be the author. Of course it's possible that the THW aquired the usage rights for this image from the author. But this does not mean that the image is automatically Public domain. {{PD-GermanGov}} only applies to images published "part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment (official work) issued by a German federal or state authority or court". The website of the THW is no such source. Not all images in the possession of the German government or one of its agencies are automatically PD. Please provide proof that the THW has the rights to this image and released it into the public domain. --88.134.141.133 15:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- The THW can't be the author of the image, only a real person can be the author. Of course it's possible that the THW aquired the usage rights for this image from the author. But this does not mean that the image is automatically Public domain. {{PD-GermanGov}} only applies to images published "part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment (official work) issued by a German federal or state authority or court". The website of the THW is no such source. Not all images in the possession of the German government or one of its agencies are automatically PD. Please provide proof that the THW has the rights to this image and released it into the public domain. --88.134.141.133 15:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- The THW can be author. In german lore exist juristic persons! So the THW as an juristic person can be author, if the picture is made by or for THW!
Deleted. {{PD-GermanGov}} does not apply. Lupo 15:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
BadJPEG, Superseded by SVG version Stannered 15:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Because this image is used on vi.wikipedia and the SVG replacement is not exactly the same as this image, this image is kept. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:47, 23 February 2008 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Deleted. Quadell (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
No author given. Only date is uploader's rough estimate. Lupo 07:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
{{PD-GermanGov}} does not apply to random old images from Germany. Image is copyrighted until 70 years after the author's death. 91.65.124.34 15:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I object to deletion determinedly. The person who photographed this photograph is already dead very in old days.--GooGooDoll2 01:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- We need the date of death of the photographer. Without this information, we have to assume that the image is still copyrighted. --Kam Solusar 22:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted (wrong license, no info on author) --ALE! ¿…? 10:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
{{PD-GermanGov}} does not apply to random old images from Germany. Image is copyrighted until 70 years after the author's death. 91.65.124.34 15:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / A.J. 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
{{PD-GermanGov}} does not apply to random old images from Germany. Image is copyrighted until 70 years after the author's death. 91.65.124.34 15:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I object to deletion determinedly. In the first place this image was announced as his search for a wanted man photograph in the world. I may not know it, but he is a war criminal.--GooGooDoll2 01:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- The status of the depicted person does not in any way influence the copyrights of the photographer. --88.134.141.133 15:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / A.J. 13:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No information why PD-Japan should apply for a German photo. -- 88.134.141.54 14:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Keepノンノン。これは日本では既に著作権切れなりよ。だから保持。--El torero 12:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted / A.J. 08:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
{{PD-GermanGov}} does not apply to random old images from Germany. Image is copyrighted until 70 years after the author's death. 91.65.124.34 15:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete--KENPEI 23:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am against deletion. This photograph was announced as a search for a wanted man photograph in the whole world by the authorities. There is not the authority to delete to a person using the name of the Japanese Neo Nazi Party as a nickname.--GooGooDoll2 01:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP - I am also against deletion since I am using the image on cross-wiki projects. - Zarbon 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No proof that the image is in the public domain. --Kam Solusar 22:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - and all the others nominated by 91.65.124.34. Patstuart (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted A.J. 13:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source specified --W!B: 17:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
In fact, it is nice and seems quite correct, it shows Linear Pottery culture, with early Starčevo-Körös and Vinča-Kultur in green (thessalio-danubian), and Cardium (mediterranean) in blue, which are both fine documented .. but the lilac "other groups" suggesting a third migration-route should not remain unsourced --W!B: 18:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - author unknown. Patstuart (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted / A.J. 13:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The file deleted is probably the same one still available on enwiki: en:File:Neolithic Expansion.gif. It was tagged as a candidate to be copied to Commons, but when I tried to do it today, I got a warning that it had been deleted here. It's worth mentioning that there's a vector version of it available on Commons: File:Neolithic expansion.svg. We should either undelete the GIF, or nominate the SVG for deletion too. —capmo (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fernand Léger paintings
[edit]- Image:FernandLeger02.jpg ()
- Image:FernandLeger03.jpg ()
- Image:FernandLeger04.JPG ()
- Image:FernandLeger06.jpg ()
- Image:FernandLeger08.jpg ()
- Image:FernandLeger10.jpg ()
- Image:FernandLeger11bis.jpg ()
- Image:FernandLeger20.jpg ()
- Image:FernandLeger21.jpg ()
- Image:FernandLeger22.jpg ()
- Image:FernandLeger23.jpg ()
- Image:Leger-The Parade.jpg ()
- Image:Nus-dans-la-forêt.jpg ()
- Image:Fernand Leger Pasage No. 2, 1913.jpg ()
- Image:IMAGE0005.JPG () (derivative work)
These paintings are not in the public domain, as the author died in 1955 and is from Spain. Some are tagged pd-old-50, but this applies only to the US, and does not work. Please note, however, that some paintings are currently located in the US or elsewhere abroad, and, as the local museums may own the copyright, the images may be legit. Patstuart 18:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- In case of this image Image:IMAGE0005.JPG, is a mural, and it was taken in a public square of Venezuela (Central University of Venezuela). The violation of the copyright proceed in this case?, Oscar (discusión) 22:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely not a painting. Can a mosaic be seen as a sculpture? (Two-dimensional in this case)--Gerardus 16:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Paintings deleted, mural and statues left with {{FOP}} assumption (no information about freedom of panorama in Venesuela on country list) / A.J. 10:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The original image description on the English Wikipedia (under the same image name) stated, "Do not use without permission." This is restrictive and makes this a nonfree image. (Note: Uploader notified on Italian Wikipedia.) RG2 03:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. The image must be deleted, nothing to say. Just a question, when I copied the image the warning was already visible? (it's strange that I miss it). As usual, I've copied the license from en.wiki, and it was declared as GFDL/CC-SA. It's only a curiosity, I'm not protesting. Jalo 08:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Do not use without permission" was the comment on the original upload, but who gave it the "GFDL/CC-SA" license, was that added by the uploader later? Obviously they can legitimately free up the licensing after uploading. How can one find the original en: file history? --Tony Wills 10:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- The original English Wikipedia file description has been deleted, and only administrators can access it. It looks like the user simultaneously inserted a GFDL/CC-SA template along with a brief text disclaimer that the image shouldn't be used without permission, so it was easy to miss. When the intent of the uploader clearly contradicts what can, for some people, be a confusing set of image tags, I'd go with the intent, thus making this a nonfree image. It's easily replaceable, anyway, so it's not a huge loss to fight him on a technicality. RG2 05:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- It does not sound as though you actually looked at the original then. It clearly makes a lot of difference whether the author amended the licensing to GFDL/CC-SA and deleted the original permission restriction. If the restriction was removed and the file validly licensed at the time it was trans-wiki-ed then there is not a problem. The deletion requester needs to show (by requesting an administrator check out the file edit history perhaps) that the file was not correctly licensed when transferred here. We do not have a delete-images-because-we-can-not-be-bothered-to-check-it-out policy :-) --Tony Wills 10:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with RG2. In any case the en.wiki history has been copied into our image description. Just one edit, both licenses and description has been added simultaneously. Jalo 08:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I can not see a copy of the edit history, only the upload history, so that's not evidence both were added together. To the contrary - the upload comment shows none of the license templates, evidence that supports that the licensing was amended later. --Tony Wills 10:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Simonxag 00:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No evidence that there is anything wrong with the licensing --Tony Wills 10:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Dual licensing is acceptable, and also the user established exactly what "permission" is with the tag. In any case, before we close the discussion, does anyone want to contact him/her on en? Patstuart (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The english user log prove that during the upload the user state "do not use without permission". Later on he has added the GFDL tag, and I suppose that this overwrite the previous declaration. --Jalo 00:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader is not the author of the image. ALE! ¿…? 09:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hola, Ale! La fotografía pertenece a la Municipalidad de Junín. Fue tomada por un fotógrafo desde un parapente y la municipalidad las adquirió poco después. Puedes encontrarla en la web oficial del municipio:
- http://www.junin.gov.ar/
- más precisamente en el link "Parque natural Laguna de Gómez":
- http://www.junin.gov.ar/index.php?sector=9&div=10009&divLnk=28&sdiv=1140&lT=3.
- La gente de la Dirección de Turismo me envió por mail una versión de alta resolución para que la pueda utilizar en diversos emprendimientos, en particular Wikipedia. Me comuniqué nuevamente con ellos para ver cómo manejar la situación, y me dijeron que mañana me van a confirmar si la foto es efectivamente propiedad de la municipalidad. En caso de ser así, ¿cómo debería expresarse ese permiso de utilización en Wikipedia? ¿Deberían subir ellos mismos la imagen? ¿Cómo podrían registrarse y demostrar que son los dueños de la imagen? Eventualmente podrían establecer contacto con la municipalidad para disipar dudas.
- Muchas gracias por el asesoramiento. Saludos, --Germanramos 00:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- La direccion de Turismo puede ser el proprietario de la photo pero no es el autor. Necesitamos generalmente el permiso del autor.
- Tienes que aclarar que estas fotos pueden ser usados, modificados, copiados y redistribuidos comercialemnte y libremente si son subidos en Commons.
- No es necesario que la municipalidad o el autor lo suben, pero tienes que mandar o preferiblemente ellos mandar el permiso a OTRS.
- Un saludo! --ALE! ¿…? 07:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Aclaración al punto 1: si la Municipalidad de Junín contrata un fotógrafo para tomar una foto y le paga por el servicio adquiriendo la propiedad del derecho de copia de la imagen, entonces el autor no puede dar permiso de copia. El único que puede hacerlo es el propietario de ese derecho. Recordemos que no hablamos de "propietario de la foto" sino de "propietario del derecho de copia de la foto", y no implica ser "autor de la foto".
- ¿Cómo es lo de OTRS? ¿Quién debe enviar el mail? ¿Cómo se constata que quien envía el mail es el propietario del derecho de copia?
- ¡Saludos! --Germanramos 22:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- El autor debe dar el permiso no el properitario de la imagen. El autor puede haber dado solamente el derecho de uso a la municipalidad reservadose el uso en otro contexto. --ALE! ¿…? 16:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 12:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I request this illustration made by me to be deleted because, this image was still a test and its design was incomplete. This image is for those reasons already recreated as Image:Kennis, observatie en realiteit.svg - Mdd 23:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would be glad to fulfill your request, however the image is currently being used. I'm not familair with the language so I don't know if Image:Kennis, observatie en realiteit.svg would be a suitable replacement. Sometimes those upload bots aren't too smart :) →Rocket°°° 07:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
October 24
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Better name: Image:Naomi (porn star).jpg, doesn't clash with :en image AnonEMouse 15:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Speedy deleted. Please use {{Bad name}} in the future. --GeorgHH 16:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No indication that http://www.gwen-stefani-present.blogspot.com/ is cc-by. Si usted es el autor, por favor, véase las instrucciones al {{Image permission/es}} para establecer la licencia.--Patstuart 18:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- The indication is in right down part of image. Look: [98] thanks. --Boggiewoogie 18:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
![[98]](http://bp0.blogger.com/_frdUBPjSCDk/Rx5-xtbyiDI/AAAAAAAAAAU/DtyEDO6rJ_w/s1600-h/Don%27t+get+it+twisted.JPG){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Too ugly to upload. I was not showing good pose. 約翰夏卜少尉 02:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Majorly: user request
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looking at the "no source" history of this uploader I just do not believe that this map is self-made. Also we do not know anything abou the copyright status of the thumbnail photos used in this map. ALE! ¿…? 10:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 15:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader is not the author of the painting. ALE! ¿…? 10:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 15:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader is not the author of artwork. ALE! ¿…? 10:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 15:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader is not the author of artwork. ALE! ¿…? 10:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 15:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader is not the author of artwork. ALE! ¿…? 10:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 15:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader is not the author of the COA painting. ALE! ¿…? 10:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 15:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader is not the author of artwork. ALE! ¿…? 10:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 15:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader is not the author of photograph. ALE! ¿…? 10:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 15:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader is not the author of photo. ALE! ¿…? 10:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 15:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader is not the author of photo. ALE! ¿…? 10:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 15:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicada Jhcarrillo 01:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: In category Unknown as of 25 October 2007; no license
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicada Jhcarrillo 01:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: In category Unknown as of 25 October 2007; no license
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Appears to be from [99]. Interestingly, different credit is given for the photo, website carries copyright notice. --TeaDrinker 00:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
![[99]](http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=051006_salmon_shark_02.jpg&cap=Salmon+Shark.+Credit%3A+Scot+Anderson%0D%20){kind=link}
Speedy Delete Copyvio. Breaks the heart, too; I was just working on the salmon shark Wikispecies page and was all excited to find this image at first. :( EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
la subí como prueba, lo siento --Currok 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Probably CD cover. --GeorgHH • talk 20:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No quiero mis fotos en la Wikipedia Martín Otero 17:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept See Commons:Ownership of pages and files. --GeorgHH • talk 20:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Extremely doubtful that author died 70 years ago; source website is a dead link --Patstuart 18:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. --GeorgHH 13:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Not a PD-Art image. --GeorgHH • talk 20:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Upload has shown himself to be unreliable in terms of believing pd-self with this subject. He uploaded several other images of the same person (Mammootty), tagged them pd-self despite the fact that they were from an explicitly copyrighted website, and, after I tagged them for deletion, he created a flickr account, uploaded the photos there as cc-by, and changed the URL on the page. There is no reason to believe that this page isn't also a copyvio.--Patstuart 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Likely copyright violation. Image is unused. --GeorgHH • talk 19:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No information on author (unsourced) - date of death unknown; pd-old-50 doesn't apply to Romanian photo. If there is a pd-Romania template someone wishes to create which handles this problem, please do so. --Patstuart 22:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- It could have been taken from US Congres Library. Unfortunately, there is no source or author specified. See also Alexandru Averescu (1859 - 1938). --Alex:D 18:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Unknown source and author, so no indication is given for PD-old. --GeorgHH • talk 18:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No information on author (unsourced) - date of death unknown; pd-old-50 doesn't apply to Romanian photo. If there is a pd-Romania template someone wishes to create which handles this problem, please do so. --Patstuart 22:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- It could have been taken from US Congres Library. Unfortunately, there is no source or author specified. See also Alexandru Averescu (1859 - 1938). --Alex:D 18:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Unknown source and author, so no indication is given for PD-old. --GeorgHH • talk 18:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image has an organizer logo in the corner, so I don't think the author has the authority to publish this image as 'own work'. --Gump Stump 23:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, the author of the image has removed the logo, so there's no longer an issue. --Gump Stump 17:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Kept A new better version was uploaded by the author.--GeorgHH • talk 18:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicada Jhcarrillo 01:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Duplicate of Image:Lag samao.JPG. --GeorgHH • talk 18:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Subjective category name. Currently contains one non-free image and it's highly likely any images that would be place in this category in the future would also not be free. --Rocket000 11:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Edited on 23:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC) per Davepape's comment.
- Apparently it's not exactly subjective, but the name of a public art project - see en:Cool Globes: Hot Ideas for a Cooler Planet. However, everything that would go into this category is likely to be a non-free derivative work. --Davepape 19:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. I was not aware of that. And you're right, anything that would go in this category probably wouldn't be free. Like right now the only picture in it is up for deletion, so I'm not withdrawing my nomination, I'll just change the reasoning. Thanks. Rocket000 23:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, category empty. -- Infrogmation 15:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No freedom of panorama for sculptures in the U.S. Davepape 19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 15:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images uploaded by user Thiago Temer
[edit]- Image: Imagem120.jpg ()
- Image: Udia5.jpg ()
- Image: Stamonica.jpg ()
- Image: Imagem06.jpg ()
- Image: Imagem6.jpg ()
- Image: Praiaclube160206.jpg ()
- Image: Imagem063.jpg ()
- Image: Imagem065.jpg ()
- Image: Imagem067.jpg ()
- Image: Imagem069.jpg ()
These images were downloaded from http://s34.photobucket.com/albums/d141/lucasluzmg/?start=all . The website source is not clear about the author of the image. The author’s name in the original site is different from the indicated by the uploader here in Commons. The Photobucket.com website also reserves its copyrights. I ask you deleting the other author’s gallery images although I can’t prove their source.
- Image: UdiaTrans2.JPG ()
- Image: UdiaTrans6.JPG ()
- Image: Udiatrans5.JPG ()
- Image: Udiatrans4.JPG ()
- Image: UdiaTrans1.jpg ()
- Image: UdiaTrans.jpg ()
These ones were downloaded from http://www.arcoweb.com.br/arquitetura/arquitetura767.asp by fake account User talk:Mário Yamashita Junior. Comproved copyright violation and false author indication (photos taken by Leonardo Finotti). All rights reserved to Arco Editorial Ltda.
- Image: Uberlandia100.png () - This is a copyright protected picture, taken by Leandro de Oliveira Pereira¹ in 25/12/2006
- Image: Teatroudia1.jpg ()
These ones were downloaded from http://s34.photobucket.com/albums/d141/lucasluzmg/?start=all by fake account User talk:Everton Pereira. The website source is not clear about the author of the image. The author’s name in the original site is different from the indicated by the uploader here in Commons. The Photobucket.com website also reserves its copyrights. The first image can be found in the photographer's Panoramio: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/464192
I believe that all User talk:Thiago Temer's images and his fakes are copyvios. He has a past of copyright violation (remembering that in Brazil the "fair use policy" is not accepted) and usually uses other fake accounts as User talk:Mário Yamashita Junior and User talk:Everton Pereira to upload your photos ilegally. I think it's desnecessary to get all the links to his images the gallery on Google coz i'm already tired of that. I also propose his blocking (and his fake accounts) in Commons due his historic of copyright violation even after warnings from administrators. Talk2lurch 20:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - the user is not trustworthy. He made several previous copyvios (texts in pt.wiki and pictures here). He also uses multiple accounts. He learned how to game the system and started to upload poor quality self made images in order to gain credibility. Dantadd✉ 00:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted It's unlikely that a user make this images with six different cameras. Also no indication is given that the uploader is the same person as the uploader at the stated sources above. Third, the sources gives no concrete license information. --GeorgHH • talk 20:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- (Old, unlisted deletion request)
copyrighted by Channel[V][100],All right reserved, not free image.--Tszkin(Call Me) 16:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- CommentI think the same is for Image:Abenbbt.jpg. --GeorgHH 15:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Szczepan1990: copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Personal image of user's sister. Not used, out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 11:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Quadell: unused personal photo, per Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of the mascots. --Liftarn 10:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Diagnosis: Copyright Paranoia. --Dzag 18:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete No paranoia, this is copyrighted stuff. And there is no FOP in Italy. --User:G.dallorto 13:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 18:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not sure if this is allowed - a photograph of an art installation within a museum in the US. Deadstar (msg) 15:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No - no FOP in the US for artworksMichaelMaggs 18:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author is from the UK, so pd-old-50 (a US license) doesn't apply). Author died 68 years ago, so neither does pd-art --Patstuart 22:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Arthur Rackham artwork is not yet out of copyright in the UK, where this was presumably published. MichaelMaggs 18:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Undeleted because its PD since 2010 but redicected to duplicate File:Ring15.jpg. --JuTa 17:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author died in 1939, 68 years ago, and was english, so PD-US doesn't apply --Patstuart 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Two more years. -- Avi 21:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Arthur Rackham artwork is not yet out of copyright in the UK, where this was presumably published. MichaelMaggs 18:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Swedish artist, died 1940; pd-old-50 (US license) doesn't apply; neither does pd-art (70 years ago was 1937) --Patstuart 22:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good find. Would could ofcourse wait a while as it soon will become PD-art... // Liftarn —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC).
- Would suggest downloading it locally, and uploading it again in two years. Patstuart 16:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not PD until 1 January 2011, over 3 years from now. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not quite free of copyright yet . . . Butseriouslyfolks 17:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 18:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Restored, as the image is now in public domain. --Dereckson (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author died 1939, 68 years ago, and was English. PD-old, US license, does not apply --Patstuart 22:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't delete it. It's good. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.227.173.141 (talk • contribs)
Delete it because it is an image of the norse goddess Idunna and her apples which halt the aging of the Asgards it is not an image of the norse goddess Freya! —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.64.2.77 (talk • contribs)
- You may upload this file to the English Wikipedia per the license en:Template:PD-US-art - English Wikipedia would allow this. But the issue is not whether or not it's a nice image, the issue is whether keeping it on commons is a copyright violation. Patstuart 22:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Arthur Rackham artwork is not yet out of copyright in the UK, where this was presumably published. MichaelMaggs 18:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Undeleted today because its PD since 2010. --JuTa 18:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
English author, died 68 years ago, not 70; pd-old-50 only applies to US artists --Patstuart 22:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- In fact, the same thing should apply to all 91 images in Category:Arthur Rackham and Category:Rackham´s Wagner. --Davepape 01:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. // Liftarn —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC).
- Delete per nom; also, please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Arthur Rackham. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Arthur Rackham artwork is not yet out of copyright in the UK, where this was presumably published. MichaelMaggs 18:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Undeleted today because its PD since 2010, bute redirected to duplicate File:Ring53.jpg. --JuTa 18:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader requested speedydeletion, reason: Protection of personal image and identification of the people displayed. Converted to ordinary request as image is widely used. Deadstar (msg) 11:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Other images with the same content and same reason for deletion:
Deadstar (msg) 11:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, some users are using these pictures with bad intentions. I don't want to expose those persons in it. I'll try to upload new images without face identification, as soon as possible. I hope you understand.
- I cannot see any reason why these images should be removed. they cannot be used for bad intentions as they are completely benign in nature. Besisdes they provide an excellent example of how Jehovahs witnesses conduct themselves. Can you please give examples of how they have been used for "Bad intentions" or are you, er.. lying??
thanks Roger lewis (eastenbury congregation).
- If those people want to be members, I'm sure they won't mind being seen by other people, I mean, it's their choice, no reason to hide it...
It is not showing any face, but barely the brother on Stage, and it's not as if our faith has anything to hide (except a crazy man like me hehe) so I'm fine with it, and I can't imagine any brother would have issue with the back of his bald head
- Keep Image:EstudoBH.jpg and Image:Reunião em Salão do Reino.jpg as public place rights surely apply, and hardly (or in teh case of Image:EstudoBH.jpg none) faces are showing. I also feel we should keep them all, the other two i would only endorse their deletion if the persons in question contested the use of the photos.--137.198.30.197 21:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete If he wants them deleted, then I agree. note I will change to keep if you change your mind. --Antonio Lopez (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep "bad intentions"? You should have though of that before releasing them under a free license. -Nard 19:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Apparent copyright violation, original poster has not responded to clarification request --70.164.58.44 15:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - copyvio. Patstuart 16:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image appears to be taken from http://www.keepshooting.com/firearms/class3/btpmodel2.htm[101] — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
![[101]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Sawnoff.jpg&diff=next&oldid=8186465){kind=link}
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a cropped version of a Flickr image. The Flickr image itself is a picture of a picture of Enrique Buenaventura. The subject died only a few years ago, so the picture within the picture is not in the public domain. Sorry that sounds a bit confusing, but it's the only way I could explain it. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I added another image to this deletion request. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You are right about the origin of the picture,... the person who took the picture of the old photograph is the owner of the photograph,... I guess that doesn't change anything in the permits stuff...
- Delete - The whole image is creative commons licensed, but the actual photograph (which was uploaded) isn't, so we can't accept it. Giggy\Talk 23:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:03, 22 January 2008 (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}
Not enough source information to establish author died before 1937 --Patstuart 17:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
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}
No indication author died before 1937 --Patstuart 17:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not enough source information to establish author died before 1937 --Patstuart 17:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derrivative work showing a work of art. 24.46.176.224 01:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MichaelMaggs: No FOP for sculpture in the US
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Doesn't look like a self-made picture + the website that it came from is mentioned Deadstar (msg) 10:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I am the owner of this site, the creator of this artwork have drawn this in CorelDRaw my self, export it into jpeg with low resolution and post it here with permission which is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License". Newone 07:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Kept, no problems. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not think that FAO images are under a CC license or a re they? ALE! ¿…? 15:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, Copyvio http://www.fao.org/copyright_en.htm, no commercial use allowed. --GeorgHH • talk 20:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
FAO images are not under a CC license. ALE! ¿…? 15:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted No indication for {{PD-Art}} and FAO don't allow commercial use. --GeorgHH • talk 19:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Doubtfully self-made --Patstuart 21:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep It is true this image has completely wrong description, but I believe (although I am not able to find a proof) that the image is a drawing by sk:Viktor Miškovský, who died 1909, so the work should be PD-old. (The same is true about Special:Undelete/Image:Bardejov Myskovszky.jpg, which might be undeleted in that case.) I am trying to contact the uploader. --Mormegil 20:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted No checkable source. First, the uploader changed "self-made" to "web", second, we have no proof that it is a work by Viktor Miškovský. --GeorgHH • talk 19:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright status is unclear; pd-old-50 doesn't apply to French Mathemeticians, and the immediate source readily admits the image might still be copyrighted, and that it doesn't keep proper records: http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Miscellaneous/Copyright.html --Patstuart 22:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No source, dubious license. -Nard 00:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted / A.J. 11:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
created in 1942 != author died 70 years ago (1937) --Patstuart 17:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Uploader added {{PolishSymbol}} and {{PD-PRL}}, which I don't think applies either. →Rocket°°° 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Edmund Blampied stamps are justifed as fair use on en: (see en:Image talk:EBOccupStamps1.jpg). These stamps, having been produced by the States of Jersey under circumstances of German military occupation, may be of arguable copyright status - but in any case UK copyright law does not operate in Jersey and a claim of PD-UK cannot be justified. If copyright is with the heirs of the artists, the artists, N.V.L. Rybot and Edmund Blampied (1886-1966), both died less than 70 years ago --Man vyi 06:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Digging around http://www.jerseylegalinfo.je, it seems that the UK Copyright Act of 1911 is still part of the basic law under which Jersey operates (see [102] for instance), and the 1911 act is the one that introduced a 50-year period for government publication. Military occupation is irrelevant, stamps were not produced by German govt. So, anyone up for creating {{PD-JerseyGov}} ? (and counterparts for other Channel Islands) Stan Shebs 19:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Per Stan; we need a template. giggy (:O) 03:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
PD-Art can only be used for works of art and not for photos (which should be markes as PD-old). Anyway, 1928 is not old enough. ALE! ¿…? 07:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- License changed to {{PD-AR-Photo}} by the uploader. Valid? Don't know. →Rocket°°° 23:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Highly unlikely to be valid. giggy (:O) 03:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ISPAN doesn't know about origin of this photo. They answered:
- Niestety nie udało się nam odnaleźć w katalogu osób portretowanych zdjęcia Władysława Ślewińskiego o które Pan pyta. Jeśli wspomniane zdjęcie, a nie mamy co do tego żadnej pewności, znajduje się w zbiorach plastyki niestety jeszcze nie skomputeryzowanych, to dotarcie do niego wymagałoby gigantycznej kwerendy.
Brief translation:
- We could not find Władysław Ślewiński in our portrait catalogue. It's possible that the mentioned photo is located in non-digital collection, but reaching it wuold require giant query.
--A.J. 11:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. giggy (:O) 03:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This original image (the unmodified version) is not sourced here and also not on en.wikipedia. Therefore it is impossible to say if the image is actually free. ALE! ¿…? 15:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep this image was additional map of Balhae since there aren't any surviving maps.
Deleted. giggy (:O) 03:30, 5 May 2008 (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}
Polskie Towarzystwo Krajoznawcze died in 1993, not 1937 --Patstuart 17:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- PTK is an institution. The man who created the plan died +70 years ago. Plus it's {{PD-PRL}}.
- {{PD-Poland}} is invalid (it's for photos only). It may be kept only as anonymous work. A.J. 10:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. PD-Poland invalid as author has claimed authorship. giggy (:O) 03:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
October 25
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Cover of an album which was released much less than 70 years ago High on a tree 11:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, obvious copyright violation with clearly inaccurate licence claim. -- Infrogmation 05:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
reproductive photograph of a copyrighted cover Christian NurtschTM 13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Christian. This is a fair use image, so it should not belong on Wikimedia Commons. It might be useful as a fair use image upload on local projects, though. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted --Szczepan talk 12:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate picture - sorry my error Baran Ivo 21:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: Dupe of Image:Klieste na krajcirske patenty.jpg
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}
Deletion requested by the author (see here): Bad name and image too dark. Proper version is Image:2007-09-08 2581 Borgward Hansa 1800 Front, Bauzeit 1952-1954 (ret2).jpg --Wikipeder 14:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. --Christian NurtschTM 14:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Image was replaced by Image:2007-09-08 2581 Borgward Hansa 1800 Front, Bauzeit 1952-1954 (ret2).jpg by same uploader. --GeorgHH 14:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
it's offensive por one person—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Chabacano11 (talk • contribs) 25 October 2007
- Delete looks like a child's drawing & might even be libelous. --Simonxag 23:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This image is hardly within the project scope. Samulili 16:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
No tiene sentido y me ocasiona problemas. No es util --81.9.221.244 00:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Samulili - out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 13:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 13:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image comes originally from the English Wikipedia (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Periophthalmus_gracilis.jpg ) and is there without license. ALE! ¿…? 07:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It did have a licence originally, but it was blanked by IP vandals. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As above. --Simonxag 22:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicate image, properly cropped exists. See HorseBrand2.jpg Montanabw 18:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Riana: poor crop, better version at Image:HorseBrand2.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No info saying the author has ben dead for more than 100 years. --Liftarn 13:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Might this be mistagged, but usable if retagged correctly? What is the copyright status of governmental works from Tsarist Russia before 1910? Would this qualify as PD-Russia? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 03:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think this would easily qualify as PD-Russia (even with the upcoming change). The talk page there also mentions that the Soviet government generally did not claim copyright to works created in the line of duty by civil servants, and presumably they would have treated this image that way; that may have changed with more recent copyright law there (not sure) but even then this one is easily old enough to still be PD there, even after retroactive changes. It is PD in the U.S. as well, since it was published before 1923. Carl Lindberg 15:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Common sense states that it is in PD. 210.235.209.39 22:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Closed as keep. Any works by the Soviet government before 1946 are in the public domain; in all likelihood, this extends to the previous tsarist government as well (one cannot imagine the Soviets not honoring the former but honoring the copyright of the latter). Patstuart 07:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I have very strong doubts that this image is really by the uploader, especially when looking at the upload history and the past and present problems. ALE! ¿…? 14:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader has history of incorrectly tagging images yoinked from web as own work. -- Infrogmation 03:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 15:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Just a thumbnail of Image:Gefahrenzeichen 12.svg Rocket000 06:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I marked it as {{duplicate|Image:Gefahrenzeichen 12.svg}} => so it will be categorized as to be speedy-deleted. -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 09:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Gefahrenzeichen 12.svg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope GeorgHH 11:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 22:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not usefull --Tomia 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Boricuæddie 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is the cover of a single for a TV-series of 1969. It must still have copyright. Mysha 10:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 22:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Poor quality / irrelevant / not used (except Pier Gerlofs Donia) / copyright violation. --Bouwe Brouwer 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. (Uploader has also since been indefinitely blocked) -- Infrogmation 17:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Utterly useless to project scope; unused --Patstuart 22:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- delete per nom. -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 08:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- delete - Nonsense. Not useful image. -- This user loves Krittaya. 09:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Useless, unused. --GeorgHH • talk 23:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is my photo and I uploaded the wrong one! Littlemama 21:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, although the photograph doesn't look as though it's homemade. Deadstar (msg) 11:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Looks more like a graphic image than a photograph. -- Avi 14:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader's request. (unused) Rocket000 03:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source or author given. If the source website is http://www.sandroperes.com/contact/contact.htm - I can't find a notice on there saying it's released under any type of license, plus how can there be attribution if there is no clarity on where it came from. Text taken from website too. Deadstar (msg) 11:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 15:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author died in 1957, 60 years ago, not 70. Pd-old-50 only applies to US, not Serbia --Patstuart 18:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete 1957 was 50 years ago. Not PD. --Simonxag 23:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not even PD in the US, if I am not mistaken, since it was not PD in country of origin in 1996. -- Avi 14:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 15:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC) v
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Also:
Author is from UK, died 1939 (68 years ago, pd-old won't apply); pd-old-50 only applies to US --Patstuart 18:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; also, please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Arthur Rackham. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Arthur Rackham artwork is not yet out of copyright in the UK, where this was presumably published.MichaelMaggs 18:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Undeleted today because its PD-old inbetween. --JuTa 21:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio: the uploader did not provide enough information about the photograph's permission to publish the image under a free licence. AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 08:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - likely copyvio. Deadstar (msg) 15:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not enough information is presented here to establish copyright expiration. Where did the uploader get this photo from? --Patstuart 18:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
First published in Italy; author died 63 years ago, not 70; pd-50 only applies to US --Patstuart 21:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --User:G.dallorto 02:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Everything in Category:Arthur Rackham
[edit]- See Category:Arthur Rackham and subcategory Category:Rackham´s Wagner. Total of 91 images. I propose these categories be deleted as well.
Author died 1939, 68 years ago. PD-old is incorrect; some are incorrectly labeled pd-old-50 (US license doesn't apply). Patstuart 19:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Discussion closed in favor of keeping things in one place: Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Arthur Rackham nominated a more inclusive bunch. Patstuart 17:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"funny" image out of scope for commons - I cannot see a use for this. Deadstar (msg) 10:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Can't find any information on the website http://www.jaudt.de/ stating images from there can be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License Same also for:
- Image:Rotary Feeder Easy Clean Zellenradschleuse Schnell Demontierbar 02.jpg
- Image:Rotary feeder zellenradschleuse easy-clean 01.jpg
- Image:Filter rotary feeder Filterschleuse 01.jpg
Deadstar (msg) 11:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Also:
Finnish author, US license does not apply on commons; died 1946, only 61 years ago (not 70) --Patstuart 19:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It is evident from the English Wikipedia article en:Helene Schjerfbeck that she never married and didn't have any children. Even if 70 years have not passed since her death, it is somewhat likely that the copyright of this work is "orphan". That chance should maybe be investigated before deletion. Please see en:talk:Helene Schjerfbeck. --LA2 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Having heirs is, AFAIK, not a prerequisite for copyright to subsist beyond the author's death. (Except in a few South-American countries.) She may have transferred her copyrights to someone else (buyer of the canvas?). In any case, we'd need evidence that no such transfer had occurred, and verifiable evidence that a thorough research on the copyright status had been made. And such research should also show that there were no sisters or brothers, as these also may have inherited the copyrights. Delete. If you can find evidence that these paintings had been published before 1923, upload these two images locally at the English Wikipedia and tag them as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Lupo 10:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No indication a several of these photos are in public domain; for example en:Image:Murgas.jpg is probably in public domain in US, but not abroad. And en:Alexander Dubček wasn't even born until 1921, so this tag is dubious --Patstuart 19:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not in public domain; photo first taken in Mexico, which requires author be dead for 100 years (Mexican revolution was c. 1910): see {{PD-Mexico}}. --Patstuart 21:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually it's where it was first published that matters, but I haven't found any such info on the source site. // Liftarn —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC).
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - someone might want to email, um, Mexico to ask them about this. Perhaps the Mexican embassy. The Mexicans are extremely proud of their heritage in this war, and it wouldn't surprise me a lick if it turned out this was in the possession of the government and considered public domain. Patstuart 18:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Taken in 1925, no indication author died before 1957. --Patstuart 21:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Author death not relevent for US photo from 1920s. US photos from this era are in public domain unless specific registration and renewals were filed, so being PD is not improbable. However practice is to assume such items still under copyright unless some evidence to the contrary is shown. Image page says "This image is believed to be in the public domain"-- believed by who, and why? If Library of Congress says no renewal, or if mentioned leaflet was published without copyright notice, it is PD-US, keep. But some reason needs to be presented. -- Infrogmation 03:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
i think if it for help ppl to know how the man eater lion look like its not that bad and i think it doesnt need to be deleted
Kept. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Peter Hurd wasn't even born until 1904, and didn't die until 1984, so information clearly incorrect; source link is down --Patstuart 18:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment May be a different Peter Hurd. The Peter Hurd in wiki is a painter of American Southwest images and a prsidential portrait artist. This Peter Hurd painted Norse mythology. All sites I have seen date these paintings back to the late 19th century.
- Not so sure. There is Baldwin, James: The Story of Roland, Scribner & Sons, 1930, illustrations by Peter Hurd. Copyright registered September 5, 1930 (on illustrations), renewed 1958.[103] Here's the cover of that book... and also (by the same author, illustrator, and publisher) Story of Siegfried. Then there's Wyeth, N.C. (ed): Great Stories of the Sea and Ships, Galahad Books, New York, 1986, ISBN 0883657074. With 18 illustrations by Peter Hurd.[104] First story in that book is The mermaid by H. C. Andersen. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turned out that this image is actually Hurd's illustration for that story. Here's the cover of the 1992 edition of that book. The 1904 - 1984 Peter Hurd is listed by the Smithsonian as "illustrator, painter". So, clearly this Peter Hurd did do book illustrations, too. Oh, and there is another book by Baldwin, illustrated by N. C. Wyeth: Nordic Hero Tales from the Kalevala. [105] So there we have a connection with norse mythology... (N. C. Wyeth was Hurd's mentor and father-in-law.) Unless someone can present clear evidence that the Peter Hurd who painted this image is not Peter Hurd (1904 - 1984): Delete Lupo 11:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted / A.J. 14:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Official government form - uploader is not author of form. Note at bottom indicates "Crown Copyright". Davepape 01:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Simonxag 22:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep "Crown copyright" in this case is mean, that no exist right for use this form for another occasion, than registration of civill partnership. I am owner of this document, because it was printed for my needs. So I have a right to show this document whole world, as my document. Zboralski 18:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Under Crown copyright, independent of other restrictions.Nilfanion 22:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture is apparantly not an NASA picture. There are many other similar pictures in commons which are mis-classfied but I don't have the time to list all of them--Johnson Lau 02:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a Soviet picture, not NASA. It just comes from a NASA site. --Bricktop 15:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment What is the copyright status of images from Soviet space probes anyway? Curious, -- Infrogmation 05:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Of course this is not a NASA photgraph, this was a SOVIET space mission. This photograph was publically released OVER FORTY YEARS AGO for international scientific and educational use by the former Soviet government, which no longer exists as a legal entity with any copyright ownership rights. This photograph is a genuine historical artifact documenting a major event in human history.
Deleted. Soviet image post-1954, so copyrighted.Nilfanion 22:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Superseded by identic, higher res image Image:078 - Mihai Viteazul.jpg Alex:D 12:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Such a deletion request seems valid to me, but it may be faster if done by putting {{duplicate|link to the good one}} on Image:Mihai_Viteazul_g.jpg, or am I wrong? -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 12:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- It seems that this type of request is not a duplicate case: Commons:Deletion_guidelines#Redundant/bad quality. --Alex:D 13:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as scaled down version, also, the new file have better source information. --GeorgHH • talk 19:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The licensing terms are somewhat confusing, as the photograph is old but the license is GFDL and at the same time "libre de droit". Also: Could someone check the OTRS ticket? ALE! ¿…? 14:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept OTRS ticket was checked a view minutes ago by User:Para and it seems to be ok (I asked via IRC). --GeorgHH • talk 18:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source given is "Temple at Luxor" which is not the genuine source. Probable copyvio, as the drawing is probably not PD. --Jeff Dahl 00:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not original work, so original copyright applies. However there is no proof the original author dieded more than 100 years ago. There might be a 14000 year old egyptian who still retain the copyright. I did manage to find a copy of the picture here, but it says nothing about the copyright status. // Liftarn
Delete Not a mechanical copy of anything, but a new drawing when it was first created (when?) (by whom?). So probably copyright by somebody. --Simonxag 22:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have found and uploaded a possible replacement image depicting the same carving, perhaps a bit clearer: Image:Luxor Nativity Sharpe.JPG. This drawing of the ancient relief is credited to 19th century Egyptologist Samuel Sharpe; in a quick search for his books on ancient Egyptian inscriptions I saw dates ranging from 1840 to 1879. Also, use tool results for image proposed for deletion -- Infrogmation 05:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the problem. Unless the dissagreement is over religeous bigotry. the "drawing" is not a drawing at all, It is a rubbing that was done by a French Expadition circa November 1799. Millions of people can vouch that the nativity is infact on the walls of the egyptian temple, and any arm-chair egyptologyst has sceen it and knows what it means. take you hatred of the past with you and go. -- —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.164.47.194 (talk • contribs)
- Religious questions have nothing to do with the deletion request; it is a simple question of copyright. Certainly the original ancient Egyptian work is in the public domain due to age, but who did the drawing depicting it here, and is the drawing copyrighted? If you have information that it was done by the 18th century French expedition, that would settle the issue in favor of keep as the drawing would be public domain as well. Can you please provide a weblink, book, or other source confirming the origin of this drawing? Thank you much. -- Infrogmation 22:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The image is credited as coming from the "Temple of Luxor", when it obviously is NOT a photograph from said temple. So find a proper, credited source, and the image stays. From which book does it come from? Does anyone have a photograph of the original image? And above all, who translated the hyeroglyphics? How do we know what the hyeroglyphics mean, if we don't know who translated them? Without a source for the translation, anyone could say any meaning for the hieroglyphics and we would have no chance of knowing if it was true or not.
Delete Uncredited source. I need to know from which book it was taken, so it will be properly sourced. If the book isn't available, maybe a photograph from the original source. But we need to know where the image comes from. More importantly, we need to know where the translation of the hyeroglyphs comes from. -- —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.25.227.250 (talk • contribs)
Deleted No source. (Note we already have Image:Luxor Nativity Sharpe.JPG, a 19th century PD drawing of the same relief.) -- Infrogmation 19:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This looks like a press license to me. Derivative works may not be allowed. ALE! ¿…? 12:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - source states: "AICA - Toda la información puede ser reproducida parcial o totalmente, citando la fuente": "All information may be reproduced partially or totally, as long as the source is cited." This sounds compatible, and perhaps it should be changed. I've changed to {{attribution}}. If AICA means something other than this (i.e., other than what they said), they can always ask us to remove the file. Patstuart 07:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- And what about derivative works? It seems that this license does not cover that. --ALE! ¿…? 09:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm...the "partially" may indicate issues with derivative works. I don't think we should take that risk, so a Delete would be more appropriate IMO. Giggy\Talk 11:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm...the "partially" may indicate issues with derivative works. I don't think we should take that risk, so a
- I must say, I think this license couldn't be much more clear. Partially or totally reproduced is crystal clear. Patstuart 18:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that reproduction is allowed is clear. What isn't clear is whether modification, or derivative works, is allowed. I'd suggest Deleteing it. --Iamunknown 00:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that reproduction is allowed is clear. What isn't clear is whether modification, or derivative works, is allowed. I'd suggest
- And what about derivative works? It seems that this license does not cover that. --ALE! ¿…? 09:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - we have a template that's been around for a long time, and is used on over 200 images, with almost exactly the same wording: Template:SenadoMexico. I'm not sure how we can say delete for an image which allows reproduction, "in part or in whole, so long as the source is cited". Half the images on commons use that license. Heck, even {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} is more restrictive than that, as it doesn't allow someone to use the photo in their own work unless they license it as free. Patstuart 04:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep (common sense-based, not legally-based—which is sometimes at odds with each other ;). Reproducing something "partially" does indeed mean modifications are allowed. One has to modify (i.e. crop) it to use it "partially", however it does not suggest anything more than that kind of modification is allowed. In the normal everyday world, people don't always consider that, so they don't normally explicitly state that it's allowed or it's not. I think in this context, other forms of modifications would be fine. I consider those terms to be free. Rocket000 13:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. I think the keep arguments are compelling... any reasonable translation of the license suggests that it's very similar to a CC-BY to me. It might have been good to try to have the source organization contact OTRS but it seems fairly clear cut to me. Close as keep without prejudice to deletion in future if the source organization clarifies their meaning to mean it's a no deriv license or whatever... ++Lar: t/c 01:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
First author died in 1957; can't locate second one; pd-old-50 only applies to US, not Korea --Patstuart 18:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I created {{PD-South Korea}} template, and the author died 50 years ago which falls under pd-South Korea by the law, so the delete tag should be removed from now. --Applebee 17:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Elizabeth Keith is credited as the author for this and the other related uploads from the same book, what is her nationality, assuming that she is the illustrator? Unless Scott is the illustrator. --BrokenSphere 04:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- She is a British and yes, illustrator and painter. The coauthor is her older sister who helped to publish the book and I can't find her life time information anywhere --Applebee 08:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wouldn't the UK laws apply in this case, i.e. 70 years after her death? A similar thing happened with Beatrix Potter's uploads, which was applied to her works that were published before 1923 in the US. --BrokenSphere 16:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know the UK law but the works were all drawn before 1919 while she was residing in Korea. The work is PD in South Korea because every work is also applied to the law and I want to use them on Korean related articles.--Applebee 14:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently first published in London in 1946 by Hutchinson & Co. Hence UK law would indeed be relevant here, not South Korean law. Creation and exhibition is nice, but it's not "publication". Elizabeth Keith lived 1887-1956.[106] [107] Lupo 17:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that the only way to apply Korean law and keep those would be to find publication in Korea prior to UK publication in 1946. Than we can apply Berne Convention art. 5. [108]. Since she lived in Asia (Korea, China, Philippines & Japan) on and off from 1915 until 1937, earlier publications are likely. For example [109] mentions that "Over the years Watanabe published more than hundred woodblock prints by Mrs. Keith.", prior to 1924. --Jarekt 18:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC). Also website [110] also talks about her prints being individually published, by "print publisher Watanabe Shozaburo". --Jarekt 18:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. But note that Watanabe was in Japan, so Japanese law would apply. Lupo 18:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Japan has also 50 year law: {{PD-Japan}}. --Jarekt 18:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, and not that it mattered for this image: According to the ODNB, entry on "Scott, John William Robertson", he and Elspet married in 1906, and Elspet also died in 1956 (like Elizabeth). However, the ODNB doesn't give a source for that, and as it appears to cover predominantly men and doesn't have an entry for either Elizabeth Keith or Elspet Keith Robertson Scott, I wonder whether the writer of that entry didn't confuse Elspet with Elizabeth. But he may equally well be right, of course. Lupo 15:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Not seeing a consensus to delete...best to restart the debate if you disagree with this. giggy (:O) 03:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
October 26
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
source website only allows personal, non-commercial use ˉanetode╦╩ 12:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete speedy ok; clearly not free licensed. -- Infrogmation 15:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Deadstar (msg) 15:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I don't know who created this image. When I uploaded it from en: I wasn't clued in enough to add all information needed. Deadstar (msg) 13:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- With checkusage you can find the original picture. Multichill 14:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that! I had been checking but must have been looking with my nose (didn't use checkusage obviously). Have added in information from there. Closing request. Deadstar (msg) 14:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept, issue resolved. Deadstar (msg) 14:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
my mistake !! wrong image !! please delete Sylenius 20:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 23:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Includes part of non-free artwork (on the bridge). --Liftarn 11:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment User is being disruptive in order to take revenge for my comments in the deletion request for his images. :/ Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 20:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Graffiti is 1. permanent, 2. illegal and 3. de minimis. And stop making a point. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is FAIR USE---not free use! In addition, the picture is a trademarked owned by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, and its inclusion in the Commons violates trademark rights of SEPTA.—the preceding unsigned comment was added by AEMoreira042281 (talk • contribs)
- Delete - speedy. Copyvio. --AEMoreira042281 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Majorly: copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
it's offensive por one person—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Chabacano11 (talk • contribs) 25 October 2007
- Delete looks like a child's drawing & might even be libelous. --Simonxag 23:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This image is hardly within the project scope. Samulili 16:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
No tiene sentido y me ocasiona problemas. No es util --81.9.221.244 00:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Samulili - out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 13:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 13:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
taken from copyrighted website --Fransvannes 19:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Copyvio from http://www.edam.nl --Deadstar (msg) 13:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photo contains screenshot of copyrighted software --Liftarn 07:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep You're starting to piss me off. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 20:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, the words “menu”, “vodafone”, “memory”, and five digits do not meet the needed threshold needed for copyright protection. --Kjetil r 01:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Kept - per consensus. Giggy\Talk 23:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope: not clear what we're looking at here. O2 (息 • 吹) 04:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, low resolution, low quality image. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Squiggly headlights at night. Doesn't look like it'd be useful for anything. —Scott5114↗ 04:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete you can't see a thing in this image except the lights. -- JA10 T · C 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Simonxag 23:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 16:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion: Jena bildo identas al "Image:MessschieberNonius.jpg" (pli olda). - This image is identical to "Image:MessschieberNonius.jpg" (which is the older one). --62.214.207.44 09:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC) (Pietersz, kontribuanto al eo:viki, ankoraux sen konto por Commons)
Deleted Duplicate of Image:MessschieberNonius.jpg, deleted that one as less used than Image:Noniusz 002mm 49mm ex.jpg. Replaced on all projects. Deadstar (msg) 16:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright status unclear --Fransvannes 19:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Taken from (apparently gone) website with dubious "PD-self" tag. -- Infrogmation 19:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Fransvannes Deadstar (msg) 13:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Unclear copyright status. Deadstar (msg) 16:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I see no indication from the artist's website that this is copyright free use. --Patstuart 18:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above, I can't see it either. Deadstar (msg) 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Copyvio. Herr Kriss 23:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploaded from Wikipedia now deleted as editor committed numerous false statements regarding copyright ownership. --Gustav VH 16:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Cecil 15:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The middle image is not self-made -- it was taken from http://www.statensarkiv.se/default.asp?id=1268 and is copyright protected. Fred J 23:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- And if I'm interpreting the text on that page well, the present symbol is a 1982 derivative work of the old symbol (from 1448). Nothing on the lag linked on that page says a thing about if such symbols are in the public domain or not. So Delete, tyvärr. Patrícia msg 17:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The use of the Swedish state flag is regulated under Lag om Sveriges flagga (and no other regulation). The state flag is not under copyright protection. --Camptown 18:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Where do you get your ideas from? The Swedish copyright law makes is clear about what is copyrighted. [111] . A state flag is not among the exceptions. [112]. / Fred J 19:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- The state flag ("royal flag") is not covered by regular copyright legislation, only its practical use is restricted as the flag is also a military ensign. User:Fred_J:s claims how to interprete Swedish legislation on copyright protection are wrong and unfortunately quite dishonest as most Wikipedians don't understand his native language. --Camptown 11:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Any evidence? / Fred J 18:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- If the flag is not copyrighted, how can you be the copyright holder and release it to the public domain? /81.231.248.36 10:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- The state flag ("royal flag") is not covered by regular copyright legislation, only its practical use is restricted as the flag is also a military ensign. User:Fred_J:s claims how to interprete Swedish legislation on copyright protection are wrong and unfortunately quite dishonest as most Wikipedians don't understand his native language. --Camptown 11:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Where do you get your ideas from? The Swedish copyright law makes is clear about what is copyrighted. [111] . A state flag is not among the exceptions. [112]. / Fred J 19:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't the coat of arms in this image designed by heraldic designer Vladimir Sagerlund? Thuresson 23:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sweden-Royal-flag.png
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence it was published before 1923 (the date when it was taken is not relevant, right?). --Liftarn 12:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's relevant if the photo was taken prior to 1887[113], as there is no possible way it could be under copyright today. Alcott died in 1888, I'd say the public domain claim is valid. ˉanetode╦╩ 12:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think you bring up a good point in that the procedure on creation v/s first publication is not as clear as it should be on Commons. However I think this is a poor choice for a test case; I agree that this photo of a US person who died in 1888 should be PD-US in any case, so Keep per Anetode above. -- Infrogmation 15:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per anetode, Infrogmation, and Megapixie. Published before 1923. Slam dunk. http://www.google.co.uk/books?id=XuwQAAAAYAAJ&dq=photograph+%22Louisa+May+Alcott%22+date:1800-1977&as_brr=0 page i. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep given how old she appears in the photograph, it seems certain it was produced before 1887 (I would guess 1860s-1870s) meaning that if it was unpublished it's beyond 120 years since creation (see Hirtle). If it was published it seems fairly unlikely that the photographer lived until 1937 (60-70 years beyond when the photo was taken) making it at least life+70. Megapixie 05:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per anetode -- Avi 21:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but that 1887 analysis is flawed. These 120 years would apply only if the image were still unpublished today. But evidently it was published a some time (at the very least by that external web site). If that first publication occurred between 1978 and 2002 (both years inclusive), the image would be copyrighted at least until the end of 2047 in the U.S. Note that before 1978, unpublished works were essentially covered in the U.S. by a perpetual common law copyright. So, to be sure we should still find out when this was originally published. Lupo 13:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Bingo - 1909. http://www.google.co.uk/books?id=ekGsstIhV24C&pg=PA206&dq=photograph+%22Louisa+May+Alcott%22+date:1800-1977&as_brr=0#PPR2,M1 (Page ii) Megapixie 02:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Seems like first publication was http://www.google.co.uk/books?id=E7kOAAAAIAAJ&dq=photograph+%22Louisa+May+Alcott%22+date:1800-1977&as_brr=0 1893 (claims portrait was previously unpublished, and shows Alcott at the age of 20). Megapixie 03:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Closed as Kept -- Infrogmation 03:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Too low quality, plenty of dirt pixels, details are impossible to recognize: just a very poor image. Ies 15:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a scan of a woodcut print; hence the original itself is low quality. The scan is not great but it is the best available. A cursory examination of the image will indicate that "details are impossible to recognize" is simply a lie.
- The image has a legitimate use in illustrating the Wikisource transcription of the original source, which has been begun at Wikisource:Edwards's Botanical Register/Appendix to the First Twenty-three Volumes/A Sketch of the Vegetation of the Swan River Colony. The English Wikisource has long had a policy that all images should be uploaded here not there. If we delete this image we might just as well delete the Wikisource transcription as uncompletable. And if we've reached the point where images from historically significant documents are deleted simply because they offend the aesthetic sensibilities of some users, I guess Wikisource will have to review their upload policy.
- As far as I can tell, this image has been nominated because the nominator thinks he owns Category:Botanical diagrams, and doesn't want low quality images appearing there. He has repeatedly removed this and other images from Category:Botanical diagrams, despite the fact that they are indisputably botanical diagrams. Now this. Pathetic.
- Hesperian 01:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. In my opinion, Wikimedia is not the right place to be filled up with poor quality stuff. Keep in mind that Wiki is an encyclopedia. It requires contributions of an at least acceptable level of quality. The picture of the day, featured pictures and quality images as for instance linked right from the main page and other quality campaigns hardly make sense if on the other hand very low quality stuff like this is gladly welcome as well. On my talk page User Hesperian even claimed: “To exclude an image on the basis of its quality is unprecedented and unacceptable.” I hope that everyone agrees that this is incorrect.
I'm not aware why I get personally attacked in this discussion. Maybe besides quality also one of the five pillars fell into oblivion: “Be civil. Respect your fellow Wikipedians even if you disagree with them. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations”. --Ies 09:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. This is Commons, and the image in question is intended for use on Wikisource, to illustrate the 1839 source document from whence it came. The fact that you're rambling on about Wikipedia only demonstrates the bankruptcy of your argument. Hesperian 11:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- And you've quoted me out of context. Removing an image from a directly relevant category, just because it is low quality, is "unprecedented and unacceptable". The depicted plant is a Haloragaceae; there is no dispute about that. Yet you have repeatedly removed it from Category:Haloragaceae, because you think it is unworthy of inclusion in that category, which you think you own. If you think the Commons community is going to endorse that kind of behaviour, you are sadly mistaken. Hesperian 11:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep historically significant diagram from 1839, admitably it wont ever be a FP, but that doesnt diminish its historical value. As the image is being used with purpose by other projects shouldnt this be sufficient cause for its retention anyway. Gnangarra 09:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Misuse of process, the editor should withdraw this disruptive nomination. Cygnis insignis 12:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Keep, until a better replacement is available. I agree it's not exactly a great scan - but as pointed out above, it is being used in articles and appears to be inside commons scope. Megapixie 06:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept Low quality is no valid reason for deletion request. --GeorgHH • talk 22:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photoshopped to include the non-free Opera logo. Not even an accurate representation of the Nintendo DS Browser cartridge and probably not the memory expansion pack either. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Per usage of non-free Opera logo. Giggy\Talk 23:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 04:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work, no evidence the original artist released the image. --Liftarn 07:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- See my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:River Nar at King's Lynn.jpg, user is being disruptive to get revenge on me. :/ Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 20:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- You should really try to avoid making personal attacks like that. // Liftarn
- It's not a personal attack to point out that you're nominating my images for deletion, for frivolous reasons, in order to get back at me for taking a reasonable, "fix what you broke" position when all your images were nominated for deletion. That's a statement of fact, and you're on the adminstrator's noticeboard for that very reason. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 13:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- You should really try to avoid making personal attacks like that. // Liftarn
- Keep, writing “rage against the machine” on a wall is not art, and is not protected by copyright. --Kjetil r 00:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note the painted spraycan behind the text as well.
- Keep - graffiti in general (writing on a public wall) has long been considered free from copyright, especially in places with FOP. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Non-PD sculptures in National Gallery of Art
[edit]No freedom of panorama for sculptures in the U.S. The following are all by sculptors who died less than 70 years ago.
- Image:East Building DC 2007 026.jpg - Brâncuşi (1876-1957) & Mondriaan (1872-1944)
- Image:Alexander Calder 001.jpg - Calder (1898-1976)
- Image:NGA02.jpg
- Image:Tony Smith 001.jpg - Tony Smith (1912-1980)
- Image:Tony Smith 002.jpg
- Image:Tony Smith 003.jpg
- Image:Tony Smith 004.jpg
- Image:Moondog.jpg
- Image:NGA03.jpg
- Image:Rachel Whiteread 001.jpg - Whiteread (still living)
- Image:Rachel Whiteread 002.jpg
- Image:Rachel Whiteread 003.jpg
- Image:Henry Moore 003.jpg - Moore (1898-1986)
- Image:Aristide_Maillol_001.jpg - Maillol (1861-1944)
- Image:Alberto Giacometti 003.jpg - Giacometti (1901-1966)
- Image:Alberto Giacometti 002.jpg
- Image:National Gallery of Art DC 2007 026.jpg - David Smith (1906-1965)
- Image:National Gallery of Art DC 2007 027.jpg
- Image:National Gallery of Art DC 2007.jpg
- Image:NGA01.jpg - Rickey (1907-2002) (this one might pass as de minimis, but the sculpture still seems like a primary subject)
- Image:NGA 1.jpg - sculptor unidentified, but likely to be 20th century; flickr source no longer works, never flickreviewed.
--Davepape 03:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- (Image:NGA 1.jpg is by Magdalena Abakanowicz (born 1930) [114] --Davepape 03:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC))
- Delete per nom -- Simonxag 21:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --User:G.dallorto 04:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 04:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Rodrigo R. L
[edit]- Image:Elva mk-IV 64.jpg ()
- Image:McLaren by elva by chris manfre.jpg ()
- Image:Elva factory.jpg ()
- Image:Elva courier 59.jpg ()
- Image:Elva logo.JPG ()
- Image:DB 850 LM 54.jpg ()
- Image:Db logo.jpg ()
- Image:Osca logo.jpg ()
- Image:Aeon logo.jpg ()
- Image:Aero 500 29.jpg ()
- Image:AERO fernbus.jpg ()
- Image:Aero logo.jpg ()
- Image:Abbott logo.jpg ()
- Image:AMC logo 1.jpg ()
I believe that User:Rodrigo R. L.'s images are all copyvios because several of them contain text inside that indicate they were taken from various websites. Multichill 11:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious false PD-self claim in all of them. Patrícia msg 18:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 04:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All images from User:Breno Kelvyn
[edit]User Breno Kelvyn (talk • contribs) used Commons as a repository for his self-made cartoons, in order to use them in a couple of articles on pt.wikipedia. However, these articles were deleted by community decision (the artist is not notable enough). Usually, I delete such images directly on Commons, alleging that they are outside of COM:PS. However, I sometimes have problems deciding what is relevant for both projects and what is irrelevant for Wikipedia but not necessarily so for Commons. Here we have several images with a free license that can potentially illustrate articles, they were just on the wrong ones; on the other hand, maybe we're just being used as a webhost. Since I'm not willing to delete things if I'm not sure of what I'm doing, I'd like the opinion of the Commons community on this issue. Please check the full list at Special:Contributions/Breno Kelvyn. One of the images is a (self-made?) photo of very very bad quality, I also don't think it fits COM:PS. --Patrícia msg 13:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted All files used on a user page at portuguese wikipedia only. No other relevant edits there by this user. --GeorgHH • talk 23:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Star Trek TNG insignia
[edit]
PD ineligible, works of wikipedians (if not works with independent copyright) and not screen captures from the series. Images were deleted with the rationale "Paramount holds right, copyvio" but they are trivial to create with little to no creative work:
Captain insignia using a picture of the sun: 
I can add a redish background to that as well: 
-- Cat ちぃ？ 14:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Paramount created these rank insignia, as can be seen here. The sun image you note above is of the sun, not of Star Trek ranks, so that's irrelevant. The array of these rank insignias creates a body of work that Paramount made; it took substantial creative work to create this array of work to depict the ranks of various starfleet officers. As a body of work, these images are most definitely subject to copyright in the United States. These images are clearly being used in various places to depict Star Trek ranks, they're not just coincidentally created. They are derivative works of the original Paramount creations. --Durin
- It takes very little creative work to create a drawing of 4 pins. The key element for copyrightability under U.S. law is that copyrighted material must show sufficient originality. Also in the series the insignia were always shown over a black bg: [115] -- Cat ちぃ？ 15:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- As I just noted above, it's the entire body of work we're talking about. Paramount didn't just make a gold circle. They made an entire rank system represented by these images. --Durin 15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- An interesting point about Paramount inventing the rank system. Actually, what they did was take the existing stripe system from the United States Navy and convert it where a stripe equaled a pip and a half stripe equaled a hollow pip. Therefore, then, was the basic idea of these insignia taken from the Navy? And if so does the Navy in fact own the rights to Star trek insignia. Getting technical can bring up such deep question; personally, I think they are circles and cant be copyrighted. -OberRanks 07:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- We do not mass delete like that. We consider the copyright status of images individually not as a group. You are talking about trademark restrictions maybe, just not copyright. -- Cat ちぃ？ 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- As I just noted above, it's the entire body of work we're talking about. Paramount didn't just make a gold circle. They made an entire rank system represented by these images. --Durin 15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- It takes very little creative work to create a drawing of 4 pins. The key element for copyrightability under U.S. law is that copyrighted material must show sufficient originality. Also in the series the insignia were always shown over a black bg: [115] -- Cat ちぃ？ 15:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
![[115]](http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/a/a0/Jean_Luc_Picard_2364.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep For one thing, it's only a minor variant on standard pips used for hundreds of years in various armies. For another thing, it's just circles and lines. Adam Cuerden 15:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: In discussions on IRC related to this set of images, there seems to be pretty consistent determination that copyrights can not be held to an image when said image is comprised entirely of geometric shapes and colors. For demonstration purposes, I uploaded this image. Please note that this image is comprised entirely of a gold-yellow squares all of exactly the same color and dimensions. Therefore, this image is not subject to copyright, correct? Is this the rule we're supposed to follow? How long do you think it would take for the McDonald's lawyers to show up if I made a million t-shirts with this image on them and how well do you think my defense in court would hold up? --Durin 16:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say that's a trademark problem, not a copyright problem. --91.65.124.34 17:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Which of course doesn't make them free licensed. --Durin 18:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say that's a trademark problem, not a copyright problem. --91.65.124.34 17:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per Adam Cuerden. Ineligible, pd-old, etc. These images do not infringe on the copyright simply by creating a few dots.Patstuart 16:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- pd-old? These rank images are less than 25 years old. Did I infringe on McDonald's copyright with this image? --Durin 18:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Because they're standard military insignia. Even if these were a violation of Star Trek's rights, then, in fact, Star Trek would be a violation, under such rules, of the military insignia, meaning, in fact, that it's either pd-ineligible or pd-old. Patstuart 16:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- They're standard military insignia? Really. From what country? Be aware; we recently hashed out the copyright status of military insignia and found that it's a case by case basis. --Durin 18:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete All of the images were drawn by me. When I drew these images in 2005, I was a noob at copyright issues. I thought, at the time, that I could just draw anything and PD it. Because of what I did, others have decided to follow me in that tactic. Under the US law, the copyright holder of the work can issue authorization for derivative works to be made on their work. In my case, Paramount hasn't told me I can do it. I doubt anyone even sent a email to Paramount saying can I do what I did. As Durin pointed out, the series doesn't meet the threshold for being PD-Old yet. Another thing I notice is that on a lot of fansites, they have the copyright notice from Paramount about Star Trek images. At best, these images can be fair use, and the Commons cannot host that. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: White Cat, the bringer of this deletion request, asked about these images on Jimbo's talk page back in the spring of 2006 here. Jimbo's response? "I think these are almost certainly copyright violations." Just some food for thought. --Durin 20:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- And yet he did not delete them... -- Cat ちぃ？ 17:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yet his opinion was clear. --Durin 18:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- And yet he did not delete them... -- Cat ちぃ？ 17:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The insignia consist of circles on a background pattern which anyone can create. The easiest way to clear up once and for all what Paramount thinks of this is to ask them, which no one ever has. I imagine they would probably say these are trival and can be recreated. I suggest a letter to Paramount Pictures asking them straight up to settle this once and for all. -OberRanks 20:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep These are too simple to be copyrighted, even in the US. The "body of work" argument is besides the point: the fact that a work is copyrighted doesn't mean that every part of it is too, especially small or trivial parts (if the rank system as they created it is copyrightable, which, again, is doubtfull). The McDonald argument is even worse - sure, any raster graphic is made up of pixels, and even though the pixels are not copyrighted, the whole thing may be. The argument is that an image that only shows simple shapes in a trivial configuration is not copyrightable (Demologoimage.gif shows the McDonald Logo, which is a trademark and possibly copyrighted). Final comment: if you deem the insignia copyrighted, would this be derivative work? [OOOO] -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 20:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have emailed Paramount, so I am not sure what they are going to say. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Any action to keep/delete these images is really based on Paramount's reaction to Zscout370's query. Any other conclusion about this is just guessing. Further, I don't see anyone here claiming to be a lawyer. Thus, we're all taking shots in the dark about the copyrightable nature of these images. 100 people saying keep here, and 1 saying delete does not mean images are legally free and clear for us to use. I don't think we should be substituting consensus for legal advice. --Durin 13:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- But who says that Paramount's answer will follow copyright laws? Of course they will say that these symbols are copyrighted by them and can't be used without their approval. Why should they let their lawyers verify whether these images are copyrightable when they can just say "no, you can't use it" (and I doubt Zscout370's email will be answered by a lawyer, but rather by some marketing/public relations guy). --91.65.124.34 02:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I must agree with the IP on this one. Even if they do answer in the affirmative, it's not necessarily their right to make the claim. I could ask the guy down the street if he owned the copyright to a picture to something, and there's a good chance he'd say yes, if only for self-interest (though I'm not necessarily doubting Paramount's good faith on the issue). Patstuart 15:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- But who says that Paramount's answer will follow copyright laws? Of course they will say that these symbols are copyrighted by them and can't be used without their approval. Why should they let their lawyers verify whether these images are copyrightable when they can just say "no, you can't use it" (and I doubt Zscout370's email will be answered by a lawyer, but rather by some marketing/public relations guy). --91.65.124.34 02:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I got an email reply from Paramount this morning; they have stated that the insignia images are copyrighted and are still talking with me about that issue. I wonder if I can forward this email to OTRS or not. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have sent the email to the Wikimedia OTRS, the ticket number is #2007110910014659. Since I am an OTRS staff person, I am going to let another staff member deal with this. However, given the email I just got, I still believe we should move them back to en.wikipedia for the time being. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - copyrighted images, per OTRS ticket #2007110910014659. WjBscribe 23:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I may be reading the ticket wrong, but I do not see a reply from Paramount on the ticket indicating that they consider these to be under copyright, nor do I necessarily take their claims to be authoritative, as they have a rather alarmingly large amount invested in overzealous copyright protection being, you know, a major media company and all. Phil Sandifer 00:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- You have to scroll down to where it says my name, your email was forarded..."Could you please provide the links of the applicable websites so that I can see how the site is using the copyrighted materials please." That was the statement that I used to believe the images are copyrighted. The very basic ones were restored and tagged with a different license template. I have no reason to believe Paramount is lying, but I still believe that we should not have them on the Commons. You're welcome to have them placed on en.wikipedia or a similar project that allows fair use. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- How is what paramount says any relevant. They would claim anything was under their copyright should you asked them. They aren't necessarily lying but I seriously doubt that response has a legal binding. -- Cat ちぃ？ 20:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Because they hold the copyright. I received a longer reply from CBS lawyers this morning and they confirmed the insignia is under copyright and anything Star Trek related is still under copyright. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I see. So CBS holds the copyright to any yellow circle. Thats just silly. -- Cat ちぃ？ 22:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- A series of yellow circles arranged in a certain way.Geni 23:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Meaning? Mind elaborating? -- Cat ちぃ？ 00:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- there is an entire series of these items while a single one may count as de minimis the series would probably not.Geni 14:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Meaning? Mind elaborating? -- Cat ちぃ？ 00:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- A series of yellow circles arranged in a certain way.Geni 23:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Leonard Nimoy is not protected by copyright.Geni 23:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I see. So CBS holds the copyright to any yellow circle. Thats just silly. -- Cat ちぃ？ 22:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Because they hold the copyright. I received a longer reply from CBS lawyers this morning and they confirmed the insignia is under copyright and anything Star Trek related is still under copyright. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- How is what paramount says any relevant. They would claim anything was under their copyright should you asked them. They aren't necessarily lying but I seriously doubt that response has a legal binding. -- Cat ちぃ？ 20:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- You have to scroll down to where it says my name, your email was forarded..."Could you please provide the links of the applicable websites so that I can see how the site is using the copyrighted materials please." That was the statement that I used to believe the images are copyrighted. The very basic ones were restored and tagged with a different license template. I have no reason to believe Paramount is lying, but I still believe that we should not have them on the Commons. You're welcome to have them placed on en.wikipedia or a similar project that allows fair use. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I got an email about the terms of how we can host the images from CBS; we still cannot host them on the Commons. The terms he set down is for non-commercial use only, which is against the terms of Commons. I am not only willing to send the letter to OTRS again, but I sent the CBS lawyer to OTRS for him to talk with other Foundation officials about the issue. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- That only serves to tangle up a simple problem to something unmanageable. I see it as a bad faith move really. -- Cat ちぃ？ 22:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I do have to agree with Cat. I'm not quite sure how we can be hosting Image:Led Zeppelin logo.png and Image:IBM logo.svg as pd-ineligible, but a couple of blips on a background aren't. If someone who is dissenting could elaborate on cat's comment, which I don't believe anyone has done: of course any company will claim a copyright over something if you give them the option. But we shouldn't have been asking them in the first place, because the images are simply ineligible. Patstuart (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Text is more complicated.Geni 14:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I do have to agree with Cat. I'm not quite sure how we can be hosting Image:Led Zeppelin logo.png and Image:IBM logo.svg as pd-ineligible, but a couple of blips on a background aren't. If someone who is dissenting could elaborate on cat's comment, which I don't believe anyone has done: of course any company will claim a copyright over something if you give them the option. But we shouldn't have been asking them in the first place, because the images are simply ineligible. Patstuart (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- So we ask *lawyers* about whether the images are copyrighted, we don't like the answer, then say we shouldn't have asked them in the first place, and then work with answers by people who have no actual training in copyright law? Asking Paramount regarding the image copyright status, and then ignoring their comment that they feel it is copyrighted is insanity. We're just asking for a lawsuit. As for the IBM logo, that's not a general typeface. You show me the font it comes from, and prove to me the font is not copyrighted, then fine. Same goes for the Led Zeppelin logo. --Durin 14:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, we ask *Paramount's* lawyers about whether the images are copyrighted, who we should not have been asking in the first place. For crying out loud, we could ask them if the text "Star Trek" is copyrighted, and they would say yes. In fact, I've known of company's to assert such nonsense (e.g., EB saying you can't sell stuff on eBay if you use our name, EB - i.e., Eddie Bauer). As for those two images, IBM was kept in a discussion. If we asked neutral lawyers, I'll bet we might geta a different answer. No one seems to be addressing this. Patstuart (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- And if we asked neutral lawyers, they will most likely say "We have no idea, ask the copyright holder," which is what I did. This was one of the things asked about so many times during these discussions; ask the copyright holder. I did that and you still did not like it. I just do not know what to say now other than I stand behind the actions that were taken. If you want to upload them under fair use on a EDP-acceptable wikipedia, then you can. The lawyer I spoke to says we can. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- So we ask *lawyers* about whether the images are copyrighted, we don't like the answer, then say we shouldn't have asked them in the first place, and then work with answers by people who have no actual training in copyright law? Asking Paramount regarding the image copyright status, and then ignoring their comment that they feel it is copyrighted is insanity. We're just asking for a lawsuit. As for the IBM logo, that's not a general typeface. You show me the font it comes from, and prove to me the font is not copyrighted, then fine. Same goes for the Led Zeppelin logo. --Durin 14:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence the photographer died more than 70 years ago or is indeed anonymous. --Liftarn 11:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well everyone has a name, yes. But if the original source, the book, does not give a name then an work is anonymous. Samulili 12:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds more like "unknown" (or perhaps "didn't bother checking") than actual anonymous. // Liftarn
- Anonymous works are works that are published without the name of the author. Therefore the name is obviously unknown. And if you have bothered to read the given information, the name of the author has been checked. You can turn to pages 33 and 66 of the book to check yourself. Samulili 10:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- If the author isn't mentioned in the book doesn't imply that it is an anonymous work. Mostly it means that the author(s) of the book didn't care mentioning or checking the author. That's the buisness of the publisher. If the source doesn't state the author, then it's not a usable source for wikimedia commons. A work is anonymous if the author decided to publish it without a name or using a pseudonym. --ChristophT 23:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Screenshot of non-free software, non-free logos. --Liftarn 11:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Incidental inclusion, not a derivative work. Samulili 12:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep with {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} tag. Should be replaced with free image. // Liftarn
Kept. I would have been more worried about the Windows logo, but both are obviously incidental. De minimis. →Rocket°°° 23:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
October 27
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All of Svinisce's uploads at en.wiki have been deleted as copyvios based on finding many of them on various websites. All were tagged PD-self. Butseriouslyfolks 08:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. en:User talk:Svinisce does not inspire confidence in those authorship claims. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted; all of original uploader on en:Wikipedia's uploads have been deleted there as copyright viols. -- Infrogmation 12:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
maybe copyright violation: http://www.windmill.de/images/br-mill1.gif -- Verschlimmbesserer 20:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
*
Keep Gerald Bost = User:molinologe = Betreiber der Website http://www.windmill.de. Ich schlage vor, daß du den Löschantrag zurückziehst. -- smial 21:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wenn das so ist, kann User:molinologe das mit Sicherheit selbst richtigstellen, oder benötigt er Dich als Sprachrohr? -- Verschlimmbesserer 13:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Habe den Inhaber von windmill.de per eMail informiert. Sofern das Bild innerhalb von 14 Tagen freigegeben wird, bleibt es. -- Verschlimmbesserer 14:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Der Benutzer hat beim Upload zu viel korrekt ausgefüllt. Das ist verdächtig. Das Bild sollte gelöscht werden. AGF war gestern. ---jha- 18:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Grafik wurde heute per eMail freigegeben. Hier die eMail, Eigennamen wurden durch *** ersetzt:
"Hallo ***,
die angegebene Grafik der Britzer Mühle ist freigegeben.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
www.windmill.de Vorstand Britzer Müller Verein e.V. Wikipedia-Autor: Molinologe
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
labeling error, this is actually the Mason County courthouse (see flickr link). My mistake. --W.marsh 22:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reuploaded as Image:Mason county kentucky courthouse.jpg. Deadstar (msg) 14:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted reuploaded under correct name. Deadstar (msg) 14:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Smaller duplicate of Image:Carol I of Romania.jpg. Replaced all uses with bigger version --Alex:D 14:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Alex:D 14:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Scaled down of Image:Carol I of Romania.jpg. Not in use. --GeorgHH 16:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is repeated JonatasM 20:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I accidentally uploaded it as 1915, and attempted to correct the date uploading another one as 1914, Image:William James Sidis 1914.jpg . The 1915 version should be deleted as it has a wrong date. JonatasM 00:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Wrong named duplicate of Image:William James Sidis 1914.jpg, unused. --GeorgHH 17:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not needed any more Pionic 09:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It looks to be a derivative work with a false licence that should not have been here in the first place. -- Infrogmation 18:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative. Request by uploader. --GeorgHH 16:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedily deleted per uploader request. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Also: Image:Burger King sign.jpg. Derivative work; logo is trademarked --Patstuart 15:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image is simply a derivative of Image:Burger King sign.jpg, which is a freely licensed photo, which happens to include a trademark. Trademark restrictions do apply, as per the template on the page, but the image itself is not copyrighted. Dream out loud 19:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've listed that one for deletion too. Patstuart 19:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep File is tagged with {{Trademarked}}, the image itself is Cc-by-20. --GeorgHH 16:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as derivative work of copyrighted logo. This is not a photo of the logo incidentally. -- Cat ちぃ？ 20:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Appears to be a derivative work: photograph of another work --Patstuart 20:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, false "own work" claim. -- Infrogmation 19:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - False claim of own work. Giggy\Talk 03:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative. --GeorgHH 17:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Boricuæddie 21:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not needed any more Pionic 09:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative, false licence, likely copyright violation. -- Infrogmation 18:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative. Request by uploader. --GeorgHH 16:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Boricuæddie 22:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of a copyrighted figure 81.23.250.16 17:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Derivative work. --GeorgHH 17:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 15:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Television image, not self made; I am not sufficiently familiar with Portugese copyright rules (nor do I have a source) to establish if the copyright was not renewed, and if it is thus in the public domain --Patstuart 16:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Screenshot, so the uploader is not the copyright holder. --GeorgHH 17:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Screenshot. --GeorgHH • talk 22:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Questionable copyright status. This image is sourced to Flickr (source image), but the Flickr uploader credits the photo to Mike Egerton / EMPICS, a commercial sports photo agency. It's debatable whether the Flickr account has the right to release this image under a free license. --Muchness 23:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, likely copyvio. --Kjetil r 01:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Likely copyrighted Empics/PA Photos. --GeorgHH • talk 22:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Seems to be a copyright violation. It is a copy of an image on the British Science Museum's website. Their copyright policy says the images may not be copied. The image is of a modern reproduction of a medieval clock. Wikipedia:Image use policy says photos of 3 dimensional art work usually create new copyrights. Of course the clock itself is a reproduction, made from 14th century manuscript sources; I don't know if that makes a difference. Uploader has not documented his GDFL license. Chetvorno 05:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Infringes the copyright in the original photo. MichaelMaggs 15:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No (reliable or scientific) source. The summary says: "HECHO POR MI CON PHOTO DELUXE, TRABAJO PROPIO, EN BASE A MAPAS HISTORICOS" (Translated: "I've done it by myself with photo deluxe, own work, based on historical maps")". An abstract reference to unknown/unsourced historical maps is not a reliable source. Ravenloft 15:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Second that. The map is far from reliable. I don't know if the boundaries are accurate, but the classification is not: the classification of the Caristii and Varduli is still controversial, and stronger evidences now show that they are related to Vascones or pre-indoeuropeans, not Celts. - Keta 16:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS PHOTO DELUXE
- Delete'Delete'. There's just no reliable info on what Northern Iberian peoples spoke. Mostly it's a projection based in what was probably spoken in the Plateau (Celtic) and "classical" speculations of Spanish historiography that promoted the Celtic tag as catch-all term in case of any doubt. In the case of Western Basque tribes there's been a lot of political bias intended to make them appear as Celts or Celticied, without any evidence and rather against what more modern research is showing up (see Iruña-Veleia for instance), but this extends probably to Cantabri and Astures for whom there's no evidence of Celtization whatsoever.
- Also it's in Spanish and has a quite pitiful Spanish title that should be changed in any case.
- I can draw a better map (I may even have already one somewhere and, in that case, I would only need to upload). --Sugaar 07:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note: I've uploaded that map in en.Wikipedia (sorry, I thought this discussion was in there) as Languages of pre-Roman Iberia.gif, noting source, etc. Consider using it as replacement is, as it seems, this one is deleted. There are a lot of pages linking to this map that would be orphaned otherwise.--Sugaar 08:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, the Languages of pre-Roman Iberia.gif map is much more accurate, it will be a good replacement. --Ravenloft 22:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I thought the map was colourful, but did not have any legend to help understand it.
- CommentThere is a similar map (same boundries) indicating linguistic analysis of toponymes. See Image:Prehispanic languages.gif!
- What I don't understand in that other map: The fields "Aquitani" and "Vasconi" have the same letter (with diffent numbers), corresponding to the scientific identification of Aquitan as Proto-Basque, but the fields are coloured very differently.--Ulamm 13:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This map has no authentic source.
Do not delete because the map corresponds rather well with the distribution of Celtic place-names. It seems largely accurate. Also, Asturies is recognised widely as a Celtic area and Cantabria too to some extent at least.
- CommentThis map is almost identical to the other map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Prehispanic_languages.gif - and there are several other maps almost identical to these two maps, as far as the iberian area goes.83.89.18.251 03:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment This map is not a languages map, is a TRIBES map. This is other map that explains the location of the tribes in the pre-roman iberia:http://itw.celtiberos.net/img/mapa%20pueblos%20prerromanos.jpg --Black Wulfric 15:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. —Angr 14:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Invalid license. Source listed as Turkish Navy and can not be GFDL. Likely copyrighted by Turkish Navy or unknown photographer. --Dual Freq 03:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted - invalid license. --Tom (talk - email) 16:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Missing essential information. No date of creation or first publishing and no author and his date of death are given. So, no point of {{PD-Canada}} is fulfilled. Also without this information we have no proof that it is a Canadien work and {{PD-Canada}} is correct. --GeorgHH 10:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- As I've already pointed out, the subject died in 1914 per his bio, so the photo has to be at least that old, easily satisfying point 2 of PD-Canada.LeadSongDog 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per LeadSongDog. (It might be helpful to include such information on image description pages to make such points clear and head off deletion requests such as this.) -- Infrogmation 18:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. LeadSongDog 00:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept --Tom (talk - email) 16:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyrighted Temple logo; that it was self-constructed from the graphics standards page means nothing, as those standards are copyrighted by Temple University --Patstuart 15:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image consisting of simple geometric shapes and text cannot be copyrighted, although trademark laws to apply to its usage, but it is not in violation of Wikimedia policies. Dream out loud 19:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept --Tom (talk - email) 16:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is not simple enough to not be copyrighted; text arrangement in shape clearly requires creativity --Patstuart 15:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image consists of simply basic geometric shapes (2 semi-circles and a rectangle) and text, therefore is not subject to copyright, although trademark laws to apply. Dream out loud 19:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- In addition, the Underground logo has been published as early as the 1920s, which puts it in public domain in the UK because it was created by the government (Underground is government owned) before 1957. Dream out loud 20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Image is to handle like a traffic sign and therefore in public domain! See Category:Diagrams of railway symbols to find a lot of examples how this symbols are handled on Commons! Siegele Roland 10:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the logo has changed somewhat in form between the 1920s and now - original designs did things such as varied text size, segmentation of the central bar, etc. I may be wrong, but the London Underground of the 1920s was not owned by HM Government. However, a version without the "UNDERGROUND" legend on it would be undeniably copyright-free, and is a preferable replacement - it could be used unencumbered on route diagrams, etc. 90.203.45.168 18:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that most of Category:Diagrams of railway symbols consist of a single letter on a coloured background, so not really a valid comparison. 90.203.45.168 18:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- ... and just to add to this stream-of-consciousness argument, PD-ineligible refers to text in a "general font" - the typeface used by LU was specifically designed for them, and is not "general". 90.203.45.168 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that most of Category:Diagrams of railway symbols consist of a single letter on a coloured background, so not really a valid comparison. 90.203.45.168 18:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept - no consensus. --Tom (talk - email) 16:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Text arrangement is not simple enough to preclude trademark. --Patstuart 15:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Simple logo consisting of merely text and a simple geometric shape (ex: star) cannot be copyrighted, although is subject to trademark laws, which is not prohibited by Wikimedia. See Template talk:PD-textlogo. Dream out loud 19:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept --Tom (talk - email) 16:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Image:PortiaBassanioIllustration.gif
- Image:LadyMacbethIllustration.gif
- Image:HamletOpheliaIllustration.gif
- Image:KingLearCordeliaIllustration.gif
- Image:HermionePolixenes.gif
- Image:JulietandNurse.gif
Gertrude Demain Hammond, British, died in 1953; will not be public domain for another 16 years {{pd-art}} --Patstuart 17:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photograph from 1931 is copyrighted; this is a derivative work --Patstuart 20:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- If Bulgarian photograph from 1931 is still under copyright, delete. -- Infrogmation 18:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Also: Image:First Ford Factory.JPG.
Not own work. Not enough information about source to establish copyright --Patstuart 20:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Image:Ford, Edison and Firestone.JPG unless more information is provided. The image may well date back to the 1910s and be PD-US, but I doubt User:Biso was the photographer (and if he is, perhaps he has a higher resolution version?). As to the other image, keep only if Biso has demonstrated understanding of what means and the importance of accurate credits. -- Infrogmation 18:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- This "own work" it's my mistake! I'm repair....--Biso 12:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
deleted (not enough information to establish copyright status) --ALE! ¿…? 09:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It was a mistake (I'm trying to create Category:Venezuelan Paper Metro
Deleted error. Deadstar (msg) 15:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
October 28
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
file name is carelessly original ( Hanabi123 01:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Duplicate of Image:JR-West Sugimotocho Station.JPG. -- Cecil 01:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Clearly a derivative work. No information on what this is scanned from, who own the original copyright.
deleted --Szczepan talk 13:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Advertisement/poster. Seems unlikely to be own work by the uploader as is claimed. --Andre Engels 12:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Agreed; seems like a piece of an exiting poster or advertisement. -- Avi 13:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Appears to be a framecap ? Megapixie 14:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 10:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- bad name; already moved to correct location Image:Tafel_12159_Berlin_Handjerystr.2.jpg --Wikinaut 08:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted - duplicate. Deadstar (msg) 14:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
it's offensive por one person—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Chabacano11 (talk • contribs) 25 October 2007
- Delete looks like a child's drawing & might even be libelous. --Simonxag 23:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This image is hardly within the project scope. Samulili 16:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
No tiene sentido y me ocasiona problemas. No es util --81.9.221.244 00:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Samulili - out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 13:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 13:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Replaced by 'Image:Klein Haasdal.jpg' Gouwenaar 14:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted - duplicate file. Deadstar (msg) 14:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
dull 82.47.41.13 18:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- ähm, can you read it? and who are you and what's your standard of dullnessiness? -- Southgeist 08:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, silly deletion request by anon with no relevence to any Commons policies or criteria relevent to deletion. -- Infrogmation 23:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept No concrete reason given for deletion. --GeorgHH 17:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request - This is a copyrighted logo, with all rights reserved by Simon Fraser University. -Kelvinc 11:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: Copyright violation
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derative work --79.212.243.85 12:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Trademark signs and logos can be freely used in Germany for encyclopedic purposes. --Monacofranzl 23:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Unacceptable. Please read Commons:Licensing. Thuresson 23:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Commons has its own requirements as it serves multi-national projects. -- Avi 23:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Metzeler Logo.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Offical paper from city of New York, not US federal government so no public domain. Deleted from en.wikipedia per this discussion. --Garion96 01:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete here as there. —Angr 06:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Concur. -- Avi 19:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
While this photo has been released into the public domain, the statue it copies was created by Dee Jay Bawden, who is still alive, and his statues are surely not in the public domain. See http://www.ldsartworks.com/ —Remember the dot (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Derivative, photo of artwork by contemporary artist, reproductions of which are commercially sold. -- Infrogmation 03:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 03:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
While this photo has been released into the public domain, the statue it copies was created by Dee Jay Bawden, who is still alive, and his statues are surely not in the public domain. See http://www.ldsartworks.com/ —Remember the dot (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, derivitive -- Infrogmation 03:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a copyvio. Original uploader at en.wiki is impersonating a pro photographer. See en:User Talk:Punkguy182 . Butseriouslyfolks 20:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse request — Original uploader is one of a bunch of accounts/IPs that have been very disruptive at en:Chris Conley. Some of the accounts are blocked and others suspect. See en:Image:STD.jpg by same uploader that has been deleted on en.wiki for the same reasons. --Jack Merridew 07:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Believing the local duplicate at en.WP this can't be PD-author (especially since the author ist missing). See en:Image:VavilovNI.jpg. -- Cecil 00:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- OK. Thierry Caro 12:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Does Cecil complain about copyright? N.I.Vavilov had dead long ago. The photo could not be made after his death. Therefore, the image is also old, and the copyright has expired, even if there was any copyright protection. Please, remove the tag about deletion. The pic shouild be at common.wikipedia, not at en.wikipedia. Domitori 08:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be here at commons, but not with an invalid licence, and right now it has an invalid licence. -- Cecil 11:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Does Cecil complain about copyright? N.I.Vavilov had dead long ago. The photo could not be made after his death. Therefore, the image is also old, and the copyright has expired, even if there was any copyright protection. Please, remove the tag about deletion. The pic shouild be at common.wikipedia, not at en.wikipedia. Domitori 08:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
deleted, no appropriate source, no author, invalid license. Replaced by Image:Nikolai Vavilov NYWTS.jpg .--Polarlys 23:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image has no purpose, it is just porn. -- 68.36.85.106 04:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete there are some legal requirements to hosting pornography in the US, even if Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was struck down, I strongly urge wikimedia org to delete all such instances of pornographic content, unless it is a historical artwork (this clearly is not) Madmax32 04:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- And these watermarked images are quite outside the project scope, unless commons is planning to provide hosting for adult websites Madmax32 04:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I deleted this when it was uploaded and declined to undelete it - not Commons IMO --Herby talk thyme 07:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- apparently User:SB Johnny thinks it has some 'educational potential' according to his undelete description, it just looks like explicit and potentially illegal material (depending on the jurisdiction). It has no other use than as sexual stimulation medium, it's pornography. Madmax32 07:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 01:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- This is supposed to content hosting for encyclopedic and educational content, pornography doesn't have anything do to with that Madmax32 22:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This image should probably go into MediaWiki's "bad image" restriction list to limit inline use---if it's ever used on an article, and putting it on commons facilitate vandalism using this picture. Also we generally don't need pornography images in Wikimedia projects. Wooyi 17:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as per discussion and Commons:Project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Foxie with player.jpg (Second nomination)
[edit]
- Delete according to the law. Its pornographic-like image.--Berserkerus 00:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please, let me know according to which country's law you want this image be deleted? Iran? If i ask it's author to put hijab on foxy then this image will lost its main purpose to serve as illustration of yiff. 82.199.102.55 10:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- without flash-mob pls.--Berserkerus 16:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please, let me know according to which country's law you want this image be deleted? Iran? If i ask it's author to put hijab on foxy then this image will lost its main purpose to serve as illustration of yiff. 82.199.102.55 10:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Claims that this image is pornographic is unproven. 82.199.102.55 10:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Uh... I'm refraining from a delete vote only due to my ignorance about Furry fandom and as to if this is actually informative about some encyclopedic theme in that sub culture. I see that from image/deletion history that this is a modified version of the original image (as the artist first uploaded it, there were no panties); I guess such modifications should be noted if the image is kept. I also saw in Category:Furry this image: Image:Momochan ardilla color jpg.png which I think should probably go as well if this one is deleted (or maybe even if not). -- Infrogmation 17:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's illustrative of a particular type of sexual fantasy art. As such it is useful. The Wikipedia does document the various aspects of human sexuality. US law clearly allows blatantly pornographic images, so how does this rather odd cartoon become illegal? --Simonxag 23:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)comment but I'm a lot less happy about the other image Infrogmation pointed to: if anything might be called kiddiporn, we had better be sure it's not! --Simonxag 12:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Currently used in en:Furry fandom and the ru: version. Whether or not it's pornographic, it isn't illegal on en:. GreenReaper 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's enough good illustration to the article subject. It's legal and properly licensed. I don't see why it should be deleted. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 17:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep.And I think you should have kept the previous version Dz2001 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Cooncat
Closing as kept. -- Infrogmation 23:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
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.
the uploader claims that the picture was downloaded from the internet, which is not corresponding to GFDL. --SElefant 06:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- delete uploader has a number of images that all appear to be pulled from websites. I haven't found the links yet, but I suspect these are not gfdl licensed images. -- malo (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This particular image is a crop of this one (warning: not work-safe). Lupo 10:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Rosa6.jpg (closed, the questioned version was vandalism)
[edit]
Image:Rosa6.jpg is possibly a vandalism, see its presence at ca:Escut de Reus. The same image is also uploaded as Image:ROSITA ROSEN LIKE.JPG --Havang 20:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Just revert to the first uploaded version. It was an ancient coat of arms used in ca:Escut de Reus. --Vriullop 20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done that, closing.HardDisk 22:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept, problem resolved. -- Infrogmation 14:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request: This is not India.Arie - it turns out the image is mislabeled and it's just someone (an unknown person) who looks a bit like her. Delete for not being of Commons utility. - David Gerard 13:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rename. The picture can be useful for many reasons: musicians, scarves, guitar, women, etc. Rename it so that it is not misleading, categorize it, and let it be used. There seems to be no issue with the license. -- Avi 13:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I see what you mean. Pity we can't easily rename images - David Gerard 12:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Not India Arie, and possible issues with personality rights. Samulili 08:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
because that coat of arms is not proper. I've made the proper one - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Coat_o_arms_of_Siennica.svg Pch 82 14:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh well, my coa is coa of village, and yours is coa of gmina. Don't you think that those coas may differ? Herr Kriss 15:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept The images are different. --GeorgHH • talk 15:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bad JPEG. Superseded by SVG file --Voytek s 16:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)}}
Kept No deletion of superseeded files. --GeorgHH • talk 15:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio (derivative work). Baumeister died in 1955, so his works are protected for another 18 years. Rosenzweig 16:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyvio --Phrood 19:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 08:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
http://home.rca.com/en-US/Legal.html says "non commercial", and I doubt the basis for the original uploader's claim of a Creative Commons license. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - obvious copyvio. Patstuart 19:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Fair use needs to be justified, and the original uploader needs to relinquish its {{Cc-by-2.5}} claim, in order for this image to be put back on English Wikipedia. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have alerted the original uploader on en:Wikipedia about this matter. Delete from Commons unless evidence for a free licence can be shown. -- Infrogmation 00:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- The image is from RCA.com's Press Room, i.e., the images placed there are intended for re-publication without further permission. I assume Wikipedia qualifies. — Walloon 02:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have alerted the original uploader on en:Wikipedia about this matter. Delete from Commons unless evidence for a free licence can be shown. -- Infrogmation 00:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Sounds like very legitimate fair use on en:Wikipedia, but no evidence that copyright holder has consented to release under CC-BY-2.5. -- Infrogmation 18:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 08:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image was originally uploaded here with the GNU license tag. Because there was no reason stated, I changed it into PD-Iran. This image is also available on English Wikipedia as en:Image:Mohammadreza Shah.jpg and was originally tagged as "fair use", but recently someone changed it to PD-Iran stating that "it was definitely taken more than 30 years ago". There is but one problem - Mohammad Reza Pahlavi died in 1979 and since there is no other information provided as to the year, in which the picture was taken, IMHO we should wait until January 1st, 2010 before we can assume PD-Iran. Therefore I nominate this picture for deletion on Commons and suggest that the local copy on English Wikipedia be tagged again as "fair use". --Botev 20:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted No information about author, source and date of publication. --GeorgHH • talk 15:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Undeleted today because its PD inbetween but redirected to duplicate File:Mohammad-reza-shah.jpg afterwards. --JuTa 17:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unclear source and license: own work is given as source, but arche nova as author. Also use limited to commons and wikipedia. GeorgHH 23:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted: "pr-representative of "arche noVa e.V." allows use in wikimedia commons and wikipedia". License is not free enough. Samulili 08:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files by Arthur Rackham
[edit]- Category:Arthur Rackham and its contents
- Category:Rackham´s Wagner and its contents
- Arthur Rackham and its contents
- Siegfried and its contents
- Also possibly: Image:Hunding Siegmund fight.jpg (not listed as his, but given context and other uploads by author, appears to be so).
Arthur Rackham was from England. He illustrated books until his death on 6 September 1939. His illustrations are subject to European Union copyright law, not US copyright law, and the copyright on them will not expire until the end of the year 70 years after his death, that is the end of 2009; they will become free (and eligible for Template:PD-old) on 1 January 2010. All images in these categories (Category:Arthur Rackham and its subcategory Category:Rackham´s Wagner) and on these pages (Arthur Rackham and Siegfried), and consequently these categories and pages, should not exist on Commons until 1 January 2010, unless we have proof that he or his heirs relinquished their rights. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Those images were first published in the United States. Thus they are US works and the copyright has expired in the United States. This is sufficient for Wikimedia Commons. They are, of course, also English works and the copyright has not expired in England - or rather, it did expire and was then restored. This is, of course, unfortunate, but it doesn't prevent us from having the images here. Haukurth 15:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep any illustrations which were first published in the US; Delete anything first published in the UK. I don't know how to establish this, but if someone can do so, then let us keep it straight. Patstuart 17:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- All the images I've uploaded were published in London by William Heinemann and in New York by Doubleday, Page in 1910 (Rhinegold, Valyrie) and 1911 (Siegfried, Götterdämmerung). If you check the front of the books you'll see both publishers and cities listed, I assume that means they were published simultaneously on both sides of the pond. Haukurth 18:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- OK, those images which include year of publication in the US and which are tagged with Template:PD-1923, Template:PD-US-no notice, Template:PD-US-not renewed, or Template:PD-old-50 are exempt from this request; the rest are assumed to still be copyrighted in England through the end of 2009. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- All the images I've uploaded were published in London by William Heinemann and in New York by Doubleday, Page in 1910 (Rhinegold, Valyrie) and 1911 (Siegfried, Götterdämmerung). If you check the front of the books you'll see both publishers and cities listed, I assume that means they were published simultaneously on both sides of the pond. Haukurth 18:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- It appears all these images were published simultaneously in the US and UK. (US copyright law considers publication "simultaneous" if done within 30 days of each other.) The Wikipedia article w:Rule of the shorter term says that the EU requires its members to accept this rule for non-EU countries, so I assume the UK considers a work PD if its copyright has expired in the US. Therefore I believe these works to be PD. . . but I'll ask for a second opinion. Quadell (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not in this case. Having been published simultaneously in the U.S. and in the UK makes these images both UK and U.S. works. Hence, in the UK, this is a UK work, and thus no rule of the shorter term ever triggers in the UK for these. (In fact, throughout the whole EU.) Lupo 16:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Corollary: since these are simultaneously published they're UK works and U.S. works at the same time. That means that the UK will treat them as UK works (life+70), and the U.S. will treat them as U.S. works. Thus copyrighted in the UK until the end of 2009. Delete all, and move those tagged {{PD-1923}} or {{PD-US}}, {{PD-US-no notice}}, {{PD-US-not renewed}}, or {{PD-old-50}} back to en-WP. Tag 'em over there as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} or add {{Do not move to Commons}}, as appropriate. Lupo 16:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- What about Das Rheingold, Die Walküre and Siegfried? I put a lot of effort into those galleries and I don't think they would survive on en:Wikipedia. I guess I might put them in my userspace over there. But I still don't see why these need to be deleted. They're US works and they are in the public domain in the US. I thought that would always be enough for Commons. Haukurth 09:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- They're U.S. works for the U.S., but they're UK works for the UK. That makes them copyrighted in the UK (source country) and also in the rest of the EU. :-( They would not survive as gallery pages in mainspace at en-WP, but they could survive as categories. We've done that before, see e.g. en:Category:Edmund Dulac. Lupo 10:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- It just seems rather arbitrary. If they'd been first published just in the US, then their copyright status in Europe (and more or less everywhere) would be just the same. But in that case we'd allow them here? Anyway, those captions at the gallery pages took me a while to make because I had to read the operas to figure out the context for each picture. I never got around to the fourth opera. Categories don't handle captions very well. Haukurth 10:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Afterthought: Maybe they'd even survive as gallery pages at en-WP. I remember nobody complained about some gallery pages on some Polish painter. I just can't remember which page it was... if I dig hard enough, I'll be able to find it again. I noticed that in the context of some FP discussion over at en-WP, about a year or so ago. Lupo 10:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, we could try. Haukurth 10:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Here's the precedent. I first noticed it through this in November 2005. So it's even been more than two years... If your gallery ever goes up for deletion, enroll the Polish editors. ;-) Lupo 11:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, we could try. Haukurth 10:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- They're U.S. works for the U.S., but they're UK works for the UK. That makes them copyrighted in the UK (source country) and also in the rest of the EU. :-( They would not survive as gallery pages in mainspace at en-WP, but they could survive as categories. We've done that before, see e.g. en:Category:Edmund Dulac. Lupo 10:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, this looks like a job for a bot. Quadell (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do you know anyone at en-WP running a "move-back bot"? User:Bryan can sometimes do it with his bots, but it can still be quite a lot of work since he's not an admin at en-WP and thus can upload locally there only if the images are deleted here first... which may create problems because of the CommonsDelinker, who's gonna remove uses of the images then. (We have other such deletion requests, for instance this one.) Lupo 07:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I guess nobody ever reads documentation. If the deletion summary contains the string "no-orgullobot", the image will not be orphaned.
- Making a general movebackbot is quite hard, since there are so many different cases... some need to have a template replaced, others need a template added... and how to know which images are actually needed to be moved back? Anyway, I have some framework on User:BryanBot/movebackbot.py. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- At least one image has already been deleted. - EurekaLott 20:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do you know anyone at en-WP running a "move-back bot"? User:Bryan can sometimes do it with his bots, but it can still be quite a lot of work since he's not an admin at en-WP and thus can upload locally there only if the images are deleted here first... which may create problems because of the CommonsDelinker, who's gonna remove uses of the images then. (We have other such deletion requests, for instance this one.) Lupo 07:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- What about Das Rheingold, Die Walküre and Siegfried? I put a lot of effort into those galleries and I don't think they would survive on en:Wikipedia. I guess I might put them in my userspace over there. But I still don't see why these need to be deleted. They're US works and they are in the public domain in the US. I thought that would always be enough for Commons. Haukurth 09:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Corollary: since these are simultaneously published they're UK works and U.S. works at the same time. That means that the UK will treat them as UK works (life+70), and the U.S. will treat them as U.S. works. Thus copyrighted in the UK until the end of 2009.
- Not in this case. Having been published simultaneously in the U.S. and in the UK makes these images both UK and U.S. works. Hence, in the UK, this is a UK work, and thus no rule of the shorter term ever triggers in the UK for these. (In fact, throughout the whole EU.) Lupo 16:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I still think these deletions are a very weird exercise. The images, indeed, are not in the public domain in the UK. Fair enough. And we want images to be PD in their countries of origin to safeguard use by local Wikipedias. Sounds reasonable. But moving the images to English Wikipedia is a very weird result of this logic. It's not as if the English Wikipedia is any less a UK project than the Commons is! In fact, it is to a larger extent a UK project. We'll also want to move the whole thing back here in less than two years. Haukurth 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if you prefer not to have them moved to en-WP... we can also just delete them here and restore them in two years. We'll just have to record it somewhere, so it won't be forgotten. Lupo 19:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd prefer a temporary move to en-WP to outright deletion. But I still don't think this makes much sense. Haukurth 10:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. I'm using my discretion here, as it's clear that according to the strict letter of our policies these should be deleted until the end of 2009 when they will be allowed back again. I take the view, however, that the huge effort involved in transferring them to Wikipedia, keeping the gallery together, and transferring them all back again would be out of proportion to the benefit (if any) to be gained by such an exercise. Some of these images have been here for two years or more and several are widely used; nobody has complained and it seems hightly unlikely that anyone will do so now since the images are PD in the US already, and in the UK they are in the last 21 months of their 90-year or so copyright period. In the unlikely event of a complaint, the issue can be re-addressed. MichaelMaggs 20:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
October 29
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is a trademark of a Japanese enterprise. The trademark right is violated. --もけけんぬ 08:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deleted Image nothing but copy of copyrighted commercial artwork. -- Infrogmation 12:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation, see http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0957790 JACOPLANE • 2007-10-29 13:21
Deleted. The watermark says “Copyright Andrew Hunt”, while the Flickr account belongs to Bill Alldredge. The user moving an image to Commons should check such basics before cropping out the watermark and uploading it! --Kjetil r 13:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image is watermaked "Copyright by Pino Bucca" --User:G.dallorto 21:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep According to the 'permission' link he owns the copyright and has licensed those images for use under the terms of Commons Creative CC-BY-SA license. --Tony Wills 01:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep You are right, I withdrew the deletion request. --User:G.dallorto 03:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept, request withdrawn. -- Infrogmation 14:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bad title Jerzystrzelecki 12:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC),in Commons is version with true title[[:{{{Image:Seasons_of_the_year.jpg}}}]]
- Retagged as {{badname}}. Please, in future, use this template for such cases. --Botev 12:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: badname - now Image:Seasons of the year.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
vandalism Leandromartinez 22:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Majorly: vandalism
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
uploaded the wrong file --Beylonab 17:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please specify which of your uploads you are requesting for deletion with the specific image name. -- Infrogmation 14:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
All files by User:Beylonab was deleted before so this deletion request is unnecessary. --GeorgHH 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Highly unlikely to be free image; Flickr user has gallery of similarly suspicious photos; also, it's not even called Tiffany Towers there, but Traci Topps. AnonEMouse 18:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Kelly Madison.jpg - image from same Flickr user. --AnonEMouse 00:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; see also COM:QFI. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Boricuæddie 21:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I seriously doubt the uploader on en is the author; it's his only contribution so far, and the edit summary makes it seem like it's from a movie --Patstuart 16:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Orphaned personal photo--OsamaK 11:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 13:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Edgar Ende died in 1965, only 42 years ago, not 70 --Patstuart 16:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't everything published before 1923 in the public domain in the US regardless of author death? --Itub 17:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Only if it was first published in the United States can you upload it at commons. Please see the exact wording at {{PD-US}}. You can upload it at en wikipedia: see w:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad. Patstuart 17:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, go ahead and delete. --Itub 18:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Only if it was first published in the United States can you upload it at commons. Please see the exact wording at {{PD-US}}. You can upload it at en wikipedia: see w:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad. Patstuart 17:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as above. --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 10:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 13:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photograph is a derivative work by an author only dead for 32 years, not the required 70 for Belgium --Patstuart 16:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 13:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No indication this is a free licensed image, just uploaded from a blog. AnonEMouse 17:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 13:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I think the decor is a copyrighted work of the mind. --User:G.dallorto 18:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC) --User:G.dallorto 18:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, according to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Italy, Italian copyright law does not contain any exception for pictures from public places. Presumably that would imply that the set of the opera is protected like any other work of visual art. -Seidenstud 11:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 13:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unclear copyright status --Agony-fi 19:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Sure it's not PD-Art. --GeorgHH 13:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Obviously false copyright tag; no indication of being free for some other reason. -- Infrogmation 14:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
False license (the picture is much less than 70 years old therefore it canot be PD). Morover its uploader wrote that the author is unknown but he got a permission from him/her. Miraceti 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Image seems to have been yoinked from Wikipedia, where the image may be okay (apparently uploaded by one of Kluvanek's students), but the licencing and attribution are wrong here. -- Infrogmation 23:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The same image: en:Image:Igor Kluvanek.jpg. Miraceti 12:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, false license tag here. This is not a ruling one way or another about the legitimacy of the image on en:Wikipedia. -- Infrogmation 14:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I, the author of this image, don't want anymore to share what I painted. --88.169.46.59 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Can you sign in on your account in order to verify this as your own?
I can't login with my account Kawax2 because the password Wikipedia sent me is unreadable. 64.178.96.168 17:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Grants of license to wikipedia are usually irrevocable, unless I am mistaken. -- Avi 20:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep No reason offered within Commons deletion guidelines; no evidence that anon requesting deletion is the uploader. -- Infrogmation 14:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I was contacted by this IP for this deletion request and after discussing with him, I assume he is good faith. My main concern about this image is actually the lack of encyclopedic substance: this is just a personal artwork, the author has no kind of celebrity, so there is no real usability; de facto, it is not used anywhere according checkusage. That's why I vote delete. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 19:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete This image isn't used anywhere because nobody wants to use it. It hasn't got any artistic qualities, it's just a personnal artwork. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.169.46.59 (talk • contribs)
Comment The two IP's above, one resolves to a PA library and the other to a French ISP. Are we certain they are the same person? -- Avi 15:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The license cannot be revoked and was granted a good while ago, so this is not just a matter of someone clarifying their intention. The image is a good usable illustration even if it is not being used now. A variety of types of illustration is a good thing in itself. The Commmons is supposed to be a huge free resource for all present and future Wiki projects and for other uses besides. --Simonxag 22:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Exactly. Given the time elapsed since uploading, and the vague reasons for requesting deletion, I think the deletion should only be considered based on the merits of the image, itself. In this case, its lack of usage throughout wikipedia projects betrays is potential usefulness. It is an artistic representation of a non-obscure, mythological character. -Seidenstud 11:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I would like to connect with my account "kawax2" or "kawax59" but the passwords Wikipedia sent me are unreadable. I've got two computers so that's why I've got two IP.--Kawax59
Delete This is a personal interpretation of a mythological character by an artist whose fame does not seem enough to warrant an article in a WP. I wouldn't personally use it in an article unless it were the sole and only one representing the subject. This is not the case here: we have good quality representations of Melpomene, both ancient and modern. IMO this picture is out of Commons' scope. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Even now, editors in different areas of the English Wikipedia have quite different views on the best sort of illustration. And why might a contributer decide to remove a work? Perhaps a works growing commercial value? --Simonxag 00:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- It could be relevant to remember what is the project scope: “Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons.” So the actual question is not the possible commercial value of this work (this has nothing to do with Commons goals) but its utility in a Wikimedia project. Currently, this utility is null; and nobody here demonstrated how it could become usefull. We must conclude that this image is actually “beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons”, and then is to be deleted. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 12:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete This painting is a personnal vision of the muse. She hasn't original appearence. She doesn't wear the cothurnus. She doesn't hold a knife and she doesn't wear a crown of cypress.Kawax59 17:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
DeleteSome informations about this image are missing. The description is not complete. Kawax59
Deleted. Although licenses cannot be revoked, this image is unusable, since it's a personal vision of a mythological figure by an unknown artist. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Completely useless template. The only difference between this version and the main version is License is now spelled Licence. This might be useful if we had different Wikipedias for different Englishes, but we don't. There's one English Wikipedia, and it's pointless to create an "international" template for either the US or UK, as if they can't read each other's licenses. --Patstuart 17:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep- Some British users - myself included - are fed up of contributing to the americanisation of the internet by use of the main version of this template. If the image is created by someone who is British, surely they have the right to use the template which is in their own language. A possible compromise would be use of parser functions or similar, to allow a choice of spelling on the individual image, eliminating the need for an alternative template. If this is implemented then I will support deletion, but until then, I oppose. --GW Simulations 18:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)- Comment - commons currently uses the English that the creator of the page uses. For example, you will notice Category:Internationalised message templates (UK spelling). Patstuart 19:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but on image pages, American spelling is enforced because all of the licence templates are in American English. --GW Simulations 22:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Despite being a proud speaker of Strine I find this a little unnecessary. One letter is not exactly a sign of over-Americanis(/z)ation. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It wastes space, effort and time. True, most of the time only spelling variations are the differences of the two, but still an American can read Bristish English, and a British can read American. However, to prevent further conflicts, I think we should have a policy whether the dialect of the Wikimedia in English is British or American. And if that's going to happen I will support the British side. -- Felipe Aira 09:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to propose a compromise solution. This is that the template be moved to my userspace, and the redirect thus created be deleted. This would satisfy all parties, as I would still be able to use the template, however it would no longer clutter up the template namespace. --GW Simulations 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I object to the compromise. All images must be given an official license tag, not just a userspace message. (I have no opinion on whether the UK tag should be kept or not.) Quadell (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to propose a compromise solution. This is that the template be moved to my userspace, and the redirect thus created be deleted. This would satisfy all parties, as I would still be able to use the template, however it would no longer clutter up the template namespace. --GW Simulations 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Stop! According to the Creative Commons "juridictions" system, this template could be useful as it indicates the country from where the author's right is applicable. However, the effective juridictions for UK are not unique, as there are two juridictions currently defined: one for England and Wales, another for Scotland.
- So "en-GB" is not precise enough for correctly identifying a Creative Commons licence. You'll need "en-GB-EAW" (using ISO 3166-2 code for England and Wales, within United Kingdom) and "en-GB-SCT" (using ISO 3166-2 code for Scotland, within United Kingdom) !!!
- If the intent of this template is just to translate the US English licence effectively used, then the language difference could be ignored. But if those localized templates are used to identify a "juridiction", then we need more templates, and these localized templates should NOT be replaced within images imported on Commons, to preserve this indication of juridiction !
- So we we need also "fr-CA" (French Canadian), "es-CL" (Chile), "es-ES-CT" (Catalunya)... See the Creative Commons website for details of differences: although the text of the licences may not different, the authors are stating an applicable juridiction and not just a licence when they publish something with a CC licence, and this could be important in case of dispute.
- If you look precisely at the texts of the CC licences, they are not strictly equivalent, even if they look similar in the simplified presentation page giving a iconic representation of rights and obligations.
- Verdy p 09:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry, but it's useless. Doodle-doo Ħ 20:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete First of all, it links to the wrong page (not this), but that doesn't matter because the legal code is the same page. If they don't make a distinction, why should we? To appease the few that worry about such trivial differences? Ok, I guess we're used to that here... but we can tweak the main license with a parser function or something. Or just change it to British English. It doesn't matter to most us. But keeping both duplicates the work in maintaining, updating, and tracking the license. →Rocket°°° 00:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- If a parser function were introduced to the main template, I would withdraw my opposition. The code that would be required for it would be {{#ifeq:en-gb|on|licence|license}}. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Remember this is a wiki. :) →Rocket°°° 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I've added that. I just need to change the tags on a few pages, which I'll probably do tomorrow, and then I will support deletion. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 23:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- If a parser function were introduced to the main template, I would withdraw my opposition. The code that would be required for it would be {{#ifeq:en-gb|on|licence|license}}. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - replaced by parser functions (original author) --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 10:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Ra'ike T C 00:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Ra'ike: speedy: Original author requests deletion ; delete: Completely useless template
October 30
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
What's the use of this file? --Conscious 08:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is a Gimp specific image file format, and is of a Chinese language character, presumably part of the stroke order project. As the upload User:Yug has withdrawn from most commons activity he may not respond to the deletion request, it would be worth posting a query on the project talkpage asking if the file was significant to the project. --Tony Wills 10:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Yug: seems to be my own work... probably a test... forgot here 3 years. No more need => deleted
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
yes 79.125.178.129 10:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
speedy keep - no reason for deletion has been given, the photo is PD-self with an explanation of when and where it was taken. The subject is an engine, not an artwork. --Simonxag 13:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Not clear why it was nominated - can't see anything wrong here. Megapixie 13:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy kept; no reason offered for deletion, likely prank nomination. -- Infrogmation 14:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bad image title naming, thrre exists an image with the correct name Al2 16:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate. -- Cecil 06:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
fair use image must be uploaded directly on the Wikiproject Martial BACQUET 22:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, obvious copyright violation -- Infrogmation 22:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Accidental upload/file is a duplicate of Usnea_wirthii.jpg Platz 21:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted New file is Image:Usnea wirthii.jpg. --GeorgHH 12:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Mmm, I don't think the screenshot from a copyrighted software can be free 207.45.248.20 11:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, indeed. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. copyvio. Patstuart 21:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted - copyvio. Deadstar (msg) 14:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong title, the correct one is Image:Shenao coal train.jpg --Koika 14:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted duplicate of Image:Shenao coal train.jpg. Deadstar (msg) 14:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong naming, corrected naming file has been re-uploaded. check category for proof. Sameboat - 同舟 14:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Wrong name and uploader asked--Fanghong 02:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong naming, corrected naming file has been re-uploaded. check category for proof. Sameboat - 同舟 14:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Wrong name and uploader asked--Fanghong 02:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
bad name Jerzy Strzelecki 21:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
.jpg.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted / Redundant with a wrong name，next use {{Bad name}}--Fanghong 03:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
.jpg.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
bad name Jerzystrzelecki 21:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
.jpg.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted / Redundant with a wrong name，next use {{Bad name}}--Fanghong 03:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
.jpg.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Apparent imagevio from http://www.liaztrucks.com/images/hist/004.jpg Miraceti 13:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Obviously a copy, no author information given. --Mormegil 13:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Apparent imagevio http://www.liaztrucks.com/images/hist/008.jpg Miraceti 13:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Obviously a copy, no author information given. --Mormegil 13:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Claims to be own work poster released to public domain; looks like commercial dvd cover. --Infrogmation 17:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Try {{npd}}. Patstuart 21:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep May break Commons rules designed to keep out copyvios, but clearly is not a copyvio. The uploader is the PA and public relations manager of the author (an independent film maker). None of her actions on the Commons or the Wikipedia lead me to doubt that she is who she says she is. Her position enables her, acting as the author's agent, to license the use of publicity materials. If Disney ever gave us some stuff, would we insist they dig up Walt to sign a permission? --Simonxag 01:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
comment according to en:User talk:Pipistrello2004 a permission has now been sent. --Simonxag 22:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I reset the date on the no permission delete template give it a bit more time to see if we have a Commons:OTRS for it. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 23:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Confirmed to be Steve Balderson's personal assistent per https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=1178153 -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Kept, OTRS permission from copyright holder. -- Infrogmation 23:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Is it really under GFDL? they say : "Articles that originated in part from Wikipedia are available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2." This logo isn't from Wikipedia for sure OsamaK 14:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete CZ is yet to decide on a license for any of their content, it would seem - I would err on the side of caution and remove this from Commons until they do choose one that is compatible with us. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The funny thing is that this one http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Image:Logo400grbeta_small.png is licensed under GFDL. And this is why I assumed the this image is also under GFDL and I'm surprised to find that it is not. (So, my suspicion is that the creator of the logo simply forgot to put the license tag. ) In any rate, we should delete the image and we can update a small version instead. -- TakuyaMurata 22:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC) As a side note, it appears, the small version was created by a user other than the creator of the logo (Chris Day), and so he could not actually put it under GFDL legally. -- TakuyaMurata 22:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have uploaded the small version: Image:Logo400grbeta small.png -- TakuyaMurata 23:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. This image has been tagged GFDL in error. This image is copyrighted all rights reserved by the Citizendium Foundation and will most likely be trademarked soon. See the base image it came from and the copyright notice at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Image:Logo900gr.jpg. Stephen Ewen 23:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have marked this as well as the smaller logo as {{copyvio}}. Stephen Ewen 02:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Kept, we typically treat signatures as PD-ineligible, unless case law to the contrary turns up. Quadell (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that the signature of a person is copyrighted. ALE! ¿…? 21:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Yo fui el que le pidio la firma a el y el me la dio, por eso le otrorgo la licencia de abajo - I am the one who asked for the signature and he gave it to me, so I give it the license above. It is my opinion that if someone freely gives away a signature, it is not in his possession anymore (after all, I have the right to sell that person's signature, and that person does not have the right to demand it back). This is no different than, say, taking a photograph of someone and having to worry about personality rights. Patstuart 22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Giving away a copyrighted object (e.g. a painting) does not automatically transfer the copyright to the recipient. If the signature is eligible for copyright, Jorge Asis would still own the rights; the uploader would have the right to sell the physical object, but not to reproduce or relicense it. --Davepape 01:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - {{PD-ineligible}} Dantadd✉ 23:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment At least in the US (en:Signature#Copyright) and Germany (de:Unterschrift#Urheberrecht) they are not eligible for copyright. I guess its similar in most other countries. --91.65.124.34 02:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- en:Signature#Copyright has always struck me as O.R.-ish - the editor who wrote that is reading a bit into the actual statement of the U.S. copyright office, which doesn't explicitly mention signatures. A signature is not the same thing as a name, and a handwritten scribble is also not necessarily a "mere variation of typographic ornamentation". It seems very likely to me that signatures are PD-ineligible in the U.S., but it'd be nice if we had a better citation than that. --Davepape 01:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think signatures are copyrightable in the U.S.... I think it easily falls into a "mere variation of typographic ornamentation". If there was significant ornamentation separate from the basic shape of the letters, then maybe, but that is a big stretch on a signature. Apparently some signatures have been trademarked though; I could see that. Keep on this one. Carl Lindberg 02:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think signatures are copyrightable in the U.S.... I think it easily falls into a "mere variation of typographic ornamentation". If there was significant ornamentation separate from the basic shape of the letters, then maybe, but that is a big stretch on a signature. Apparently some signatures have been trademarked though; I could see that.
- en:Signature#Copyright has always struck me as O.R.-ish - the editor who wrote that is reading a bit into the actual statement of the U.S. copyright office, which doesn't explicitly mention signatures. A signature is not the same thing as a name, and a handwritten scribble is also not necessarily a "mere variation of typographic ornamentation". It seems very likely to me that signatures are PD-ineligible in the U.S., but it'd be nice if we had a better citation than that. --Davepape 01:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Mostly superseeded by Wikinews-logo.svg --Schaengel89 20:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I dispute that as a valid reason to delete it. Although the svg version is nice, the png one is the official logo (to my knowladge). now if you argue superceeded by Image:Wikinews-logo.png, I'd agree to that. Bawolff 04:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, this logo is nor used nor an official logo but redundant. You have the choice if its redundant to the SVG or the PNG :) I plead for deleting. Schaengel89 16:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes i agree in deleting this picture. I just wanted to make sure the real png logo (or the real svg) wouldn't magically disappear. Bawolff 05:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like there's consensus to delete. . . but the image is used on 67 pages in 10 projects. Anyone willing to do the grunt work of moving all 67 uses to use either the text png or the SVG? Quadell (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. It'll cost us more effort deleting it than it will to leave it here. Nobody volunteered to do the work and I sure as hell am not. What's more, (repeat after me) superseded images are not deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
October 31
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Picture was only used in deleted page 193.120.13.132 00:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
comment previous usage is irrelevant. Might the image be useful in future? The guy is a UNIX programmer working on FreeBSD. He has some presence on the web and must be as notable as some of the pornstars we have pictures of, but would he be a notable addition to Category:Computer programmers? --Simonxag 00:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - it is quite notable if he is not notable enough to have a page. COM:PS says Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose... However, uploading images of yourself and others in small quantity is allowed as long they are useful for some Wikimedia project. This seems to be saying that we should only keep the image if it is somehow useful (e.g., a userpage). 71.58.97.225 18:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source is not cc-by-2.5-nl --Multichill 00:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Created as experiment to attempt to fix bug in image; faild --Smurrayinchester 12:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Problem is resolved (SVG code error): The other copy of this file, at Image:British Direction Sign 1.svg has been fixed. ButterStick 08:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Wrong and the other copy already fixed --Fanghong 02:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Explicit Image 71.170.20.45 15:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep No reason to delete. -- Infrogmation 15:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep That's art. -- Cecil 23:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Though they may have been originally created as pornography, old prints are the least controversial when it comes to illustrations of sexuality articles on the Wikipedia. --Simonxag 19:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment neutral ;) ~Pyb 09:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete an image like this one. Silenus, November 2, 2007
kept --ALE! ¿…? 21:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No indication author died 25 years ago; Klimovsky (born 1922) isn't even dead yet --Patstuart 16:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It is 25 years after the publication not after the death of the author. But anyway, it is a copyvio because it was published last year. --ALE! ¿…? 08:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This was a test image. FWN 16:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've requested the image to be speedied instead. Please speedy delete the image and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wikinews Canada Logo.png. FWN 17:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Closed. Deleted by D-Kuru. -- Cecil 23:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Appears to be a frame from TV show. Also, the written content seems to be an essay about a documentary. I suspect it is also a copyvio (of promotional material). --Jmabel | talk 17:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete and give the uploader a {{end of copyvios}} warning. Persistent rule violations by this user. 71.58.97.225 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious screenshot and the text was copied from [116]. -- Cecil 23:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probably a copyvio. No source given. It's a photo in a prison, the summary is minimal, and the uploader (who has no other contributions to Commons) gives no explanation of how he or she has the rights to it. --Jmabel | talk 18:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source & license uncertain. If you examine openDemocracy's photos, you'll see that they in fact just republish other people's images (usually other flickr users). Normally they give the source, sometimes it's missing. The big problem is that they don't pay attention to license details - they tag everything as CC-BY-SA, even when the source is different. e.g. [117] is actually NC, and [118] (which I previously saw uploaded to Commons) is from an obvious copyvio. Hence my doubt regarding this Somalia image. Davepape 19:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Doubtful author took underlying image (derivative) --Patstuart 19:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless: 1) underlying image is shown to be free licenced, and 2) A possible encyclopedic use is explained (looks to possibly be a personal insult image?) -- Infrogmation 17:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The text is rather strange and mocking. But the real problem is the fair use section. It seems as even though the book itself is released into PD, it uses parts that are not, which means not everything in it is free media. I don't know the book but it seems that with a fair use licence like this it's not acceptable on Commons. Maybe someone who knows the details can tell more about it and if this text is just strange or if there really is a problem. -- Cecil 19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC) --Cecil 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
redirect to Template:fair use, all images have to go. --ALE! ¿…? 08:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I've made a mistake, correct title is Image:Nuova edizione aumentata e riveduta dell'unico metodo accelerato razionale per imparare a parlare, leggere e scrivere la lingua tedesca - 022.jpg --Broc 13:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
delete, next time please use {{bad name|image:better name.jpg}} --ALE! ¿…? 21:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unclear copyright status: This image was uploaded to different wikipedias with different licences.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Piata_Unirii_Oradea.jpg - Self GFDL, Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0
- http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Piata_Unirii_Oradea.jpg - I'm not sure about the licence
- http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Piata_Unirii_Oradea.jpg - A non-free licence
GeorgHH 22:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The version on Commons says it came from ro:Wikipedia. What was the status and credit there? -- Infrogmation 17:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I can't see any indication of who the photographer was, or where the image originally came from. Without that information, and with conflicting license info, I think we should delete it. Quadell (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not enough information to grant compatible licensing conditions. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hard to believe that the uploader is the author of an image from a group started in 1919 --Patstuart 19:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello there. I am don't understand why you want to delet Image:Rumata Circo Ruso Logo 1.jpg? I scan these logo from my credential, I vectorised it with Illustrator, I save it as image and I post it here. What is wrong with this procedure? Please explain to me what I'm doing wrong, so I will not make the same mistake in the future. --Rumata 22:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Greetings. Here's the problem: you have done a lot of work to get this information, but if the original logo is copyrighted then your image is a derivative work. Only the copyright-holder of the original logo can license it for use on Wikimedia.
- That said, is this image under copyright? All images first published in Russia before 1943 are in the public domain (according to Lupo here), and this circus started in 1919. How old is the logo? Quadell (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello there. I really do not know how old is this logo and don't have any additional information about it. I was involved in circus since I have the consciousness. (If I was born in 1971 it is something about 1975) I don't think one of russian circus artists knows this information. And between us nobody cares about it. The other point is The logo that we discuss doesn't exist anymore. Because of structural and political changes of my country it is very difficult to explain and understand how it was working before and how it is working now. But I'm sure about one thing nobody is PERSONAL OWNER of this logo because before the PERESTROIKA everything was property of government and the government will never recognize the creator or designer of some logo because this designer IS property of government. So, I don't know what to do in this situation. This image is an important part of our history, but if it's against of provisions of Wiki, so delete it.--Rumata 16:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. If it can be shown for any reason that this image qualifies for a free license I have no objection to keeping it. We just need some accurate information. If it can be shown that this was already in use before 1954 I think it would be Template:PD-Russia. ... Okay, a quick google search shows some old circus posters here. It looks like a logo very similar to this was in use at least by the late 1930s. It isn't exactly the same but I'd lean towards accepting this as a keep as the uploader's slight variation on a PD-Russia original. Other thoughts? -- Infrogmation 17:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. giggy (:O) 03:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
