Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
January 1
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploaded by mistake. License withdrawn. Jnpet 10:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me that it was not uploaded by mistake Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list#Rhinopias frondosa. I'm sorry but I must say this should be
Keep. Samulili 13:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete
Comment Uploader nominated the image as a candidate for a Quality Image; when it was (apparently) turned down the uploader got frustrated and changed the licensing. Seems quite useful otherwise. It was certainly not uploaded by mistake, since the deletion request seems to stem from that same frustration, as the uploader does not seem to want to upload it if it cannot be a Quality Image. We may want to respect their wishes anyways, since this was uploaded so recently. Still, I hope that the uploader reconsiders after a couple of days, as this is still a rather useful photo for all the wikipedias and others, and we would very much like to keep it. As a matter of fact, it is already in use on en-wiki and species.wikimedia.org. Carl Lindberg 00:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps the mistake included a lack of understanding of the nature of the Commons. --Simonxag 18:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Jnpet, I sympathise with your frustration about your image not making QI. I'm certain that I'd be equally upset if it happened to me (if anything I ever took was good enough to be nominated, or even half as good as this one). But does it matter? Think: people have already used your picture. It's certainly serving a good purpose. And whatever QI says, I think it's a lovely photo (I have it as my background right now). I urge you to withdraw your nomination. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 07:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep You are right, I was frustrated because of one particular person who just seemed to attack everything I put up there. Not the first time. Being hung over on January 1st didn't help my mood and outburst either. I shall eat humble pie and withdraw the delete request. I am stll discouraged to contribute further, but I may reconsider this too eventually. Sorry for your troubles and thanks for understanding. Cheers! --Jnpet 02:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
KeepChange vote to keep --Simonxag 17:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Same as Image:Ganesh model doi suthep.JPG, uploaded on 2 July 2006 --Redtigerxyz 10:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- No reason for deletion! keep --88.117.77.237 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Will delete Image:Ganesh model doi suthep.JPG which had no source information because it is a {{duplicate}}. Waiting for CommonsDelinker. Samulili 22:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
fair use logo Sk-ru 11:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted speedily. Samulili 13:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/andreku.html --oscar 13:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 12:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no source and the author, most likely copied from the copyright book Sk-ru 14:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Chaged to {{nsd}}. Samulili 23:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
People's faces are too clear and they did not give consent. Author requests deletion JamesK1987 18:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- A picture of a crowd in a a public place, not targetted at any one individual.
- Shouldn't this be speedied as a user-request? I say delete or speedy delete. Nyttend 20:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I admit that I did not notice that this request is made by the author. However, it is not automatic that an author's request to delete an image is followed. There must still be a good or good-ish reason for deleting an image. Samulili 20:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently the uploader feels that what he did was not fair to the people in the picture and that he shouldn't have uploaded the image in the first place: Delete. Samulili 23:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently the uploader feels that what he did was not fair to the people in the picture and that he shouldn't have uploaded the image in the first place:
Delete Request is same day as upload. We should accept that the author made a mistake. --Simonxag 22:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted — Giggy 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
it is a duplicate by myself Scoid 23:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Duplicate of Image:Terrazzo floor.JPG. --GeorgHH • talk 08:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence that PD-old applies, information on author and source are useless, as both just point to Wikipedia and a Wikipedia user --Melanom 11:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete PD-old for a photo of an SS man is rather improbable. --Simonxag 22:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted no pd-old ChristianBier 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Seeing the stance, the fact it's a personnality, etc, the guy didn't took it, and it's most probably a copyvio. --Darkoneko 17:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete From a Flickr set that clearly does contain some copyvios. --Simonxag 22:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Apparently the back or inside cover for an album; see here. Carl Lindberg 15:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- add: most probably, the few other pic the guy uploaded (Special:Contributions/MDV) are also copyvio. Darkoneko 14:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Platonides 14:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is to delete - copyviolative. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate Szilas 13:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please give a link to the other image. Samulili 23:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept, no duplicate file givem as source. Please use {{duplicate}} in the future. Patrícia msg 22:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate Szilas 13:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept, no duplicate file givem as source. Please use {{duplicate}} in the future. Patrícia msg 22:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate Szilas 13:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept, no duplicate file givem as source. Please use {{duplicate}} in the future. Patrícia msg 22:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate Szilas 13:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept, no duplicate file givem as source. Please use {{duplicate}} in the future. Patrícia msg 22:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate Szilas 13:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept, no duplicate file givem as source. Please use {{duplicate}} in the future. Patrícia msg 22:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Obvious copright vio, I'd say - Anonymous DissidentTalk 17:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 22:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete This Image was uploaded from Some other Wiki(I dont remember I used a bot to upload this image). Since I work on two languages namel ta and te wiki. I thought it would be useful, since I can use them in both the projects. If you find this as copyright violation, you may delete it. No objections Vinodh.vinodh 09:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Patrícia msg 22:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a recent picture, so it can't be in public domain because of age (the copyright can't have expired, the author is probably still alive). --Fruggo 19:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 02:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious copyvio. Patrícia msg 22:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no source/license/author Doodle-doo Ħ 20:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 22:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Would this now constitute nsd for longer than 7 days? -- Deadstar (msg) 12:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader's deleted contributions show history of copyright violations. Patrícia msg 22:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Claimed from Italian Wikipedia, the image there at http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:Tarcento-Stemma.gif is tagged copyrighted with fair use. Unless otherwise proven, this one cannot stay here while claimed GFDL cannot be found yet. Jusjih 02:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Johney (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted - fairuse - Alison ❤ 02:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
While it may be true that the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) used this photo, it is clear that the DEA did not produce the photo. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia - People's Army (FARC-EP) considers itself to be at war with the United States. The United States has classified the FARC-EP as a terrorist organization. Because the FARC-EP is heavily involved in drug trafficking, the DEA is tasked with anti-FARC activities. It is therefore extraordinarily unlikely that the FARC-EP would invite the DEA to one of their meetings. In fact, the FARC-EP has a history of simply kidnapping or murdering any American citizens that it comes across. This picture was probably either taken by a Colombian journalist or by the FARC-EP itself. --Descendall 05:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. Delete Samulili 13:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Simonxag 02:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Johney (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Patrícia msg 16:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Patently wrong copyright tag - I don't think they even had BVM's 70 years ago! ;) The source information given is Laerdal, suggesting the image is from the company's site, which would be copyrighted. The same image with the background cut away exists at http://www.neann.com/Bag-Valve-Masks.htm but I can't find the identical one. Please let me know if I've done this improperly so I can learn! Delldot 11:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Simonxag 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete And they certainly didn't have the cameras and the lighting to produce photos like this, either...
Deleted - copyvio - Alison ❤ 02:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Invalid license; not a work of the government John Vandenberg 02:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Image:MuseeDesBeauxArtsMS.jpg also has the same problem, however that image looks suitable for Wikipedia under fair use. John Vandenberg 03:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with deleting AudenVanVechten1939.jpg. It isn't even being used anywhere. Macspaunday 19:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It is not PD-USGov, but it is {{PD-Van Vechten}}. The LOC page for the original image is here. Carl Lindberg 00:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Van Vechten image. -Nard 04:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep for the Van Vechten image; thanks for identifying that one. John Vandenberg 01:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Image:MuseeDesBeauxArtsMS.jpg is a manuscript of w:W. H. Auden's w:Musée des Beaux Arts (poem); even if a printed edition of that poem has slipped into the PD by way of {{PD-US-no-renewal}} I cant see how this manuscript can be PD until 2033 (1938 + 95) if it was published as such, or 2043 (1973 + 70) if it was unpublished.
Image:AgeOfAnxietyTitlePage.jpg (and duplicate image) is another image with issues, as it claims that a title page is not copyrightable, which has already been addressed here. John Vandenberg 01:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)- Covers with no art pass the threshold of originality where? -Nard 02:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The poem image should be deleted... that would seem to be a copyvio, as the UK sounds like the country of origin, and the term outside the U.S. would be 70 pma (expires in 2044). Open up a separate deletion request though ;-) The title page however image is indeed PD-ineligible. Images of nothing but short bits of text do not qualify... book covers with a photo on them are a another matter, but that is not the case here. Delete the duplicate though... they are different sizes and maybe a different crop, but I can't fathom the need for two of them. Carl Lindberg 03:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Deletion request: MuseeDesBeauxArtsMS.jpg launched. I dont believe that title pages are ineligible of copyright, and the lack of a template for such a common case says a lot. John Vandenberg 04:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- {{PD-ineligible}} ;-) See also here on why. Carl Lindberg 05:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am familiar with copyright. This is not merely a few phrases; it is a typeset page of a work covered by copyright. John Vandenberg 05:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I still don't see anything remotely copyrightable on there (other than the poem, which is out of copyright). Obviously the text of the book is copyrighted, but there is no copyrightable text on that image. From here, the arrangement of type on a printed page cannot support a copyright claim. Is there something else that I am missing? Carl Lindberg 06:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am familiar with copyright. This is not merely a few phrases; it is a typeset page of a work covered by copyright. John Vandenberg 05:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- {{PD-ineligible}} ;-) See also here on why. Carl Lindberg 05:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Deletion request: MuseeDesBeauxArtsMS.jpg launched. I dont believe that title pages are ineligible of copyright, and the lack of a template for such a common case says a lot. John Vandenberg 04:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't how this affects anything, but the country of origin of the manuscript is US in that it was written out in the US (probably for a benefit auction). But the text certainly is in copyright, so I won't argue against deletion. Macspaunday 04:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it is the text that is the problem. Carl Lindberg 05:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't how this affects anything, but the country of origin of the manuscript is US in that it was written out in the US (probably for a benefit auction). But the text certainly is in copyright, so I won't argue against deletion. Macspaunday 04:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:AudenVanVechten1939.jpg Kept. Other images delt with seperately. -- Infrogmation 06:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
At least parts of this photo are not PD due to the fact that it is showing cover photos of John Coltrane recordings, e.g. en:A Love Supreme. So it does not really matter that the photo was done by some government employee, the cover photos were not. And for sure you cannot call them de:Beiwerk, without the covers it would just be a piano. Dr. Shaggeman 23:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Shaggerman did not add this request to the main page... So I do it. One month later. --81.48.205.105 13:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Even if it's obviously a derivative (so speedy deletion).
- Actually, it's been listed here before. Twice. Also, Delete as derivative work. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 19:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it's been listed here before. Twice. Also,
Deleted -- Infrogmation 06:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Superseded by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Boston_city_seal.png Kkaefer 22:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep at least for now... it is in use on tons of wikis. Use the {{SupersededPNG}} template on the image page instead, and wait for all usages to be replaced. We may as well keep this one for historical reference anyways. Carl Lindberg 23:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as superseded images are not deleted. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. Multichill 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio (magazine cover) --Flominator 11:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted, copyvio --Polarlys 11:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- KeepThis shouldn't have been speedy deleted. I had no chance to respond. I believe since the magazine was only part of the image it was fair use. The juxtaposition of the magazine with the bible in the hotel drawer was the main subject. Dori - Talk 18:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Restored. --Flominator 20:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This looks awfully like a picture of the magazine cover. There are other elements there, but that's what the picture is basically of. --Simonxag 02:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a picture of the magazine per se. It's a picture of the (unintentional) positioning of the items. The uploader opened the drawer and saw two holy books alongside a perfect depiction of western decadent consumerism. What's funny is if an artist created this scene they could own copyright over it (but the usage of the magazine itself would still not be owned, merely on its positioning). Neutral on deletion, although the magazine cover is almost 1/3 of the image. -Nard 04:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I think that the main theme of this photo is not a cover of specific magazin but a dissonance between the themes you can find in the bibles and a such magazin. Something good for everybody taste... ;) Elektron 11:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The copyrighted magazine cover is not incidental inclusion, but the central element key to the photo. -- Infrogmation 06:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted: Magazine is the main element of the picture. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
From en:8-Bit_Theater, non free comic http://www.nuklearpower.com/index.php Site has "Copyright 2001 - 2007 Brian Clevinger. Some images are property of Square-Enix.", no PD-licence. Tomia 11:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- The same for
- Image:Black Mage.JPG
- Image:Dwarf King.JPG
- Image:Megahedron.JPG
- Image:Darko.JPG
- Image:Raven5.JPG
- Image:Lich2.JPG
- Image:Gary3.JPG
- Image:King Steve.JPG
- Image:Thief.JPG
- Image:Red Mage.JPG
Delete Copyvio. Also delete a bunch of similar uploads by the same user. Unless, that is, Kert.mitchell is really Brian Clevinger. --Simonxag 02:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This should be deleted from the Commons, but retained on Wikipedia as fair-use. I have edited the image's description page there with the appropriate copyright tag and fair-use rationale. Bahamut0013 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete speedy delete these copyvios. -Nard 13:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. We can't wait forever for files to be reuploaded on en.wp under a fair use rationale. I'll provide the files or do a temporary undelete if asked for. Patrícia msg 18:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Superseded by SVG version --Rohieb 23:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep superseded images are not deleted. Sigh. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. Multichill 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
What is this? It has no description, no category and it's not used anywhere. --Samulili 13:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment It seems to be one of 2 groups of screenshots from the playing of 2 simple computer games. All were uploaded by the same user. I don't think there's a copyright problem with the screenshots (just look at what's there), but whthere they're any use I don't know. --Simonxag 22:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Still not used, no one cares, it goes. Samulili 08:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image taken in France not Algeria Tarawneh 18:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- How do you know this? --Simonxag 02:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Because the championship he played in took place in France. The user already uploaded the image as fairuse on ar.wiki and was deleted there. --Tarawneh 00:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete In that case it's got to go. --Simonxag 02:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- deleted --Tarawneh 03:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Also Image:Lolostrand.gif
The usage condition of “refering to the movie” is not acceptable. We require free works only, i.e. free for all uses including commercial use and creation of derivative works. --Mormegil 21:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep The condition is merely one of attribution. Normally what is required is attribution to the author. Here it's to the movie, but the condition is no more restrictive of the images use than that imposed by CC-by. --Simonxag 22:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Yeah...uhh...what he said. Vipersnake151 00:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Well… OK, I don’t think this is what was meant, but OK, that is a possible interpretation of that notice. But the template will need to be changed (use {{attribution}} instead). --Mormegil 10:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep 100% agree with Simonxag. That's why I uploaded it. --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.199 11:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It's the same case with Image:Lolostrand.gif. --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.199 14:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep I came here intending to write ... what they all wrote. :-) --AnonEMouse 15:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 19:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC) I agree with Simonxag
Keep I agree with Simonxag. --Dezidor 21:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete I'ts not meerly a request for attribution. "FREE USE OF ALL PHOTOS AND TEXTS ON THE CONDITION OF REFERING TO THE MOVIE" means that derivative works and the use of the work are strongly limited. for instance I could not use the image as an example of breast implants only as an illustration when talking about the movie. The image would be fair use (on en.wiki) for the article about the movie though.
Same thing applies for Image:Lolostrand.gif. This image cannot be used to describe hoola hooping it can only be used when refeering to Camping Cosmos. I've added that image to this deletion request./Lokal_Profil 12:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The quoted statement from the webpage is rather awkward English but it is complete and not part of a larger piece. The obvious meaning is the weak condition If an image or text is used, then the movie must be referred to. This would be satisfied by the license on the image's page in the Commons. The reading you seem to be using is something like If an image or text is used, then the text within which it is being used must refer to the movie. But the statement contains no reference to the new containing text, only to those on the website, and so it is very hard to see how the condition can apply to this new text. Basically all it requires is attribution to the movie, your breast implant use should be fine. --Simonxag 00:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- @Lokal: if you do something like I've just done here next to the picture, you can use it anywhere, no matter what the subject of your text is. You may have been confused by the use of the word "text" in the attribution request. In fact "text" here refers to texts on the website of the production company, that are also free to use if you refer to the movie. That doesn't mean the text you produce yourself has to refer to the movie. --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page)86.67.47.199 07:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep I entirely agree with Simonxag. Pietdebrabandere 14:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept, interpreting the notice as requiring attribution. --rimshottalk 15:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wierd 24.165.124.148 20:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as a bad-faith or altogether uninformed nomination: it's a useful map derived from a Census source, listed on the image description, without any problems. Neither "wierd" nor "weird" is a valid reason for deletion. Nyttend 20:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also, note speedy keep for the Bluffton picture listed by this same IP address (I can't list this on its discussion page, as none was created): it's a useful picture that isn't violating any guidelines of any sort — not to mention no reason given by nominator! Nyttend 20:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep nothing to discuss. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 21:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep I am the author of the map and Nyttend's summary is true - it is from the US Census (Public Domain) and my minor tweaks are GFDL. Are IP addresses allowed to make nominations for deletion here? Ruhrfisch 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah they are, and regularly do. Apart from the occasional junk request like this, they don't seem to cause many problems. If anything, they're not nearly as bad as registered users for clogging up DR with shit like incorrectly named images, superseded images, etc. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks very much. Ruhrfisch 22:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah they are, and regularly do. Apart from the occasional junk request like this, they don't seem to cause many problems. If anything, they're not nearly as bad as registered users for clogging up DR with shit like incorrectly named images, superseded images, etc. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. Multichill 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep wierd is good.--Simonxag 21:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wierd 24.165.124.148 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Bad faith nom. Rocket000 02:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This was generated from an old version of Image:US-NationalCounterterrorismCenter-Seal.svg which at the time was not working. The SVG has since been fixed, so this (unused) PNG version is no longer needed. Carl Lindberg 23:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The images are slightly different and it is sometimes desirable to have a non-SVG version, because of browsers compliance issues. Patrícia msg 18:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Somkey Bear are not free and are regulated by US Code as well as USDA administrative law. See, for example, 18 USC 711.
- Hm.... not sure. This is definitely protected by non-copyright law 18 U.S.C. 711, but that is only for "for profit" uses, and Wikimedia's usage should not be in violation. We normally only delete if these restrictions are part of copyright law itself, or if wikimedia's own usage would violate those laws. We are not responsible for what others do with them. On the other hand, reading the history, I'm not entirely sure if this was completely a U.S. government creation, as it was done in conjunction with the Ad Council. According to this though, it sounds like the original artists were government employees. I'll go for a weak Keep. If we do keep it, mark this image with {{insignia}} and add a link to that law. Carl Lindberg 00:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Images need to be free for for-profit uses. Reasons much discussed elsewhere. The criminal law of the US prevents such uses and the Commons is subject to US Criminal law. --Simonxag 02:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Non-commercial restrictions are a problem only if they are a part of the copyright license. See the note at the bottom of the Commons:Licensing page. Carl Lindberg 03:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Even some commercial uses are ok, such as publication in a magazine. These protections are not part of copyright law, but a separate law. -Nard 02:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes the criminal law of the United States of America where the Commons is based. --Simonxag 02:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hosting the image on commons, or using it in a wikipedia article about Smokey the Bear, is not breaking that law though, so it should be fine. The non-commercial restrictions on commons pertains to copyright law specifically, not additional laws like this -- in this case, we just need to make sure that wikimedia's use does not violate it. Carl Lindberg 02:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Images only have to free in the copyright sense, which this one is. So we're fine as far as our policy goes, and as far as the law goes, we are not breaking it by hosting this. So there's no reason to delete. Rocket000 17:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as this is public domain, copyright-wise, and permitted for Wikipedia use otherwise. I have cleaned up the description page to make this clearer. I didn't add {{insignia}}, as I'm not sure it fits the definition of insignia. --rimshottalk 13:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Kept: Commons only takes copyright restrictions into account when evaluating the freeness of an image. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader claims to be the author of this newspaper scan and simultaneously claims that it is in the public domain as a work of the US federal government. However, as far as I can tell, the Rosswell Daily Record is a privately owned publication. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, speedily as copyvio. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 19:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not an obvious copyvio... most US newspapers of that era (outside of a few New York papers) did not renew copyrights, so this is almost certainly PD-not_renewed (though PD-USGov is quite wrong). The page does contain two AP photos though, which may have been renewed. The quality is degraded so much I'm not sure that matters too much. Carl Lindberg 05:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- And unless you can think of a way to prove that it's not renewed, I stand by what I said above. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- UPenn did a copyright renewal search a year or so ago. Here is a Google cache of their results, and here is the original Powerpoint file. Only the New York Herald/Tribune and New York Times renewed issues prior to the 1940s, and only a handful renewed 1940s issues. Renewals became more common with 1950s newspaper issues though. Carl Lindberg 07:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- And unless you can think of a way to prove that it's not renewed, I stand by what I said above. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Like in the discussion mentioned, the scan does at least include copyrighted images, furthermore cannot be guaranteed that this newspaper would fall under PD-not_renewed. my name 12:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
January 2
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Incorrect licensing. Is licensed under cc-by-2.0 but some source images are 2.5 (licensing allows for later versions but not for older versions) Also some cc-by-sa images are demoted to cc-by. Also a GFDL image is included. -Nard 18:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- cc-by is one way compatible with GFDL, but otherwise the licenses are not compatible. The only way this image could work is to remove the GFDL image and change overall licensing to cc-by-sa-2.5 or later. Or exclude cc-by-sa images and make overall licensing GFDL. -Nard 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- The licenses have been included as icons (CC or GFDL or PD) in the images, and I've referred people to the respective images. Technically, I would say that I am licensing my contributions under cc-by-2.0+GFDL, and simply telling people to check the other licenses. If it would solve anything, I could list it as cc-by-sa-all and GFDL.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have no objections. I should have discussed it with you before listing for deletion. -Nard 18:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- 1111 85.185.0.248 17:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Meritless deletion request. Midnightcomm 17:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is obvious vandalism.--Phoenix-wiki 18:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Closed as keep — obvious vandalism--Phoenix-wiki 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE. The tourist makes the photo unusable. Maybe some cropping... Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have no objection. Geagea 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - the Jvari is too far in the background, so the crop doesn't do much effort. We have better pictures of the place. Yuval Y § Chat § 03:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyrighted poster, deleted on nl: Kameraad Pjotr 10:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by MichaelMaggs: copyright poster
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio? Seems to be self-uploaded but also has no license -Nard 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, no license and not useful. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete seems to be a copyvio to me. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No license. --Dezidor 16:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
no license, not useful. Delete. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
doubtful uploader is copyright holder -Nard 04:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure you can {{copyvio}} this one. Anyway, Delete. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This one should probably have been speedy deleted. Cowardly Lion 20:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 22:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation. Photographer is unknown and not necessarily dead for 70 years or more. --Zinnmann 17:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 22:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image made by german citizen so does not fall under PD-USGov Denniss 23:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 08:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep this isn't PD-USGov, but marked as public domain by Naval Historical Center. Pibwl 18:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment What the naval historical center believes is irrlevant, hundreds of their "PD"-images were deleted here because of wrong licenses and/or not made by US government employees. For example many of these were made by german naval officers showing Bismarck and other capital ships, even if they were seized or donated these officers did not retract their copyright on these images. See more infos here --Denniss 01:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted, since Paul S. Schmalenbach took this photo in 1941, it can't be in the public domain. --Polarlys 22:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image by german citizen, does not fall under PD-USGov Denniss 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 08:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted, since Paul S. Schmalenbach took this photo in 1941, it can't be in the public domain. --Polarlys 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image by german citizen, does not fall under PD-USGov Denniss 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Obviously not a work for hire of the United States government. Durova 08:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted, since Paul S. Schmalenbach took this photo in 1941, it can't be in the public domain. --Polarlys 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image does not appear to qualify as a public domain image under COM:L 3. That is, the image is not ineligible for a copyright and the copyright has not expired. Also, the source link in the information box results in a 404 Error. There is, thus, no evidence that image has actually been released into the public domain by its author. DieWeisseRose 13:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Have you tried using the wayback machine or something? Also images by Carlos Latuff are copyright free. See here for details. // Liftarn
- Yes, I have tried archive.org. It's not there. I was unaware of the copyleft info you provided. If that is an acceptable license for the Commons then I will withdraw the deletion request. I'll wait to hear from a few more editors. --DieWeisseRose 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I also found out that. Anyway, since we also have a second source for the info I think it's OK. // Liftarn
- Yes, I have tried archive.org. It's not there. I was unaware of the copyleft info you provided. If that is an acceptable license for the Commons then I will withdraw the deletion request. I'll wait to hear from a few more editors. --DieWeisseRose 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Free Carlos Latuff image (although if nominated again on scope grounds I might be tempted to vote delete). -Nard 15:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- The sight of a pathetic hate-filled bigot like Latuff sanctimoniously claiming to be anti-racist is certainly rather nauseating... AnonMoos 23:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- That you call an antiracist "a pathetic hate-filled bigot" says more about your views than his. // Liftarn
- That you continue to try to conjure up lame and feeble excuses for the expressed bigoted views of a proud hatemongerer certainly throws light on your character. Furthermore, your idea of "racism" is as flexible as a rubber-band -- according to you, everybody who disagrees with your personal political views is a "racist"[sic], while everybody who agrees with your personal political views (no matter how vile and contemptible their personal behavior) is an "anti-racist"[sic] (as was exposed at Image_talk:Gathering of eagles.jpg). AnonMoos 17:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is nothing rubbery with the definition of racism as "hatred towards a specific ethnic (or ethnoreligious) group". // Liftarn
- Please do have the kindness to tell us what "rubbery" is even supposed to mean as a noun (as opposed to an adjective)! It certainly rhymes with the shrubbery that the Knights Who Say Ni told King Arthur to bring to them... After that, you might try to find one single dictionary published by a mainstream lexicographical publisher (such as Oxford University Press, Merriam-Webster, Macquarie, etc.) which includes prejudice against an ideology which people can voluntarily choose to join or leave as part of the core definition of the word "racism" (as opposed to a loose metaphorical extension). This is something which you have conspicuously failed to achieve, so far. AnonMoos 07:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- So you are saying antisemitism isn't racism because you can choose to convert from Judaism. Interesting idea... // Liftarn
- Why not consult Image_talk:Gathering of eagles.jpg (which I've linked to twice already in this discussion) to refresh your failing memory on this point? Meanwhile, the fact that you have been completely and utterly incapable or unwilling to find any support from any reputable dictionary for your idiosyncratic personal redefinition of the word "racism" tells its own story... (Of course, any definition of the word "racist" according to which Latuff is allegedly some kind of supposed "anti-racist"[sic] is bound to be quite bizarre!) AnonMoos 00:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- So you are saying antisemitism isn't racism because you can choose to convert from Judaism. Interesting idea... // Liftarn
- Please do have the kindness to tell us what "rubbery" is even supposed to mean as a noun (as opposed to an adjective)! It certainly rhymes with the shrubbery that the Knights Who Say Ni told King Arthur to bring to them... After that, you might try to find one single dictionary published by a mainstream lexicographical publisher (such as Oxford University Press, Merriam-Webster, Macquarie, etc.) which includes prejudice against an ideology which people can voluntarily choose to join or leave as part of the core definition of the word "racism" (as opposed to a loose metaphorical extension). This is something which you have conspicuously failed to achieve, so far. AnonMoos 07:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is nothing rubbery with the definition of racism as "hatred towards a specific ethnic (or ethnoreligious) group". // Liftarn
- That you continue to try to conjure up lame and feeble excuses for the expressed bigoted views of a proud hatemongerer certainly throws light on your character. Furthermore, your idea of "racism" is as flexible as a rubber-band -- according to you, everybody who disagrees with your personal political views is a "racist"[sic], while everybody who agrees with your personal political views (no matter how vile and contemptible their personal behavior) is an "anti-racist"[sic] (as was exposed at Image_talk:Gathering of eagles.jpg). AnonMoos 17:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- That you call an antiracist "a pathetic hate-filled bigot" says more about your views than his. // Liftarn
- The sight of a pathetic hate-filled bigot like Latuff sanctimoniously claiming to be anti-racist is certainly rather nauseating... AnonMoos 23:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- What are "scope grounds," N? AnonMoos, is this kind of ad hominem editorializing appropriate to a deletion request discussion? --DieWeisseRose 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Look at his intentional anti-Jewish religious bigotry on Image:Cry-wolf.png to start with. Frankly Carlos Latuff should just look in the mirror if he wants to see someone who's much more of a Nazi than all those politicians and national personifications whom he keeps continually monotonously repetitively redundantly boringly drawing as Nazis. AnonMoos 02:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- No evidence of any antisemitism there. // Liftarn
- I'll ask again: AnonMoos, is this kind of ad hominem editorializing appropriate to a deletion request discussion? --DieWeisseRose 02:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The relevance is that I'm frustrated that Liftarn has been successful so far in "gaming the system" with respect to the Latuff cartoons, in order to use Wikipedia / Wikimedia Commons as a platform for the promulgation and promotion of bigoted hate speech. If you want to know, I'm far from being the only one who feels this way... AnonMoos 07:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Commons should not host bigoted cartoons just because they are free if they are unused in the projects. Carlos Latuff's cartoons have been through a deletion discussion and we said keep (I even said keep). Individual cartoons should still be scrutinized for suitability however. -Nard 01:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please review Commons:Project scope. // Liftarn
- Look at his intentional anti-Jewish religious bigotry on Image:Cry-wolf.png to start with. Frankly Carlos Latuff should just look in the mirror if he wants to see someone who's much more of a Nazi than all those politicians and national personifications whom he keeps continually monotonously repetitively redundantly boringly drawing as Nazis. AnonMoos 02:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- What are "scope grounds," N? AnonMoos, is this kind of ad hominem editorializing appropriate to a deletion request discussion? --DieWeisseRose 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
// LiftarnCaution, we have found that some people seem to be immature and unable to manage themselves when they feel surprised, provoked, or offended. If you are one of those, then enjoy your own personal rage in response to some of the pictures inside, but please do not ask us over and over to take the images down - such requests to remove legitimate
contributions that fulfill the purpose of commons will get the same "NO" response as previous requests. Thank you for visiting, and try to enjoy your day and yourself anyway. We are.
- Frankly, your determination to continue pointless gratuitous edit-warring on Category:Islamophobia, despite everything documented at Image_talk:Gathering of eagles.jpg, is far more "immature" behavior than anything anyone else has exhibited here. Furthermore, there's absolutely no reason why Wikimedia Commons is obligated to host bigoted hate cartoons (we can if we want to, but there's nothing that says we have to) -- especially when they were uploaded with the specific intention of disguising and making lame excuses for their bigotry and hatred. And what do you mean, "we", Kemosabe? AnonMoos 17:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, please do ignore what we are here to discuss and continue with your unfounded and disruptive personal attacks. // Liftarn
- Since you seem to be very big on bureaucratic jargon acronyms and technicalities of official Wikipedia/Wikimedia policies, please do inform us exactly which clause of which policy imperatively requires that Wikimedia Commons host bigoted hate-cartoons. I think that you'll find this task quite difficult to achieve, since while we can host such material if we choose to do so, there's nothing which requires us to do so -- and there's no reason why, if a near-consensus of interested Wikimedia Commons users decides not to host such material here, it shouldn't be deleted with extreme finality. P.S. The use of the plural pronoun "we" to express individualistic personal opinions should be restricted to Queen Victoria and people with tapeworm. AnonMoos 07:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- There are no "bigoted hate-cartoons" discussed here. // Liftarn
- Nice way of refusing to answer the question, while implicitly conceding my point -- there's no reason why we have to host the Latuff hate images here on Commons... AnonMoos 00:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The last mass nomination of them closed as keep, including a keep vote by me. I could be persuaded to vote delete for some in selective cases though. -Nard 07:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nice way of refusing to answer the question, while implicitly conceding my point -- there's no reason why we have to host the Latuff hate images here on Commons... AnonMoos 00:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- There are no "bigoted hate-cartoons" discussed here. // Liftarn
- Since you seem to be very big on bureaucratic jargon acronyms and technicalities of official Wikipedia/Wikimedia policies, please do inform us exactly which clause of which policy imperatively requires that Wikimedia Commons host bigoted hate-cartoons. I think that you'll find this task quite difficult to achieve, since while we can host such material if we choose to do so, there's nothing which requires us to do so -- and there's no reason why, if a near-consensus of interested Wikimedia Commons users decides not to host such material here, it shouldn't be deleted with extreme finality. P.S. The use of the plural pronoun "we" to express individualistic personal opinions should be restricted to Queen Victoria and people with tapeworm. AnonMoos 07:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, please do ignore what we are here to discuss and continue with your unfounded and disruptive personal attacks. // Liftarn
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
http://www.gun-world.net/china/rifle/qbz97/qbz97.htm ,copy vio image Evers 09:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious copyvio. Use {{copyvio}} instead next time. Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 14:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 00:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Usable picture of a tourist location, with a geocode, though it could do with a much better description. --Simonxag 02:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Usable? Maybe if cropped and with a description but nowadays is a typical personal photo --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 14:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Nice view of Truso valley and the river. I belive that the travelers not disterbing to the picture. Geagea 20:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep We can't just crop and replace because there isn't a single obvious way the image would be cropped. In this case, I see two ways this could be cropped: above the heads and beside the bodies. So we'll need to have any cropped versions reference this image for attribution purposes. But it'd also be nice to have the longer Hebrew description translated to English if possible. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 12:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I think somebody should delete this image. "Pelle" means "clown" in Finnish language, and the man in the image isn't a clown. It seems to be just an inappropriate and abusing image. --212.149.208.89 12:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete While the requested deletion reason is silly, the image is unused and unidentifiable. We have too many of those as it is. -Nard 15:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per N. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Johney (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 06:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It looks like derivate work from any non-free image sevela.p 12:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nerozumím. Je to vlastní montáž. Vo co jde? --Ervinpospisil 23:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Montáž, ale podle mě je to odvozené dílo od nějakého nesvobodného díla a tudíž nesvobodné. Je mi líto.--sevela.p 15:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: derivative, copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[Extremely limited] value, probable vanity --Gustav VH 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, not useful. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 13:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Rocket000 05:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. RedCoat 19:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplication of Image:Chris Holden- Gay Male.jpg- see above. Gustav VH 23:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete both duplicate and original for uselessness. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. RedCoat 18:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The source says "You can use a picture FOR FREE for non-commercial, non-profit use only". ([1]) Kjetil r 04:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The license linked to is by-sa 2.5. Creative Commons says the license linked to is the one granted[2]. -Nard 04:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- He is obviously linking to the wrong license, he does not mean to allow commercial use. We shouldn't say "ha ha, you linked to the wrong document, now you are losing some rights to your work!", we should respect the author's intentions. --Kjetil r 05:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, well said Kjetil r. This issue has come up before: ultimately, if there's a conflict between the wording of a license and the intent of the author, then we should go with the intent of the author, out of courtesy to the author if nothing else. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- He is obviously linking to the wrong license, he does not mean to allow commercial use. We shouldn't say "ha ha, you linked to the wrong document, now you are losing some rights to your work!", we should respect the author's intentions. --Kjetil r 05:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, and respect intentions of the author. Cowardly Lion 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 08:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Nothing indicates that the copyright holder indeed released the image under the licence indicated; given that this is the logo of a well-known media in Switzerland, it is unlikely that there is no restriction on its use; at the very least, more information should be provided. Schutz 21:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed that the specified license is dubious, but this logo is not eligible for copyright... it should be marked {{PD-textlogo}}. Is it trademarked? If so, marked with {{trademarked}} too. Keep Carl Lindberg 08:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it is trademarked in Switzerland, as per https://www.swissreg.ch/srclient/en/tm/P-333565. I have added both tags, along with more information, thanks. I guess exactly the same applies to Image:LogoMigrosNouveau.jpg, so I will update it as well. Cheers, Schutz 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the same would apply :-) Thanks for doing the research, and fixing them. Carl Lindberg 03:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it is trademarked in Switzerland, as per https://www.swissreg.ch/srclient/en/tm/P-333565. I have added both tags, along with more information, thanks. I guess exactly the same applies to Image:LogoMigrosNouveau.jpg, so I will update it as well. Cheers, Schutz 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept as ineligible. --rimshottalk 16:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Improper sourcing --62.56.75.239 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep ridiculous nomination. Wikipedia is cited and proper GFDL attribution is given. The "own work" is the spoken portion. -Nard 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Cowardly Lion 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Sounds like a recording of content from another source, although claim is that it's self made --62.56.75.239 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep ridiculous nomination. Wikipedia is cited and proper GFDL attribution is given. The "own work" is the spoken portion. -Nard 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Same voice as Image:OTD505.ogg, which clearly mentions Wikipedia and GFDL, and was uploaded by the same person. Cowardly Lion 21:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Sounds like a recording of content from another source, although claim is that it's self made. --62.56.75.239 22:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep ridiculous nomination. Wikipedia is cited and proper GFDL attribution is given. The "own work" is the spoken portion. -Nard 22:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Same voice as Image:OTD505.ogg, which clearly mentions Wikipedia and GFDL, and was uploaded by the same person. Cowardly Lion 21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Claims to be self-made, but sounds like a recording of content from another source --62.56.75.239 22:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep ridiculous nomination. Wikipedia is cited and proper GFDL attribution is given. The "own work" is the spoken portion. -Nard 22:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Same voice as Image:OTD505.ogg, which clearly mentions Wikipedia and GFDL, and was uploaded by the same person. Cowardly Lion 21:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Claims to be self-made but sounds like a recording of content from another source --62.56.75.239 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The recording clearly mentions Wikipedia and GFDL. Cowardly Lion 21:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Claims to be selfmade , but appears to be a recoding of content from another source --62.56.75.239 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep ridiculous nomination. Wikipedia is cited and proper GFDL attribution is given. The "own work" is the spoken portion. -Nard 22:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The recording clearly mentions Wikipedia and GFDL. The recording seems to have been made by the person who uploaded it. Cowardly Lion 21:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Suspect music portion used in this clip in good faith may have been copyvio since removed from commons --62.56.75.239 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep uploader is long-established user. This anon presents ridiculous nominations. -Nard 22:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Suspect music clip used , claimed as PD in good faith, is copyvio --62.56.75.239 21:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep ridiculous nomination. A piece of classical music is used which has no doubt fallen into PD. -Nard 22:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- This was nominated because certain Holst pieces HAD been removed from Commons because they were
NOT pd. 62.56.75.239 23:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- ORLY? Then what is Category:Gustav Holst? -Nard 23:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK Then, If the clip is recognisable from the clips remaining in that category, Nom withdrawn ;)
62.56.75.239 23:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Claimed as own work , but clearly derived from Wikipedia... --62.56.75.239 22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep ridiculous nomination. Wikipedia is cited and proper GFDL attribution is given. The "own work" is the spoken portion. -Nard 22:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The recording gives his name, and it's obviously the same person who uploaded it. Cowardly Lion 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Claimed as own work, but clearly derived from Wikipedia --62.56.75.239 22:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep ridiculous. Wikipedia is available under the GFDL and is properly credited and the licensing is preserved. The "own work" refers to the spoken portion, which the person had to self-make by actually speaking with his own voice. -Nard 22:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with N. The Wikipedia text is available under a free licence. The recording (which gives the name of the speaker) is obviously from the same person as the person who uploaded it here under a free licence. What's the problem? Cowardly Lion 23:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Claimed as own work, but clearly derived from Wikipedia --62.56.75.239 22:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep ridiculous. Wikipedia is available under the GFDL and is properly credited and the licensing is preserved. The "own work" refers to the spoken portion, which the person had to self-make by actually speaking with his own voice. -Nard 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
all contents moved to Tombs in South Korea --Applebee 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Redirected to Category:Tombs in South Korea. --Boricuæddie 15:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused on Wikimedia projects; image is too dark; no obvious purpose Kelvinc 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep "unused" is not an argument for deletion. "Image is too dark" can be fixed. "No obvious purpose" is wrong: it depicts a disgusting shitter. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Collard, it can be useful --Ogre 15:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader recorded the music, but did he write it? -Nard 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I, German Casares Alonso, declare that this music is my creation and release the copyrights. Of course the music has been written by myself. (2 january 2008) —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Sanyerme (talk • contribs)
- Kept - affirmation of creation by uploader - no reason to doubt.
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Naked in Subway.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Questionable whether couple are same sex, bad quality photo, limited usefulness --Gustav VH 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Harmless. --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.199 08:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Neutral in fact no it's nbot harmless since you're right: it's questionable whether couple are same sex or not. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete could not really put it better than the nominator --Herby talk thyme 14:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader blanked the page and license unexplained. Jusjih 01:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Release into the PD is not revocable. This is a year after the original upload, so it's not a matter of correcting a mistake. If the uploader wants the image deleted, they must persuade the general community that there is a good reason for this. --Simonxag 02:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete image is of dubious quality and usability anyway. -Nard 02:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless it's an image of anything actually useful - would be questionable commons scope. Megapixie 03:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. pr uploaders request/scope/not used Finn Rindahl 16:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"avoidance" of misuse could just be a reservation of moral rights (inalienable in most countries legislations so reserving them does not make the work unfree) or it could be an outright denial of derivative works. You decide. -Nard 04:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The producer (Government of Chile) has relinquished all rights upon the image. The proviso about "avoidance of misuse" is simply a reminder that the use of the image for illegal purposes (such as for falsifying an official document (i.e. passport)) is not included in the rights being given to the user. See law 19.628 --Melromero 04:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think that the "avoidance of misuse" is more like a {{personality rights}} warning than a prohibition to the licence. The licence is OK... so Keep the image --B1mbo 20:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not needed Sagredo 20:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete it's a practical duplicate of image:WAGGGSAsiaPacificMap-World.svg --Ogre 15:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Finn Rindahl 16:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Exists as Category:Santarém (Pará). FrancoBras 02:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Request fixed -- Deadstar (msg) 16:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Redirect? Disambiguation? -- Deadstar (msg) 16:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept as disambiguation, as there are several Santaréms in Brazil alone. rimshottalk 13:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author and source is JimTang, not uploader Jokit.--Shizhao 02:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Possibly the same image as Image:Jim Tang.jpg, which was previously deleted as having incomplete information on source, licence, author, and permission, and which came from Jim Tang's blog. See here. Cowardly Lion 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It's not the same image. --rimshottalk 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted no indication of permission for release into the public domain. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not indicated that the author of the genealogical table is dead for more than 70 years or has agreed to the use of his work under GNU licence. -- 14:32, 29 December 2007 User:91.12.110.159 Request fixed -- Deadstar (msg) 16:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Familienstammbäume ohne künstlerische grafische Gestaltung sind nicht copyright-geschützt. dontworry 03:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept: The family tree only contains data without individual creative expression and is as such not eligible for copyright. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The assertion by Dondesnet that he took this picture is questionable pending clarification. Strong was 78 in 2007, and the picture is of a younger man. Fred Bauder 17:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- The identity of user:Dondenet who has recently edited w:Maurice Strong and added this image is unknown. It may be Strong himself or a family member. Thus, an explanation may clear this up. The image, even if from another source, may be usable. Fred Bauder 17:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. this is first time I have uploaded an image to Wikipedia, so I am learning the process as I go on. I have changed the information for the image. The identity of user Dondesnet, surmised as being a member of Maurice Strong's family, is inaccurate. Dondesnet is Don de Silva, one of the first journalists from a developing country to write and report on environmental and developmental issues. He has attended and reported on many international conferences, including the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1982 and the Earth Summit in Rio. Don de Silva is a journalist, author, and environmentalist. The image is taken from http://www.mauricestrong.org --Dondesnet 09:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's a nice image and would be w:fair use for Wikipedia, see w:Wikipedia:Non-free content and other educational sites, but doesn't meet the requirements of Commons, as I understand them. However, it should be OK on Wikipedia, if a proper rational for fair use is given. Fred Bauder 19:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted: Non free images are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Contact me if somebody wants to upload the image to the English Wikipedia. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Claim of CC-BY-SA, But basis work included or derived from is GFDL --62.56.75.239 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep ridiculous nomination. Wikipedia is cited and proper GFDL attribution is given. The "own work" is the spoken portion. -Nard 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- The issue is that it can't be both CC-BY-SA AND GFDL. Reformat nom as a contact uploade to resolve issue 62.56.75.239 23:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- So use your brain and figure out what license it should be. -Nard 23:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Removed CC licenses and kept. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not own work foto Sean Demspey/ EPA --Multichill 22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless there's proof that the copyright holder releases it under a free licence. There's no indication of that at the moment. Cowardly Lion 23:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not self-made or deriative work of [3] --Multichill 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - {{PD-ineligible}}? Patstuart (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted: While the data itself may not be copyrighted, the drawing certainly is. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader changed my no source tag to pd-ineligible. -Nard 18:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Upload the glyphs/words and use them in wikitext (provided they're free). Platonides 22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Withdrawn this seems simplistic enough not to copyright. -Nard 15:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader has repeated copyright violations, coming off block he uploads this. I do not believe this is his work -Nard 04:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and block stupid uploader. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ignore the above. I just received the following email:
- I'm Mario Perez (aka the "stupid uploader" NightHawkST3). Honestly, this thing is starting to get on my nerves. For some reason you or someone else have said that I've been upolading some images that are not mine... THOSE IMAGES ARE COMPLETELY OF MYYYYY PROTERTY.
- I just upoladed this image:
- Foto-logo.jpg
- You'll see two guys in there with a logo of MY BAND!!!!! I'm the one with glasses...
- I've been using CreativeCommon licenses for quite a while and that's what I used as a license for EVERY image I upload in this page, and in my web page!!. I don't know what kind of license you want me to put in there, but this is the second time I'm having this problem.
- I have a record label called Angelical Records (go and visit www.angelicalrecords.com, and it'll be in spanish). Please just stop saying that those images aren't mine!!! EVERYTHING I UPLOAD IS MINE!!!! IF IT SAYS "ANGELICAL RECORDS" ON THE AUTHOR OR SOURCE SPACES, THAT'S BECAUSE I AM PART OF ANGELICAL RECORDS. I OWN THOSE IMAGES!!!! EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!!
- Still don't believe me? go to my MySpace (www.myspace.com/nighthawkst3) or my band's MySpace: www.myspace.com/egeiro, and you'll see me and/or my band's logo...
- I really don't know what to do in order to prove that everything that I upolad in wikipedia is MINE!!!
- In short, I withdraw my previous comment. Seems he is the original author of the stuff he uploads. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 07:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nice! Try explaining the wiki concept to him. You can "edit" a page and fill in the details to make people believe your work is genuine. -Nard 15:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I checked out the links and I believe him, but I see no sign that he uses CC for every (or any) image on his site. A email from the site itself would help (COM:OTRS) or some kind of CC notice on the site. Rocket000 05:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. A understandable permission did not arrive at COM:OTRS; this is necessary to make sure that the image is free. As long as this permission did not arrive, a deletion is the best solution. my name 12:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Statue of Charles XIV of Sweden
[edit]These three photos of a statue of king Charles XIV of Sweden are of low quality (photographed at dusk) and not used anywhere. Also, WikiCommons have two other photos of the same object (here and here).
- Image:Karl XIV Johans staty från 1846 i Karl Johans park, Norrköping, den 20 nov 2005. Bild 1..JPG
- Image:Karl XIV Johans staty från 1846 i Karl Johans park, Norrköping, den 20 nov 2005. Bild 2..JPG
- Image:Karl XIV Johans staty från 1846 i Karl Johans park, Norrköping, den 20 nov 2005. Bild 3..JPG
Thuresson 07:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Just because we have others doesn't mean we don't want these (or more). These are most definitely usable, and unused is not a deletion reason. Carl Lindberg 15:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Correction, unused is not a "speedy deletion" reason. Thuresson 06:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unused is not a regular deletion reason either ;-) The "Low quality" reason, I think, is for pictures which are so bad as to be unusable (so blurry you can't identify the subject, etc.) and "redundant", to me, means photos taken from similar angles at similar times to the point they show the exact same aspects of the subject.
- As for the nominated images, someone may want to show what this statue looks like at dusk, or maybe prefers the aesthetic of the blue sky in a particular context, or maybe the image could be brightened by someone in the future. Deleting an image from commons is pretty serious, in my opinion, and should rarely be done in for photos which have a clear legal status and are within project scope. It's pretty hard to determine that those images are definitely not useful for any future purpose in any wikimedia project (wikibooks can give a pretty wide scope). To me, your arguments are more for replacing these images on wikipedia articles with the others you mention, which seems quite reasonable -- but we don't try to force that editorial decision by deleting the other ones from commons. Carl Lindberg 07:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Correction, unused is not a "speedy deletion" reason. Thuresson 06:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicate of content already on Commons, Also have doubts as to these being correctly licensed or checked for copyvio --62.56.75.239 21:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Uh? What are we talking about? -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
January 3
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
typo --Applebee 00:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted — Giggy 02:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Highly likely to be a professional image, probable copyvio. Thoughts? — Giggy 02:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- See also the uploader's talk page...— Giggy 02:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thoughts? I'd hit it. Delete image is copied from [4]. -Nard 05:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thoughts? I'd hit it.
Deleted, copyvio (http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2007/04/20/520714/FHCIMelB.jpg). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
claimed as self-made, dubious [5] --F3rn4nd0 07:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete MD5s are the same, Last-Modified header on the picture on that website predates the upload of this picture by close to four years. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{copyvio}}, please do this for blatant copyright infringements in future, F3rn4nd0. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio. MECU≈talk 16:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file is not his own work it is only scanned in his computer Inertkids 08:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The author Bernhard Kaißer died in 1918. This document is public domain! keep --194.48.128.75 12:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as above; the uploader is not claiming it as his own work. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep this is part of a book (409 pages) uploaded by the german speaking ws community. The book itself is Out of copyright as author died more than 70 years ago --Joergens.mi 13:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - author died more than 70 years ago. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy kept. There is no need to wait seven days for the decision, the rules are more than clear in this case. It's indeed the own work of the given author, who would be the long dead Bernhard Kaißer. The uploader never claimed it as his, he even told the source. Don't know what the proposer was thinking, but his claim is obviously totally wrong and thus invalid. -- Cecil 14:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
GFDL permission, where? -Nard 13:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete No permission --Simonxag 18:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Changed to {{npd}}. Samulili 15:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
And this is why bots shouldn't review Flickr images -Nard 15:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted screenshot. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, why is Magnus Manske's bot vetting its own uploads? -Nard 15:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted (again) -- Infrogmation 21:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like a scan of a postcard -Nard 16:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
"Deutsch: Ich habe das schriftliche Einverständnis, alle Bilder frei nutzen zu dürfen. Daher ist dieses Bild public domain." I will change this to {{npd}}. Samulili 15:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
reopened: Scan of a postcard. Previous delete request was strangely closed as "keep" with a tag of no permission. Someone else removed the no permission tag. The German text says they have written permission. Without more information that is not enough to maintain this image on Commons. -Nard 04:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The debate was closed and {{npd}} was added to the image because, only proper permission information was missing. The bot thought this debate was closed as kept, however. Regarding removing the "no permission" tag, that should not have be done. Samulili 12:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted by User:Polarlys as "no permission". Samulili 12:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is not a NASA image. The Russian cosmonaut photo is, of course, from Russia, and the Huntsville Times of course owns the newspaper. The cc-by-sa license is just a fiction for convenience at Flickr. -Nard 16:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland. --Christian NurtschTM 14:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I can't even mark this as no license because of the spam filter. Kill it. Actually the uploader appears to be a spambot. Kill it too. -Nard 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme. --Christian NurtschTM 14:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Characters in this image are identital to copyrighted characters from the animated series South Park.--Maniago 17:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Deleted, obvious copyright violation -- Infrogmation 21:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Appears to be an unauthorised derivative of a poster or similar. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. Reflections in the shot look like it was shot through glass in a business establishment. Durova 20:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Obvious.-- Infrogmation 21:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader claims to be the author of this "self-made" nude painting by Modesto Delgado Rodas, who died in 1963. This is clearly false, but what is the post mortem duration of copyright in Paraguay? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It's pma+70 years[6]. -Nard 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted based on that along with Image:Modesto Delgado Rodas, Mita í,.JPG. Thanks. The user's other uploads also need some scrutiny. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
What is its source and how old is the "very old picture" really? I guess not old enough to be public domain. --TomCatX 18:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I found this deletion request. It was never closed and it looks like it was never included at Commons:Deletion requests. Multichill 20:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Changed to {{nsd}}. Samulili 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can't remember the source. Ok for deletion. Regards. barracuda1983 21 January 2008
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Broken file. I tried to get it speedy deleted but for some odd reason the admin declined it. -Nard 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi,
- I removed the first speedy tag yesterday as I thought that a broken image should not just be deleted, but could simply reuploaded. I admit that I may have been more explicit by dropping a note to your talk page (or to the talk page of the speedy requester), instead of just commenting my action in the edit comment box...
- As you may have noticed, after your message on User talk:Spoladore, this user decided to request a speedy deleting on his own, so I'll delete the image. However, I'll not consider it as a duplicate of the png version, as svg and png are significantly different.
- I hope I didn't harm in any way!
- Best regards from France,
- -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 09:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per uploader speedy request. -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 09:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is obscene and offensive. 99.243.105.11 23:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Funny. But Keep. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Lame. -Nard 02:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We're not censored (although it's hard to see how this gives offense). Durova 04:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Offensive? It is difficult to show a ponytail with a Burqa - Chris 73 06:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Doesnt look self-made to me, and, if it is, it is out of scope and is of no use here. So either copyvio or scopevio. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as copyrighted logo. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 13:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio www.northport.com. --GeorgHH • talk 18:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Take it to Wikipedia per nom. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 12:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted copyvio from http://www.northport.com.my/ - "All copyright, trademarks, and other intellectual property rights used as part of this website are vested in Northport and /or its licensors." -- Deadstar (msg) 09:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copied from internet, possible copyvio[7] --F3rn4nd0 10:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. MD5s for both files are the same; the Last-Modified header for the probable source of this picture predates the upload of this file by several months. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 11:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image has bad quality.--Ahonc 12:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, unfixable and unusable. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem for me KKonstantin 14:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 17:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Too blurry - out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image has bad quality --Ahonc 12:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, blurriness not fixable. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 14:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem for me KKonstantin 14:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 18:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted Too blurry - out of scope. 7 January 2008 User:Deadstar
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate image - see "image:Palmaiola island - front view.jpg" Samuele 14:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted {{duplicate}} -- Deadstar (msg) 16:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is very low quality, out of focus Zzyzx11 06:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete unusable --F3rn4nd0 07:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep The image is used on 25 pages in 17 projects, so I don't think it qualifies as unusable. It's evidently the only photo of Alexander Dubček we've got. RedCoat 11:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep but a good candidate for an illustrator to base a drawing on. --Simonxag 17:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Terrible quality but important subject, would jettison if we had a better replacement. Durova 20:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Low quality, but good enough to be usable at screen resolution. Any image this widely used should never be deleted due to "low quality" reasons since the simple fact of usage refutes the argument. May as well keep it permanently, since it's in so many articles' edit history, but it sure would be nice to have a better image to replace it with in articles. Carl Lindberg 07:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep. At the end of August, 1968, Dubcek was delivered to CCCP and interrogated there; the KGBsts were supposed to make pics, (it is first operation at any detention). Let Zzyzx11 enter their archieve, and upload here the better pic. Do not let Zz to delete any pic before to upload its better equivalent. Domitori 03:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I know very well that my photo is of poor quality. When I met Mr. Dubcek at the day after his election for president of the parliament, he was surrounded by crowds of reporters and fans. I had to kick away a lot of people before being able to take the picture (and was kicked myself as well, sure ;-)). In the end I caught his head as a very small part of the complete photograph; what you see now is a zoom-out with, of course, low resolution. But please take into consideration that it is, at present, the only free Dubcek picture we have for disposition here in Wikipedia.--Dr. Meierhofer 12:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep --Clockwork Orange 10:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
strong keep per Dr. Meierhofer--Wiggum 11:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Kept - Although advice some involved to take it easy one what could be seen as sockpuppetry...— Giggy 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio - taken from geocities claimed as self-made [8] --F3rn4nd0 07:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 17:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 22:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio [9] --F3rn4nd0 07:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Simple copyvios should be just be flagged as such. --Simonxag 17:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 22:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[10] copyvio --F3rn4nd0 07:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Simple copyvios should be just be flagged as such. --Simonxag 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 22:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
per this Image:Saltto.jpg copyvio [11]--F3rn4nd0 07:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Same subject, same vantage point (probably purpose built for tourists) but just not the same photo. --Simonxag 17:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Is the uploader Fredy Gómez? [12] If not, and it seems unlikely, Delete. The image linked above is different, and thus is not a reason to delete, but the image I just linked to is identical. Carl Lindberg 07:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted, copyvio --Polarlys 22:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[13][14]copyvio --F3rn4nd0 08:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete blatant copyvio --Simonxag 17:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 22:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[15]copyvio --F3rn4nd0 08:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete blatant --Simonxag 17:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep In that site there is another image form wikipedia is Image:Bogotaview.jpg and that image is form other author. Is very possible that the site upload pics from commons without mention it. Sorry for my english. ---Chien 02:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Take a look at the other stuff this user has uploaded! --Simonxag 02:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 22:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not a NASA image. The image is from http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=2007-039A, where it says "All images and diagrams courtesy JAXA" 62.216.198.20 12:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete JAXA copyright policy is unfree. -Nard 12:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete agree with deletion nomination, JAXA images are non-free. TheDJ 16:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfree - delete. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio all info in the Colombian government websites are copyrighted [16] --F3rn4nd0 06:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This image couldn't have been captured by him it is too perfect Inertkids 08:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment A copyvio is not unlikely, taking a closer look to the uploader's history. But this one is not the same image, it's taken from a different location, apparently with different shutter speed, different light...btw - "too perfect" indeed would not qualify as a reason for deletion, you ever heard of Featured pictures? --194.48.128.75 13:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This isn't from any government website, the link is from another image, ad you can't argue that is too perfect. can't i take a good shot?? both reasons r wrong
--69.79.250.176 00:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Is the uploader Fredy Gómez? [17] If not, and it seems unlikely, Delete. The image linked above is different, and thus is not a reason to delete, but the image I just linked to is identical. Carl Lindberg 07:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The uploader claims at the talk page of Inertkids (whose reason is once again rather invalid) that it is a friend he knows who has made the picture. But in this case this friend has to release it, especially since it was published somewhere else with a copyright notice that doesn't fit Commons. -- Cecil 14:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, i changed the license and linked the pic to the original in it's website, i wrote also the name of the owner is everything ok? or do i have to do something else to satisfy you guys?????
--Agostinhox 05:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like it's been deleted, but for a situation like this where the photo has already been published elsewhere under copyright, we need communication directly from the owner. One way is to have the owner send a specific email (see Commons:Email templates for details). Or, probably easier since the site allows message postings, the owner could post a message on the photo page using his own account saying that the photo is licensed under GFDL or CC-BY-SA or whatever. We can't take someone's word for it; we need to get permission directly from the copyright owner. Carl Lindberg 00:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys as copyvio. -- Cecil 21:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
accidentally used default file name Ikluft 09:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate of Image:BLM-Winnemucca-NCA-Map 1-01 reference.gif. --rimshottalk 13:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I believe this is supposed to be PD-user Montauk but this is not specified. Neutral listing -Nard 15:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept License tag changed to "PD-user". --GeorgHH • talk 10:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
extreme low quality, duplicate -- 31 December 2007 User:Szilas
- Delete Fix request. Blurry picture of a window? A wall? If there is a duplicate, can you add in the name please? -- Deadstar (msg) 08:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 09:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
capture of non-free resource. And there is no proof to allowed to distribute as Public Domain by copyright owner -- 23 December 2007 User:ToePeu Fixed request -- Deadstar (msg) 09:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Support - This is not a free program, and the screenshot is wrongfully tagged as PD, when the program itself is not that license. --wL <speak·creatively> 13:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 09:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
suspected copyright violation. This is the logo of an organisation (see http://www.wycliff.de/). I have tried to discuss this with the contributor on his user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%96%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD), but he has not responded in a reasonable length of time. -- User:Landroving Linguist 10:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 09:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not a NASA image. The image is from http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=2007-039A, where it says "All images and diagrams courtesy JAXA" 62.216.198.20 12:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete JAXA copyright policy is unfree. -Nard 12:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 09:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Cortesía del prof. Ricardo García García, Instituto de Microelectrónica de Madrid (CSIC)" ie courtesy prof. Richard Garcia Garcia, Madrid Institute of Microelectronics. Tag is for simple photos from Sweden. -Nard 13:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 09:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A confusing case. "Permission" is "Public domain", [18] says it's PD, yet there is a CC-BY-SA license tag. So who took this photograph, and when? 62.216.198.20 13:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Gonna need someone fluent in Romanian to tell us why the original is PD, I think. -Nard 13:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I take this pictures from Romanian Wikipedia, so I'm gonna ask there about license.--Immanuel 10:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- User:62.216.198.20 where you see CC-BY-SA license tag on this pictures? In Romanian Wikipedia this pictures has PD license ("domeniu public" is Public Domain).--Immanuel 10:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ro-wiki claims that it is {{PD-ineligible}}, which is clearly wrong. It also says that the image comes from en-wiki, where it existed by the name en:Image:KarlJaspers.jpg. The image had no source and was deleted. Hence, Delete. Samulili 15:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- This image literally has no source :P This was uploaded to Romanian wiki in 2005. It was originally uploaded to en.wiki as en:Image:KarlJaspers.jpg as non-free. This image could be PD but without better sourcing I'm afraid it must go. -Nard 15:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ro-wiki claims that it is {{PD-ineligible}}, which is clearly wrong. It also says that the image comes from en-wiki, where it existed by the name en:Image:KarlJaspers.jpg. The image had no source and was deleted. Hence,
- Deleted. Samulili 09:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No proof that this is a work by the US federal government. The source page actually claims that the image is copyrighted, and while there is no copyright to works by the US government/Smithsonian Institute (which is funded by the government) can receive copyrighted works. --Samulili 18:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
+Image:HE2G8.jpg which is from Hiller Aviation Museum (not affiliated with the government). Samulili 18:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep PD-US prior to 1923. -Nard 19:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure they are US works? The both of the French aviator en:Paul Cornu. Samulili 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 08:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative image, unapproved Flickr reviewer reviewing its own uploads -Nard 16:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Dodo 16:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image comes from Flickr account user (here) who falsely labels numerous copyrighted works under a free license --Gustav VH 17:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, Delete. In addition, the user claims that the image is taken on September 9, 2007, when Pavarotti died on September 6. Samulili 15:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Same as Samulili. Gridge 14:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC).
- Deleted. Samulili 17:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No proof that PD-Old applies 62.216.198.20 13:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
uploaded on wikipedia --21 December 2007 User:Phxtri
- Keep Fix request. Not a reason for deletion. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It is a crop of en:Image:Rivers and Dave.jpg which the original uploader (see talk page) claims is both own work and from http://weezernation.com/bboard/viewtopic.php?t=79115 . Samulili 09:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader seems to have lots of copyright problems, this looks like it is likely a copyvio. Calliopejen 00:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted — Omegatron 22:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo is permanently installed in a public place? -Nard 12:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete probable copyvio --Simonxag 17:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Boy do I look stupid :P Uploader contacted me on my talk page not only with proof this is installed in a public place[19] but that the image is PD anyway under {{PD-PRL}}. Request withdrawn. -Nard 22:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Omegatron (talk • contribs)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture is permanently installed in a public place? ORLY? -Nard 12:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Boy do I look stupid :P Uploader contacted me on my talk page not only with proof this is installed in a public place[20] but that the image is PD anyway under {{PD-PRL}}. Request withdrawn. -Nard 22:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Omegatron (talk • contribs)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This page is a duplicate of pictures already in the "Category:1964 New York World's Fair" and is unnecessary --31 December 2007 User:Doug Coldwell Fixed request -- Deadstar (msg) 15:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Categories and pages exist side by side. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Kept - Categories and pages exist side by side. Patstuart (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative image, unapproved Flickr reviewer reviewing its own uploads -Nard 16:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rama: copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative image, unapproved Flickr reviewer reviewing its own uploads -Nard 16:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rama: copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm not sure about this one, but I think we should not accept such self-made portraits. If this portrait was made after a photograph, then it might also be a derivative work. 62.216.198.20 14:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's remarkable what you can do in MS Paint. -Nard 14:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- KeepWe can't just assume self-made portraits are copyvios without evidence. --Simonxag 18:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence that first publication occured in the US 62.216.198.20 14:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Replace it with {{PD-art}} and all is fine Mutter Erde 22:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I disbelieve that this has OTRS permission. And if it does, I question whether this is in project scope. The game it is a screenshot of does not appear to exist -Nard 15:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok I googled it and it does exist. Possibly keep this if the OTRS is valid. -Nard 22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have verified the OTRS permission and the image is licensed under the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses respectively. NonvocalScream 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative image, unapproved Flickr reviewer reviewing its own uploads -Nard 16:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong name Papoise 21:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, could you provide the actual correct name please? Then you could just nominate the image as {{badname|the correct name}}. It would be speedily deleted then.
- Best regards,
- -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 09:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Dupe of Sigillumminor-collegium-I.jpg – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no PD-US --Polarlys 19:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably not a US work, so PD-US cannot be used 62.216.198.20 13:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This was nominated in May and nobody deleted it then. Not US work. -Nard 13:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Simonxag 18:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - PD-US not applicable. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is NOT the official flag of the Italian Republic. The original flag's mid band is WHITE (HTML: FFFFFF) and not pale gray Blackcat it 15:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you can understand italian language, you can read Art.31 of DISPOSIZIONI GENERALI IN MATERIA DI CERIMONIALE E DISCIPLINA DELLE PRECEDENZE TRA LE CARICHE PUBBLICHE (PDF) (that is given as source of this wrong image), where italian government states the color for official textile flag of Italy. This article states also that other versions of the flag must have the same color effect of a certain Pantone color on a certain polyester fiber, and apparence of that textile with that color is truly a plain white, not dirty (pollution-soiled?) (gray) white... So these are the facts. I'm really bored about this dummy dispute. I hope that this WRONG file can be deleted shortly. -- ELBorgo (sms) 16:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Well, I think that no explanation is necessary. --Frank87 19:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep — This file is perfectly named and impeccably sourced. ¦ Reisio 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Italian flag is green, white and red. No mention of pale grey. --Fioravante Patrone com 20:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Unless you have a PC screen made in polyester fiber, this shade of grey is NOT suitable. If you keep it, we'll feel compelled to upload an American flag with red and pale grey stripes as well :-) --Vermondo 00:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - There is Image:Printable_Flag_of_Italy.svg (version of the Flag that use rough hexadecimal conversion of the official Pantone colors in order to be printed on Cloth.) --Il palazzo 00:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not the same conversion, however. ¦ Reisio 01:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - This image is not perfectly named because this is not the flag of Italy, you should upload it under a name as invented flag of Italy or uncorrect flag of Italy--Vituzzu 00:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Art. 12 of Italian Constitution "Flag of the Republic is the italian tricolour: green, white and red, in three equally sized vertical bands", and Italian President Emblem, that use the same colour of the flag, say white. --Krdan Ielalir 01:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Invalid reason for deletion. It's freely licensed and within our scope. This is getting ridiculous. Commons is not place for this. Rocket000 12:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is not the flag of Italy. The middle color should be white, not grey. 8 people asked for its deletion at the previous deletion request and only the uploader said keep. The decision was closed keep because of scope grounds. I submit that an inaccurate version of a real flag is not within the scope when it is used in articles where the real flag should appear. Specifically the part of COM:SCOPE that requires files to be of high quality. Bad colors on a flag image make it of poor quality and authenticity. -Nard 02:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please take a look at all of the other discussion about this particular image. (Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Reisio)Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:ReisioCommons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Rocket000Image talk:Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana PMS 20060414.svg Some say this flag is accurate, so it's within our scope. We are not here to decide on images for others. We let them decide. Rocket000 02:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do we really let them decide? Because it looks like everyone but the uploader is against this image even existing. -Nard 02:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, there's a huge history here :) Take a look at the user report I got for closing that. Rocket000
- I meant we let users decide which image to use. We can't let them decide if we delete all but the one we think is "correct". Rocket000 02:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand what you mean with «we think is "correct"». There are some issues that can't be secondable. Can I make a Canada flag in grey? --F l a n k e r 11:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- By what "we think is 'correct'", I meant what some people on Commons believe to be correct. I used "we" because it was the majority. But even a majority here shouldn't decide on images for people elsewhere. Again, we just host them. Rocket000 05:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand what you mean with «we think is "correct"». There are some issues that can't be secondable. Can I make a Canada flag in grey? --F l a n k e r 11:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- It has been decided in Image talk:Flag of Italy.svg that this is not a flag of Italy, and therefore should not be included among Italian flags nor named as one.
- If commons is not concerned with the correctness of the name of the flags, am I allowed to take a JollyRoger, upload it and name it "New Flag of United States/Israel/YouNameIt"? I don't think I would be allowed (and I would be against it, furthermore), just because it would be the wrong name of the image.
- For this reason I ask this image to be removed. --TcfkaPanairjdde 14:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do we really let them decide? Because it looks like everyone but the uploader is against this image even existing. -Nard 02:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Until flags created from textile. Is textile colors wrong? Is textile-to-RGB approximation incorrect? See also Category:Flags of Poland (similar hot debate were took place there too). --EugeneZelenko 16:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, textile-to-RGB conversion is wrong. How many times it is necessary to discuss it?--TcfkaPanairjdde 23:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I quote TcfkaPanairjdde: Textile-to-RGB conversion is wrong. How many times it is necessary to discuss it?--F l a n k e r 02:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Interpretations are only "wrong" to those who think differently. Rocket000 05:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Interpretations? I think there is nothing to interpret. The Earth is not flat, the flag of Italy is not grey. --F l a n k e r 11:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe there is as this whole thing shows. Images of the Earth being flat shouldn't be deleted either. Rocket000 03:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Interpretations? I think there is nothing to interpret. The Earth is not flat, the flag of Italy is not grey. --F l a n k e r 11:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Interpretations are only "wrong" to those who think differently. Rocket000 05:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I quote TcfkaPanairjdde: Textile-to-RGB conversion is wrong. How many times it is necessary to discuss it?--F l a n k e r 02:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, textile-to-RGB conversion is wrong. How many times it is necessary to discuss it?--TcfkaPanairjdde 23:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Previous conclusion stands. Number of voters is irrelevant; this is not a vote. Find a more useful topic to argue about than the "correct" way to convert to RGB (hint: there is no "correct way", as it comes down to the settings of your output device in the end). —LX (talk, contribs) 11:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete We not argue about to render RGB colours, but about a greyish flag. The flag of Italy is not grey. How many times it is necessary to say it? --F l a n k e r 13:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- What flag are these people carrying? Does that image need to be deleted? There are over fifty different named shades of white. This is a squabble over a 5% difference in luminosity between two shades of white and yes, it is ridiculous. They really are just two different representations of the Italian flag. Neither of them are accurate, because conversion to RGB never is, so I don't really care which one of them you choose to use for whatever purposes you have in mind, but please find a better way to cooperate than edit warring and lodging gratuitous deletion requests for each others' images. If you (by which I mean everyone involved in the dispute) think you are not capable of doing that, let us know and we can consider other means of ensuring that the parties involved do not prolong this disruption. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you serious or what? If you think that the difference between the two images is irrelevant, why keeping both? If you think there is no possibility to correctly convert from Pantone to RGB, why are you keeping an image which claims to be that conversion? --TcfkaPanairjdde 22:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm quite serious. The convention here is to keep all versions of an image unless they are exact duplicates, even if they're more or less interchangeable. As far as I can see, the uploader of the image has only claimed that he used one specific system, established and suggested by an external entity (Pantone, Inc.), for the conversion, not that it's the one and only true method or that the results will look the same everywhere. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is a Reisio's interpretation. What if i upload a dark grey-crimson-lemon flag of Germany? --Frank87 16:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment to delete voters: please try to make photo of Italian flag in different light conditions (dusk, sunny day, shadows, etc). Will middle part of flag alway be #FFFFFF? --EugeneZelenko 16:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- The image name suggests that this is the flag which sports the conversion from Pantone to RGB, which is not, as LX admitted: so what is the pourpose of this image? Why this shade and not another? Why are you supporting this version with no menaning? --TcfkaPanairjdde 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- My preference is to re-upload the image as Image:Italian Flag with Pantone textile color.svg and then delete Delete this one. / Fred J (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are aware PMS stands for Pantone Matching System? The current name is more specific. Rocket000 03:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Some more you might like to delete:
- Here's one with a different shade of green and red: Image:Flag of Italy.png
- Here's one with different shades of all colors: Image:Nuvola Italy flag.svg
- Oh, maybe here's a good compromise: Image:Animated-Flag-Italy.gif :) Rocket000 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- We don't talk about a photograph, but a vector image (you can notice by the extension .SVG that means Scalable Vector Graphics). A photo can be in many different shades of white. A vector image must represent the "optimum" light conditions. --F l a n k e r 12:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Those aren't photos. Rocket000 12:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was answering to LX and EugeneZelenko. --F l a n k e r 13:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Those aren't photos. Rocket000 12:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- We don't talk about a photograph, but a vector image (you can notice by the extension .SVG that means Scalable Vector Graphics). A photo can be in many different shades of white. A vector image must represent the "optimum" light conditions. --F l a n k e r 12:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment My opinion has a zero-value here because I'm not an admin. This is a fact. But with simply logical arguments can I tell you that "Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana PMS 20060414.svg" is NOT more specific name than "Italian Flag with Pantone textile color.svg".
- First: PMS ancronym is NOT an international or wide-used term, but a specific Pantone's industry term. So isn't univocally clear what PMS stand for, without saying that is "Pantone Matching System"....
- Second: PMS of what? Of a Pantone textile color. My name is more specific.
- Third: strictly speking "bandiera", cannot be a picture. "Bandiera" is only a piece of cloth that moves in the wind. My name is more correct, because it was similar to all the similar images of "bandiere" in commons... second using flag is better, because commons is international project, so using italian language isn't the better thing to do.
- Fourth: apparence of Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana is stated by the laws, and has pure, bright, full, totally white. If you want a real "Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana" go to Rome anf take a photo of the flag over Quirinale palace, or similar istitutional place.
- Fifth: "Flag of Italy" is more neutral term than "Flag of the Republic of Italy" that conceptually sounds like "Offical Flag of Italy" (this is so obvious, but I'm the only one that understand this concpet, I'm right? Oh sorry you don't know if I'm right or wrong, you don't use your brain for judging...)
- Conclusion: Rocket000 is wrong (oh damn I say that? No, no, i don't, here right/wrong concepts don't exist in commons), actual name is not more specific than other name. It's actual name correct? No response. Commons do not require editiorial work. I can upload a photo of mine and call it "Queen Elizabeth.jpg" (cit.). Can you say I'm wrong? Really not, because, I say that my name is "Queen Elizabeth". Can you say that's false? I think you can not, because this is a mellow place (cit.), take it easy.
- Obviously this image cannot be deleted (this picture is fundamental for commons). Obviously this image cannot be renamed (Reisio is the Right, Reisio is God, and he doesn't want) [Reisio, do you like to be God? I think you like a lot...].
- So take it easy. This is commons, a place where all is possible, but if you hasn't the power you are a zero, and for you doing something right is impossible, because you are only a wrong-zero. All right. I don't matter. I only use my faculty to say how things are. -- ELBorgo (sms) 01:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, let me try again. First of all, you are aware anyone can rename images, right? No one has done it yet because the edit war wasn't about that. It was about this image being in the category, Category:Flags of Italy, and using the template {{insignia}} which says "This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia" (emphasis added). Renaming the file does not solve this. You guys already got it renamed from Image:Flag of Italy.svg and have a disclaimer on the image page (I'm against disclaimers, but I left this one as a hopeful compromise). And please refrain from getting personal (e.g. "Reisio, do you like to be God?", "you don't use your brain for judging", etc.). Try to stay focused on what is spoken not the speaker. Thanks. Rocket000 04:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- And now that the image is protected, you guys took the edit-warring to the talk page[21], where editing others text is not acceptable. Rocket000 04:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- «you are aware anyone can rename images, right? No one has done it yet because the edit war wasn't about that» To tell the truth, I tried to rename it, but Reisio (who else), changed the name back. I am, in fact, going to propose a renaming of the image, in case this request for deletion fails.--TcfkaPanairjdde 13:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Eh eh eh, ELBorgo you rock!
- Mhmm, I think renaming it Flag of Italy with Pantone textile colours.svg can be the solution. Resio got his flag, we got our clarification about the rendering method. --F l a n k e r 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I will gladly rename it if everyone's cool with this. My only concern is there still might be edit-warring over the things I listed above. Resio if your reading this, please comment. Rocket000 20:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- My sentiments can be found here and here. ¦ Reisio 20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, let's go with the third option you proposed in the first link, delete the image.--TcfkaPanairjdde 21:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- My sentiments can be found here and here. ¦ Reisio 20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I will gladly rename it if everyone's cool with this. My only concern is there still might be edit-warring over the things I listed above. Resio if your reading this, please comment. Rocket000 20:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reisio, please do not make assumptions of what others might hypothetically do. TcfkaPanairjdde, cut the sarcasm. Please, this is not helpful. As I said before, if you are not willing to work towards an agreement in this collaborative project, there are other means of ending the disruption, but neither of you will find that outcome to be in your interest. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Giggy conjectured that renaming the image would have resolved the issue, and after Rocket000 detailed why that wasn't necessarily the case, I merely gave an exaggerated example to bring it into stark relief. ¦ Reisio 00:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Any chance of a compromised rename? Like Image:Italian flag PMS 20060414.svg (don't know Italian)? Think of how to resolve this rather than having the all-or-nothing mindset. I know it's hard sometimes, but please check yourself that you're not just holding out to make a point, which both sides already have made pretty clearly. Rocket000 04:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- What's wrong with leaving it permanently protected as I originally uploaded it? — It's specific enough that it will never need editing. If you truly think there's a good reason to do otherwise, then do whatever you like… delete it or move it, just don't put my name on it if you do. ¦ Reisio 06:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not it should ever change, this is a wiki. We should only use page-protection when there's edit-warring, repeated vandalism, or with heavily used images. I'm generally against all indef protection, myself (at least in the gallery/image namespace). Reisio, I'm just trying help solve the issue. I know you feel you picked a perfectly ok name for the image, however, don't look at it like that. This isn't a matter of what's the "best" name as we all found out we can't agree; this is about resolving this issue - compromising. Others have a problem with your name, and you have a problem with their name. Why not meet 'em in the middle? Let's put aside who's right and who's wrong and come up with a third option together. Is that too much to ask? Rocket000 06:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's too much to ask. This file was already a compromise, and it's named exactly what it is. ¦ Reisio 07:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok then, sorry for asking. I think I'll step back from this issue and let someone else try to resolve it :) Peace. Rocket000 08:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, Keep (I think you know my reasons.) -Rocket000 08:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete I have seen arguments at three different projects. They are still discussing it at it.wp. Discussion of the image resulted in a block at en.wp from Reisio's inappropriate commentary. And I have seen the multiple talk pages that argue the correctness or incorrectness of the image. I even looked up Pantone colors and found a website that explicitly stated that the colors of the textile product would be different from those shown in the electronic medium. The official Pantone color of the middle band is named "bright white" which is coded as #F1F2F1 in hexadecimal color codings. All vector images of the Italian flag on the Commons have a white band. Reisio's is the only one that has an offwhite band. This offwhite band is the electronic equivalent of the Pantone color "Bright White" which I assume in real life is not an offwhite hue. Rocket000's examples above, Image:Flag of Italy.png, Image:Nuvola Italy flag.svg, and Image:Animated-Flag-Italy.gif are really bad analogies. The first is a png form of what has been updated at Image:Flag of Italy.svg (older revisions of the SVG image show the darker green and red bands). Image:Nuvola Italy flag.svg is drawn in a way that makes it appear the flag is waving and shadows are being cast, causing different shades. Image:Animated-Flag-Italy.gif is the same, but a gif and shows the hex white. There are arguments everywhere that this particular depiction of the Italian flag is not right. Why should the Commons host an inaccurate image?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing anymore, but I do feel the need to point out why I listed those of images. Not as analogies of anything. The first one was to show other variations exist. And those other variations aren't being contest somehow. It's hypocritical to say there's only one "correct" interpretation and only say there's a problem with this particular version. The icon I just threw in to show it in a different form, like how the photo was used above. The last one was a joke about compromising since it alternated between white and gray. Just wanted to clarify. Rocket000 11:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I understand there are variations, but they are variations on the shades of red and green. It's hard to use the "shades" of white, because most turn grey or have some sort of colored tinge to them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
So, it looks like it is a useless image, not used on any project, uncorrectly named (see the conversions from Pantone to RGB) and, most probably, uploaded to make a point. Are we going to delete it, as asked by several people, or not? --TcfkaPanairjdde 19:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete I read all the pages (a lot of discussion pages, of course) but, to conclude, this image is, simply, wrong: Reisio is the only one who say "grey grey!". I'm Italian, and my flag is not green-grey-red! --Yoruno 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete bah! (cit.) --Tanarus 15:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete I strongly feel this is completely wrong. --TcfkaPanairjdde 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete This bad copy of the Italian flag is useless and violates the dispositions of the Italian Constitution. That's all. --Mess 10:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete it seems to be only a crusade against Pantone --Vituzzu 14:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete (already voted) --F l a n k e r 17:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete (already voted but it seems that this is is another voting session). Not only is this flag incorrect: it is also useless: it seems to me that no page of the project uses it. So, should it be kept just in order to illustrate a point? It's totally not-wiki. --Vermondo 10:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- It seems like someone's trying to make it that way... but it is used used. →Rocket°°° 16:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is always the same IP address, trying to insert it without discussion. --TcfkaPanairjdde 11:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete This flag is wrong, the central color should be white, and not gray. Definitely not our flag (I'm Italian). —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.17.222.67 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, bad presentation of official flag —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Jossifresco (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Grow up, Deleteers before I upload an animated GIF of it in acid-trip colours. If you don't like it or it insults your national pride, don't look at it. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Consenus is that this is a poor version of the Italian flag. It fits the criteria of "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". The image is used nowhere in any of the wikisisters projects and is often a source for edit wars. Udonknome (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Repeated deletion requests should be strongly discouraged, particularly where nothing has changed since the last one. However, in this case, since the last DR Commons' Scope has been clarified, and we now have to consider whether - as alleged - this falls within the ambit of "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". The file is unused except for a couple of pages which discuss it. As we already have a perfectly good representation of the Italian flag, I would say that this one is indeed not educationally distinct unless anyone is able to point to some possible use for this particular image that could not be satisfied by the other. If a distinct use can be proposed I would be happy to change my mind, but at the moment I think the file should go. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fake flag. -Nard the Bard 12:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No new arguments against or for. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The question is whether this still falls within COM:SCOPE the quoted section - Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject to my reading this is about new/recent image uploads, rather than existing images. Scope doesnt clearly cover what/how we deal with images uploaded in good faith but that appear to deteriate as technology advances provide high quality. This image is part of the collection of images we already hold its not a new or recently uploaded image. This isnt nomination isnt any different to previous nominations, its attracting the same responses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnangarra (talk • contribs)
No new arguments either way, so previous verdict stands. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No proof this is PD -Nard 16:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted: was deleted before, see Commons:Deletion requests/archives.premier-ministre.gouv.fr --GeorgHH • talk 19:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of copyrighted photograph 62.216.198.20 02:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom. — Giggy 02:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- So a picture of his guestbook at his funeral isn't allowed because his photo is near it? So very sad. This photo of him appears to be from when he was a bit younger than when he died, and appears to be previously unpublished (I can't find it online). Might I go out on a limb and argue the photo has no copyright because under Italian law for a photograph of a person to bear copyright, the authorized copy of it must contain attribution of authorship? (See article 90[22]) And in any case would expire 20 years after making the photograph? (I know PD-Italy was deleted, but in some cases it may be appropriate to utilize this provision of law). Pavarotti looks younger in this photo, possibly more than 20 years younger. -Nard 05:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Italy has ratified the EU directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection (see [23]), so 70 years pma apply. --62.216.198.20 11:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- No they haven't (entirely). That's why if you go to the Italian Wikipedia article on Pavarotti and click on most of the photos you'll see a warning not to copy the files to Commons, because Commons does not accept this exception in Italian law (even though we do for other countries in Europe for what the Germans call lichtbild or roughly "simple photos", for example at {{PD-Denmark50}}. See also Template talk:PD-Italy). And so I am arguing that in some cases we should allow these photos, even though generally we do not. This photograph was legally taken in Italy. It is not a "derivative work of copyrighted photograph" as you allege in the deletion request. -Nard 12:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see your point. But I do not agree that we should make an exception for this picture, since the fact that the photograph is only a part of the overall composition probably does not alter its copyright status in most EU countries. Just the photograph of Pavarotti would not be kept here on Commons. In any case, the current CC-BY-SA license is misleading. The picture should be deleted and uploaded locally on it.wp. --62.216.198.20 12:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- No they haven't (entirely). That's why if you go to the Italian Wikipedia article on Pavarotti and click on most of the photos you'll see a warning not to copy the files to Commons, because Commons does not accept this exception in Italian law (even though we do for other countries in Europe for what the Germans call lichtbild or roughly "simple photos", for example at {{PD-Denmark50}}. See also Template talk:PD-Italy). And so I am arguing that in some cases we should allow these photos, even though generally we do not. This photograph was legally taken in Italy. It is not a "derivative work of copyrighted photograph" as you allege in the deletion request. -Nard 12:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Italy has ratified the EU directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection (see [23]), so 70 years pma apply. --62.216.198.20 11:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It's primarily a photograph of a copyrighted portrait, not a photo of his funeral guestbook. If it were possible to crop the copyvio out of the shot then a revised version might work, but that's really the central element. Durova 20:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Question (since I'm not too familiar with the Italian law): Inside Italy, is the Pavarotti photograph considered public domain? And if so, in Italy (the country of origin for this photograph), would the uploader be considered the full owner of copyright in this image? If so, technically the copyright status of the uploaded photo is fine in Italy and also the U.S. (since the U.S. uses the country of origin's law to determine the copyright owner). However if countries in the rest of Europe would consider this photo a copyrighted derivative work of the Pavarotti photograph, that may still be a problem for keeping it on commons. Carl Lindberg 07:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- You've hit the nail on the head. That's why generally these images are not allowed on Commons. However since the photo was legal to take, it is NOT a derivative work. -Nard 17:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The subject of this photo is Pavarotti's photograph, and it would be of minimal or no value at all if it didn't contain it, so it is a derivative work if not in part copy of the original photo. Geraki TLG 17:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
mistake, I did not intend to upload the whole page from Svenskt biografiskt handlexikon. Delete this and I will upload an image of Gustaf Horn -> replaced with Image:Gustaf Horn 1601-1639 riksråd.png -- 2 January 2008 User:StefanB
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"International Society of Cryptozoology" owns copyright -Nard 16:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright issues. I shot this under conditions that would be fine for photojournalism, but that probably constitute fair use and hence aren't suitable for Commons. Specifically, this was shot at an emergency shelter during the California wildfires of 2007 and the copyrighted characters are on their way to entertain children who had been sleeping in cots for days (and some of whom had lost their homes). If you can find justification to keep it I'd be delighted, but I think I have to put this on the block. --Durova 19:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- It occurs to me that nobody but you has questioned these. I won't argue for keeping because they do contain copyrighted characters but maybe as uploader you're just being a bit overparanoid about them. -Nard 03:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I put the topic up for discussion on the Village Pump a couple of weeks ago and got recommendations to nominate for deletion. Actually I thought I'd been slow on following up. Durova 04:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Sorry, clear derivave work. No justification to keep. MichaelMaggs 21:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright issues. I shot this under conditions that would be fine for photojournalism, but that probably constitute fair use and hence aren't suitable for Commons. Specifically, this was shot at an emergency shelter during the California wildfires of 2007 and the copyrighted characters are on their way to entertain children who had been sleeping in cots for days (and some of whom had lost their homes). If you can find justification to keep it I'd be delighted, but I think I have to put this on the block. --Durova 19:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Sorry, clear derivave work. No justification to keep MichaelMaggs 21:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright issues. I shot this under conditions that would be fine for photojournalism, but that probably constitute fair use and hence aren't suitable for Commons. Specifically, this was shot at an emergency shelter during the California wildfires of 2007 and the copyrighted characters are on their way to entertain children who had been sleeping in cots for days (and some of whom had lost their homes). If you can find justification to keep it I'd be delighted, but I think I have to put this on the block. --Durova 19:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Sorry, clear derivave work. No justification to keep MichaelMaggs 21:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hilaire Belloc was British, PD-US tag probably not appicable 62.216.198.20 16:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Nationality of the subject has no bearing on nationality of copyright; if photo taken in the US and/or first published in the US, it could be PD-US. However, the image has no source information whatsoever, making the claim dubious. Morven 04:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No original source specified. MichaelMaggs 21:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside project scope, copyvio, unapproved Flickr reviewer reviewing its own images -Nard 16:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- What I meant to say was this looked derivative of a copyrighted brochure. -Nard 14:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 21:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence that first publication occurred in the US, French painter who died in 1943 62.216.198.20 16:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence that it was first published in the US; as far as I can tell he lived in France all his life. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Restored per UDR - file has entered the Public Domain in the meantime - Jcb (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[24] copyvio --F3rn4nd0 07:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep OK, you've found the source of the image, but the original image is pretty old. If the US ruling, Corel vs. Bridgeman, applies, it should be PD. --Simonxag 17:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. PD-old applies, the source states that "The coat of arms was introduced on the 9th of May, 1834." – so it can be certain that the creator of the work died more than 100 years ago. my name 12:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No proof that PD-Old applies 62.216.198.20 13:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is likely this photo is from his first or second term of office, so the photo is at least 70 years old, but the author is not known. -Nard 13:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep It is a matter of changing template into obvious {{Anonymous-EU}}. and besides {{PD-because}}
It is widely reproduced official press photo of French Prime Minister, published i.a in Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny , Kraków, Poland October 1933 ( in connection of dissmiss of French cabinet of ministres) see also official page of French Governement [25],[26] with clear, explicit notice that it belonges to public domain ( L'iconographie de la rubrique "Histoire" : Agence KEYSTONE : la reproduction n’est pas autorisée.)[27].
Best regards : Andros64 10:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Important note the comment above is not true la reproduction n’est pas autorisée means reproduction is not authorised . Jackaranga 20:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Anyway {{Anonymous-EU}}, - "anonymous work" published over 70 ago.
85.89.170.72 13:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Under {Anonymus-EU} is the image licensed correctly. my name 12:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- PINGNews is copyfraud plain and simple. They don't own the photos they distribute and have no right to license them as cc. They do have a number of public domain images but they still license them as cc-by-sa, such as Image:Fiddlin Bill Henseley, Mountain Fiddler, Asheville, North Carolina by Ben Shahn, 1937 (LOC) (290626613).jpg. Others have no indication of real source, such as Image:Prince Abdul Ilah of Iraq at Mount Vernon.jpg and Image:E rollsigns.jpg. I ask for deletion of this template and a total ban on sourcing images from David Shapinsky that are not clearly PD (or listing him at Commons:Questionable Flickr images), a ban on sourcing LOC images to him as these can be better sourced directly to the LOC, and well a ban on marking such images with copyfraud templates (The fiddlin Bill Henseley image was modified by me, it was marked with copyfraud license before) and a careful review of images from this source (with or without the tag) so that copyfraud images can be weeded out. Some of them like Image:Yuri Gagarin Headline, 1961 (NASA) (463614642).jpg are obvious copyvios. -Nard 15:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment N, I believe using the word "fraud" here is way out of line, please assume good faith and concider your wording more carefully in the future. Finn Rindahl 11:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Wrong recopyright is a violation also? I had no idea there was a template for this locations images. Almost every image I have encountered from this source has been wrongly recopyrighted. -- carol 03:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Adding this above the previous comments by Shapinsky (se page history). This is not a lisence template, but a way of giving credit to how certain images was made avvailable. See user talk:Shapinsky for background about how and why this template was created. I was not around when this template was nominated for deletion, if I had I probably would have made this a speedy keep. Unless arguments why this template is a copyright violation is brought within the next days I will close this discussion as "kept". Finn Rindahl 11:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments from David Shapisky
[edit]FYI On some of the specific images mentioned:
I took the image Image:E rollsigns.jpg along with many other images of the NYC subway. The real source is me. So how can it be said that this is not clear? I do no understand your objection. Perhaps you ought to visit pingnews on flickr and see how original images taken by me are cataloged separately from public domain images. I am afraid I can not control how others use the photos I create or may unearth from the public domain even when I offer the clearest guidance I could.
As for Prince Abdul, I have just added information that was neglected and indicated clearly that it is from the National Archives collections and is believed to be in the public domain.
Please also note that this problem with flickr not offering a public domain license has come up in the past and I have solicited the advice of others, including flickr as to whether they have an alternative solution besides posting lots of information about a work being in the public domain only to have people ignore it.
Please note the following before you rush to judgment.
First, I agree that the template as it has been used is wrong and ought to be deleted. I never envisioned it would be used this way by others. None of these photos were posted by pingnews as far as I am aware.
Second, one of the reasons why we ended up with this template (as you will find if you check the record of its creation) is that some of the photos that may be found on the pingnews flickr site or elsewhere are my work. These photos are clearly labeled as such where appropriate on my own sites.
When trying to create a template, however, to respond to the need created by users freely using these photos (public domain and otherwise) we tried to come up with a solution that would allow for posting but still say via pingnews. Part of the reason for that is obvious. Traffic is traffic. But the other reason was to provide a way to source-backward. If you go to the pingnews flickr site, you will see that much of the public domain material is already organized by agency, that every source is tagged, that there are sets by photographer, public domain, nasa, library of congress, etc. This backward linkage is hopefully a means to help ensure that people can get back to the actual repository for the work to ask questions, such as those pertaining to rights.
As it stands, people have posted the photos without the information and the attribution license has been transformed into something it was never intended to be. PINGNews has no interest or desire to mislabel works. Aside from the fact that it violates our editorial policy, it also hurts our attempts to publicize the service. We have every reason to want people to know that they can find public domain works by photographers on our site and that they can find the original sources if they wish. We have every reason to want to work with all organizations, like librarians, wikimedia, etc. to make this completely public and up front.
To clarify matters further, pingnews has added this language to the flickr profile page:
"Please Read Before Using any Photos: Understanding the Public Domain Collections: PINGNews is an attempt to make resources more available using readily available resources. We ask that people using our materials recognize and respect copyright rules. This means, for instance, that public domain materials are labeled "public domain." We also encourage users to include as much information as possible from the public record, especially with regard to the photographer and the archival repository (i.e. Library of Congress, National Archives, NASA, etc.) In most cases, we provide this information. We do recognize, however, that an entire catalog record may be too much for a citation. In these instances, we suggest at minimum that the user source the photographer's name and agency where the source was created or now resides. At the top of every description is suggested language. If there is specific attribution language provided by the original source that is posted in the description area as well.
Copyright and flickr -- On flickr, where most of our photos are posted there has not been a "public domain" license available. As a result we label this information as clearly as possible and place it into our public domain collections. WHEN THE IMAGE IS IN TE PUBLIC DOMAIN: Please DO NOT CREDIT PINGNEWS for a photo taken by someone else. We are grateful if there is a line that says "via pingnews" so that we can alert others to this free service. But that is not required. Additionally, all users of any copyrighted materials must make their own judgment about whether specific uses are permissible. We encourage people to return to the source and also to use services like Creative Commons and Wikimedia to find public domain material as well as guidance on copyright questions.
PINGNews Photos Photos done for pingnews are labeled as well and are available for use with attribution. Please contact us with any questions."
Here is my response to the specific discussion above:
I deeply resent the allegation that this is copyright fraud. I am an academic historian who has spent his entire life teaching, working as a journalist on substantive stories as much as possible, and producing for public television and non-profits. If I have made any errors, I am willing to admit them. My father was an artist, too who worked in obscurity, toiling away in poverty while other people made millions. Respecting creative work, valuing beauty, understanding the efforts of the creator -- these are all part of my life as is the importance of truth and integrity. I built my reputation as an investigative journalist on just those things and have always told my students to do no less.
Perhaps this page ought to be deleted but it does not represent what we thought we were doing when the template was created in the first place. Perhaps the entire idea was a mistake in the first place although I do not think the thousands of contacts -- many museums, the association of librarians, and others in the field of information sharing would agree. This is about bringing information into the light, not selling it but sharing it. With more resources perhaps there would be more options for doing so.
In direct response to the sugggestion of "fraud":
There is no "public domain" license in flickr that I can find. All the public domain images are clearly labeled as such. There is no indication of a Required credit or attribution. The descriptions (in most cases) say "suggested attribution." I receive no person gain as a direct result. In fact there are companies that sell these public domain images for a fee. What I am is an historian, journalist, and independent who works with what resources I have available to help others find information that they might not find otherwise. Is it fraudulent to have this disclosure in the public domain section: "The works in this collection may be used for free. According to the source, they are believed to be in the public domain. Please note, however, that while some photos are unrestricted, others may require attribution. The general rule: identify the photographer, physical location of the photo, and any other pertinent information regarding rights." Is it fraudulent to include the entire record for a photo as this example for a photo by Dorothea Lange: "Public Domain. Suggested credit: USDA via pingnews. Additional source information from USDA: Image Number: 00di0933 CD8151-933 Location: On Arizona Highway 87, south of Chandler, Maricopa Co., Arizona
Date: November 1940
A migratory family living in a trailor in an open field. No sanitation, no water. They came from Amarillo, Texas; pulled bolls near Amarillo; picked cotton near Roswell, New Mexico and in Arizona. They plan to return to Amarillo at close of cotton picking season for work on WPA.
USDA Photo by: Dorothea Lange"
PINGNews is actually trying to help photos see the light of day. I would be absolutely delighted if there were another way for me to use my expertise for the purpose of revealing these photos to others. You should note that the PINGNews service has been used by humanities institutions, scholars, public broadcasters, and has been recognized by some digital librarians as being a "museum". How can anyone be deceived by a clear label: "Public Domain" with all the information possible from the original source. Granted mistakes and omissions may be made but the vast majority of photos should have this information.
I welcome suggestions on how to make this planer. I could remove the "suggested attribution completely" but when I had no suggestion people cited me as the source, something that I have had to correct. Now at least they say "via pingnews" and any attributions are supposed to cite the photographer and agency where the photo came from.
May be you should delete this page. It was created because I was correcting photos that made pingnews as the source rather than the vehicle. Perhaps I should give up all attempts to offer this expertise free to people. This effort began in response to concerns that documentary filmakers were being cut off from a supply of photos, video, sound. I myself had to struggle to make documentaries for public television on a very low budget about such things as the Brown Decision. We were hamstrung by things like music rights and photo searches. Photo searches have been very expensive and while the situation is much improved with the expansion of Creative Commons, the wealth of material does not necessarily make it easier to find the quality.
Comments like this certainly lead me to question whether this effort is worth the time and expenditure of resources. I do not, however, care whether you delete this page or not.
I do hope that you understand the point of pingnews and not throw stones at people trying to do things as best as they can. If there is any better way to share these photos, please let us know.
Be well.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Edwin Abbott Abbott was British, PD-US probably not applicable 62.216.198.20 16:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- While PD-US is probably not applicable, the photograph is still probably in the public domain. The subject of the photograph (Edwin A. Abbott) died in 1926 at the age of 87. He is considerably younger than that in the photograph so it is reasonable to assume it was taken before 1900. Since the copyright on artistic works (including photographs) expires after 50 years from the death of the artist, or if the artist is unknown, from the date of creation), it seems reasonable to assume the copyright for this photograph has expired in the United Kingdom. See Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48). Henryhartley 16:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The link to CDPA 1988 is out of date, as the period was increased later to 70 years. There is at least a reasonable probability that the photographer (who may have been quite young at the time) died less than 70 years ago. MichaelMaggs 15:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No proof that author died >70 years ago 62.216.198.20 13:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- According to her biography the vast part of her career was in the US. [28] It is possible this is a US work with no registered copyright. If it is a Canadian work (also possible from her history) it is also PD. Keep as it is PD in either of the two countries it was likely made. -Nard 14:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The license tag should be changed accordingly if this is the case. --62.216.198.20 16:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep this picture. I had no idea that Menten was a woman, until I ran across this photo at another webpage. Then I researched and read more about her. We should keep this as an inspiration to female scientists.--128.138.64.132 23:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I say delete. The "source" has no photos in it, inspiration is irrelevant and we have no clue who the author is. We don't keep things because we think we can get away with it, instead we delete them if we're in doubt. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
David Shapinsky copyfraud, this is no US government work. It is credited as a NY Times file photo (possibly copyright not renewed though) -Nard 19:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Changing to
neutralper the explanation below. I still have concerns because this photograph is dated eight years before the U.S. entry into the war. Are we sure this was covered by that purchase? Durova 08:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)- It from the NY Times Paris bureau, which presumably was there in 1933. The ECA purchased all of their files; the 63,000 is just the subset which apply to the war and thus of interest to WWII researchers but the purchase apparently had even more items than that. If it was taken by a NYTimes staff photographer, then yes it is covered. If it was a print of a third-party photo which the NYTimes bureau happened to have a copy of, then there may be an issue (of course Anonymous-EU may apply in that case too). Carl Lindberg 08:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good enough. Keep. Durova 07:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- It from the NY Times Paris bureau, which presumably was there in 1933. The ECA purchased all of their files; the 63,000 is just the subset which apply to the war and thus of interest to WWII researchers but the purchase apparently had even more items than that. If it was taken by a NYTimes staff photographer, then yes it is covered. If it was a print of a third-party photo which the NYTimes bureau happened to have a copy of, then there may be an issue (of course Anonymous-EU may apply in that case too). Carl Lindberg 08:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Changing to
- Keep, According to this, The Economic Cooperation Administration, a predecessor of the U.S. Information Agency, in 1950 purchased the New York Times Paris Bureau photographic files; approximately 63,000 photographs in these files relate to the war., and NARA says this is unrestricted.
{{PD-USGov-NARA}} warns against using that template; is there a better template, or should we create one to cover these 63 thousand images. John Vandenberg 01:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)- If kept, use PD-author or create a new tag. The collection page says Prints stamped New York Times with the Paris address are in the public domain as are the glass negatives of original photographs. Copyright restrictions may apply to all other prints and copy negatives. They did mark this photo as OK, though I don't see the address (maybe it's just cropped). Carl Lindberg 07:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Same with File:Republican Party Logo.PNG
- as well as File:Dem Donkey.svg
Re-creating a copyrighted logo using MS Paint cannot attract any new copyright as exact replicas do not have the required originality. RedCoat 22:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep-Naturally as creater of the image, I am opposed. We have Image:Republican Party Logo.PNG, on commons. Maybe I'm confused with copyright, how substantially different does an image have to be to break the copyright? -- penubag 08:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It is known as the threshold of originality. Since a replica of a logo cannot attract any new copyright, reproductions of such items can be treated just like photographs of the artwork itself. RedCoat 11:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Well, I suppose there's a lot more deleting to do then...
--> vios this, 
--> this, 
--> this, or these w:image:Ninty WiFi.gif, w:Image:Met Prime.gif, maybe this one: Image:Nuvola apps mozilla-firebird.png. Those aren't particularly good examples, and there's a ton more, but I won't bother. These all violate the threshold of originality, but wikimedia generally just accepts it, I assume. -- penubag 00:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Obvious reproduction (derivative work). Its purpose to play the role of the real republican logo its obviously suggested by its name. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 00:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete ASAP. Derivative of a copyrighted work used mostly in a userbox template which is copyright infringement, as that is not a fair use case. -Nv8200p 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I don't know... it's pretty far removed from the real logo. Remember Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2007/08#Image:Own windows logo.svg? It's been Commons policy to allow images like this and the ones penubag listed above. I almost said delete because it doesn't make sense to use a fake logo when illustrating it - fair use of the real one is preferable, however, I can see these fake logos being used on user pages and in things like article stub templates. If the community feels they are too similar maybe more alteration can solve the issue? →Rocket°°° 06:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Merely inputting a copyrighted image into image software and making a few changes to it is most likely not sufficient to acquire copyright for the creator of the new image. I would argue that this is akin to those persons who think that because they scan an image from a magazine into their computer, perform some image processing to improve color tones, etc., that they have somehow, magically, acquired a form of copyright that permits their (exlusive) use of the image on their webpages. — SpikeToronto 05:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The above having been said, I cannot imagine either of the two major political parties ever objecting to a supporter using their logo on a webpage to illustrate that support! Thus, I could not imagine any litigation, let alone a cease-and-desist letter, ever being issued by either of the political parties arising from such use of their logos. — SpikeToronto 05:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The purpose of the image was just for userboxes, nothing more -- penubag 05:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, as you can tell from my Comment, I actually wanted the image kept, but voted to delete because (a) it most likely is a copyright violation, and (b) the Democrat logos and the userboxes that link to them are under even greater attack for their removal. To me, fairness dictates that if use of one party's logo is a copyright violation, then so too is the use of the other party's logo. But, again, I could never imagine a political party objecting to the use of its logo by a supporter … — SpikeToronto 05:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I misread your Comment -- penubag 06:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I misread your
- Comment By the way, since it has been more than five days since this debate started and since the Delete obviously outnumber the Keep, shouldn’t this debate be (1) closed, and (2) the image deleted? — SpikeToronto 05:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Question: I notice that the creator of this free-licence image has the elephant’s trunk in an upward position, while the non-free fair-use image has the trunk in a downward position. Would that not be enough to distinguish the image under debate from the official logo? If so, then I would like to change my delete vote to a Keep. — SpikeToronto 22:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep No good reason to delete. It is not a copyright violation, and it is in use at Wikipedia. Diligent Terrier 20:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Any reasoning behind those assertions? And being in use does not mean it conforms to the Commons licensing policy. RedCoat 22:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Question: When was this logo first used? -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- The png image that I created was first used in a userbox -- penubag (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. These are clear and intentional copies of the original logos. The changes made (eg trunk in different position) are insufficient to escape infringement. MichaelMaggs 19:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
January 4
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio? -Nard 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think so. dbking is known for making high quality images. --Flominator 18:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- dbking does publicity work in Washington D.C. (see his Flickr profile page here and gets access to some of the more interesting events it would seem. He specifically mentions being part of the 2001 NBA All-Star game held in Washington, which is where this photo is from (see here, another of his images from that event). So yes, this photo is almost certainly fine. However, we could do without the copy-and-paste of the entire en-wiki article on him as an image description (dbking does that sometimes) :-) And actually.... we already have two duplicates of this image here (with a better description) and here. Both of those are widely used, but this one is not, so we should delete this as a duplicate. Carl Lindberg 01:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have placed the duplicate template on the two images that have (in my opinion) the least good descriptions. The one being discussed here for copyvio and this one which isn't using the information template. While looking at them, I was wondering if it would be a an improvement to the image with the ladies room sign removed from the left side? -- carol 04:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- A name change should be considered after the duplicate problems are resolved. -- carol 04:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have placed the duplicate template on the two images that have (in my opinion) the least good descriptions. The one being discussed here for copyvio and this one which isn't using the information template. While looking at them, I was wondering if it would be a an improvement to the image with the ladies room sign removed from the left side? -- carol 04:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as dupe. --Christian NurtschTM 14:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possible copyright violation. This photo was uploaded on {{PD-Polish}}, as it was first published without attribution before 1994. Anonymous editor claims that it's copyrighted by author's descendants. A.J. 11:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Template_talk:PD-Polish A.J. 11:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)- According to note in Commons talk:Deletion requests/Image:Karol Wojtyla-matura.jpg, image was first published with attribution to "Foto-Bielec": this may make PD-Polish license not usable in this case. So Delete unless proper persmission is given. A.J. 18:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- According to note in Commons talk:Deletion requests/Image:Karol Wojtyla-matura.jpg, image was first published with attribution to "Foto-Bielec": this may make PD-Polish license not usable in this case. So
- Keep And make a note that someone still claims copyright. -Nard 15:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've just called Barbara Bielec (photographer's daughter) and she said, that free license is impossible. A.J. 11:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted - copyrighted photo. A.J. 11:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
source does not indicate that this image can be used under GFDL --Simeon87 15:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Harry Potter copyvio. -Nard 16:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted, the Harry Potter movies are not released under GFDL. Thuresson 16:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
German public broadcasting is public domain? And even if it is that doesn't make all content re-broadcast on it public domain. If this file is deleted the license should go too -Nard 15:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Images shown by Tagesschau or other programs of German public-service broadcasters are _not_ PD. --Kam Solusar 04:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete dpa image, Clear copyvio. --GeorgHH • talk 19:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I guess {{PD-PBS}} should also be deleted? --Tomia 20:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, including that template. Lupo 11:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image can't be released under GFDL; Also, source is website of a school, not a direct link to the webpage where the image has been found --Simeon87 15:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete are you serious? This is from the Harry Potter movie. -Nard 16:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted, screenshot from the first Harry Potter movie. Thuresson 16:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
License information missing; image appears to be copyrighted anyway, so it can't be released under a free license --Simeon87 16:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Are you serious? This is from Harry Potter. -Nard 16:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted, Harry Potter screenshot. Thuresson 16:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio -Nard 16:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted, "Alle rechten voorbehouden - Copyright © 2007". Thuresson 17:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work. --Liftarn 08:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Simple copyvios should be labeled as such. --Simonxag 16:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio, deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work, TV screenshot. --Liftarn 08:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Simple copyvios should be labeled as such. --Simonxag 16:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
copyvio, deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unclear license, not sure that the author (unknown) died directly after taken the photo. --Niteshift 10:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- DeleteUnknown source and author, so no indication for PD-old. --GeorgHH • talk 10:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
no source/author, deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work. --Liftarn 11:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Simple copyvios should be labeled as such. --Simonxag 16:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
copyvio, deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No proof of license -Nard 16:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio "Author Unknown (probably colaborators of the British Museum)" --Simonxag 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
cv, deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Incorrect name used on original upload. Since re-uploaded to Image:Robey 3nhp Portable Engine (chimney detail)(GDSF 2007).JPG
PeterJewell 01:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{badname}} next time. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not belive PD-Self is correct. __ ABF __ ϑ 12:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copied from http://www.e-local.gob.mx/work/templates/enciclo/veracruz/municipios/escudos/camaron%20de%20tejeda.jpg -Nard 16:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Copied from site, pd-self n/a. Deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dubious claim of ownership; image is evidently promotional/professional. RedCoat 14:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Obviously shot under studio conditions; only edit by that account. Very dubious claim of ownership. Durova 07:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted - as per Redcoat.--- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm all for pics of nude women on Commons, but this one is unused and could use a better name -Nard 15:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep "Fuck you!" seems to be the title of the work, as used on Flickr. --Simonxag 16:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Gosh I'm sick of those deletion requests of nude pictures! Here's my triple POV:
- it's a work by Dutch artist Peter Klashorst so it could illustrate his work (and it doesn't matter what one personally thinks about him and his work). And if one says something like "we only need a few pictures for the WP article", I'd answer "so why don't we also delete most of the works available on Commons for artists like Renoir or anybody?" Also, Commons is not only made for WP.
- when I uploaded it, it was part of a will to correct the bias among the offer of nude pictures on Commons. Indeed most of them were White/Caucasian people. I tried to diversify the offer in order to show a better diversity of human reality by uploading Black and Asian nudes. (actually it's a work on progress, I may continue later, and also try to find male nudes)
- as for the title, I kept the original title (I suppose it may be logical for a work of an artist) and added "(nude)" as a description. I'd understand if one would like to re-upload it under another name though I'd prefer it to keep the original title - for instance I propose "Fuck you! (nude by artist Peter Klashorst)".
Thanks for your comprehension. --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.199 17:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
CommentIf this is not a public photo on flickr (I can't view it, although I logged in) it have to be deleted. --GeorgHH • talk 20:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- If our Flickrreviewer bot could see it, it's obvious it was public at least at one time. And yes I can see it just fine when logged in. -Nard 23:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect your problem may be your Flickr content settings. Flickr defaults to showing only pictures classed as inoffensive, if you want to see e.g. nudes you have to change your preferences. Morven 04:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is another Peter Klashorst image which is of a possibly underage model with no evidence of permission or proof of age. ++Lar: t/c 01:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- As with others, it is time to revisit this previous deletion debate. ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- You know I nominated this last time, but I've changed my mind. Peter Klashorst is a genius plain and simple. And if he was doing shady business he would have been shut down. Keep. -Nard 01:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- "Klashorst specializes in painting and photographing young women, particularly from the Netherlands and several African countries. He also has a wife and children in Africa.[1][2] In 2000, in primarily Muslim Senegal, his art caused him to end up in custody of the police for some weeks.[3][4][5][6]He was suspected of taking advantage of prostitution, inciting debauchery, and the production of obscene pictures, because he had painted local women in the nude. By bribing officials, he managed to buy his freedom,[7] and he sneaked into Gambia to flee the country.[8]On another visit in 2003 he was also deported from Gambia for pornographic paintings.[2]"[29]
- Funny definition you have of genius there N. :) --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- And Klashorst is not a genius, by any stretch of the imagination. My comments in the previous deletion requests hold true. Show me just one of his photos that wouldn't go down like the Hindenberg at FPC and I'll change my mind on that count. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Why I get more and more the impression, that the muslims from Senegal and Gambia are already here? Mutter Erde (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- That comment does not make any sense. It also doesn't support a keep. Retaining this image is against policy. ++Lar: t/c 11:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- It does not make any sense. I am certainly not a Muslim, nor am I from Senegal. That there are people who would seek to delete these pictures for religious or cultural reasons, does not mean that unrelated arguments put forth by other people are invalid. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Commons is not censored & I am happy about that. I think we should be looking for real confirmation of release by the model. In the absence of that deletion is the only option. I think for any such material where there may be questions there should be explicit OTRS permission at the very least --Herby talk thyme 12:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We have no proof of age? That might be right, but when do we ever have a proof of age. I don't see many pictures were you find comments like "the model is ** years old". And even if she was underage: so what. This picture is no pornography, she is just being naked. We even have a Category for naked children. This is just as pornographic as a teenager at a nudist beach. Conclusion: even if we had proof that she was underage (which we don't have), this wouldn't be a reason for deletion! As long as it's not clearly pornographic, age is not an argument.--Lamilli (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The concept of what is and what's not pornography varies from person to person, but given the work title, i don't think it can be argued the work has no pornographic connotations. Platonides (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The publication without explicit consent of photographs of identifiable nudes in a private setting is particularly intrusive and damaging to the subject, and we should insist on proper OTRS permission in every such case. Here, there is also the very real possibility that she may be under age, but regardless of her age the photograph clearly has to go. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Peter Klashorst is a prolific publisher of nude photos. How exactly is this equivalent to being photographed in a "private setting"? That's like being photographed by Hugh Hefner and expecting it not be in Playboy. -Nard 20:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- We have no idea what he told these girls he was going to do with the images he took. Most of the photographs appear to have been taken in cheap hotel bedrooms and bathrooms. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- So...he's some kind of super seducer now? -Nard 21:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- We have no idea what he told these girls he was going to do with the images he took. Most of the photographs appear to have been taken in cheap hotel bedrooms and bathrooms. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Striking own vote. After thinking this over some more I believe there may indeed be some issues concerning personality rights. In doubt I no longer feel confident in voting either Keep or Delete at this time and feel a more in debt discussion might be in order.--Caranorn (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- On the contrary, there is a very serious risk that the subject's personality rights have been breached by the publication of this image on the internet and by its release under a free licence. So far as I am aware the photographer has not once even asserted, let alone demonstrated, that he obtained a subject-release. If he can show he has such a release the image could be kept, but his silence when asked implies strongly that he does not. The burden of proof lies squarely with the photographer and the uploader to show that no rights have been violated. It is simply not good enough to say: (a) I cannot or will not prove that this subject gave consent, and (b) that because of (a) "we have no indication personality rights may have been violated". --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: From my point of view the whole issue is ridiculous. It's about prudish people trying to delete pictures depicting nudity. The question of the model being +18 or not would be of importance if we were talking about pornography. Indeed, we don't want any kiddy porn around here. But this picture is NOT pornographic, it's not ever quasi pornographic (some pictures of Klashorst might be considered pornographic, this one certainly not).--Lamilli (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless model release and age confirmation will obtained. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep again there's NO reason to believe she's underage (at least no more reason than any other nude picture on Commons). And there's no reason to think it's a private picture (therefore no need of consent). Private place doesn't mean private situation. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately, someone has decided to split the Klashorst deletion requests into several, separate deletion requests, which means the discussion has ended up all over the place. I think all the arguments in favour of deletion have been done to the death. Policy requires deletion. I will, however, copy-paste this refutation of every possible argument for keeping these (for all those reading this for the sixth time, sorry to spam every DR with the same crap, but that's pretty much what the keepers are doing, and doing this saves me time over refuting each argument individually). Enjoy the copypasta:
- Peter Klashorst is a prolific publisher of nude photos: So was R@ygold and the swirl face guy, and we're not about to start hosting their picture collection. That someone has a huge collection of such pictures on his Flickr account means nothing at all. This would only be valid in the case of, say, the Suicide Girls -- a business that we can count upon to get the requisite documentation before publishing (and as a side-note, hire photographers with talent, as well, something Klashorst should consider).
- Peter Klashorst is an artist: He's a painter, and possibly one that nobody would give a damn about if he hadn't got arrested for some rather unsavoury activity in Senegal some time ago. However good he is at painting, he is an amateur photographer. Or to put it less delicately, he's a not-quite-half-talented hack and it shows; even if he had an Uzi to his head I doubt that he'd be able to take a photo that wouldn't go down in flames at FPC like a skyscraper in New York (inb4 "so can you do better?" -- I don't have to be an expert on trains to tell you that a skateboard is not a train). He is certainly not an artistic or professional photographer. As such, we should apply the same standards to Klashorst as we would with anyone.
- His pictures are of posed artists: Bullshit. We know exactly where he finds the girls he photographs (it's not like his penchant for prostitutes is a secret, guys). And this is, again, made less likely by the fact that the kind of people that rent studio models can, at the least, take a half-decent picture if their life depended on it. So again, feel free to compare Klashorst's works to some of our Suicide Girls, for example: the difference between Klashorst and a professional studio photographer is roughly the difference between the paper airplane I just folded and a B-52 Stratofortress.
- These are not pornographic, so the age issue is irrelevant: An interesting position to take; try calling the party van and telling them that you have some nude pictures of under-age girls on your computer. Your end will be playing "mommies and daddies" in the prison showers with a fat, hairy fellow convict. Admit it: if these photos had any technical merit, they'd be soft-core porn. But we could even grant this premise and we'd still have the issue that there is no evidence that the models have given their consent for more-or-less unlimited publication of these pictures, so we don't even need to make this argument.
- Commons is not censored: Well, yes it is actually. We don't host child pornography on Commons, for example. We also don't host copyright violations. We are as uncensored as we can be within our legal (and moral) obligations. This is not an argument in itself; it is hand-waving to try and distract people from the real issues at hand.
- The related argument of This is a (possibly Senegalian Muslim) crusade to get rid of nudes from Commons: No, it's not. I am not a prude, nor do I really care to get rid of every nude from Commons. What I do care about is that we live up to our legal (and moral) obligations as codified in our policy on identifiable photographs of living people. Every one of these Klashorst photos fails our obligations on this count, and I'm damned if we should make an exception for Klashorst "becuz he's famous lol".
- Thank you for your time. Can we start deleting yet? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 17:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- delete while there is a role on commons for nudes in general delete per Lewis Collard.Geni (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- DeleteThere have been many arguments presented here. All very good, but most are irrelevant none the less. Some have offered up the opinion that Klashorst is a notable artist, others that his models might be prostitutes. Some have wanted to consider whether these photos are pornographic, and some have asserted that those who wish to delete this photo are prudish and/or embrace censorship. Some, all, or none of these assertions may be true. Regardless of the validity of these points, these arguments are not justification for refusing to uphold our legal and ethical responsibilities, and our own policies.
And, here is where I’m going to cite our own policy: Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place, whether or not the subject is named. Even in countries that have no law of privacy, there is a moral obligation on us not to upload photographs which infringe the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy. This photo (and the other Klashorst photos of identifiable people) simply does not conform to our requirement that if a photograph is taken in a private setting, we ‘must’ have model consent.
In addition, because of the nature of the photo, we must also be certain that the author of the work has indeed verified the model’s age and found them to be at least 18 years age. I am not confident Mr Klashorst has done so. Should anyone feel so strongly about keeping these photos, please contact him to have him forward the appropriate documentation. In the absence of such, we must delete this photo, and the other Klashorst photos that have been brought forth for deletion. On a personal note, I’d like to compel the community to consider the following - would you vote ‘keep’, or want the rest of us to vote ‘keep’, if this were your daughter’s photo or your niece’s photo posted here under the same circumstances? How would we justify that? We couldn’t, thank goodness. Just as we can’t justify keeping this photo. Brynn(talk) 03:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that Bryan has already contacted Peter Klashorst seeking permissions, clarifications, model releases, and suchlike and has received no response. Mr. Klashorst is after all under no obligation to respond, since these pictures were harvested from Flickr, but if he does not respond, policy is clear, we are under no obligation to host them, and in fact we are under obligation to NOT host them. I'm sorry for nominating only a few at a time, I was trying to leave some of them in place but I see now that the thing to do is to nominate the entire body of his work, and offering to exempt any image for which the proper documentation is in place. If there are any such. ++Lar: t/c 05:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep No need to create a Lex Peter Klashorst for a professional photographer. Btw.: I have proposed one of his "possibly underaged" :-) pics here. Mutter Erde (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your keep has been struck. You already commented Keep, above. Don't do that again, it's disruptive. I'd further suggest that you actually read the VP thread you reference, especially my last comment. This isn't going to come down to a vote, it's going to come down to an application of policy. This photo is in violation of multiple policies and unless the violations are corrected by supplying adequate documentation, or unless someone can provide a compelling reason why it's not a violation, or why policy doesn't apply, it will be deleted. No one commenting Keep has done that. Handwaving about artists and "I like it" doesn't cut it. It is time that this gets internalised, this issue has gone on far too long. Your comments, in particular, are singularly unhelpful. ++Lar: t/c 11:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- I believe the editor was commenting about the new debate that has been introduced i.e. the deletion of all of Klashorst's work. --Simonxag (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your keep has been struck. You already commented Keep, above. Don't do that again, it's disruptive. I'd further suggest that you actually read the VP thread you reference, especially my last comment. This isn't going to come down to a vote, it's going to come down to an application of policy. This photo is in violation of multiple policies and unless the violations are corrected by supplying adequate documentation, or unless someone can provide a compelling reason why it's not a violation, or why policy doesn't apply, it will be deleted. No one commenting Keep has done that. Handwaving about artists and "I like it" doesn't cut it. It is time that this gets internalised, this issue has gone on far too long. Your comments, in particular, are singularly unhelpful. ++Lar: t/c 11:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep for Klashort's images but possible delete for this one. Klashorst is a recognized artist (his being persecuted by governments of the religious right for "pornographic paintings" does not change this) who deals mainly with the female nude. His subjects are models posing for an artist not private people in private settings. On the other hand pedo hysteria is in full flow and the Netherlands (where the artist comes from) has a very low age of consent. We should be wary of nude images wher the model might be underage. Most importantly STOP LIBELING THE MODELS!!!!. In western societies an artist's model is a most respectable profession (even for those who slept with randy Mr. Picasso), but prostitution is not. I am appalled by Wiki admins claiming to be protecting these women's moral rights and then smearing them without a shred of evidence. If you want to claim that any particular person is a prostitute prove it: that is exactly what you may have to do in court! --Simonxag (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Eyða, per Lars comment on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Young black nude-2.jpg, no permission of the model, delete, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 18:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, No model permission, no model release, no evidence of age of majority, no real usefulness for image. Bastique demandez 18:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
test image, reuploaded under standardized name. 25or6to4 22:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Durova 07:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:TN 19 map.svg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Better versions of the same motives are available at Stadtkirche Neustrelitz. The author of the photo has been notified and agrees to the deletion. --Lecartia 22:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep We want to stockpile as many (freely-licensed) views of the subject as we can. The other images look to be quite a bit better for use on wikipedia articles, but that is no reason to delete this one. Carl Lindberg 01:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I understood the guidelines, it says that a file can be deleted, when it is redundant through a better but not identical one – which is provided by this picture. Plus the old image is awfully compressed. Lecartia 14:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- True, so it comes down to interpretation of "redundant" :-) To me, that means almost-but-not-quite identical photos, to the point they show the same exact aspects of the subject (usually meaning photos in the same series taken at the same time). Other photos will almost always show the subject in some other way. In this case, for example, it shows the castle on a cloudy day, unlike the others, and shows more of the surrounding area than the others do, which may be of interest to someone. Photos taken in different years can show changes over time, which would be of use for someone researching the castle. I have heard of experimental technology which can create a 3-D model of a subject given enough 2-D photos at enough angles, so the fact this is a slightly different angle could be of help there (it would show a couple of details not in the other photos). There are lots of other potential reasons too.
- I would certainly use your newer photos on wikipedia articles (they are very nice BTW), and I would replace it in the Neustrelitz gallery, but I would leave it in the Stadtkirche Neustrelitz gallery (and category if it is eventually created) so that people looking for more in-depth information than shown in the Wikipedia article can find it. In short, I think deleting perfectly useful, freely-licensed content that people have taken the time to upload should almost never be done. It's very hard to predict what future uses there could be, so I would almost always err on the side of keeping. Your reasons are very good ones for replacing the images on Wikipedia articles and other places as better overview images, but that (to me) is not a reason for deletion. Carl Lindberg 03:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Carl, I see your point. The experimental technology which creates a 3D models of 2D photos sounds interesting and useful, so how could I disagree with you? You are right with your statement about the usage of the photo and the photo itself. I haven’t seen it from this angle, my apologies. So should I remove the deletion requests or just wait?
- Thanks for your compliment and your explanations. Lecartia 12:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- No problem; thanks for replying. I think the admins will close this when they see it... I'm not positive but I think they prefer to close it themselves. BTW, the technology I was thinking of is here. Carl Lindberg 07:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. --:Bdk: 22:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not specified that the author of the pictures is dead for more than 70 years. We do not even know his name, the less the year of his death! --91.12.109.237 19:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 15:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hergé died in 1983 (less than 70 years ago) and there is no freedom of Panorama recognized in Belgium!--91.12.109.237 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- So what? Do you intend to remove all images from Commons that do not comply with the laws of one particular country? Fine, so I request that all images be removed that are considerd works in the Public Domain because they were published in the USA before 1923 - no such law exists, for example, in Denmark, so the images must disappear from Commons. Sounds weird? No, it's the same argument. So keep this image - Belgian law does not apply to the entire world. --87.122.43.235 14:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- The "So what?" is that that Commons goes with copyright status in country of origin. Photo taken in Belgium, so that's the relevent law. -- Infrogmation 18:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Belgian law applies in Belgium, which is enough, as this picture was taken in Belgium. --rimshottalk 14:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nom & Rimshot. -- Infrogmation 18:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
possible copyvio, author is stated as "Robert Beck for VenessaPetruo.tv" which doesn't match uploader name, single purpose account to upload this image, claims own work, no metadata and small resolution MECU≈talk 21:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Very likely a copyright violation. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The Nobel Prize medal is still copyrighted, so this is copyvio. This has already been discussed, see Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/07#Nobel Prize and all medal photos within --Mormegil 16:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
As I saw a notice pointing to en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2007/November#Nobel Prize (R) Medal images, I would like to add some more info: The medal has been published before 1923, so according to US copyright law, this image is probably public domain in the USA [30], however, it is definitely not public domain in much of the rest of the world, specifically in Europe. What is the current position of Commons to such images? Do we allow them here, or not? At the very least, the license template would need to be changed, probably to {{PD-US}}. --Mormegil 17:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Information from Commons talk:Licensing#PD only in US (Nobel Prize medal): Commons accept only works that are free/PD at least in the country of origin. The Nobel Prize medal might be PD in the USA, but not in Sweden, therefore it is not acceptable on Commons. --Mormegil 14:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Nobel prize medals in these images are sculpted by Erik Lindberg [31], who was active in Svenska Myntverket until 1943.[32]. So, although I have not been able to find his year of death, these images are under copyright at least until January 1st, 2014. --MPorciusCato 18:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, you could just take a look at the linked previous request (or at Wikipedia ;-) ): Erik Lindberg lived 1873–1966, so the medals are under copyright until January 1st, 2037. --Mormegil 18:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Under the DCMA in the US this image is perfectly valid until the copyright holder sends a notice of complaint, and a takedown notice is filed. The medal was published before 1923 as well. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.219.63 (talk • contribs)
- You are talking about US law, fair use, and similar things. That are all valid reasons why this image can be at English Wikipedia. But this is Wikimedia Commons, and we have much stricter rules about what is and what is not acceptable here. --Mormegil 22:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep I find this argument to be quite persuasive. The image was created as a work for hire for the Nobel Foundation and published (issued to recipients) starting in 1902. Thus, its copyright expired 75 years later, in 1977. The only reason that this was deleted from English Wikipedia is that a particular querulous user filibustered the issue until he got his way. (This same user has also tried to claim that English Wikipedia can't use the photo without permission even under a valid claim of fair use.) There is absolutely no reason to believe that the medal's image, created over 100 years ago, is still under copyright. Crotalus horridus 04:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that Commons rules require that the image must be PD both in the US (the servers are here) and in the country of origin. In Sweden (an EU country), there are no special rules for work made for hire. The rule is simply 70 years pma, or for anonymous works, 70 years after publication. This is not an anonymous work, although it was a work made for hire. We know the author, Erik Lindberg, and his identity was revealed during the copyright term of the work. (If the author would have been revealed after the termination of the 70 years term, the work would remain in PD.) This work is clearly under Swedish copyright protection until 31st December 2036. So, even if it were PD in the US, it is not PD in Sweden. --MPorciusCato 07:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Mmm, this seems to be a big todo about nothing. I don't have any research to contribute to this argument, just some thoughts. It's... not really /that/ big of a deal, is it? I mean, you see the Medal on all kinds of stuff, I doubt the Nobel Foundation cares if it's used or not, unless you're falsely awarding it. Since Wikipedia is a /free/ encylopedia, I especially doubt they care; Wikipedia is making no ill gains from it and is merely showing who has and hasn't earned it. No harm done, yes? Plus, I'm sure everyone knows that Wikipedia doesn't actually own the Nobel Prize. You'd have to be pretty silly in the head to think that. If the argument is about the fact that someone created a copy of it, then sorry, I guess I'm just confused as to what the difference is between this image and the other Nobel Prize vectors. Though, on that note, I believe that, if we must delete it, we should do it because there are several images just like it (that apparently have the right stuff), and so it's just wasting space, not because it doesn't have just exactly what you're looking for in copyright jargon. Sorry, I just find Wikipedia's copyright policies to be a bit confusing (which is why I don't upload images). I guess maybe I'm just ignorant.--12.207.142.70 07:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- The principle of the Wikimedia Commons is to host free content. This really means free. "It's copyrighted, but no one will sue" is not enough. If you consider the scope of the whole Wikimedia Foundation, you can be sure that someone would sue if we hosted copyrighted material. We are already rather painful for many large organizations, as we point out where the public domain lies. --MPorciusCato 11:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- MPorciusCato, you argue that "no one will sue", so then what's the point of deleting it? Why not just move the image to the English Wikipedia and tag it with {{PS-US}} instead? Taric25 00:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don’t get your point. This (or equivalent) image already is on the English Wikipedia, see en:Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg. This debate talks about its fate here, on Wikimedia Commons. If you care only about en:, and not about Wikimedia Commons, there is not much point in arguing here. --Mormegil 10:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, so one down and one to go. Let's transfer Image:Nobel Prize.png to the English Wikipedia as well, and we can delete the copies here. Taric25 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don’t get your point. This (or equivalent) image already is on the English Wikipedia, see en:Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg. This debate talks about its fate here, on Wikimedia Commons. If you care only about en:, and not about Wikimedia Commons, there is not much point in arguing here. --Mormegil 10:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- MPorciusCato, you argue that "no one will sue", so then what's the point of deleting it? Why not just move the image to the English Wikipedia and tag it with {{PS-US}} instead? Taric25 00:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can I just say that Image:Nobel Prize.png is inserted relentlessly into the infoboxes of everyone who's ever won one, and at size 15px or 20px or whatever, it's not even obvious what the image is. I'm sure that's not a valid deletion reason, but for whatever it's worth, that image is a gigantic pain. --JayHenry 04:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- So why don't we just transfer it to the English Wikipedia so we don't have to deal with the extra problem? Taric25 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm saying that the image is a huge problem anywhere. --JayHenry 22:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- So why don't we just transfer it to the English Wikipedia so we don't have to deal with the extra problem? Taric25 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I Don't think it's a pain, why NOT keep it? I think it's useful to have it on every person who has ever won a Nobel Prize. DON'T DELETE IT! 78.144.16.189 22:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please read some of the above explanations? There is no discussion whether it is useful or not, or whether we would like to keep it or not. The point is that this is a copyrighted work which is not freely licensed. We are not allowed to keep it. --Mormegil 09:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see the point of deleting it. I think everyone who looks at the page should know that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. received the award. He was a great man who led an entire movement and i think the least we can do in appreciation and respect is leave it up for what he has done to help unite the United States and end racial segregation. He was a great man and deserves it up on the page. Screw copyright laws. Most people do anyway and this is a situation in where it is not a big deal it is a small picture and all deserve the right to see it. All who want it removed should be considered racist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.92.65.183 (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Racist for wanting to follow the law and Commons' policies? We don't "screw copyrights" here. Rocket000 03:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't just some copyright stealing charity! We have these discussions to make Wikipedia more of a better place. And by the way, for deleting a picture about the Nobel Prize why/how can that be considered racist? This is not a forum. User Rocket000 is right: We don't "screw copyrights" here... 84.13.122.205 18:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: isn't the point that the Nobel Foundation might be able to prevent its use for something they don't like eg something which goes against their goals. Hence the image is not free. It might be worth asking them if they are happy to make it free, but I doubt they would be able to agree to it. Stephen B Streater 19:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I have considered the copyright situation and believe we should delete this image, as it's copyrighted in Sweden and the Nobel Committee very clearly asserts their copyright over the image. Speculation that they might not mind its use is directly contradicted by their own information. (My distaste at the use of the image on the page of every winner is noted above.) --JayHenry 22:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I know it should be deleted, but what a shame that a symbol for rights can be ordained on someone to indicate greatness, yet the image that represents it cannot be utilised for economical reasons. Seems like a paradox and a symbol of society's ostracism of nobility of soul. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.53.97.196 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - as this is used everywhere. and copyright in the US is the only one that matters really...This is so cause The severs for Wikimedia are in the US.-- H o r n e t m a n 1 6 01:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, this is not a US-only project, so we have specific rules on Commons about that. See Commons:Licensing#Interaction of United States copyright law and foreign copyright law. --Mormegil 10:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Still, Keep.-- H o r n e t m a n 1 6 22:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Still,
Keep BUT REPLACE Why not just replace the image with a gold disc? Or, perhaps a gold disc with "Nobel Prize" in it. That respects the copyright claim and should instantly propogate to all pages where the link is used.--75.59.139.48 22:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- We already have Image:Nobel prize medal.svg and it is used on many wikis. I don’t see the point in sneaking an image underneath a completely different one (not to mention that it is impossible to change jpg for svg), it would look completely ridiculous in some articles (imagine e.g. the image in the article about Erik Lindberg). --Mormegil 09:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Almost certainly fair use as applied, regardless of copyright term length in different countries. If WC had to obey absolutely every country's rules, nothing at all would be allowed. And there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the Nobel committee will prosecute people for using tiny icons of Nobel Prizes in the context of talking about Nobel prizes. But if you really want to chicken out of the non-existent threat, replace the image with a gold circle with only a letter N.76.85.197.151 01:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please, try to read at least either the above replies, or Commons:Licensing. You are right that this image can be subject to fair use in some Wikipedia articles, however, fair use images are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. We don’t insist on “absolutely every country’s rules”, we require that the image is free in (at least) the country of origin, and in the U.S. And finally, there already is a replacement image similar to what you suggest: Image:Nobel prize medal.svg. --Mormegil 15:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted. -Nard 19:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete As per COM:L "WC only accepts media that is PD in the USA and the source country of the work", here Sweden, and per Swedish copyright law (Ch 4. Art. 43), "Copyright in a work shall subsist until the end of the seventieth year after the year in which the author deceased". There is no provision that I can find regarding works for hire, only anonymous works, which this is not. It is fair use, but that is irrelevant. Atropos235 01:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. the image is copyright in the country of origin and we have Image:Nobel prize medal.svg and Image:Nobel prize winner.svg as illustrative alternatives. --Barliner 14:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Unlicensed copyrighted image, its use here would be against Commons:Licensing rules.
There is a free alternative replacement for a symbol of Nobel Prize: 
(“Nobel” caption only) or 
(English text “Nobel Prize Winner”); projects allowing fair use (or similar exceptions applicable to this image) may get a copy of the image at en:Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg. The image is also public domain in the USA, as it has been published prior to 1923. Mormegil 22:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:2004-05-22_Usertreffen-Zoo-Hannover_IMG_2280-ebv.jpg (now: duplicate-template)
[edit]double uploaded by mistake, delete this one and keep identical image under Image:Bahnhof-Sande.jpg Nyks 20:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as dupe. --Christian NurtschTM 14:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wierd 24.165.124.148 20:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as a bad-faith or altogether uninformed nomination: it's a useful map derived from a Census source, listed on the image description, without any problems. Neither "wierd" nor "weird" is a valid reason for deletion. Nyttend 20:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also, note speedy keep for the Bluffton picture listed by this same IP address (I can't list this on its discussion page, as none was created): it's a useful picture that isn't violating any guidelines of any sort — not to mention no reason given by nominator! Nyttend 20:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep nothing to discuss. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 21:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep I am the author of the map and Nyttend's summary is true - it is from the US Census (Public Domain) and my minor tweaks are GFDL. Are IP addresses allowed to make nominations for deletion here? Ruhrfisch 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah they are, and regularly do. Apart from the occasional junk request like this, they don't seem to cause many problems. If anything, they're not nearly as bad as registered users for clogging up DR with shit like incorrectly named images, superseded images, etc. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks very much. Ruhrfisch 22:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah they are, and regularly do. Apart from the occasional junk request like this, they don't seem to cause many problems. If anything, they're not nearly as bad as registered users for clogging up DR with shit like incorrectly named images, superseded images, etc. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. Multichill 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep wierd is good.--Simonxag 21:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wierd 24.165.124.148 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Bad faith nom. Rocket000 02:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio -Nard 16:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete probably --Simonxag 21:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio --GeorgHH • talk 17:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(I doubt it's PD-inelegible) --Snowdog 16:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not very original. -Nard 16:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Blatant copyvio. Album cover artwork see [33]. --Simonxag 16:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm the author of the image. I hosted it because it's just a square, a rectangle and a circle. but if you think it's a copyvio, i won't oppose. --Cuarto 16:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment And the White Album? --Il palazzo 17:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- John Cage's copyright on silence seems to be legal [34]. I don't think the courts count minimalism as lack of originality. --Simonxag 18:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Original enough to be a recognizable design, so it is copyvio. Geraki TLG 09:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. agreed with the above. Bon Zeenie 13:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Eligible for copyright and copyrighted / Trixt 23:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Seems not to be « own work » as sourced Daiima 10:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete I am not going to try to figure out what the French copyright laws say about this image, instead vote per (my) common sense. It makes more sense to me to reproduce the table via wiki-markup and cite the source than to keep an image of it. Not unlike using the {{SVG}} template for images which are more informative and more portable in that format. -- carol 02:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not own work as claimed. MichaelMaggs 15:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I kind of doubt this is PD-ineligible. The previous content of this page demanded attribution to some software -Nard 16:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. after reversion back to original licence. Not copyright-ineligableMichaelMaggs 15:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Taken in a private place, no permission by the person, so against Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. --GeorgHH • talk 20:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC) GeorgHH • talk 20:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Simonxag 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep the person appears to being consenting to being photographed just fine. -Nard 23:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, in a private setting. Did they consent to publication? --Simonxag 01:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep there's no reason to believe that she did not consent.--Lamilli 16:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Consent is an affirmative obligation in private settings. And consent to be photographed is not the same as consent to publication. Durova 20:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Should be solved now.--Lamilli 00:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- How? Durova 07:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- She's not identifiable anymore.--Lamilli 12:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reluctant neutral. Low encyclopedic value, but no longer a permissions issue. Durova 10:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- She's not identifiable anymore.--Lamilli 12:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- How? Durova 07:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we have enough pictures of pierced nipples and other body parts now. Th encyclopedic value of further uploads of this nature is nil. MartinD 10:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's not our work to decide if people agreed their pictures to be uploaded on Flickr. --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.199 09:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Sufficiently illustrative, and could potentially be useful. MichaelMaggs 15:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Seems not to be « own work » as sourced Daiima 10:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete I am not going to try to figure out what the French copyright laws say about this image, instead vote per (my) common sense. It makes more sense to me to reproduce the table via wiki-markup and cite the source than to keep an image of it. -- carol 02:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio (the pictures on the screens) --Flominator 18:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Just "Beiwerk", main focus is the stage and not the screens --88.117.83.95 10:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The subject is in the screens. There would be no value on the image if someone cropped them. Geraki TLG 09:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Geraki. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
like Image:Moustique FFL.gif Jacques Ghémard 23:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep file doesnt exist. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Used in a few locations. License may be incorrect - but so far not proven ShakataGaNai Talk 06:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
as Image:Moustique FFL.gif Jacques Ghémard 23:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep file doesnt exist. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Used in a few locations. License may be incorrect - but so far not proven ShakataGaNai Talk 06:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
as Image:Moustique FFL.gif Jacques Ghémard 23:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep file doesnt exist. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Used in a few locations. License may be incorrect - but so far not proven ShakataGaNai Talk 06:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Taken in a private place, no permission by the person, so against Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. --GeorgHH • talk 20:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC) GeorgHH • talk 20:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep it is clear looking at the flickr photostream that the uploader is one of the people in the photo. Therefore the people in the photo consented to the license. -Nard 20:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No, it's no indication that the girl knows and accept the publication. Also, the file description on commons must be so clear as possible that we know who the photographer is and who the model at the photo, so we can verify if a permission is needed or not. Btw: we're not private investigators and haven't to review a lot of images on flickr to appraise which person is the photographer or which is the model. --GeorgHH • talk 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, apparently the uploader runs a body piercing studio[35]. His subjects do not seem to object to being filmed, although there is no model release, this is true. I totally disagree you cannot tell if someone's photos are their own in some cases. I do not believe someone would have this many candid private shots and not have at least some connection with the photographer. -Nard 23:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not objecting to a picture is different to not objecting to publication. --Simonxag 01:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as not useful. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Should be solved now.--Lamilli 00:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- What should be solved? -Nard 04:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I removed the faces, so you can't identify the people.--Lamilli 12:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Another reluctant neutral. Durova 19:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I removed the faces, so you can't identify the people.--Lamilli 12:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- What should be solved? -Nard 04:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We don't even see their face correctly! And it's not our work to determine if people agreed their pictures to be uploaded on Flickr! --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.199 09:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
faked--photo is obviously manipulated 64.40.61.50 08:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Participants not identifiable, but this is an obviously manipulated image of no conceviable use. MichaelMaggs 15:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete educational importance questionable! Gegensystem (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - just about our only photo of sexual penetrative use of non-dildos. Other pictures are either drawings, purpose-made sex toys or a toothbrush. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as mattbuck said ... --Don-kun (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per “Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera.“ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity --Hold and wave (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Do you even look at the images up for deletion, or do you actually just c/p the same remark into every DR, regardless of content? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The quality isn't that great, but, people do use these things as sex toys, and such. I changed the description a bit. Missvain (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
31.57.143.7 13:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No new reason for deletion given. Image is still of good quality and in scope. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Speedy kept - no reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
31.57.143.7 13:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: no reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Renomination #1
Very probably FlickrWashing. 89.244.162.35 13:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why is this "very probable"? I have uploaded lots of images from a broad variety of Flickr users who chose to license their images with a CC license compatible with what Commons requires. Why should I steal an image from elsewhere, open up a bogus Flickr account to upload it to Flickr with a bogus CC license and then transfer it to Commons? Because that is basically what you are accusing me to have done, and it sounds rather grotesque to me. To make it clear: I have done no such thing. Why do you say I did? Do you have any concrete reason to do so, or is it just something you invented because you don't like the image in question? --Vydra (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, per astute analysis in response by Vydra (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's not your fault, but the licence that someone on FlickR chose seems to be simply wrong. There's a watermark there that makes it look like a porn image from a professional site. And there's no way to check it because the "user is no longer active" on FlickR. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- As I just wrote at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shanon Cucumber 0415.jpg: The Flickr user (someone from the Netherlands) who took this had uploaded several hundred of images like this. That he chose to put a kind of logo (his own, not that of any website) in the lower right corner of those images does not make it any likelier that this is a copyvio. Would a copyvio come with a image size of several MB and even geodata? Apart from your dubious equation “watermark=professional porn image=copyvio”: Do you have any concrete reason why this image should be a copyvio? --Vydra (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- The alleged "watermark" is just some text and a smiley widely found on the web, for example here [36] or here [37] (animated gif version). A Google image search [38] shows many more. A commercial porn website would hardly have such a widely used smiley for their logo, would they? --Vydra (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept - no evidence of flickrwashing has been presented, and I'm inclined to take the uploader at his word. The image was free on flickr, and does contain meta/geodata, which I agree, is unlikely for a porn site image. That it has a watermark/logo is not at all unusual on Commons, or indeed on Flickr. That the flickr user has vanished is problematic, I grant you, but we have the review process for that very reason. Unless solid evidence is presented, rather than just innuendo and accusations, this should be kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
January 5
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It was me who uploaded this picture. I misread the 'fair use' issue which isn't allowed in this language's country. RayanaWolfer 01:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Part of a hoax article on nl.wp: it has no value for any project .Koen 13:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Christian NurtschTM 22:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
hhhh 91.168.97.107 14:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - If any reason for deletion has been provided, it certainally does not make sense. --GW Simulations 14:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep agreed. Doodle-doo Ħ 16:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Nonsense. Bruno 17:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's a pattern ! ℍenry (Babel talk !) (Francophone ?) 15:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedily kept. Fake/invalid deletion request. -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 20:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
looks like a copyvio Doodle-doo Ħ 16:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, obvious copyright violation by uploader with string of false claims. -- Infrogmation 19:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative -Nard 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. Obvious copyright violation. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source given is a fan site with no legal ability to license this image -Nard 17:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- deleted copyvio ChristianBier 01:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
source site given is a fan site that is not able to legally license this image -Nard 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- deleted it's a copyvio ChristianBier 01:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source site probably does not own this image, furthermore I am unable to find proof of PD license -Nard 17:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- deleted clear copyvio ChristianBier 01:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is not a UN image -Nard 18:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Mistake of commonshelper. Now correct licence. See original upload log --Tohma 18:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Self-closing nom. -Nard 18:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work. Counter-strike screenshot. --Liftarn 18:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as copyvio. -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
looks like a copyvio -Nard 03:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
copyvio from page http://www.mmf.com.mx/imagenes/mmf3/fotosInfo/deicide.jpg --Motopark 07:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
speedy delete then! --Simonxag 13:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Displaying Nazi symbols (in this case, Russian neo-nazi organisation) is allowed for educational purposes ONLY. This image, in contrary, is irrelevant and its purpose is promotion and not education. There is also a precedent. --Jhony08 05:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - But for other reasons. I don't believe German/Russian (non-copyright) law applies to commons images hosted in the US (should Chinese/Japan/Iranian/Syrian/French decency law apply here?). The image has no sourcing information and the apparent commons uploader doesn't appear to have uploaded any other other images. The image itself includes a symbol and the potentially copyright cover of a book displayed prominently. Delete as un-sourced, deriv work. Megapixie 06:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I got the file undeleted locally at en.wiki and fixed the sourcing, as well as the license (the original license carried GFDL disclaimers). Turns out it's the user page picture of a Wikipedian there. Guess you get what comes to you when you freely license pictures of yourself, they get re-used in other places on the project. The symbols aren't banned in the US, no reason to delete it. -Nard 07:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment That still doesn't solve the deriv work on the book cover. Additionally assumption is that it IS a picture of the person who uploaded it (which even if true presents problems since they weren't holding the camera...), which I have beyond a reasonable doubt about (where is the camera metadata ?). I don't know enough Russian to go fishing on google for the original source - but I suspect that it's just a drive by upload. Megapixie 10:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please nominate my user page photo for deletion, I wasn't holding the camera. -Nard 04:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you didn't get the permission of the person who took the photo to upload it to wikipedia, then you should (nominate it for deletion). The thing is that you are around to answer questions about the image. The person who uploaded this image was around for a total of three hours before disappearing, leaving us unable to resolve concerns about the image. Megapixie 04:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- So if I leave Wikipedia for say 6 months or a year you'd delete my picture? -Nard 05:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- If there was doubt either it was public domain, you had taken it, or had explicit permission of the person who did take the picture, then yes - I would vote to delete an such an image. If I upload a copyvio then disappear, is that copyvio then magically protected by my silence ? Megapixie 05:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- So if I leave Wikipedia for say 6 months or a year you'd delete my picture? -Nard 05:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you didn't get the permission of the person who took the photo to upload it to wikipedia, then you should (nominate it for deletion). The thing is that you are around to answer questions about the image. The person who uploaded this image was around for a total of three hours before disappearing, leaving us unable to resolve concerns about the image. Megapixie 04:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please nominate my user page photo for deletion, I wasn't holding the camera. -Nard 04:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - If I wished to be seen as a 7 foot tall Supermodel, that doesn't mean that I can use other people's images of them as I like. The user is question edited en wikipedia for a grand total of 3 hours on November 5, during which I time I doubt they got a good idea about the nature of copyright and how it applies to wikipedia. The book is being held to be seen, and your comment simply doesn't address the problem that we don't know the source of the image for sure. Megapixie 02:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This picture is made like an advertisement of a Russian neo-Nazi organisation. There is a simplest advertisement of a 'for men' brand - a sexy girl who should attract men's attention to the brand. And this image is offensive, but is as informative as a NBP tag on a fence, and therefore it fails Wikipedia:Profanity. And yes, what if I would have registered as a User:David Beckham and would have uploaded an image of him with a "me" explanation? Jhony08 13:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I googled and found the photo on the so called "Official site of NBP", in the photos section: [40]. I'll speedy it as a copyvio. Jhony08 14:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think not. The header for that page says it was last modified Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:43:32 PM. There is no reason to believe the user didn't submit their image to multiple sites, and in any case Wikipedia had it first. -Nard 18:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Utterly same argumentation applies to David Beckham: "There is no reason to believe that User:David Beckham wasn't a David Beckham who submit an image of himself to multiple sites, including Wikipedia". Nevertheless the image was deleted as a copyvio and the user was banned by several reasons including impersonation [41]. And I can't find anywhere on the page that "it was last modified Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:43:32 PM." And even if such is the case, the page was last, not first modified in 2006, so it is beyond reason to think that "Wikipedia had it first", isn't it? Jhony08 19:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- N, I see you removed a copyvio tag, so, although I disagree, I won't restore it to prevent an edit war. Jhony08 19:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- The HTTP headers provided the date. I removed the tag you placed because when there is reasonable disagreement about an issue it is not an issue for speedy deletion. -Nard 19:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, didn't know about that HTTP feature. Anyway, just "me" without a possibility to prove is insufficient reasoning for this image not to be a copyvio. Jhony08 21:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- And yes, the book is not incidental to the picture (take a look at another picture from the same site, this time without a book). Jhony08 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- That one wasn't licensed as GFDL to Wikipedia though. -Nard 22:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that you misunderstood me. I didn't propose to take another picture to wiki instead of this one. I suppose that was a photographer who asked the girl to take the book, and then he asked her to stand in front of the NBP flag. Jhony08 23:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- That one wasn't licensed as GFDL to Wikipedia though. -Nard 22:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- And yes, the book is not incidental to the picture (take a look at another picture from the same site, this time without a book). Jhony08 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, didn't know about that HTTP feature. Anyway, just "me" without a possibility to prove is insufficient reasoning for this image not to be a copyvio. Jhony08 21:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- The HTTP headers provided the date. I removed the tag you placed because when there is reasonable disagreement about an issue it is not an issue for speedy deletion. -Nard 19:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- N, I see you removed a copyvio tag, so, although I disagree, I won't restore it to prevent an edit war. Jhony08 19:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Utterly same argumentation applies to David Beckham: "There is no reason to believe that User:David Beckham wasn't a David Beckham who submit an image of himself to multiple sites, including Wikipedia". Nevertheless the image was deleted as a copyvio and the user was banned by several reasons including impersonation [41]. And I can't find anywhere on the page that "it was last modified Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:43:32 PM." And even if such is the case, the page was last, not first modified in 2006, so it is beyond reason to think that "Wikipedia had it first", isn't it? Jhony08 19:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think not. The header for that page says it was last modified Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:43:32 PM. There is no reason to believe the user didn't submit their image to multiple sites, and in any case Wikipedia had it first. -Nard 18:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Undent. So we have three issues:
- The books inclusion isn't incidental - it's borderline, but I would say it tips it as a deriv work.
- The images appear to be hosted on a site that would appear IMHO to be the source (the images on that site all appear to be 500 pixels high, coincidence ? The site has another picture of the same girl (and a different girl http://www.nbp-info.ru/new/photo/girls/079.htm immediately following the first image)
- The original uploader cannot confirm anything about the issue, including the questions of identity and permission. Without any further clarification Occam's razor would suggest that the image is a copyvio.
- Megapixie 23:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Backed. Jhony08 23:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I see now. The other image is exactly the same, down to the number of bytes. A true self made user page picture would no doubt have a higher resolution and possibly exif data. -Nard 03:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like we reached a consensus that the image is a copyvio. Jhony08 09:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I see now. The other image is exactly the same, down to the number of bytes. A true self made user page picture would no doubt have a higher resolution and possibly exif data. -Nard 03:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Backed. Jhony08 23:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ChristianBier: copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi, this is a picture of me. I've uploaded it myself and now I would like to delete it. Thx! --—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Dirkj (talk • contribs)
- Deletion fix. -Nard 19:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
6 January 2008 User:Zirland deleted "Image:Ralph Grijseels.JPG" (user request)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work. Conter-strike screenshot. --Liftarn 21:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete deriv work - questionable COM:scope Megapixie 03:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Copyrighted screenshot. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative image? -Nard 04:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - yup deriv enough to be deleted. Megapixie 06:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - This image is back of Alishan Express Ticket. Please see other example.--Quatro Valvole 12:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete simple copyvio --Simonxag 13:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio - deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Maybe derivative work or copyvio. __ ABF __ ϑ 08:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Violates copyright of design artwork printed on the packaging. --MichaelMaggs 09:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per MichaelMaggs. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contains copyrighted Windows screenshot -Nard 03:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Photo is of PC. Screenshot incidental. --Simonxag 13:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - The inclusion is incidental, so I've uploaded the image under a more useful filename at Image:Intel Classmate Computer with Windows XP.jpg and deleted this for having a naff filename. We've already got a useful image without the Windows XP screenshot within the image, which is no less useful, so we know that the usefulness of the image doesn't hinge on the inclusion of the Windows XP GUI and that's going to make this incidental inclusion rather than a derivative work. Nick 04:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
contains copyrighted Windows screenshot -Nard 03:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I have removed the windows screenshot by blacking out the screen and generally messed around with the image. Would suggest removing deleting previous revision and going forward with the new one. Megapixie 07:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep That's not the correct logic, it's incidental inclusion! That's allowed, the picture of the COMPUTER, not the OS. Vipersnake151 14:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could be true. I think the closing admin should rule on that issue and if true restore the version with the screenshot. -Nard 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- If we do that, then we should keep Megapixie's version under a different name (or re-upload the original under a different name and keep this), as that one looks better for use in articles, IMO. Image:1753064186_e4138843b8_o.jpg (up for deletion separately) is a duplicate of the original, but that is not the most desirable name either. Carl Lindberg 22:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could be true. I think the closing admin should rule on that issue and if true restore the version with the screenshot. -Nard 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
--- Keep: I'm going to keep this modified version, as it's probably the best version for inclusion in articles, I've deleted the original image from the history, if someone could re-upload Image:1753064186_e4138843b8_o.jpg under a more useful name, that would be much appreciated, and if nobody else gets in first, I'll delete Image:1753064186_e4138843b8_o.jpg tomorrow. Hope that ramble is at least partially understandable. Nick 04:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is a SVG: Haloperidol.svg Crazy-Chemist 16:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Sorry, but as much as many here would like to delete superseded images, the practice has been disallowed. Doodle-doo Ħ 16:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded Multichill 22:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep, per reasons discussed. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not PD-ineligible -Nard 17:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. --Monaneko 07:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
copyvio, deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
RICK_ASTLEY Lsandra 20:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I put the wrong file.
- Delete. He asked for it, rickroll this image out of here! Vipersnake151 03:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No source etc. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per this. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 13:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, per the reasons discussed above. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no source given; has been deleted for lack of fair-use rationale before [42]; PD tag seems dubious --Ddxc 04:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 07:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
no source; per nom. Deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Filmed person's consent is questionable -Nard 06:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Questionable consent. Image metadata doesn't appear to match uploaders description. Uploader appears to have used a different camera with every image. Delete unless clarification can be given. Megapixie 06:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Agree. MartinD 10:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Why should the filmed person's consent be required if she cannot be recognized? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The person can't be recognized. As for the interest, it's self-explanatory. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Speculation is not acceptable reason to delete images.Richiex 15:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete These suspicions seem reasonable. I've added an RFD for Image:Wettopinpool.jpg, also from this uploader's collection. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted - I'm uncomfortable with the different exif data on every image, if there's clarification the work isn't a copyright violation and the model is over the age of 18, drop by my talk page and I'll undelete the image. Nick 11:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Filmed person's consent is questionable -Nard 06:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Questionable consent. Image metadata doesn't appear to match uploaders description. Uploader appears to have used a different camera with every image. Delete unless clarification can be given. Megapixie 06:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Agree. MartinD 10:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Why should the filmed person's consent be required if she cannot be recognized? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Speculation is not acceptable reason to delete images. Richiex 15:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Suspicions are reasonable considering this uploader's other contributions claimed as own work. I've added an RFD for Image:Wettopinpool.jpg, also from this uploader's collection. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted - Data on the EXIF data does not tally with the "last year" comment the uploader uses, presumed copyright violation going on past history with the user. Image can always be undeleted if the uploader can prove ownership and that the model is over 18. Nick 11:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A manuscript of w:W. H. Auden's w:Musée des Beaux Arts (poem) is a copyright violation. John Vandenberg 04:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:AudenVanVechten1939.jpg for more details. John Vandenberg 04:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with deletion. Macspaunday 04:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 06:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no pictures in this category. AND: wrong category name - it should be Dornier Do 26, like the other aircraft types of dornier --84.137.30.16 11:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC) --84.137.30.16 11:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. please create Category:Dornier Do 26 if needed --:Bdk: 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No pointer to PD on the named page. Christian NurtschTM 22:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- delete--Motopark 03:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No free license at source --Tomia 21:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. RedCoat 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This kid is 11 years old (from his user page and also photos of him winning spelling bees). He is also an American. American law (COPPA) REQUIRES us to delete personal information from children under 13 unless parental consent is given. Also, seriously. We don't need kids giving out their real info over the Internet on Commons ---Nard 18:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete my User Page and restore the current version as explained here, and neutral on the last three images, but definite keep on Image:Freeman.svg because I want it for userspace and my true last name isn't freeman. That's what I am: a free man. -IonasFreeman 19:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I can create a sock and pretend I am the parent and giving consent, so I don't see how "parental consent" makes any sort of difference because there is no way to prove that. A facsimile violates privacy by giving my phone number, so that's for you who think you're "protecting a minor". -IonasFreeman 19:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment:User is banned from en.wiki for sockpuppetry. -Nard 19:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Offtopic. -IonasFreeman 19:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- You did mention creating a sockpuppet. Not that offtopic. Rocket000 06:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Werdan7 did the same thing on IRC one time: When I said "I can create a sockpuppet" he misunderstood it as "I will". Two different things. -IonasFreeman 01:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- You did mention creating a sockpuppet. Not that offtopic. Rocket000 06:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Offtopic. -IonasFreeman 19:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, we're not necessarily thinking of protecting a minor. Personally, I just don't want to appear on Dateline NBC. -Nard 06:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I hate that, however my parents really think persecution, shock and awe on so-called "predators" when the cop jumps out and the per-osecuted one thinks they're leaving, so they watch it. Anyway, Chris Hansen only documents something when someone wants to have sex with a person under 18. I think that show is unfair harassment, because the "kids" pretend to consent, and so if they were real kids, I think it should be legal. -IonasFreeman 01:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd think the issue here is that Wikimedia/Wikipedia can get really bad press for this. Seeing a full name and your age on your userpage might raise a lot of red flags for people here, so if you just mention on your userpage that your last name isn't really "Freeman", that would probably solve the issue. If that's OK with you, anyway. -- Ddxc 20:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I hate that, however my parents really think persecution, shock and awe on so-called "predators" when the cop jumps out and the per-osecuted one thinks they're leaving, so they watch it. Anyway, Chris Hansen only documents something when someone wants to have sex with a person under 18. I think that show is unfair harassment, because the "kids" pretend to consent, and so if they were real kids, I think it should be legal. -IonasFreeman 01:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: IANAL, but w:COPPA says, “[t]he term "operator" [...] does not include any nonprofit entity that would otherwise be exempt from coverage under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).”[43] I haven't looked up that section 5, but it seems to me that this might exempt us.
- The EPA has a really strict policy though (see w:COPPA). I don't know if they qualify as nonprofit (as a government organisation), or if they are stricter than the law requires, though. “d. There is no restriction on the dissemination of photos of children, if they are taken in public spaces, with no identification, and are used only for editorial (not advertising) purposes. The use of pre-arranged photos, taken in a protected environment such as a school or hospital, and showing a highly-defined and recognizable image, requires a release; the release must be signed by a parent or teacher. In disseminating photos of children, consider first whether it might create a new vulnerability of unwanted attention for the child(ren).” If we too are required by law to follow this strict a policy, the personal photos would have to be deleted. But I'm not sure about that at all. Comments anyone? -- Ddxc 20:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- And just for the record, provided that the legal issues are resolved, I'll vote for keeping all images. IOW, the fact that they're personal pictures of an 11-y/o who's not even identified by a real name is not a reason for deletion IMO. -- Ddxc 20:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Ddxc for saving this community and myself to be painted in a bad spotlight by people who do not understand the issue. I wanted to be sure this doesn't have to involve my and your public embarassment by my parents in a court of law. -IonasFreeman 07:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am requesting my userpage be deleted, and then the last revision be restored. I request this so that no-one looks in the old diffs for my real last name. This may be necessary under COPPA. (If you want my name, look in the old diffs of my simple.wikipedia userpage, which I would like an admin at simple who is reading this/here at commons to do the same with [delete, restore last version]). Thank you, --IonasFreeman 07:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Done on Commons. I'm not an admin on Simple, though. Rocket000 02:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am requesting my userpage be deleted, and then the last revision be restored. I request this so that no-one looks in the old diffs for my real last name. This may be necessary under COPPA. (If you want my name, look in the old diffs of my simple.wikipedia userpage, which I would like an admin at simple who is reading this/here at commons to do the same with [delete, restore last version]). Thank you, --IonasFreeman 07:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Ddxc for saving this community and myself to be painted in a bad spotlight by people who do not understand the issue. I wanted to be sure this doesn't have to involve my and your public embarassment by my parents in a court of law. -IonasFreeman 07:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- This user has now been blocked indefinitely, here and elsewhere. We have someone who purports to be an 11-year-old, posts his location and pictures of himself, and then appears to be arguing for the legality of consensual sex with children [44]. This doesn't smell right. I think both the images of the child and his userpage with personal information should be deleted, and speedily. Dmcdevit 08:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted - COPPA/U.S. law violations. ~Kylu (u|t) 08:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not a valid license. -Nard 07:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Also unused and broken. →Rocket°°° 22:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image designed for spamming purposes. Thialfi 18:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, image is not reusable, making it unsuitable for this project. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Marked for speedy deletion by an anon because this is not a governmental symbol. I do not speak Polish nor am I familiar with the relevant law but this appears to be the logo of a political party. It may also be pd-ineligible. Neutral listing -Nard 07:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's a symbol of currently nonexisting political party which held power before 1989. It's historical logo which first of all is widely used as PD. Morover it had such status in PRL. The Party does no longer exist nor has any legal succesor, so I don't see any reason to debate whether it's logo can or cannot be freely used. Gardomir 00:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as Gardomir above. Pimke 08:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- The symbol is currently owned by the State of Poland. (art. 1 ust. 2 ustawy z dnia 9 listopada 1990 r. o przejęciu majątku byłej Polskiej Zjednoczonej Partii Robotniczej - Dz. U. z 1991 nr 16 poz 72 z późn. zm.). Micga 18:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not a govermental symbol. It is symbol of PZPR party (Polish Union of workers party) this party was closed in 1989
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to Spelterini, E.: Über den Wolken/Par dessus les nuages, Brunner & Co, Zürich 1928, title page, the portrait on the left was done by Ernst Rudolf Linck (1874 - 1963). [45] The portrait will thus be copyrighted in Switzerland until the end of 2033. Lupo 22:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete regrettably. Retroactive (restoring copyright to PD works) PMA+30 in 1923, (non-retroactive to works already PD) extension to PMA+50 in 1955, (non-retroactive to works already PD) extension to PMA+70 in 1992/3. Is not and never was in the public domain in Switzerland. Megapixie 03:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Any thoughts that the photograph might not have enough originality to hop the bar as far as Swiss copyright law is concerned ? Megapixie 03:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's a carefully lit studio photograph, not in any way comparable to the Meili photo. It's not a snapshot. I do think it qualifies as a work in Switzerland, and it certainly does in other countries. If I had thought it was PD, I would've uploaded myself a much better scan from the book given above, or ripped it from the image library at ETHZ. Lupo 12:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete / Fred J (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 13:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Copy, not modify" in the permission section contradicts the GFDL licence. I also suspect the authorship claims are untrue. Nothing in the user's presentation indicates that they are a professional studio photographer. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 18:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no Freedom of Panorama in the USA, COM:FOP#USA MECU≈talk 20:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is similar to the photos of the front of the Louvre, this is an image of the "mall" (which means park in this case) and the statue (which doesn't appear to be very new) figures in it just because it's in the center of the mall. It's not the focus of the picture. -Nard 05:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep the sculptures are hardly the subject matter of the photo. -Seidenstud 18:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Kept. General view of public park; statue visible only as incidental inclusion at very low resolution. -- Infrogmation 18:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I dispute that User:JethroOlympiad is the copyright holder of this work. 192.65.41.20 01:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep PD-ineligible. -Nard 02:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Olympic rings are a very tightly held copyright of the International Olympic Committee. They certainly permit each of the National Olympic Committees (such as the Spanish Olympic Committee [46]) to use them in their own logos, but that certainly doesn't make them public domain! I also note that this image looks to have been crafted from the gif image on the IOC website here. That would make this a speedy deletion candidate, would it not? 71.245.108.146 04:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Olympic rings are protected by trademark (and other special laws), not copyright. [If they were copyrightable, then the copyright expired a few days ago.] This symbol would likewise be protected by trademark, and those other special laws (which the IOC requires if a country wants to host the Olympics). Still, we can display them on certain Wikipedia articles so it still makes sense to host them (with a slew of warnings tags). I'm not sure if the shield portion would qualify for copyright in Spain or not... it may, so I'm undecided on this one. Carl Lindberg 07:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Olympic rings are a very tightly held copyright of the International Olympic Committee. They certainly permit each of the National Olympic Committees (such as the Spanish Olympic Committee [46]) to use them in their own logos, but that certainly doesn't make them public domain! I also note that this image looks to have been crafted from the gif image on the IOC website here. That would make this a speedy deletion candidate, would it not? 71.245.108.146 04:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
DeleteI know copyright is the main thing we have to watch, but legal protection for Olympic symbols in many countries goes way beyond trademark protection. I don't think we should lead users to believe this image is usable. --Simonxag 13:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- We host the Olympic flag here in several versions, and have for a long time. There is a code of conduct, and using them on Olympic articles is apparently within that (we have a specific {{Copyrighted IOC}} tag). So, I don't think we should delete on that basis, but rather on if the rest of this image is copyrightable (unless you feel a NOC's logo is even more protected by these laws, the point there is no legal use on wikipedia articles). Carl Lindberg 14:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted; copyright uncertain and uploader almost certainly not the actual copyright holder. -- Infrogmation 18:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is NOT the official flag of the Italian Republic. The original flag's mid band is WHITE (HTML: FFFFFF) and not pale gray Blackcat it 15:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you can understand italian language, you can read Art.31 of DISPOSIZIONI GENERALI IN MATERIA DI CERIMONIALE E DISCIPLINA DELLE PRECEDENZE TRA LE CARICHE PUBBLICHE (PDF) (that is given as source of this wrong image), where italian government states the color for official textile flag of Italy. This article states also that other versions of the flag must have the same color effect of a certain Pantone color on a certain polyester fiber, and apparence of that textile with that color is truly a plain white, not dirty (pollution-soiled?) (gray) white... So these are the facts. I'm really bored about this dummy dispute. I hope that this WRONG file can be deleted shortly. -- ELBorgo (sms) 16:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Well, I think that no explanation is necessary. --Frank87 19:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep — This file is perfectly named and impeccably sourced. ¦ Reisio 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Italian flag is green, white and red. No mention of pale grey. --Fioravante Patrone com 20:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Unless you have a PC screen made in polyester fiber, this shade of grey is NOT suitable. If you keep it, we'll feel compelled to upload an American flag with red and pale grey stripes as well :-) --Vermondo 00:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - There is Image:Printable_Flag_of_Italy.svg (version of the Flag that use rough hexadecimal conversion of the official Pantone colors in order to be printed on Cloth.) --Il palazzo 00:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not the same conversion, however. ¦ Reisio 01:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - This image is not perfectly named because this is not the flag of Italy, you should upload it under a name as invented flag of Italy or uncorrect flag of Italy--Vituzzu 00:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Art. 12 of Italian Constitution "Flag of the Republic is the italian tricolour: green, white and red, in three equally sized vertical bands", and Italian President Emblem, that use the same colour of the flag, say white. --Krdan Ielalir 01:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Invalid reason for deletion. It's freely licensed and within our scope. This is getting ridiculous. Commons is not place for this. Rocket000 12:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is not the flag of Italy. The middle color should be white, not grey. 8 people asked for its deletion at the previous deletion request and only the uploader said keep. The decision was closed keep because of scope grounds. I submit that an inaccurate version of a real flag is not within the scope when it is used in articles where the real flag should appear. Specifically the part of COM:SCOPE that requires files to be of high quality. Bad colors on a flag image make it of poor quality and authenticity. -Nard 02:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please take a look at all of the other discussion about this particular image. (Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Reisio)Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:ReisioCommons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Rocket000Image talk:Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana PMS 20060414.svg Some say this flag is accurate, so it's within our scope. We are not here to decide on images for others. We let them decide. Rocket000 02:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do we really let them decide? Because it looks like everyone but the uploader is against this image even existing. -Nard 02:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, there's a huge history here :) Take a look at the user report I got for closing that. Rocket000
- I meant we let users decide which image to use. We can't let them decide if we delete all but the one we think is "correct". Rocket000 02:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand what you mean with «we think is "correct"». There are some issues that can't be secondable. Can I make a Canada flag in grey? --F l a n k e r 11:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- By what "we think is 'correct'", I meant what some people on Commons believe to be correct. I used "we" because it was the majority. But even a majority here shouldn't decide on images for people elsewhere. Again, we just host them. Rocket000 05:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand what you mean with «we think is "correct"». There are some issues that can't be secondable. Can I make a Canada flag in grey? --F l a n k e r 11:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- It has been decided in Image talk:Flag of Italy.svg that this is not a flag of Italy, and therefore should not be included among Italian flags nor named as one.
- If commons is not concerned with the correctness of the name of the flags, am I allowed to take a JollyRoger, upload it and name it "New Flag of United States/Israel/YouNameIt"? I don't think I would be allowed (and I would be against it, furthermore), just because it would be the wrong name of the image.
- For this reason I ask this image to be removed. --TcfkaPanairjdde 14:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do we really let them decide? Because it looks like everyone but the uploader is against this image even existing. -Nard 02:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Until flags created from textile. Is textile colors wrong? Is textile-to-RGB approximation incorrect? See also Category:Flags of Poland (similar hot debate were took place there too). --EugeneZelenko 16:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, textile-to-RGB conversion is wrong. How many times it is necessary to discuss it?--TcfkaPanairjdde 23:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I quote TcfkaPanairjdde: Textile-to-RGB conversion is wrong. How many times it is necessary to discuss it?--F l a n k e r 02:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Interpretations are only "wrong" to those who think differently. Rocket000 05:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Interpretations? I think there is nothing to interpret. The Earth is not flat, the flag of Italy is not grey. --F l a n k e r 11:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe there is as this whole thing shows. Images of the Earth being flat shouldn't be deleted either. Rocket000 03:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Interpretations? I think there is nothing to interpret. The Earth is not flat, the flag of Italy is not grey. --F l a n k e r 11:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Interpretations are only "wrong" to those who think differently. Rocket000 05:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I quote TcfkaPanairjdde: Textile-to-RGB conversion is wrong. How many times it is necessary to discuss it?--F l a n k e r 02:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, textile-to-RGB conversion is wrong. How many times it is necessary to discuss it?--TcfkaPanairjdde 23:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Previous conclusion stands. Number of voters is irrelevant; this is not a vote. Find a more useful topic to argue about than the "correct" way to convert to RGB (hint: there is no "correct way", as it comes down to the settings of your output device in the end). —LX (talk, contribs) 11:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete We not argue about to render RGB colours, but about a greyish flag. The flag of Italy is not grey. How many times it is necessary to say it? --F l a n k e r 13:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- What flag are these people carrying? Does that image need to be deleted? There are over fifty different named shades of white. This is a squabble over a 5% difference in luminosity between two shades of white and yes, it is ridiculous. They really are just two different representations of the Italian flag. Neither of them are accurate, because conversion to RGB never is, so I don't really care which one of them you choose to use for whatever purposes you have in mind, but please find a better way to cooperate than edit warring and lodging gratuitous deletion requests for each others' images. If you (by which I mean everyone involved in the dispute) think you are not capable of doing that, let us know and we can consider other means of ensuring that the parties involved do not prolong this disruption. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you serious or what? If you think that the difference between the two images is irrelevant, why keeping both? If you think there is no possibility to correctly convert from Pantone to RGB, why are you keeping an image which claims to be that conversion? --TcfkaPanairjdde 22:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm quite serious. The convention here is to keep all versions of an image unless they are exact duplicates, even if they're more or less interchangeable. As far as I can see, the uploader of the image has only claimed that he used one specific system, established and suggested by an external entity (Pantone, Inc.), for the conversion, not that it's the one and only true method or that the results will look the same everywhere. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is a Reisio's interpretation. What if i upload a dark grey-crimson-lemon flag of Germany? --Frank87 16:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment to delete voters: please try to make photo of Italian flag in different light conditions (dusk, sunny day, shadows, etc). Will middle part of flag alway be #FFFFFF? --EugeneZelenko 16:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- The image name suggests that this is the flag which sports the conversion from Pantone to RGB, which is not, as LX admitted: so what is the pourpose of this image? Why this shade and not another? Why are you supporting this version with no menaning? --TcfkaPanairjdde 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- My preference is to re-upload the image as Image:Italian Flag with Pantone textile color.svg and then delete Delete this one. / Fred J (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are aware PMS stands for Pantone Matching System? The current name is more specific. Rocket000 03:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Some more you might like to delete:
- Here's one with a different shade of green and red: Image:Flag of Italy.png
- Here's one with different shades of all colors: Image:Nuvola Italy flag.svg
- Oh, maybe here's a good compromise: Image:Animated-Flag-Italy.gif :) Rocket000 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- We don't talk about a photograph, but a vector image (you can notice by the extension .SVG that means Scalable Vector Graphics). A photo can be in many different shades of white. A vector image must represent the "optimum" light conditions. --F l a n k e r 12:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Those aren't photos. Rocket000 12:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was answering to LX and EugeneZelenko. --F l a n k e r 13:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Those aren't photos. Rocket000 12:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- We don't talk about a photograph, but a vector image (you can notice by the extension .SVG that means Scalable Vector Graphics). A photo can be in many different shades of white. A vector image must represent the "optimum" light conditions. --F l a n k e r 12:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment My opinion has a zero-value here because I'm not an admin. This is a fact. But with simply logical arguments can I tell you that "Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana PMS 20060414.svg" is NOT more specific name than "Italian Flag with Pantone textile color.svg".
- First: PMS ancronym is NOT an international or wide-used term, but a specific Pantone's industry term. So isn't univocally clear what PMS stand for, without saying that is "Pantone Matching System"....
- Second: PMS of what? Of a Pantone textile color. My name is more specific.
- Third: strictly speking "bandiera", cannot be a picture. "Bandiera" is only a piece of cloth that moves in the wind. My name is more correct, because it was similar to all the similar images of "bandiere" in commons... second using flag is better, because commons is international project, so using italian language isn't the better thing to do.
- Fourth: apparence of Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana is stated by the laws, and has pure, bright, full, totally white. If you want a real "Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana" go to Rome anf take a photo of the flag over Quirinale palace, or similar istitutional place.
- Fifth: "Flag of Italy" is more neutral term than "Flag of the Republic of Italy" that conceptually sounds like "Offical Flag of Italy" (this is so obvious, but I'm the only one that understand this concpet, I'm right? Oh sorry you don't know if I'm right or wrong, you don't use your brain for judging...)
- Conclusion: Rocket000 is wrong (oh damn I say that? No, no, i don't, here right/wrong concepts don't exist in commons), actual name is not more specific than other name. It's actual name correct? No response. Commons do not require editiorial work. I can upload a photo of mine and call it "Queen Elizabeth.jpg" (cit.). Can you say I'm wrong? Really not, because, I say that my name is "Queen Elizabeth". Can you say that's false? I think you can not, because this is a mellow place (cit.), take it easy.
- Obviously this image cannot be deleted (this picture is fundamental for commons). Obviously this image cannot be renamed (Reisio is the Right, Reisio is God, and he doesn't want) [Reisio, do you like to be God? I think you like a lot...].
- So take it easy. This is commons, a place where all is possible, but if you hasn't the power you are a zero, and for you doing something right is impossible, because you are only a wrong-zero. All right. I don't matter. I only use my faculty to say how things are. -- ELBorgo (sms) 01:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, let me try again. First of all, you are aware anyone can rename images, right? No one has done it yet because the edit war wasn't about that. It was about this image being in the category, Category:Flags of Italy, and using the template {{insignia}} which says "This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia" (emphasis added). Renaming the file does not solve this. You guys already got it renamed from Image:Flag of Italy.svg and have a disclaimer on the image page (I'm against disclaimers, but I left this one as a hopeful compromise). And please refrain from getting personal (e.g. "Reisio, do you like to be God?", "you don't use your brain for judging", etc.). Try to stay focused on what is spoken not the speaker. Thanks. Rocket000 04:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- And now that the image is protected, you guys took the edit-warring to the talk page[47], where editing others text is not acceptable. Rocket000 04:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- «you are aware anyone can rename images, right? No one has done it yet because the edit war wasn't about that» To tell the truth, I tried to rename it, but Reisio (who else), changed the name back. I am, in fact, going to propose a renaming of the image, in case this request for deletion fails.--TcfkaPanairjdde 13:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Eh eh eh, ELBorgo you rock!
- Mhmm, I think renaming it Flag of Italy with Pantone textile colours.svg can be the solution. Resio got his flag, we got our clarification about the rendering method. --F l a n k e r 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I will gladly rename it if everyone's cool with this. My only concern is there still might be edit-warring over the things I listed above. Resio if your reading this, please comment. Rocket000 20:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- My sentiments can be found here and here. ¦ Reisio 20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, let's go with the third option you proposed in the first link, delete the image.--TcfkaPanairjdde 21:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- My sentiments can be found here and here. ¦ Reisio 20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I will gladly rename it if everyone's cool with this. My only concern is there still might be edit-warring over the things I listed above. Resio if your reading this, please comment. Rocket000 20:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reisio, please do not make assumptions of what others might hypothetically do. TcfkaPanairjdde, cut the sarcasm. Please, this is not helpful. As I said before, if you are not willing to work towards an agreement in this collaborative project, there are other means of ending the disruption, but neither of you will find that outcome to be in your interest. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Giggy conjectured that renaming the image would have resolved the issue, and after Rocket000 detailed why that wasn't necessarily the case, I merely gave an exaggerated example to bring it into stark relief. ¦ Reisio 00:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Any chance of a compromised rename? Like Image:Italian flag PMS 20060414.svg (don't know Italian)? Think of how to resolve this rather than having the all-or-nothing mindset. I know it's hard sometimes, but please check yourself that you're not just holding out to make a point, which both sides already have made pretty clearly. Rocket000 04:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- What's wrong with leaving it permanently protected as I originally uploaded it? — It's specific enough that it will never need editing. If you truly think there's a good reason to do otherwise, then do whatever you like… delete it or move it, just don't put my name on it if you do. ¦ Reisio 06:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not it should ever change, this is a wiki. We should only use page-protection when there's edit-warring, repeated vandalism, or with heavily used images. I'm generally against all indef protection, myself (at least in the gallery/image namespace). Reisio, I'm just trying help solve the issue. I know you feel you picked a perfectly ok name for the image, however, don't look at it like that. This isn't a matter of what's the "best" name as we all found out we can't agree; this is about resolving this issue - compromising. Others have a problem with your name, and you have a problem with their name. Why not meet 'em in the middle? Let's put aside who's right and who's wrong and come up with a third option together. Is that too much to ask? Rocket000 06:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's too much to ask. This file was already a compromise, and it's named exactly what it is. ¦ Reisio 07:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok then, sorry for asking. I think I'll step back from this issue and let someone else try to resolve it :) Peace. Rocket000 08:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, Keep (I think you know my reasons.) -Rocket000 08:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete I have seen arguments at three different projects. They are still discussing it at it.wp. Discussion of the image resulted in a block at en.wp from Reisio's inappropriate commentary. And I have seen the multiple talk pages that argue the correctness or incorrectness of the image. I even looked up Pantone colors and found a website that explicitly stated that the colors of the textile product would be different from those shown in the electronic medium. The official Pantone color of the middle band is named "bright white" which is coded as #F1F2F1 in hexadecimal color codings. All vector images of the Italian flag on the Commons have a white band. Reisio's is the only one that has an offwhite band. This offwhite band is the electronic equivalent of the Pantone color "Bright White" which I assume in real life is not an offwhite hue. Rocket000's examples above, Image:Flag of Italy.png, Image:Nuvola Italy flag.svg, and Image:Animated-Flag-Italy.gif are really bad analogies. The first is a png form of what has been updated at Image:Flag of Italy.svg (older revisions of the SVG image show the darker green and red bands). Image:Nuvola Italy flag.svg is drawn in a way that makes it appear the flag is waving and shadows are being cast, causing different shades. Image:Animated-Flag-Italy.gif is the same, but a gif and shows the hex white. There are arguments everywhere that this particular depiction of the Italian flag is not right. Why should the Commons host an inaccurate image?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing anymore, but I do feel the need to point out why I listed those of images. Not as analogies of anything. The first one was to show other variations exist. And those other variations aren't being contest somehow. It's hypocritical to say there's only one "correct" interpretation and only say there's a problem with this particular version. The icon I just threw in to show it in a different form, like how the photo was used above. The last one was a joke about compromising since it alternated between white and gray. Just wanted to clarify. Rocket000 11:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I understand there are variations, but they are variations on the shades of red and green. It's hard to use the "shades" of white, because most turn grey or have some sort of colored tinge to them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
So, it looks like it is a useless image, not used on any project, uncorrectly named (see the conversions from Pantone to RGB) and, most probably, uploaded to make a point. Are we going to delete it, as asked by several people, or not? --TcfkaPanairjdde 19:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete I read all the pages (a lot of discussion pages, of course) but, to conclude, this image is, simply, wrong: Reisio is the only one who say "grey grey!". I'm Italian, and my flag is not green-grey-red! --Yoruno 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete bah! (cit.) --Tanarus 15:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete I strongly feel this is completely wrong. --TcfkaPanairjdde 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete This bad copy of the Italian flag is useless and violates the dispositions of the Italian Constitution. That's all. --Mess 10:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete it seems to be only a crusade against Pantone --Vituzzu 14:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete (already voted) --F l a n k e r 17:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete (already voted but it seems that this is is another voting session). Not only is this flag incorrect: it is also useless: it seems to me that no page of the project uses it. So, should it be kept just in order to illustrate a point? It's totally not-wiki. --Vermondo 10:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- It seems like someone's trying to make it that way... but it is used used. →Rocket°°° 16:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is always the same IP address, trying to insert it without discussion. --TcfkaPanairjdde 11:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete This flag is wrong, the central color should be white, and not gray. Definitely not our flag (I'm Italian). —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.17.222.67 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, bad presentation of official flag —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Jossifresco (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Grow up, Deleteers before I upload an animated GIF of it in acid-trip colours. If you don't like it or it insults your national pride, don't look at it. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Consenus is that this is a poor version of the Italian flag. It fits the criteria of "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". The image is used nowhere in any of the wikisisters projects and is often a source for edit wars. Udonknome (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Repeated deletion requests should be strongly discouraged, particularly where nothing has changed since the last one. However, in this case, since the last DR Commons' Scope has been clarified, and we now have to consider whether - as alleged - this falls within the ambit of "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". The file is unused except for a couple of pages which discuss it. As we already have a perfectly good representation of the Italian flag, I would say that this one is indeed not educationally distinct unless anyone is able to point to some possible use for this particular image that could not be satisfied by the other. If a distinct use can be proposed I would be happy to change my mind, but at the moment I think the file should go. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fake flag. -Nard the Bard 12:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No new arguments against or for. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The question is whether this still falls within COM:SCOPE the quoted section - Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject to my reading this is about new/recent image uploads, rather than existing images. Scope doesnt clearly cover what/how we deal with images uploaded in good faith but that appear to deteriate as technology advances provide high quality. This image is part of the collection of images we already hold its not a new or recently uploaded image. This isnt nomination isnt any different to previous nominations, its attracting the same responses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnangarra (talk • contribs)
No new arguments either way, so previous verdict stands. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image that I uploaded is wrong Black Wulfric 22:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I uploaded a corrected version. AnonMoos 12:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- the deletion request is closed? --Black Wulfric 20:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Only an admin can formally "close" it; you can indicate that you no longer see any reason to delete... AnonMoos 12:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
looks derivative __ ABF __ ϑ 15:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep extremely speedy keep, Commons hosts pictures of actual xD cards, such as Image:XD card typeM 1G Fujifilm.JPG, Image:XD card 16M Fujifilm front.png, Image:XD card typeH 512M Olympus.JPG. The en.wiki article says the logo is not specific to any one brand, but rather the card type. The uploader should be applauded for uploading a generic non branded image. -Nard 15:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Apart from the fancy D nothing copyrightable here. The D isn't enough to make the logo copyrighted, I think. The license should be changed to {{PD-ineligible}}. --rimshottalk 13:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work as far as i can see __ ABF __ ϑ 15:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The UN produces jelly now? mmm, jelly -Nard 17:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Must be some kind of error. It should be {{PD-self}} since Capriccio took the photo ("eigenes Foto"). // Liftarn
- Keep Uploader / upload program confused {{PD-UN}} with
Bild-UNon the German Wikipedia, which is the equivalent of {{PD-self}}. --Kam Solusar 21:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think I used the CommonsHelper so the problem may be there. And by the way, it's a hot Hungarian paprika paste, not jelly. // Liftarn
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
UN image? -Nard 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Uploader / upload program confused {{PD-UN}} with
Bild-UNon the German Wikipedia, which is the equivalent of {{PD-self}}. --Kam Solusar 21:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is not a UN image. -Nard 18:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Was there some kind of systemic error in transferring images from de-wiki? The original upload log seems to say the photo was taken by the user on de-wiki. I presume it was a PD-self, but could anyone see the original page on de-wiki? Carl Lindberg 20:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The image was uploaded to the German Wikipedia by Inlandsvägen (the author) with a
{{Bild-UN}}license template. It seems the user who transferred the image to commons confused that license template with the {{PD-UN}} template on commons, which is quite different. The PD-UN template on de: (which was later renamed to de:Vorlage:Bild-frei) is the equivalent of {{PD-self}}. --Kam Solusar 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative image of Transformers logo ---Nard 15:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 21:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
questionable GFDL license -Nard 03:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, GFDL is not correct. Many users think that doing the work of capturing a screen grab, creating the file, and uploading means they own at least part of the copyright, which is probably where a lot of this comes from. However, I think that is PD-ineligible, since it is just letters and one simple geometric shape, and {{trademarked}} [48], so Keep. Carl Lindberg 07:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-ineligible}} and {{trademarked}}, as it is text in a general typeface (albeit italic) and a simple triangle. --rimshottalk 13:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It is a copyrighted design, no matter how minimal it is. Geraki TLG 09:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, there are limits... there is a minimum threshold of originality required for copyright. This is a U.S. logo, and to me it does not reach the U.S. standard (or even come all that close, either). Typefaces are not copyrightable (neither general nor custom), nor are common shapes like a triangle. See {{PD-textlogo}} and {{PD-shape}}. A simple combination of those elements does not qualify either.[49] Carl Lindberg 15:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as copyrighted logo - Badseed talk 23:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Restored: {{PD-textlogo}} Yann (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no freefom of Panorama in the USA COM:FOP#USA must be fair use or have permission from creator MECU≈talk 20:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image of Jesus on the cross is itself derivative of thousands of years of artwork. Nothing new or copyrightable about it. -Nard 05:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The concept is old, but this appears to be a recent realization by a modern sculpter MichaelMaggs 15:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no freefom of Panorama in the USA COM:FOP#USA must be fair use or have permission from creator MECU≈talk 20:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image appears to have been dedicated to the public domain (see [50], the author waived his fee for this sculpture and donated it to the city of Detroit) and it doesn't appear to have been registered for copyright before 1978. -Nard 05:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Agree to keep. Donated work. Also public monuments which are owned by the public are in the public domain. They are owned by the taxpayers. The interpretation of copyright laws put forward goes beyond the legislative intent. Cases involve situtations where the copyright is registered, where the creator retained ownership, and where there is an intent to make a profit without permission from the holder of the copyright. In the Arturo Di Modica case, the issue is whether an artist who retained ownership and registered the copyright of the work can assert the copyright where it involves 'substantial revenue' and it was copied with intention to make a profit without permission. Art Monthy states the public sculptures like the one discussed here may be photographed, filmed, or drawn with the knowledge of the sculptor. "Sculptures situated in public places can easily be photographed, filmed, or drawn without the knowledge of the sculptor, and such two-dimensional reproductions might equally easily be merchandised commercially. See Art Monthly (11-1-2006) for an explaination of the issues. 12.110.179.187 17:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry but you need to read the rest of that article. It actually says yes you could make a picture easily, but not legally. I have reverted your edits to COM:FOP as well. -Nard 21:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
You are incorrect, the article states "Sculptures situated in public places can easily be photographed, filmed, or drawn without the knowledge of the sculptor, and such two-dimensional reproductions might equally easily be merchandised commercially. Further, Art Monthy states, "What rights, if any, do sculptors have over their publicly sited works? A recent lawsuit by a sculptor of an outdoor artwork illustrates some key issues." See Art Monthly (11-1-2006) for an explanation of the issues. the author asks, 'what rights if any' do sculptors have? Where the copyright holder has retained the copyright permission appears to be needed. It obviously doesn't apply where the copyright holder has released the work to the public domain and not retained the copyright. In the Arturo Di Modica case, he retained the copyright. And even in that case, he asserted 'substantial loss' revenue against Wallmart. Nevertheless, the photo being discussed here would not violate any copyright laws, its photographed and published on a regular basis, its a donated work and its part of a public building.12.110.179.187 22:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- "The artist may well succeed. Under US copyright law only works of architecture--not outdoor sculptures--that are 'ordinarily visible from a public place' can be reproduced in two dimensions without the permission of the copyright owner." Get some reading comprehension. -Nard 02:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The point you seemed to have missed is that he retained ownership of the copyright, he didn't sell the work or give it up and 'substantial revenue' was at issue. Of course, in this particular instance the artist probably will succeed, the artist registered his copyright in that case and owned the work. Even with those precautions his copyright was at risk of being forfeited. The US copyright law says nothing precluding outdoor sculpture in the public domain from reproductions in two diminsions, and especially where no loss of revenue is at issue. Public art is in the public domain unless the artists retain ownership of the copyright, and especially where no profit is at issue. Section 504(b) of the US copyright law requires the copyright owner to present proof of the infringers profits. This burden shifting provision was recently applied by the Fourth Circuit IN RE Phoenix Renovation v Rodriguez, (Dec. 2007) [51]. Nevertheless, the photo discussed here doesn't violate any copyright laws, its photographed regularly and its image is displayed regularly and it was a donated work. 12.110.179.187 20:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- There's no need to "register" a copyright. Furthermore, note that Henry Lydiate is a UK lawyer; he writes from a UK perspective. The full article is available at the artlaw site here. The HighBeam link above only shows the introductory paragraph. Unfortunately, photos of copyrighted sculptures are derivative works, and U.S. copyright law does not have an exemption for public art. The "no loss of revenue" argument above is shaky: unless the artist explicitly transferred his copyrights or declared the sculpture to be henceforth free of his copyrights, he still owns those copyrights and is thus entitled to royalties from e.g. postcard sales. The "burden shifting" argument is irrelevant. We're not a repository of images we can get away with hosting; we're a repository of free images. Delete Lupo 19:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per Lupo. MichaelMaggs 16:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
miniature fails, and there are better versions --Frédéric 20:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Too bad that the SVG version looks corrupted. The problem is in the text. I have made a color version without text. Frédéric 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete file corrupted --Vriullop 20:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Broken and unused image Badseed talk 10:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
GFDL violation. This page is copy and paste from My page. --Monaneko 04:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Kubek15 11:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I'm sorry - but how is copy and pasting someones userpage a GFDL violation? --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Exact copy of Image:Scifi ico.jpg. Seems that a bot transferred it from the English Wikipedia where it had been uploaded due to high usage which is no longer an issue, whilst I was trying to nominate it for speedy deletion. --GW Simulations 14:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I just checked the usage of both images and the software is only searching 60% of the wiki right now so I will do this again later. Image:Spaceship and the Sun.jpg is reported to be used on 3 pages on 2 wiki (other than commons) and Image:Scifi ico.jpg is reported to be used on one page on one wiki. Until the software catches up and can once again search all of the wiki, my question is which is the better name for the image? -- carol 02:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Scifi ico.jpg was the original name, contains a good file history, and has the correct licence information. None of these apply to Image:Spaceship and the Sun.jpg. --GW Simulations 17:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- An admin or someone who understands da (Danish?) and how the weird wiki images are displayed will need to change the name of the image where it is being used on . Then it can get the {{badname|Image:Scifi ico.jpg}} tag which is preferably applied by the original uploader -- who in this case is an upload bot. I did everything I can -- and a little extra because I had a good old fashioned United States languaged chuckle over the danish word Rumfart for what looks to be space travel. Heh. (my mom did not like us to use that word for gas....) -- carol 04:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep "copy" no longer exists. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I, the creator of this illustration, uploaded a new version of the image with some corrections. Gepardenforellenfischer 16:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete A new version of the illustration is available, which not only superseeds the old one in quality, but also includes some corrections. --Gepardenforellenfischer 11:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as SVG would supersede JPG. Small war in there. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I, the creator of this illustration, uploaded a new version of the image with some corrections. Gepardenforellenfischer 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete A new version of the illustration is available, which not only superseeds the old one in quality, but also includes some corrections. --Gepardenforellenfischer 11:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as SVG would supersede JPG. Small war in there. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This appears to be a scan of an old banknote. According to {{PD-Vietnam}} non-photographic works enter PD 50 years after the death of the author. Or I suppose it could be treated as an anonymous work since the governent did it. Thoughts? -Nard 17:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Safely assume the government did it, just like stamps. Gryffindor 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It is currently, it is probably copyright. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Cropped out non photographic elements -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept per Bryan. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
January 6
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Cover of a copyrighted book (ISBN 9500725991), uploader hasn't presented evidence for his claim that he is the copyright holder High on a tree 00:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. Obvious {{copyvio}} —LX (talk, contribs) 01:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Cover of a copyrighted magazine [52], [53]; uploader has presented no evidence for his claim that he is the copyright holder, i.e. a representative of Clarin group High on a tree 01:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. Obvious {{copyvio}} —LX (talk, contribs) 01:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyviolative (logos etc. on front) and scope issues - Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No permission. -Nard 04:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. http://www.pesepe.com has the following copyright statement: "Copyright © 2008 www.Pesepe.com All Rights Reserved". Obvious {{copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am shure, this is not PD-Art __ ABF __ ϑ 15:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. Obvious {{copyvio}}. I'm going to give the uploader a bit of a break from violating copyright laws as well before it becomes too much of a compulsion. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photo of Natalie Portman from a Flickr user, Veronica Romm. The flickr user has CC-licensed photos of Audrey Hepburn, Marlon Brando, Princess Diana and Katharine Hepburn, which clearly indicates that the Flickr user is careless about copyrights. Thuresson 09:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete http://www.flickr.com/photos/vromm3773/2149467670/ as obvious example she doesn't host entirely her own photos.... Megapixie 13:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I am the uploader of this photo. I didn't research about the flickr user and and I'm sorry for that. I also agree that this photo needs to be deleted. And I'll have to revert back the changes I've made in the Wikipedia article. Thank you all for your keen eyes--Anoopkn 19:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Error in filename; not Auditorium but Headquarters --Hasec 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then re-upload and tag with {{badname}} rather than clogging up DR. Thanks. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 00:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for advice. I'm trying {{badname}}. --Hasec 14:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Majorly: (incorrectly named) duplicate of Image:Univ-of-Hyogo-KobeGakuentoshi-Campus-AdminOffice.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request --Rp11 23:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment comment goes here Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 00:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rlevse: Dupe of Image:Bbcv100bsf-ba r.JPG
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image is marked "All Rights Reserved" on Flickr. If this is the uploader's Flickr account, the license needs to be changed. Otherwise, this is a clear copyvio. --Ytoyoda 15:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
User has a history of uploading copyrighted photos and passing them off as PD-self under this and other accounts: ([54], [55], [56], [57]). For what it's worth, version of this photo is available here marked as All Rights Reserved. --Ytoyoda 15:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Flicker image doesn't have free license. --Tomia 15:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
User has a history of uploading copyrighted photos and passing them off as PD-self under this and other accounts: ([58], [59], [60], [61]). For what it's worth, a version of this photo is available here marked as All Rights Reserved. --Ytoyoda 15:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Flicker image doesn't have free license. --Tomia 15:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sony_Logo.svg states that this image is a fair-use non-free logo 78.54.218.202 10:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep ineligible for copyright.--Wiggum 11:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Yet another deletion request for a simple wordmark. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:IBM logo.svg and the several undeletion requests for the wordmarks Canon wordmark.svg, Kemira wordmark.svg and Tunturi wordmark.svg at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2007-08 and KappAhl wordmark.svg at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2007-09. --Hautala 12:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I've fixed the english version for you :) -Nard 21:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is also available as Samsung-P2.jpg - 2nd upload because in the engl. Wikipedia there's already a image called P2.jpg Marc Schuelper 14:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete derivative image -Nard 21:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Derivative, as N notes. Deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
record of an radio-news-jingle incl. voice; IMO copy right violation ...Sicherlich Post 00:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC) --Sicherlich Post 00:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. This sound is both jingle and voice. It is not voice during the jingle, but It is complete of musical setting. Integrity has been emitted publicly and this way, recorded. It was not modified sound and there is fragment of public emission.
Drozdi-Pn
- and why is it in the public domain than? Do you have permission by RMF.FM to publish it under PD? ...Sicherlich Post 10:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Szczepan talk 06:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(Useless and fake definition of narcism, this can be considered vandalism. Has already been removed from nl:) --Erik1980 17:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Text definition including the line "copyright Fromwalking" which would using it impossible in a neutral context. Out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Per problems cited about scope etc. Deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
broken svg, and logo is not pd-ineligible -Nard 21:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Not actually an SVG file, but an embedded TIF. Not useful. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This can probably be speedied as copyvio + corrupt file... Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 04:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Yuval Y § Chat § 18:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is no proof that the photographer is dead since 1937. I couldn't find any information about the author. So without any other information this picture is a violence of copyright. Julius1990 Disk. 11:25, 6. Jan. 2008 (CET) --Julius1990 10:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No source information. Impossible to verify status. Megapixie 13:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. RedCoat 23:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No data whatsoever about painter and about the copyright status of the painting. --User:G.dallorto 02:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No information regarding the source, etc, so it can't be verified to check that it is free. Mønobi 22:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. RedCoat 18:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image without normal specication, nol inks to this page Karelj 19:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep image description is perfectly fine. -Nard 21:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- ...and COM:SCOPE requires images to be useful, not used. Keep. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative image -Nard 21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Too much straight-on focus on the copyrighted image on the screen here to call it de minimis. Could be saved by blurring the screen or just re-shooting with the screen off. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. the screen consists of text, a blue semi transparent rectangle and a photo as background. this photo, which is the only thing that *might* reaches the level of creativity, is taken by myself (beacause samsung allows his consumers to change the background in contrast to apple). so i'd say keep it. --Marc Schuelper 12:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- sorry, and a cd symbol, which consists only of two circles, and a note. i don't know the international copyright law, but in germany this won't reach the necessary level of creativity.--Marc Schuelper 12:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work of the copyrighted user-interface. RedCoat 18:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like the Flickr user photographed a big screen (note the artefacts, skewed perspective, and much sharper item in the foreground), which would make this a derivative work of the video feed, and the licensing would not be valid without the approval of the original cameraman. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- This might also affect Image:Kirsten Dunst.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I know this argument has been overruled many times but it is solidly based in US copyright law. This work is not "fixed" and hence is not protected by copyright. See [62]: "On the other hand, the definition of “fixation” would exclude from the concept purely evanescent or transient reproductions such as those projected briefly on a screen, shown electronically on a television or other cathode ray tube, or captured momentarily in the “memory” of a computer. " -Nard 22:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- So do we have any information that would suggest this video feed was not recorded? It would seem like a pretty standard thing to do if you've already bothered to get the cameras there. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Many of these images have been deleted already and until now the answer has always been that nobody knows if the sessions were recorded. I think perhaps I will ask instead of arguing blindly :p Email sent to cci-info@comic-con.org -Nard 22:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- So do we have any information that would suggest this video feed was not recorded? It would seem like a pretty standard thing to do if you've already bothered to get the cameras there. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply received and I am not sure if this is free enough. I asked them to cc permissions@wikimedia.org, which they did not do. I will forward the letter to wikimedia. It is "Hi David,
Thank you for your email.
Can you tell me where you plan to post the photo? We would prefer it not posted in the Wikipedia Comic-Con page.
Otherwise, yes, you have permission to use the photo, but please credit as "courtesy Comic-Con."
Thanks and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to drop me a line.
Sincerely,
David Glanzer, Director Marketing and Public Relations Comic-Con International P.O. Box 128458 San Diego, CA 92112" -Nard 02:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, not good enough. David needs to be made aware of the license, its conditions, that commercial uses are allowed, that he cannot restrict uses (not posted on specific pages), and that the license, once granted, is irrevocable. He evidently does not understand that a free license allows anyone to use the image for any legal purpose. We don't know where "we" will be using this image; editors might find it useful for several Wikipedia pages. And we certainly don't know what potential re-users will do with the image. Lupo 08:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Similar image available:Image:RFE06 093.jpg, no links to this page, missing descripriom of image Karelj 18:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image does have a description and both images are sufficiently dissimilar to warrant keeping. -Nard 21:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The same picture exists: Image:RFE06 313.jpg, no links to tjis page Karelj 21:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep not same image, this one has double the resolution. -Nard 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep keep is not the same, picture combines RFE06 313.jpg and RFE06 314.jpg --Marku1988 06:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Very similar image available. Image:RFE06 306.jpg, no links to this page Karelj 21:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep we do not delete a perfectly good image just because a "similar" one exists. -Nard 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The same picture available:Image:RFE06 tulips 3.jpg, no links to this page Karelj 21:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep images not the same, see flower is open in lower left in one and closed in the other. -Nard 21:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is from a repeat copyright offender ([63]/[64] [65]/[66]). Uploader claims the photographer is a friend - unfortunately, the friend happens to be an AP photographer. --Ytoyoda 04:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys. --Christian NurtschTM 14:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is for an user personal use only. The image does not contribute nothing to the project --Xavigivax 12:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Commons:Scope says that private images in small quantity are allowed as long they are useful for some Wikimedia project. That includes the user page. In this case the uploader has more than 2000 edits at spanish WP and uses this picture (10 KB) for his presentation. -- Cecil 12:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 14:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep — per the previous request. --Boricuæddie 14:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: reason see my previous decision. -- Cecil 19:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images uploaded by Thiago Temer
[edit]For the second time, I start a deletion request of this user. Last time, 18 images were comproved as copyvios and deleted (see at Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by user Thiago Temer). His images infest some articles in Wikipedia and as more the images are deleted as more he uploads copyvios photos (usually from www.skyscrapercity.com).
This one was downloaded from http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o315/lpmaldonado/PC060013.jpg.
This one was downloaded from http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o315/lpmaldonado/PC060021.jpg.
This one was downloaded from http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d141/lucasluzmg/Imagem083.jpg.
This one was downloaded from http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=233420.
These ones were downloaded from http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=487380.
These ones were downloaded from http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=506428.
As the admin Dantadd said before "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". Talk2lurch 15:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the lot (not just the ones listed, but all of them). If we were to believe the uploader–and I don't–they are the proud owner of an unspecified Sony Cybershot model (Image:Praiaclube.jpg, Jan 2005), a Sony DSC-P93 (Image:Uberlandia3.jpg, Jul 2005), an Olympus D425 (Image:Imagem08.jpg, also Jul 2005), a Canon EOS 10D (Image:Varignordeste.jpg, Oct 2005), an Olympus FE170 (Image:Imagem059.jpg, Dec 2006), a Sony DSC-W5 (Image:Imagem114.jpg, May 2007), and a Samsung Digimax A503 (Image:Nicodemosviaduto.jpg, Jun 2007). Notice the rather advanced 10D making a one-time appearance among the monthly replacements of cheap point-and-shoot compacts. This user has spent all the credibility capital they had around here. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted all uploads by this user; user blocked indef. Lupo 08:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Mário Yamashita Junior
[edit]They were downloaded from http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=472337.
- File:Bairrocopacabana2.jpg
- File:Imagem081.jpg
- File:Imagem071.jpg
- File:Imagem053.jpg
- File:Imagem054.jpg
These ones were downloaded from http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=487380.
I have sufficient reasons to believe this user is a Thiago Temer's sock puppet. Talk2lurch 16:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Same mannerisms, same wording, same range of multiple low-end cameras, same websites ripped off. If it walks like a puppet and uploads like a puppet...—LX (talk, contribs) 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Account blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Thiago Temer. Lupo 08:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Luis Alves Nogueira
[edit]All these images were download from Flickr and have their copyrights reserved:
Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dougphotos/1321748205/
Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marlonfb/501767229/in/pool-68324887@N00/
Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dougphotos/1321745401/
Source: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1098/1253741561_dc3b54819d_o.jpg
I believe this sources are sufficient for their deleting. Talk2lurch 17:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all of the uploader's photos. The user claims to have used a Nikon D70s prosumer DSLR in Sep 2005 (Image:Uberaba60.jpg), ditched it for a Fujifilm Finepix S3100 beginners' point and shoot the next month (Image:Uberaba63.jpg), and then switched to an ultracompact Sony DSC-T7 point and shoot in December (Image:Uberaba61.jpg). That seems like an unlikely regression, and in conjunction with the above, I can no longer assume good faith with this user's authorship claims. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 08:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Most likely a copyvio, I'd say - Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Looking in Google, this doesn't even seem like a real company, there's no hits for it. -Nard 04:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, then, its out of scope. I bet it probably is a company, even if google doesnt make many hits. Not everything is on google. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
So look at www.taginvest.com.br and see if you could find it... get your time for anything more useful guy —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Gabrielvidigal (talk • contribs)
- I think the user did make this himself. Making this out of scope and also spam. -Nard 00:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deriv, contains Windows XP UI, although program is GPL, XP UI makes image non-free, unsuitable for commons. Vipersnake151 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The UI is not copyrightable, it consists of simple windowing elements common to all GUIs. Really these nominations are starting to annoy me. -Nard 04:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Here's a test to determine if something is really Free: If I were developing my own Free operating system, copying the titlebar and widgets pixel-for-pixel from these images, and I sold copies, would that be lawful? As for de minimis arguments, the derivative works guideline doesn't even contain "minimis". Until it spells out what is considered de minimis copying for purposes of Commons, people will continue to nominate {{free screenshot}} images from Windows OS for deletion. Besides, what is the "source code" of a GPL screenshot? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 13:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Microsoft's own website states that screenshots are legitimate for others to use, even for advertising - as long as it does not use a splash screen, startup screen, et cetera. This is not infringing, it is explicitly permitted. --SparroHawc 02:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Johney (talk) 11:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --s90 (talk) 11:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There is nothing copyrightable in a screenshot of the UI of an operating system. These groundless deletion requests of Windows screenshots should be considered vandalism. -- PauliKL 17:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree "The UI is not copyrightable".As for deletion requests being considered vandalism I think we should apply Hanlon's razor("Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity").--IngerAlHaosului 05:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Windows 7's Aero shown. Per Commons:Screenshots, Microsoft's guidelines do not allow derivative works
. Recommending to create a cropped version (and possibly remove the history of existing file). 80.221.159.67 00:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment Cropped version now available at File:Notepad++ GUI with MediaWiki source code (cropped).png, which should supersede this file. I'm not going to vote myself. 80.221.159.67 06:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Restored as no new arguments provided since the 2008 discussion, which was overwhelmingly favorable to keep. --Bedivere (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE or "Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted" Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 14:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep A usable image to illustrate the tower and perspective. The fact that the face is partially (and naturally) obscured, makes it more so. --Simonxag 10:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as per Simonxag. Also, the person is a regular contributor so we should cut a little slack here. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative image -Nard 21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep appears to be GPLed software, license tag changed to suit. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 00:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- it is opensource (gpl) - www.team-mediaportal.com--Marc Schuelper 17:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept as per me. It's GPLed. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative image -Nard 21:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 21:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Likely a copyrighted work uploaded with false free license claims. --Angelo 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me also note the goal celebration is about a match played in Japan (therefore, I am unsure Creative Commons Spain license could apply here); very similar shoots can be found around the web [67], and is a low-resolution image which lacks of EXIF information. I think it's a clear copyvio, actually, but I failed to find the exact shoot in Google Images. --Angelo 15:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It seems to be a copyvio, and CC Spain can't license this work. Rastrojo
(D|ES) 00:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 19:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no source. no information about the author. so we can't be sure that the author is dead more than 70 years. Julius1990 15:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC) --Julius1990 15:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- keep, because it is a private picture from his childhood of minor "Schöpfungshöhe". Modigliani (* 1884) died in 1920 at the age of 36! It would be possible that the photographer, who could be 30 at the day of the photo (1894) died at the avarage age of 74 in the year 1938. --Herrick 08:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- "could be 30", "childhood". Where are the proofs? Without a source we can't know if he is 12, 14, 22 or possibly 26 in this picture. By the way without any further information it's hard too use the picture in an article anyway too. And naturally I do not now about "Schöpfungshöhe", I'm not a copyright expert, but anyway this photo is a mess for an enzyclopedia ... Julius1990 22:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do you know the public known images of Modigliani himself? When you'll take a look at the difference you can clearly assume, that you can see Modigliani at his childhood. In Germany the science to improve images by symbols and data called "Ikonographie". A mess? To delete only to violate AGF is not the right policy. --Herrick 15:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- You know what? I know the pictures of him very good, because i wrote the excellent article on the german Wikipedia. So please don't try to tell me something about Modigliani hisself. I'm not interested in this picture anyway, so i have no problem, when it will be kept. But I'm an author with experiences with Modigliani and can tell you: A good author wouldn't use this picture in any way. But as I said ... Julius1990 21:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC) PS: Whrere is this picture from? When I shoul use such a photo i would like to know who took it, where it's scanned from etc. Proof for the year? Maybe no causes for a deletion, but a big lack of quality.
- Do you know the public known images of Modigliani himself? When you'll take a look at the difference you can clearly assume, that you can see Modigliani at his childhood. In Germany the science to improve images by symbols and data called "Ikonographie". A mess? To delete only to violate AGF is not the right policy. --Herrick 15:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- "could be 30", "childhood". Where are the proofs? Without a source we can't know if he is 12, 14, 22 or possibly 26 in this picture. By the way without any further information it's hard too use the picture in an article anyway too. And naturally I do not now about "Schöpfungshöhe", I'm not a copyright expert, but anyway this photo is a mess for an enzyclopedia ... Julius1990 22:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. Lupo 19:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
1973 monument, 70 years did not elapse yet. --User:G.dallorto 19:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Fails COM:FOP in Italy, the U.S., and in Denmark (uploader's country). Lupo 19:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
1966 bronze relief, 70 years did not elapse yet. --User:G.dallorto 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Fails COM:FOP in Italy, the U.S., and in Denmark (uploader's country). Lupo 19:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Obvious publicity photo; no evidence that either the uploader nor the named source has ownership of this image. Same image is used on numerous other websites ([68] and [69] for example). --Small-town hero 22:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 19:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request --Rp11 23:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
That is not an image that exists?! – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence that this is an old rendering of the coat of arms or that its copyright would have expired. It appears under fair use provisions at en:Image:Moyobamba COA.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 16:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
very poor composition - part of head missing, lot of similar images available Karelj 22:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete I am normally reluctant to delete images just because we have a lot of similar ones, but this one doesn't have much going for it except the unusual juxtaposition of a peahen and snow. Poor lighting, front and rear chopped off... --Tony Wills 11:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Now I see there are Image:MP-Pavo cristatus 1.jpg through Image:MP-Pavo cristatus 30.jpg, plenty with snow :-) --Tony Wills 11:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not useful MichaelMaggs 16:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Part of bird missing, lot of similar images available Karelj 22:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Quality wise it is about as good as the rest of the series, no particularly good reason to delete. --Tony Wills 11:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Rather better and potentially useful. MichaelMaggs 16:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Also Image:Blason de l'Université Catholique de Lille.JPG
Propably from http://www.univ-catholille.fr/ no GFD nor cc-by-2.5 there Tomia 14:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio on both accounts. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. " Copyright Université Catholique de Lille 2005 " ShakataGaNai Talk 06:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to oficial description, the CoA of Moldavian Democratic Republic is: in a french blue shield a golden aurochs head with red horns, eyes and tongue, with a 5 corner golden star between the horns, a silver rose on the (heraldic) right and a silver crescent on the (heraldic) left. This image has the wrong colours for that matter. --Alex:D 18:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Alex:D 18:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Looking this over again, it is fairly close enough. ShakataGaNai Talk 06:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Low-quality duplicate of Image:Eisenhower d-day.jpg. howcheng {chat} 01:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please copy categories from older image and check usage on Wikiprojects; after that I will have no objections. -- Infrogmation 02:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- All uses on all wikis have been replaced by the better quality image. howcheng {chat} 17:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Looking at it, I fear I do have objections, strongly. Higher resolution version page has mangled information including false listing of source and author; should not be used until this is corrected. -- Infrogmation 18:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I added the original creator and creation date from the LOC page, but I don't know what you mean by "false listing of source" -- {{LOC-image}} is on the page and the lower-quality image only has it sourced to NARA without giving us any identifying details (like ARC number). I moved the LOC template to the {{Information}} box for more clarity, if that's what you meant. howcheng {chat} 16:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Very low qual compared to other image. Other is FP --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused except on one user page and a historical FP page on en.W MichaelMaggs 08:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Temporarily restored. Useful categories not yet copied to version planned for long term keep. -- Infrogmation 18:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Useful info and categorization from the image for deletion copied to the image kept. ADMINS PLEASE MAKE SURE SUCH INFO IS COPIED to version to be kept before deleting "dupes". I will now redelete the nominated image. -- Infrogmation 18:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files by User:Linsensuppe
[edit]Linsensuppe (talk • contribs)
Private gallery, against project scope --GeorgHH • talk 19:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- According to checkusage the images are used on 22 pages here on Commons :P (and yes I'm teasing). -Nard 20:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Who created this page? Who took offense? Today we only see 4 portraits of persons who all have their claim to fame in local media and soon possibly greater scale. You may delete each of them, if you mail us your reasoning and we agree to withdraw them. But we see no reason why these pictures should not stay commons. All except for 1 are Wikipedians by the way and it would be nice if they were allowed to self-portrait on different language versions of Wikipedia or Wiktionary. So much for our 2 cents. --Linsensuppe 16:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, clearly out of project scope. Geraki TLG 09:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope MichaelMaggs 16:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Per deletion request for Image:Royal Standard of England.svg. This image is a derivative work of a Crown Copyright image. Crown copyright does not allow unrestricted modification
- Crown copyright has expired see template:PD-UKGov and the discussion on the England page. --Barryob 16:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- See COM:COA. Copyright has not expired, as this image was made by a computer and can't be 50 years old. Ipankonin 04:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Whoever requested the deletion is an idiot. Which version do you suggest? This is the best version, look at that chicks tits. Common! Ipankonin is a retard, obviously it's created on a computer because YOU're LOOKING AT IT OVER TEH iNTERNETz and its SVG which is vector image. Fuck off with your Copyright bullshit, thx. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/SVG_examples for some examples of images made by a computer that AREN'T copyrighted. Just like this one. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.191.162.78 (talk • contribs)
- Keep I do not see a copyright problem. The lions are larger and less kitten-like here than in File:Royal Standard of the United Kingdom in Scotland.svg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept Crown copyright has expired. Restrictions on use are covered by {{Insignia}}. Sv1xv (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
January 7
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
replaced with Image:Lahontan_Crater.jpg Pac72 01:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep this image is plainly within scope even though it is not currently in use. -Nard 02:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep not a duplicate. Samulili 08:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep definite keep, significantly different images --Tony Wills 10:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept per above. Different images. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not trying to censor commons, but this is the user's only contribution to Commons and it is of questionable source. Who is the model for instance? -Nard 02:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Kill it with fire. God damnit. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 04:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: per del req
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
composite of 3 photos, sources not identified -Nard 03:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete user appears to be using Commons as a host for his cock pictures. Awful quality too. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 04:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete poor quality --Simonxag 00:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Commons has sufficent better sourced higher quality images of random human peni. -- Infrogmation 05:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Taken in 1937 so it is very unlikely that the image is in PD. --Samulili 07:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The original upload at the English Wikipedia was deleted as a copyvio. See en:Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 3#Image:Gernika2.jpg. Lupo 11:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Spanish law states 80 years from author's death or from publication, if anonymous. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author=UnixLenau but a self-license? __ ABF __ ϑ 12:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- This image was uploaded by User:UnixLenau. Keep Samulili 13:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate of Image:ISTACampusCenBuil1.jpg, therefore Delete --UV 23:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rlevse: Dupe of Image:ISTACampusCenBuil1.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong name, duplicate with correct name exists (Image:CONZEPT 16-Hot-Standby.jpg) Antikythera 13:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Duplicate. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 19:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the function of upper level keyboard --4 January 2008 User:69.253.194.225 fixed request -- Deadstar (msg) 15:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not a reason for deletion. Nothing wrong with image. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Looks fine to me too (but then I did upload it). --MichaelMaggs 15:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing wrong with image. Can requested give some more info? --Tomia 22:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No reason to delete. Rocket000 10:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not in the good position veloce 18:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Replaced by a duplicate, Image:Crabtree-5.jpg. Deleted. Samulili 19:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program EuTuga msg 20:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, but next time use {{copyvio}} Yuval Y § Chat § 01:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. --EuTuga msg 23:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Yuval Y: Don't upload COPYRIGHTED / FAIR USE images to Commons
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Is it required that an image must not have a border? A user complains at Village Pump that an uploader edit wars with him over adding this tag. This tag doesn't just say the image looks inferior with the border. It says the image must not have a border. Maybe the person wants the border on this image. Looking at the page it is used on[70] the border certainly does not destract from the image. I have uploaded images from the LOC with the huge ugly borders certain images from there have and nobody has demanded they be removed or even questioned them, and the images are used. -Nard 03:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you trolling, Nard? :P Keep. It says "this image needs its border removed", not "borders are inherently evil and must be removed from all images". With that said, is DR really the place to discuss a re-wording of the template? Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 03:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, possibly a rewording could solve what I see as a problem, with users edit warring over whether an image "needs" to have the border removed, such as Image:Caucasus region Ovest.jpg. :P -Nard 04:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - I've seen the template be extremely helpful with directing others to improve our images. A little edit-war doesn't mean we should delete a useful template. Rocket000 04:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Deletion requests are not the way to discuss how this template should be used. Morven 04:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Usefull template for a lot of images. --GeorgHH • talk 20:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Erik Baas 15:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- kept there is no reason for deletion. It's consensus that borders have to be removed and with the template there is a chance to find such images. ChristianBier 21:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright violation --carol 09:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The source url does not exist any longer. The source ip address does not exist any longer. A reduction of the address does exist but the connection times out without a response. -- carol 09:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Making FP look like idiots (which might not be such a big task):
There is credibility issues.
Keep It's not our problem with the USAF shuffling their websites around. Maybe try your luck via internet archive --Denniss 11:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Denniss, you are listed as the uploader now but not as the uploader who had the image approved via FP review. Perhaps you could provide a verbal history? -- (Trying her 'luck' in determining where the image came from here.) carol 02:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Looks like a USAF image to me - archive.org has a snapshot of the page here: http://web.archive.org/web/20060927223111/http://www.aetc.randolph.af.mil/se2/torch/back/2004/0405-06/torchtalk.htm There new website is here: http://www.torch.aetc.af.mil/ - but doesn't appear to host back issues older than 2004 - I had a dig around DVIC and Air Force Link, but I couldn't find the image in question. Megapixie 12:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is not that I want to delete them, it is that I would like to know that the source is the government and not a bunch of yoyos making fun of how easy it is to hack http. If you could put those archived urls on the image description and then mention here that you found an archive.... -- carol 12:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Subject of image is USAF aircraft in flight taken by USAF personnel. The image has a source and author and there is no reason to doubt its accuracy. No working web link is required and if web links are required to be active for eternity, then this project won't have any images left. --Dual Freq 01:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- This particular image was broken here as well. The automatic FP delisting link (to the discussion which made it a Featured Picture) did not exist and the uploader is different from the one who was credited here for having found an image which was of Featured Picture quality. The stench has permeated this image and its history.
- I was looking for evidence that it really is an image that the military released to the public. I did not find any evidence. I found instead ip addresses that had the flavor of the military but did not have the logic of the military.
- What reason do you think that the military did not put this gorgeous image in the archives with their other really great images?
- Also, NASA has problems here and warnings that their images might not meet copyright requirements. NASA is also a government agency just like the military. Do you think that the warnings should be placed on military images also? The US military gets the bulk of the tax income from its citizens. Such money should probably at the very least, assure lasting internet addresses. Even if the base itself disappears (which is historically bureaucratically difficult) the internet address should remain to explain that the base has closed.
- The credibility of a disappearing internet address is what I challenge when I challenge the copyright status of these images. I tend to think that it wasn't a military establishment at all. -- carol 01:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please cite the policy that requires a working web link for all uploaded images. The uploader has provided a sufficient source and caption. If they had scanned the back cover of Torch the magazine and said, "scan of the back of the magazine" for source it also would have been acceptable. This is pretty clearly a USAF image and you have not provided an alternate copyright holder Who else is up next to an F-15 in a vertical climb taking pictures? Staff Sergent Jeffery Allen (the stated author of this image) is up there, apparently he has won a number of awards for the many USAF images he has taken. The Air Force even made a poster out of his image. The Torch even has an article about one of their photo journalists that takes these photos. --Dual Freq 02:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have no evidence that anyone checked to see if the image was actually public domain when it was uploaded -- that is the reason I looked around for the original. Not a policy but there was a failure in the ability to prove that it was public domain yesterday and perhaps tomorrow as well.
- That url timed out yesterday. Posters but no internet juice? Or did someone pull the plug on the military internet? Heck, the internet connection to the community college in 1982/1983 (I don't even think they called it the internet yet then) was more stable than the 2007 United States military internet? Where is that base located, btw? And is the United States military structure crumbling as much as their internet domains? -- carol 02:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep A deletion request because the original website changed? Not using it as an FP I could see maybe, but deletion? In this case, the odds of a non-military photograph of an F-15 in flight from that close are pretty darn small. I can't fathom of a good reason to delete it. Anyways, in searching, apparently this was the back cover of the March/April 2004 issue of Torch. The archived page is here, which gives the author, but the original image URL http://www.aetc.randolph.af.mil/se2/torch/back/2004/0403-04/images/Cov4EN.jpg was apparently not archived by the wayback machine (or is not available yet). It was mentioned again in the next issue in the Torch Talk section, which was apparently the immediate source of this image with the URL as given above. The image URL[71] was different (named F15EN.jpg) but again not archived. But, you can see it on this Torch posters page. The link to the hi-res poster image is given above, which is actually higher resolution than our copy (but more cropped). It has a Torch logo in the bottom right. Is there any real reason to doubt the source, author, or license? Carl Lindberg 03:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Artwork. I suspect pasted together. Should I paste together an awesome image like that? You got your classic light saber from Star Wars, exhaust trails are easy to find and medium easy to create, and rotating a parked aircraft -- they have a bot that does that kind of thing here and it can be abused.
- Now, there is a claim of a magazine. Weird it wasn't mentioned before this and also weird that the scan would be so crisp and so small compared to other magazine scans I have seen of images from the military whose internet addresses were capable of resolving yesterday. -- carol 03:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Given a pretty obvious Air Force photo, and a link to an air force site (which the Wayback Machine clearly shows existed as described), and (presumably) a user with no history of such manipulations, assuming good faith (and Occam's razor) would have seemed to be in order. The claim of a magazine was in the description of the original upload, and it was still there when it was tagged for deletion. This looks to be an online magazine, and they had the original photo for download; it is not a scan. The web archive says it was a photo of an F-15, with an author named, which also matches up with the description. You can see some reflection of the flares on the body of the plane itself. If it helps any, there is a similar photo in the gallery here showing an F-15 flying up and releasing flares (direct image URL [72]). In any event, since this same photo shows up in a poster you can still get from the Torch magazine site, that rules out any photo manipulation anyways. Carl Lindberg 06:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- The original caption from the day it was uploaded said This photo was used for the back cover of the March/April issue of the USAF's Air Education and Training Command's Torch Magazine --Dual Freq 04:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep unless you can provide proof that the uploader was dishonest about the source and it is not in fact a public domain image. Cacophony 04:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good point except, which uploader? The one in the FP nomination or the one that is listed now? -- carol 02:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The information from archive.org indicated that it's a military work. Torch is also a military magazine. These are reliable sources and we should believe their words. --Lerdsuwa 10:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, in all honesty, after searching for the new url for these images, I thought it was time for someone more familiar with the territory to search some and that has occurred. I did this with several of the noaa photolib images that had been uploaded here (those urls have changed also, but the images are still online).
- I had an interesting conversation with some insights about the problem with the disappearing military urls for these images. One was about a base name. My question: "Would you allow the name 'Seymour Johnson Air Force Base' if you sould do anything about it. The answer was no. The other question that I asked was about the game Americas Army -- not a question persay, the response was "did you know that the Army released that game?" So, if all of these deletion requests are like mashed potatoes, the conversation I had about the situation might be the missing salt and pepper towards understanding my problems with the images. And in case anyone cares:
Oppose Seymour Johnson. -- carol 02:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Verifiably public domain, and certain military work. Cary Bass demandez 21:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Empty category created yesterday (by me, not logged in) in error as Category:Lafayette Studio already exists. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Roger Davies (talk • contribs)
Speedily deleted per user request. -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 13:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright violation --carol 09:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The source location does not exist and an image search found this image only in use on a commercial web site with no licensing or source information. -- carol 09:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep It's not our problem with the USAF shuffling their websites around. --Denniss 11:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The original website the image is from is in archive.org here: http://web.archive.org/web/20040420231323/http://www.jcmd.jte.osd.mil/systems.htm (the 37kb image looks like our guy). Megapixie 12:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Source was Air Force Link Fact Sheet, no need to delete just because they rearranged their website. Not a copyvio. --Dual Freq 21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright violation --carol 10:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep It's not our problem with the USAF shuffling their websites around. --Denniss 11:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If it's any help http://www.losangeles.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-060912-028.pdf has a photograph taken about 1 second later of the same launch. Megapixie 12:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- FAS.org also has a HTML mirror of the doc it appears to be from here: http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/smc_hist/SMCHOVTC.HTM and more precisely: http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/smc_hist/SMCHOV13.HTM Megapixie 12:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Cropped version of USAF image DF-SC-88-08413, there is no need to nominate images solely because they have dead links. There is no requirement for a source to have a working link forever. --Dual Freq 22:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image and description are here at DVIC. Lupo 08:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- kept No reason to delete. No copyvio! ChristianBier 15:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright violation globalsecurity.org is not US military. --carol 12:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep The Army Field manual was published by the US Army and large portions of GlobalSecurity.org's web space is filled with copies of US Government documents. --Dual Freq 01:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Their source is the U.S. government and they claim no copyright of said image. 24.160.129.112 01:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep See above, image is derived from U.S. government sources with no copyright infringement. FWIW Bzuk 04:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC).
- kept no copyright violation. ChristianBier 15:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. Source site in question admits it doesn't own copyright to any of the photos: http://www.celevs.com/copyright.htm Megapixie 12:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- deleted clear copyvio ChristianBier 15:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong name, duplicate with correct name exists (Image:CONZEPT 16-Designer.jpg) --Antikythera 13:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Duplicate. Software seems to be copyrighted though ([73], so perhaps both need to go -- Deadstar (msg) 15:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- No need to delete the new image. vectorsoft has permitted to use this screenshot. Please delete only the old one. Thanks. --Antikythera 16:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Siebrand (talk • contribs) — Giggy 13:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong name, duplicate with correct name exists (Image:CONZEPT 16-Prozedureditor.jpg) Antikythera 13:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate. Software seems to be copyrighted though, so perhaps both need to go. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- No need to delete the new image. vectorsoft has permitted to use this screenshot. Please delete only the old one. Thanks. --Antikythera 16:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Siebrand (talk • contribs) — Giggy 13:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate of Image:Mars_Viking_22e169.png --3 January 2008 User:Van der Hoorn fixed request -- Deadstar (msg) 14:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Images not the same. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete True, images are not _exactly_ the same, although Image:Mars_Viking_22e169.png is an improved version. Specifically look at the removed black lines at the bottom and the improved visibility of all components of the lander as the improved version is not over-lighted. Furthermore the improved Image:Mars_Viking_22e169.png is two pixels wider. A more appropriate template is probably
|
This file has been superseded by Mars Viking 22e169.png. It is recommended to use the other file. Please note that deleting superseded images requires consent. Reason to use the other file: "Better quality image. Specifically look at the removed black lines at the bottom and the improved visibility of all components of the lander as the improved version is not over-lighted. Furthermore the improved Image:Mars_Viking_22e169.png is two pixels wider and in the .png format."
|
|
- kept not exact duplicates. No reason to delete. ChristianBier 15:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio: stamps of the Czech Republic are copyrighted --23:55, 4 January 2008 User:Snek01 fixed request -- Deadstar (msg) 15:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- deleted clear copyvio, czech stamps are not pd. ChristianBier 15:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No permission to use the photos in this work. GeorgHH • talk 21:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work of copyrighted material. Durova 02:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 13:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
looks like a test Popolon 22:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was a test Gordo 11:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- deleted just a test ChristianBier 15:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
looks like a test Popolon 22:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was a test Gordo 11:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- deleted just a test ChristianBier 15:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong name -- how do I delete my own images-1@!# - Dcsutherland 11:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- {{badname|Correctly named upload here.jpg}} It is a lot easier than getting deletions this way. -- carol 12:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:BMW Isetta 300 shot in Bad Tölz, Germany circa 1987.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
did the person agree? Polarlys 13:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The image is/was of a young woman, topless, face clearly visible and recognizable. The desrciption of the image was: "Topless women on a beach in Kiev, Ukraine
Русский: Женщина в купальнике с открытым верхом на одном из киевских пляжей". The file was uploaded on 2007-10-15 by User:KNatu claiming "own work" ("собственная работа") from 2006. No EXIF data. I have deleted the image because it is potentially very harmful for the subject, but I'm not closing the debate. To allow any possible debate to go on, I have copied the information here. Samulili 19:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- In my opinion this image is an invasion of privacy and nothing indicates consent from the subject Delete. Samulili 19:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --:Bdk: 22:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The same image exists: Image:Fischbröt in natürlicher umgebung1.JPG Karelj 21:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Images are not exactly the same. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
. Comment no, it doesn't. it's the same object, not the same image. -- Southgeist 21:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright - downloading the photo, I see its a Corbis photo. Image by © Patrick Robert/Sygma/CORBIS 80.91.33.33 14:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Source plox? Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Corbis manages the rights, and it's indeed © Patrick Robert/Sygma/CORBIS. Lupo 19:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I transfered this picture from en:wikipedia where it said PD, but if it proves to be wrong, then delete it. inisheer 16:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili 06:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is not GFDL. -- Le Behnam 22:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC) fixed request -- Deadstar (msg) 16:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you think so? Can someone check the source info on en: wiki? -- Deadstar (msg) 16:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The description said: "King Amanullah Khan of Afghanistan from 1919 - 1929". At first, the license was PD-old, then PD and then any license tag was removed. No source information given at any point. In other words, there is no proof that the image is GFDL nor PD. Delete Samulili 19:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The description said: "King Amanullah Khan of Afghanistan from 1919 - 1929". At first, the license was PD-old, then PD and then any license tag was removed. No source information given at any point. In other words, there is no proof that the image is GFDL nor PD.
- Deleted. Samulili 06:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The same image exists: Image:Fischbröt in natürlicher umgebung2.JPG Karelj 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The nominated image has been enhanced. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment What the heck is a "Fischbröt"? It's called "Fischbrötchen"! Lupo 08:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept The images are different. --GeorgHH • talk 21:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
author --13 December 2007 User:Ygrek
- Keep (fixed request) From what I understand from the text author is that user is author of this image, and no longer wants it on here. This is not a reason for deletion. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep also for Image:Green red white.jpg which was nominated with the same reason. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- kept no reason for deletion. ChristianBier 15:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There has no reference to prove the "sizable Japanese speaking community". And I believe the map is fabricated and contains wrong information. China and Korea don't use Japanese language as a principal foreign languages at all unlike English. And South Korean and China are not categorized as sizable English speaking community at ll. --Applebee 14:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is unfair. All this category Linguistic maps of the world will be deleted if this is erase. Some languages as bengali, aymara, etc., have a world map, and don't neccesary explain with stats the number of speakers.--Taichi 23:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Of course, you object to this nomination because you're the creator of the map. My nomination is fair and your map tells a lie. And you can make a map based on verifiable resources. If the other maps you mentioned are telling a lie, they should be deleted as well. Your map misguides the information. US, China, Korea and other countries are sizable Japanese speaking world? Not that I know of. --Applebee 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Entonces, que alguien haga uno con distintos colores para rangos de porcentajes de hablantes en cada país.190.21.235.193 04:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. If you think the data is fabricated, then show us why it is fabricated (you can believe it all you like, but believing don't make it so). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
outside project scope Polarlys 13:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Looks kind of cool actually. -Nard 03:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Why? The photo can illustrate e.g. obesity, shell collection, hobbies or playing shell...Elektron 09:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Or it was uploaded to discriminate against someone. --Polarlys 10:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't suppose so... The face of the man is almost hide and the man is rather difficult to recognize if you don't know him personally. The problem is quite similar to the discussion about this photo and I can only repeat the words that User:Buster Baxter wrote there: "he wouldn't go topless (..) if he was ashamed of that! (...) he's is obviously aware of the picture being taken". Regards :) Elektron 11:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- There’s a difference between posing for a friend or a family member and an upload to flickr or Wikipedia and a prominent article with your face as an illustration. --Polarlys 14:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Some more words about "your face"... I can see only a half of the man's face. I can say that it would be a big problem to me to recognise this man in a crowd (of corse if there would be more large bold men with glasses, not only one).
- The author of the photo comes from Sicilia, Italy - see here. The photo comes from Mexico. I suppose that he was taken on the author's trip to this country. The large man from the photo is maybe a man the author met on his trip and they stayed friends. On my opinion the man is awere what he is doing and he is proud of this. If the author published it on Flickr she is aware what she is dooing, too. She knows it better than I or you because it was she who met this proud man. I played some times with taking photos and I like this photo very much. It is very good taken and shows dignity of this man. I can't see any attempt to mock at this man. I suppose that your real problem is that this man is a bit fat. But people are different: some are thin, some are large, some are little, some are fat. I don't suppose that youre have any objection to this photo if the man wasn't so big... Don't you exaggerate with a political correctness? If we show only photos with average people we will falsify the real world. Regards :) Elektron 07:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- There’s a difference between posing for a friend or a family member and an upload to flickr or Wikipedia and a prominent article with your face as an illustration. --Polarlys 14:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's not about „political correctness“, it's about elementary personality rights. Did the person agree to publish this photo? --Polarlys 09:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK. If you so strict: Can you show me the paraghaph of the law that require a such agreement? Regards Elektron 10:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've added the "Personality rights warning" template to meet our standards... Elektron 11:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's not about „political correctness“, it's about elementary personality rights. Did the person agree to publish this photo? --Polarlys 09:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- That differs from country to country. Our template is no carte blanche for uploading photos of identifiable, non-notable persons without their consent. --Polarlys 17:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I concern Mexico haven't got a special law about photos and personality rights. If it got any show me it, please. Regards :) Elektron 06:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- That differs from country to country. Our template is no carte blanche for uploading photos of identifiable, non-notable persons without their consent. --Polarlys 17:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am sure, your profound verdict is the result of the lecture of the relevant article on en.wikipedia.org. --Polarlys 11:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you know something that I don't be more specific, please (give me a link, etc). I'm going to read, of course. A man should learn all the time. Regards :) Elektron 06:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am sure, your profound verdict is the result of the lecture of the relevant article on en.wikipedia.org. --Polarlys 11:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept per Elektron. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The same image in .JPG format exist: Image:Dagwood.JPG, no links to this image Karelj 21:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not the same format. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contemporary architecture, no FOP in Italy --User:G.dallorto 02:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The 2006 Olympics website USES THIS PHOTO, which means they have accepted the GFDL license for it. This means the copyright holder has released the building under the GFDL because the license obligates them to pass the same license to re-users down the line. -Nard 03:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Haha that's awesome, a whole GFDL building! Technicalities ftw!! Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 04:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per request. I can't follow N's logic at all. What is this "2006 Olympic website" and why would using this image lead to what N says? Samulili 08:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- See http://www.torino2006.org/ITA/OlympicGames/news/news_ita160136.html linked to from the image description page. This is the rink for the 2006 Torino skating competition. Their website uses the image. At first they credited it to "Getty Images" which you can see if you click on the French version of the page because that version was not updated. After the it.wiki user, Fotogian complained, they properly credited him. This means they are aware of who produced the image and the licensing for it. Accepting the GFDL license requires them to accept the sharealike condition for the image. In fact, they are legally bound to do so. Which means the image is legal to host on Commons. Simple. (See also http://www.torino2006.org/ENG/OlympicGames/home/credits.html at the bottom.) -Nard 08:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- "This means they are aware of who produced the image and the licensing for it." What is the licensing for it? It is not impossible for a user to give less restrictive/different licenses upon request. Did Fotogian require GFDL from Torino 2006? And even if he did, that would only mean that the work of Fotogian is licensed under GFDL, while the work of the architect may not be. (Meaning, in essence, that you could freely use the image as "fair use" for depicting the building.) Samulili 09:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- To interpret this way guts the sharealike requirement. Why are they not bound by the GFDL license and the sharealike requirement? -Nard 00:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I still can't follow. So the SA requirement would apply to the contents of the website. So what? Giovanni's argument is that the picture is a derivative work. How does your own argument relate to that? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- The copyright holder accepts the image and sharealike license, which includes the obligation to make the file available to re-users under the same license. Ergo, it cannot be a derivative work if the copyright holder is obligated to offer the image under the GFDL.
- The penny just dropped. I understand now what you mean, but you presume too much from the use of one picture. As Samulili points it out, we don't know if the picture us used under the GFDL on this website, do we? They certainly don't follow the GFDL's terms; it seems they just added "Oval © Fotogian". Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Someone should probably ask Fotogian if they downloaded the original image from the Italian Wiki, which I believe seems most likely. If they did, then they accepted the license upon download. In fact, I will ask him. -Nard 19:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The penny just dropped. I understand now what you mean, but you presume too much from the use of one picture. As Samulili points it out, we don't know if the picture us used under the GFDL on this website, do we? They certainly don't follow the GFDL's terms; it seems they just added "Oval © Fotogian". Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The copyright holder accepts the image and sharealike license, which includes the obligation to make the file available to re-users under the same license. Ergo, it cannot be a derivative work if the copyright holder is obligated to offer the image under the GFDL.
- I still can't follow. So the SA requirement would apply to the contents of the website. So what? Giovanni's argument is that the picture is a derivative work. How does your own argument relate to that? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- To interpret this way guts the sharealike requirement. Why are they not bound by the GFDL license and the sharealike requirement? -Nard 00:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- "This means they are aware of who produced the image and the licensing for it." What is the licensing for it? It is not impossible for a user to give less restrictive/different licenses upon request. Did Fotogian require GFDL from Torino 2006? And even if he did, that would only mean that the work of Fotogian is licensed under GFDL, while the work of the architect may not be. (Meaning, in essence, that you could freely use the image as "fair use" for depicting the building.) Samulili 09:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- See http://www.torino2006.org/ITA/OlympicGames/news/news_ita160136.html linked to from the image description page. This is the rink for the 2006 Torino skating competition. Their website uses the image. At first they credited it to "Getty Images" which you can see if you click on the French version of the page because that version was not updated. After the it.wiki user, Fotogian complained, they properly credited him. This means they are aware of who produced the image and the licensing for it. Accepting the GFDL license requires them to accept the sharealike condition for the image. In fact, they are legally bound to do so. Which means the image is legal to host on Commons. Simple. (See also http://www.torino2006.org/ENG/OlympicGames/home/credits.html at the bottom.) -Nard 08:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom (derivative, no FOP in Italy). As Samulili, I still can't follow N's logic. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I am the author of this photo. Getty sold it to Olympic website. I ask them to recognize I a the author and they did it. I said them they could use my photo without any problem regarding any kind of right, but they had to write I was the author. They did it. So there is no problem for me caused by the fact they used my photo.
Some days later Getty recognized the photo was mine
Fotogian—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotogian (talk • contribs) 22:00, 10 gen 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The photo may be under GFDL, but is a derivative work, the subject is copyrighted and thereisn't freedom of panorama in Italy.--Trixt 00:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
My own work. Can be deleted. Newer images available. Panos84 05:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can you give a link to the newer images, please. Samulili 08:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ernst Barlach died in 1938, so his works only enter the public domain in 2009. German FOP does not apply here as the photo was taken inside a building Phrood 19:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
delete as Phrood said. Julius1990 21:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Also Delete Image:Barlach Engel.jpg for the same reason. Lupo 17:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 16:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
PD-US not applicable since this photo was probably not published in the US 82.228.89.180 19:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The reason given above is nothing but speculation. Why not replace PD-US with something appropriate; wherever it was published it's more than likely it's out of copyright, it's 99 years old. Does anyone have any facts?81.154.247.194 23:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and Re-tag. Agreed w/ 81.154.247.194. It's certainly in the public domain, given that it was taken in Bonn in 1909. And it's a great photo that adds a lot to the article. 160.39.194.193 20:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete There is a fair chance that the photographer has not yet been dead for 70 years --88.65.115.113 18:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No proper source specified. Cannot assume this is old enough, or was published long enough ago, to be PD without source information. MichaelMaggs 16:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author=UnixLenau but PD-Self? This cant be true. __ ABF __ ϑ 12:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- This image was uploaded by User:UnixLenau. {
{vk}} Samulili 13:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep if uploader (User:UnixLenau) can prove that he is identical to "Günter S. Kargl" (see image metadata). --UV 23:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm having second doubts, now. Gunter S. Kargl seems to be a professional photographer, http://www.pressephoto.at/ and seems like a person who would rather use their name instead of "UnixLenau" as a username. Furthermore, the date given by UnixLenau does not match that of the EXIF data. Samulili 07:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Now I see the problem: I checked with the webmaster of the I.S.T. Austria website. Picture was made by Kargl but is free to be used in context of I.S.T. Austria. I suggested to state so in the file information. Apart from that, I obviously did not use the correct copyright tag. Which one do you suggest? User:UnixLenau
- If the image is just free to be used in context of I.S.T. Austria, but not in other contexts, then it is not "sufficiently free" for wikipedia or commons and needs to be deleted. I would suggest that you try to get Günter S. Kargl to agree to the text on de:Wikipedia:Textvorlagen#Freigaben von Texten und Bildern. As to the license that needs to be specified in this text, choose an accepted license from Commons:Licensing and Commons:Copyright tags. --UV 19:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. False attribution, unfree imageBadseed talk 10:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I seriously doubt that VGB released the image under GFDL. The VGB copyright mark is even shown in the image! The uploader claims that the image was "published with the friendly permission by VGB Power Tech, Germany". I'd like to see that "friendly permission". Does it say anything about a license? --Tetris L 09:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could this be {{PD-ineligible}}. I don't suppose VGB want's to make their grphs very "creative" ;) Samulili 06:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Clear copyvio. Geraki TLG 09:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted this is not ineligible for copyright; no permission==gone.– Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicate of fi:Image:Vaakunaprojektin tilanne Suomen kartalla.png, local copy in fi-wiki on the same file name. This file is intended only to be used to reflect the status of Finnish Coat of Arms SVG-Wikiproject and is not meant to be used in any articles. Furthermore, picture has been released to Public Domain by its owner, and just filling a color does not provide intellectual rights for it. --Care 11:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep At worst it sounds like a misunderstanding, not a reason for deletion. I expect releasing the original under PD usually means you can do what you like with it (no doubt varies with country), but is it a viral license? Are derivatives automatically PD also, or can one not release derivatives with whatever license one wants? An acknowledgement of the source image would of course be appropriate. --Tony Wills 11:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- If the name conflict is the problem then add {{rename}} to this one? --Tony Wills 12:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I still find it very unlikely that somebody would like to use picture about status of one particular Finnish Wikiproject at certain date. Furthermore, the user, who has created the file, has a long history of misplaced files in Commons. Name conflict as such really does not matter as local name space is checked first and Commons only after that, but most probably there is now chance for confusion (e.g. CheckUsage cannot recognize, which one is really targeted). And yes, derivates do not give you copyright over image unless you have added some intellectual work on it. Obviously clicking twice with fill-tool does not fulfill that requirement. --Care 22:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Its no big deal to keep it. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image does not appear to have been released under the GNU FDL. http://www.neosurrealismart.com says "You may not actively redistribute or sublicense any of our graphics or digital media under any circumstances." and "The images and limited edition surrealism prints displayed here cannot be used for any commercial purpose, without written consent of the original author." --McGeddon 13:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at the uploader's contributions, they've added about a dozen of Grie's works to the commons, with the same rationale. --McGeddon 13:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I have been contacted by one of the wikipedia editors Alicia Woo who asked me to give her a permission to use my artworks (Ticket#2007122610003431). I agreed to publish all artworks under the free license GNU Free Documentation License. I have submitted all my image to wikimedia Commons as artsgr1e user personally.
Below is my permission:
I hereby assert that I am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of all artworks published on http://www.neosurrealismart.com I agree to publish all artwork images that do not exceed 640 x 480 pixels, 72 ppi resolution under the free license GNU Free Documentation License I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the images may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. December 25, 2007 George Grie
- Question: can anyone check that OTRS ticket and see if it is verification for this User? If so, keep, otherwise we need OTRS still. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. OTRS sez: "all artwork images that do no exceed 640x480 pixels, 72ppi resolution" - I tagged all the images already. ShakataGaNai Talk 07:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Foto seems to be of Koo Kyung Chung, but it's not clear if the uploader is this person or has obtained permission. --Gryffindor 14:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. If uploader was owner, would have complained by now. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 06:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No credible reason for this to be CC licensed. Image is scanned out of a 1974 magazine. I suspect this is really a PD-POLAND claim, but no evidence is presented that this image was first published in Poland. Looks like a SNCF publicity shot that would have been copyrighted in France. Morven 04:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Template:PD-PRL is suitable. Changed and fixed. I have no idea where authors of pl:Młody Technik found this image, no notes about this. --Hiuppo 09:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately PD-PRL requires first publication in Poland or simultaneous publication. I don't see any reason to believe this image was first published in Poland. Morven 13:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- It seems very unlikely to me that this image was first published in Poland. Why should it have been published in the Warsaw block? --ALE! ¿…? 13:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you're sure about place and source of first publication, please delete. But since only source is Młody Technik I can't see any reason. --91.94.129.250 06:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- There seems to be no doubt that the image has been published by Młody Technik in 1974. On the other hand, statements like
- Looks like a SNCF publicity shot
- It seems very unlikely to me that this image was first published in Poland.
- Why should it have been published in the Warsaw block?
- are completely speculative. In fact, it looks like any black and white shot of this epoch. There is no well-founded reason to suppose that it was stolen from another publication or publicity. Further, it's not plausible that a Polish magazine, during the Gierek era, should not have been able to produce such a picture. Warsow block may have been a prison, but not as dark as that (especially Poland).--85.0.123.118 13:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- There seems to be no doubt that the image has been published by Młody Technik in 1974. On the other hand, statements like
- If you're sure about place and source of first publication, please delete. But since only source is Młody Technik I can't see any reason. --91.94.129.250 06:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- It seems very unlikely to me that this image was first published in Poland. Why should it have been published in the Warsaw block? --ALE! ¿…? 13:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately PD-PRL requires first publication in Poland or simultaneous publication. I don't see any reason to believe this image was first published in Poland. Morven 13:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Still no proof either way. Delete it to be on the safe side. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Most likely to be an SNCF publicity shot. MichaelMaggs 16:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The user does not hold the copyright and should explain why this is free use. Ingolfson 12:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
User does not have the right to put a Coat of Arms of a nation into PD. User has removed the deletion tag before. This is, at best, Fair Use - and therefore needs to go from Commons. Ingolfson 08:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 16:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong jpg --11:21, 2 January 2008 User:Kilom691 Fixed request -- Deadstar (msg) 15:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Images seem corrupt. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I fixed them. (Though I haven't got a clue what they are.) Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 22:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Image:Maqueta tenochtitlan numerada.jpg seems to be the same image, but smaller size & with description. The abovementioned fixed (thanks!) ones seem to be duplicates of eachother. I have added the legend into both of them, but would vote for Image:Maqueta tenochtitlan num.jpg to be deleted as a duplicate (because the other one has a fuller name). -- Deadstar (msg) 08:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept except the duplicate. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
January 8
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A drawing of a penis going up someone's nose?? I think this out of our scope. Rocket000 04:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, apparent prank image-- Infrogmation 05:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Original source at Flickr says "All Rights Reserved": http://www.flickr.com/photos/strawberry_drop/301302045/ Ytoyoda 07:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted - Image was originally deleted from the English Wikipedia as a copyright violation. Image not available under a Creative Commons licence from Flickr. Nick 10:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(better picture available --Conny 13:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment I put the {{duplicate}} template on this image. One of the two templates might cause the deletion of the inferior image. -- carol 15:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Anas platyrhynchos oustaleti last male.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It seems to me a copyvio derivative work Jaqen 21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted (please use {{copyvio}} in future) — Giggy 23:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hosted by a U.S. Government website, but nothing indicates that is a work by the federal government. Kjetil r 06:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Sure it is. -Nard 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then please provide a link to a website that says so. As an experienced Commons user, you should know that government websites often use copyrighted content. --Kjetil r 07:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The US Embassy in Cameroon routinely photographs embassy events for publicity purposes. They aren't good bookkeepers, and they don't record the photographer's name, but the photos are by embassy employees going about their daily duties. I have met the previous ambassador (R. Niels Marquardt) and attended embassy events while I served in Cameroon as a Peace Corps Volunteer, and I know this is to be a fact. The original of the image up for deletion features the American ambassador as well and is an obvious PR piece by the US government. I don't see what we have to gain by deleting this image. Amcaja 23:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just so everyone has the full picture: The image comes from this story on the Cameroon embassy's website: http://yaounde.usembassy.gov/text_lobeke_park_visit.html and is here in thumbnail form: http://yaounde.usembassy.gov/ambassador_visits_lobeke_park.html . Amcaja 23:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- COM:LICENSING#Works_by_the_US_Government is clear: “Images on government or government agency websites are not necessarily public domain“ and “This also does not include works commissioned by the US Government, but produced by contractors”. I am going to delete this photo unless we got a source saying that it is a work by a federal employee. I suggest that you write to the embassy and ask. --Kjetil r 09:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- So you will ignore consensus and just delete as a lone wolf? Is that how Wiki is supposed to work? I can write them, but they have no email address listed, and mail to and from Cameroon takes several weeks. In the meantime, I fail to see who is harmed by showing the world what a Baka dance looks like. Amcaja 00:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Policy is more important than consensus. For example, If consensus was that we should keep some images by Andy Warhol (obviously against policy), I would still delete them.
- The site is managed by the Department of State, perhaps you could email them directly? --Kjetil r 08:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, consensus must always trump policy. That's why we have forums such as this one. Blind adherence to policy helps no one and hurts the Foundation's mission to spread knowledge.
- That said, I've contacted the Peace Corps director in Cameroon to see if you can get me a contact email for someone at the embassy. He's forwarded along my request, so hopefully we'll have some more information soon. Incidentally, he supports my contention that the images are PD, but I can understand wanting to hear from the embassy directly. Amcaja 02:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- So you will ignore consensus and just delete as a lone wolf? Is that how Wiki is supposed to work? I can write them, but they have no email address listed, and mail to and from Cameroon takes several weeks. In the meantime, I fail to see who is harmed by showing the world what a Baka dance looks like. Amcaja 00:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I now have email confirmation from the embassy that the photo (and all photos from their site) are in the public domain. How should I handle this? Should I copy and paste the email into the image description page? Amcaja 12:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent. Forward the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org; I or some other OTRS volunteer will then fix the rest. Thank you for your effort. --Kjetil r 15:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept and tagged with {{PermissionOTRS}}. --Kjetil r 10:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not found this image from source, and source not GFDL or CC--Shizhao 02:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: I found it here [74]. Copyright seems to be violated. There is no clue that User:Salutandre is the same as Patrick-André Perron. Jan Arkesteijn 08:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 13:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyviolative logo, scope, not self made - Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete if the uploader cannot prove copyright ownership.--Jusjih 00:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 13:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
German Wikipedia deleted it as a copyvio of what is shown on the bottle. Jusjih 03:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- In der DE-WP wurde es gelöscht, da es auf NowCommons stand. Hier ist es jedoch CopyVio, weil CorporateLogo enthalten ist. Daher Löschen. ---jha- 19:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Depicts basically only bottle label (copyrighted artwork). Patrícia msg 17:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader wants this deleted unexplained after blanking self licensing. Jusjih 03:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see it fitting COM:PS anyway... Delete then. Patrícia msg 17:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. howcheng {chat} 17:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Insufficient source information. This was uploaded by a user who was banned for repeated uploads of copyrighted images passed off as GFDL (in fact, this is the only upload by the user that still remains on Commons). The photograph is pretty, but there's nothing to suggest that the user actually took this photograph other than the claim "taken by me". I have uploaded several CC-BY and CC-BY-SA images of fish heads that would substitute its use on Wiki projects, so the loss of this picture shouldn't be too damaging. --Ytoyoda 05:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Per Image_talk:Fishheads.jpg, the image was imported from the english Wikipedia [75], but the uploader falsely attributed himself the authorship. Unfortunately, the local uploader seems to have quite a history of image problems. So hm. I am thinking we can't trust either I'm afraid. Inclined to Delete. Patrícia msg 18:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. howcheng {chat} 18:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright breach - this image has been copied inapropriately and must be deleted. Its is obsolete, and replaced by Image:738fAustralianMagpieLark.jpg --Zarni02 05:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, I don't quite follow. You're the original uploader on en.wikipedia...? who did a copyright breach? Your "replacement" image is exactly the same, but uploaded later. Patrícia msg 18:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No copyright breach has occurred -- you released the image into the public domain which means anyone can do anything they want with it. Besides, photo credit has been given to you, so I don't see what the problem is. In fact, I'm deleting the replacement image Image:738fAustralianMagpieLark.jpg because it's a duplicate and Image:AustralianMagpieLarkFemaleSmall (Johnson).jpg is being used in a number of different wikis. howcheng {chat} 18:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source, but {{no source since}} was removed by User:Majorly. Kjetil r 06:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed unsourced, and couldn't find it via Google either. Alternative images available from GISS are here and here, or some Wikipedian in New York City could go take our own photo of Armstrong Hall. Lupo 07:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Patrícia msg 18:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicated with Image:KinetographKayser2bis.jpg。--Mywood 11:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete You can use {{duplicate|name of other file}} for these cases. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 13:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This glass is not from the Battleship Bismarck as suggested by the text. It is a promotional glass for a well known brand of German Schnapps called Fuerst (Prince) Bismarck - this is a false or mis-informed submission 198.178.192.1 13:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not a reason for deletion. Add the above info to the text on the image. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. I updated the description text. — Giggy 13:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bad quality: photographic defect --18:40, 24 December 2007 User:Kaganer Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Useful content can be cropped. --Dezidor 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
useless; bad quality; unatributed --01:58, 22 December 2007 User:KaganerFixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete What is it? Out of scope I'd say, unless it's considered "digital art" or similar? -- Deadstar (msg) 15:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Nice picture, I will possibly use it out of Wikipedia. --Dezidor 15:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. - Specific proof that it's out of scope would be needed. — Giggy 13:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bad quality: photographic defect --18:40, 24 December 2007 User:Kaganer Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or crop off the bottom bit. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Useful content could be cropped. --Dezidor 15:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Neither author nor source named; is the person in the picture aware that it is used on commons? 130.83.72.240 17:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Next time, please use {{no source since}}. howcheng {chat} 18:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
poor quality, no links to that image, better svg-image exists --MrSlawa 18:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. howcheng {chat} 18:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong image, sorry. first time I tried to upload an image. --Clayman 19:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Maxim: Deleted because "In category Unknown as of 8 January 2008; no license/permission/source". using TW
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong name --Frédéric 20:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as typo in name. Redirect will not be helpful. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 13:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am the author of this picture which used wrong name, please delete it. thanks.--Mywood 20:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Next time, please use {{badname}}. howcheng {chat} 18:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
done for graphics lab and used to replace Image:WAGGGS-WOSMWestHemMap-World.png [[User:Sagredo|<b><font color ="#009933">Sagredo</font></b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sagredo|<font color ="#8FD35D">⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄</font>]]</sup> 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 13:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
made for graphics lab moved to Image:Ogasawara islands.png [[User:Sagredo|<b><font color ="#009933">Sagredo</font></b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sagredo|<font color ="#8FD35D">⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄</font>]]</sup> 21:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 13:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
linked page says "Photo courtesy of the University of Utah Andrology Microscopy Lab", so the photo was probably not made by a government employee Phrood 22:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It seems that the photo comes from here, where there is "©2007 THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH". --Jaqen 00:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't actually remember now from which of the sister projects, probably BG WP, I've found the image and uploaded it here due to its alleged NASA license. Sorry for the inconvenience, Delete it. --Spiritia 08:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 13:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's a logo, it can't be self-licensing OsamaK 18:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, the deletion request makes no sense. What is next, deleting this “logo”? --Kjetil r 19:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep unless nominator gives a more specific or documented reason... AnonMoos 01:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Christian cross.svg is {{PD-ineligible}} (No one will delete it :)). This image is a logo of Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria (that means it's copyrighted, unless promise), It can't be {{PD-ineligible}} for example..--OsamaK 16:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image is over a thousand years old. -Nard 02:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then it should be {{PD-old}}, "it can't be self-licensing"--OsamaK 16:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a modern rendition of an ancient symbol, the same way this is a modern rendition of a 200+ year old "logo" of an organization. The fact that it looks a little complicated doesn't mean that someone couldn't've made it themselves and released their copyright on it. I suspect it is PD-ineligible and that the author just wanted to make sure it wasn't deleted by applying a "stronger" PD template (PD-self). If a Copt could verify the ancientness of this symbol, we could easily close this without any further trouble. 68.39.174.238 21:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, changed to {{PD-old}}, Admins can close this requests.--OsamaK 15:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, if it's a modern artistic rendition of an ancient symbol, then it's not PD-Old... AnonMoos 15:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then deleted? Currently license isn't available --OsamaK 16:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Dude maybe it's time to examine whether your contributions are really helping Wikimedia Commons. If someone creates a graphic, and holds legitimate copyright over that graphic, then there's nothing necessarily preventing him from donating it as a logo to an organization, and also donating it to Commons as a free graphic. I don't know how to explain it any clearer than that. Unless and until you demonstrate that there's a prima facie problem, it doesn't look like you'll get much support for deleting this image... AnonMoos 23:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then deleted? Currently license isn't available --OsamaK 16:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, if it's a modern artistic rendition of an ancient symbol, then it's not PD-Old... AnonMoos 15:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I think Mr. Osama's intentions are obvious, in view of the information on his Wikipage (Muslim from Saudi Arabia who posts graphics calling for the hatred of Israel). I suggest you start focusing on contributing positively to Wikipedia/Wikimedia, Mr Osama, instead of going around harassing other religions and cultures. The Coptic Cross in question is a modern representation of an old symbol and there is no reason no add an old template to it. --Lanternix 23:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Personal attack, Stop it! I don't do that, read my reason and read this page.--OsamaK 08:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Funny image, but not encyclopedical. GeorgHH • talk 11:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- What does encyclopedical mean to you? --Lamilli 14:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can't imagine which wikipedia page this image can illustrate. Please don't say it is appropriate for en:Heat. --GeorgHH • talk 14:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- You might think about en:Vulva or en:Nudity or en:History of erotic photography or en:Peter Klashorst. Whatever. Heat is maybe not the best option.--Lamilli 15:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Work by artist Peter Klashorst. No reason to delete it. And illustrates shaved genitalia of a black woman. Etc. And maybe exhibitionism. I'm sick of those kind of deletion requests. --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.199 08:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This is nice pic but it has no informational value. Tuohirulla 21:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep (weighing in rather than closing without consensus) - agree with TwoWings, and Lamilli that it can be useful in several ways. — Giggy 13:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete really unencyclopedic... __ ABF __ ϑ 13:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Ireas talk•de•en 13:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete. Potentally useful in lots of areas, like the Photography Wikibook. Rama 01:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Let me explain: Its not used and I belive it will not be used. The name is not good and i belive it only should be funny and not encyclopedic. We have enough such photos and we do not need one with a ventilator. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence that image is in public domain Ytoyoda 07:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. according to [76] --:Bdk: 22:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Error in svg file: contains link to local URL Erik Baas 15:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted Julo 23:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Self-drawn picture of questionable artistic and informative value. Wikimedia is not picture gallery. — Mikkalai 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Withdrawn after discussion in w:talk:Non-penetrative sex. Mikkalai 16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
gross 67.142.130.24 00:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If you consider it gross, please don't look at it. This project is not censored. Line drawings don't have permissions issues and this image has some public health relevance as an illustration of a safe sex practice. Durova 02:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Invalid reason. Rocket000 04:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work, no evidence that GFDL is valid Ytoyoda 07:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 07:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images GoFrBroke claimed to author
[edit](in reverse chronological order of upload per the upload log for GoFrBroke at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=GoFrBroke&page=)
- File:Pamela Day 01.jpg
- File:Amy Fisher 02.jpg
- File:Amy Fisher 04.jpg
- File:Linda Carter 01.jpg
- File:Loni Anderson 01.jpg
- File:Suzanne Somers 01.jpg
- File:MiMa.jpg
- File:Deborah Gibson 01.jpg
- File:Abi Titmuss 01.jpg
- File:Brigitte Nielsen 01.jpg
- File:Charlene Tilton 01.jpg
- File:Jami Gertz 01.jpg
- File:Molly Henneberg 01.jpg
- File:Juliet Huddy 01.jpg
- File:Campbell Brown 01.jpg
- File:Paula Zahn 01.jpg
- File:Kimberly Guilfoyle 02.jpg
- File:Kimberly Guilfoyle 01.jpg
- File:Kathleen Robertson 01.jpg
- File:Judy Landers 01.jpg
- File:Melody Thomas Scott 01.jpg
- File:Jennie Garth 01.jpg
- File:Indra Nooyi 01.jpg
- File:Omarosa 01.jpg
- File:Ashleigh Banfield 01.jpg
- File:Ellen Barkin 01.jpg
- File:Megyn Kelly 01.jpg
- File:Laura Ingraham 01.jpg
- File:Janice Dean 02.jpg
- File:Marina Sirtis 02.jpg
- File:Felicia Taylor 01.jpg
Images GoFrBroke claimed to author that have already been deleted
[edit]- File:Shania Twain 02.jpg
- File:Patricia Heaton 01.jpg
- File:Tricia Helfer 01.jpg
- File:Tori Spelling 99.jpg
Image GoFrBroke uploaded but did not claim to author, and so is not covered by this request
[edit]Request concerning images GoFrBroke claimed to author
[edit]I believe that the images GoFrBroke claimed to author are copyvios due to their professionalism and low resolution, plus that user's failure to claim professional status. GoFrBroke was notified about most of these (all but the four most recent uploads) in User talk:GoFrBroke#Authorship_claims, which lists them in gallery form. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I've only spot-checked, but the Amy Fisher, Loni Anderson, and Felicia Taylor photos are ©wireimage.com (Amy Fisher: IDs 51169769 and 51169768 photographer J. Kohen, Loni Anderson: ID 13613920, photo: DeGuire, Felicia Taylor: ID 14989054, photo: Kambouris). That's good enough (or rather, bad enough) for me. Delete 'em all. Lupo 10:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Lupo. I didn't check them all, but the uploader seems to apply any old license tag and puts things like "yes" and "fair use" for the permission. If I had to guess, all these images are copyvios and definitly not self-made. Can't assume good faith anymore based on what the user has shown, so I wouldn't even waste time trying to verify these. Rocket000 11:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 07:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Structure is copyrighted. As far as I know the concept of Freedom of Panorama doesn't exist in Italy. Gugganij 12:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
What are the concept of Freedom of Panorama? Nico86roma 15:00, 10 marzo 2008 (Roma)
- See Commons:Freedom of panorama. Unfortunately I was told that Italian law doesn't seem to acknowledge this concept. Gugganij 00:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 21:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wikipedia screenshot of an article about a young actor, a worrying trend if we have to keep these on here. For the article, just visit wiki. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. User:Diegogrez was banned from en: wiki... I presume article was deleted as "non-notable". There are a few uploads by this user here too (presumably of himself?). Would User:Bodoque57 (who uploaded the screenshot & created Diego Grez gallery page) be related? I can't find any info on "Diego Grez" online to verify -- Deadstar (msg) 17:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I came to this page looking for evidence of sockpuppet abuse (sockpuppet on the English-language Wikipedia). User:Diegogrez is likely the same person as User:Bodoque57, here and on other wikis. Jespinos 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- What a shame!. Please delete this file. I'm chilean and there's no singer called "Diego Grez". I hope you delete the other picture as well. Jorgebarrios 20:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I came to this page looking for evidence of sockpuppet abuse (sockpuppet on the English-language Wikipedia). User:Diegogrez is likely the same person as User:Bodoque57, here and on other wikis. Jespinos 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Outside the Commons:Scope. -Nard 21:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is a joke! Jorge Barrios 02:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not in scope, not useful. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source, but {{no source since}} was removed. Kjetil r 06:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: Deleted because "Was in Category:Unknown as of 17 May 2008 - still missing some essential information". using TW
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source, but {{no source since}} was removed. Kjetil r 06:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: Deleted because "Was in Category:Unknown as of 17 May 2008 - still missing some essential information". using TW
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source, no reason why is this WW2 picture public domain JM iodr 15:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Low resolution, no source, border age. --Dezidor 11:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: Deleted because "Was in Category:Unknown as of 17 May 2008 - still missing some essential information". using TW
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicated with Image:Kinetophone1.jpg。--Mywood 11:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Use {{Duplicate}} --Dezidor 15:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- The link to the english image is given on the page of this image. I don't know how to make, but, in the category Kinetoscope, there is a lot of english's duplicating image... regards Stef48 20:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not GFDL ,from zh wp --Shizhao 03:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Which license is better? At zh.wiki it is marked as a logo. I already tried to mark, that it is from zh.wiki. So please don't delet, help me to find the right license. It is just form another wiki and not under "fair use". 快樂龍contentquestionconsequence (on de.wiki) 09:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- The reasoning at the zh.wp license tag would be something like fair use, if you need it for the German WP, you could upload it there with PD-Schöpfungshöhe. --Matt314 15:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I did. But there must be a proper way to have something like PD or LogoSH at Wikicommons. 快樂龍contentquestionconsequence (on de.wiki) 16:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can't this be considered {{PD-ineligible}}? It's three characters on a yellow background... Patrícia msg 17:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I added that now. Hoepfully it is enough. 快樂龍contentquestionconsequence (on de.wiki) 23:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Still a problem? 快樂龍contentquestionconsequence (on de.wiki) 23:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I added that now. Hoepfully it is enough. 快樂龍contentquestionconsequence (on de.wiki) 23:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can't this be considered {{PD-ineligible}}? It's three characters on a yellow background... Patrícia msg 17:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I did. But there must be a proper way to have something like PD or LogoSH at Wikicommons. 快樂龍contentquestionconsequence (on de.wiki) 16:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- The reasoning at the zh.wp license tag would be something like fair use, if you need it for the German WP, you could upload it there with PD-Schöpfungshöhe. --Matt314 15:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
why are these maps GFDL?? Are copied from internet without permission (I can not find permission) 134.221.139.169 16:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- We got the permission from the autor Svend-Erik Christiansen: da:Wikipedia-diskussion:Kilder/Arkiv1#vedr._Sognekort 11. mar 2004, 23:12 Nico (tilladelse til brug af sognekort) -- Nico 17:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment get OTRS permission. An edit on the wiki is hardly permission. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Permission needs to be provided to OTRS. MichaelMaggs 16:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
same reason. There are 20 others 134.221.139.169 16:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- We got the permission from the autor Svend-Erik Christiansen: da:Wikipedia-diskussion:Kilder/Arkiv1#vedr._Sognekort 11. mar 2004, 23:12 Nico (tilladelse til brug af sognekort) -- Nico 17:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment get OTRS permission. An edit on the wiki is hardly permission. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Permission needs to be provided to OTRS MichaelMaggs 16:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Cant find any permission from author Svend-Erik Christiansen 134.221.139.169 16:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Danish Wikipedia got permission from him ages ago to use all maps from his website under the GFDL. See: da:Wikipedia:Kilder#Følgende sider kan vi kopiere billeder fra, med kildeangivelse (check venligst sitets copyrightnoter) (listed here as "Herreds og sognekort") Permission was received by an email sent to Danish admins back in 2004 or something like that. Contact da:User:Kaare or da:User:Palnatoke if you want to hear more about it. I just transferred three of these stupid images to Commons. Don't contact me again, I've left this project. Valentinian T / C 20:24, 8 January 2008
- Comment get OTRS permission. An edit on the wiki is hardly permission. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Permission needs to be provided to OTRS MichaelMaggs 16:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Cant find permission from author Svend-Erik Christiansen 134.221.139.169 16:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Danish Wikipedia got permission from him ages ago to use all maps from his website under the GFDL. See: da:Wikipedia:Kilder#Følgende sider kan vi kopiere billeder fra, med kildeangivelse (check venligst sitets copyrightnoter) (listed here as "Herreds og sognekort") Permission was received by an email sent to Danish admins back in 2004 or something like that. Contact da:User:Kaare or da:User:Palnatoke if you want to hear more about it. I just transferred three of these stupid images to Commons. Don't contact me again, I've left this project. Valentinian T / C 20:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment get OTRS permission. An edit on the wiki is hardly permission. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 16:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Cant find permission from author Svend-Erik Christiansen 134.221.139.169 16:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- We got the permission from the autor Svend-Erik Christiansen: da:Wikipedia-diskussion:Kilder/Arkiv1#vedr._Sognekort 11. mar 2004, 23:12 Nico (tilladelse til brug af sognekort) -- Nico 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment get OTRS permission. An edit on the wiki is hardly permission. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Permission needs to be provided to OTRS MichaelMaggs 16:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
El Tarantiniese (the uploader), which who is the same person as ertarantiniano/Tancredi on Flickr (the uploader on Flickr) wrote me (on it.wp) saying that he is not the author of the photo but that he found it free somewhere (No, per farla non l'ho fatta io, però l'avevo trovata libera.). It is not copyvio only if it was PD. He told me that he is looking for the license he used to upload it on Flickr ans asked me to wait some days (Dammi qualche giorno che ti trovo la licenza con cui l'ho caricata su Flickr e ti dico come proceder). I think it is nominate the image for deletion. If El Tarantiniese found out the right license after the image is deleted he can reupload it. Jaqen 21:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Similar situation for Image:Neil Marshall.jpg. --Jaqen 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Reasoning seems plausible for first image. The second has author=unknown, so a lack of real source information. MichaelMaggs 08:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
January 9
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reviewed 24 hours after upload. This is not a flickr change of license case, as the delay was so short -Nard 03:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 10:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
freedom of panorama?? So now you can put up a poster in your house and claim FOP?? -Nard 04:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 10:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Picture of a picture -Nard 04:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious derivative work without source information. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 12:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo has copyright! Delemon Msg! 09:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, speedy it next time! Deleted. Rocket000 12:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bad name, new file at Image:Avenida de Horta e Costa sign.jpg --8 January 2008 User:Iidxplus Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Duplicate file. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Thought it was wikipedia Reorion 07:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Accidentally uploaded on wikimedia commons instead of wikipedia. Please delete this as the logo license is on wikipedia. Reorion 07:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Use {{copyvio}} next time. Rocket000 12:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
License wash-up... __ ABF __ ϑ 13:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image seems to be a copyvio of [77]. The image was speedied recently and reuploaded today. The uploader claims own work. Zirland 08:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well I am the creator of the drawing. I am the webmaster of the website too. And if you were to visit Wikipedia (My user page that is) You'll find that my real name is Stefan. Here's a link to my user page in Wikipedia. Read the profile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Someformofhuman And if you vist the link my website to the link http://sky-scrapers.org/Drg-Taipei_101Preview=large.htm, you'll find a clear copyright notice with my own real name on it.
- Additionally, I am also an illustrator in SkyscraperPage.com... The same resized version of the drawing has also been used in the diagrams section with the same username (Someformofhuman) on it: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?1241105 So in my defence, it clearly states that I own all rights to the drawing.
- Have you tried contacting the webmaster of the site about this issue? If you do, don't be surpised you're actually meeeting the very same person who wrote all this. :)
SomeFormOFhuman
08:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Since the uploader confirms that he is indeed the author, image kept. Rama 13:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyrighted screenshot --MB-one 12:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete simple copyright violations should be tagged with {{copyvio}}, as I just did with this. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 14:12, 10 January 2008 (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.
copyrighted --MB-one 12:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious publicity shot. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, promotion photo Samoborac 14:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Flickrvio. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
misspelled --Gürbetaler 20:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted typo. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This painting is a creation of a artist named Louis Boekhout and I have no proof that he is alive or dead since 1958--Fralambert 00:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The uploader also uploaded Image:ClocherFassett.jpg (the same image). This website seems to indicate that Boekhout was still alive as of 2007. So we need permission of the author. --Kam Solusar 03:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. howcheng {chat} 19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely right to delete this image! Check on the fr:Louis Boekhout, Wikipedia has very detailed information about this talented artist! He is very much alive, and certainly did not give permission to have his artwork on his own page! He is a personal friend of mine!
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not used on any wikipedia project because subject has no notability [78] Chico75 00:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No encyclopedic value. Commons is not a private picture collection. --Gepardenforellenfischer 17:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 07:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source specified neither author information. I suspect it was copied from here--Tonyjeff 01:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Next time, please use {{no source since}}. howcheng {chat} 18:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source website returns "No website found. Please make sure you have enable cookies for your browser." My cookies are enabled -Nard 02:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As a US Government map AND pre 1923 US publication, it is clearly PD-US for multiple reasons. No argument has been made that it is out of scope, therefore no reason to delete. That said, I'm sorry the intermediate web source link doesn't work for you; it does for me; if we can modify the URL somehow to take care of that problem I am completely in favor of doing so. The page on that site from which this page was linked is [79]; and if that doesn't work, the front page is [80] (relevent image in 1910s section). -- Infrogmation 02:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Without adequate source, how do I know it's not from 1924 and by a private architect? -Nard 02:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- So, have you found it on the intermediate web source yet, and if so, does that make any difference in your opinion that the image should be deleted? -- Infrogmation 03:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- P.S.: Sorry, it looks like that website has rather difficult navigation; so far I haven't had luck finding a better permanent URL direct link to the image description page. Such would be nice to have. None the less, I still don't beleive there is any legitimate reason to delete this image. -- Infrogmation 03:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can confirm that the link didn't work for me until I first went the front page linked above. After viewing the front page [81] to establish a session or whatever, this link [82] should take you straight to this item. Text from page: "1913 Spanish Fort Map by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers War Department" -- (Unregistered here)
- Keep This link works for me to get to the album. The image is the last one (#39). Direct URL here. Should be marked {{PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE}}. Carl Lindberg 16:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Without adequate source, how do I know it's not from 1924 and by a private architect? -Nard 02:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. So, in 100 years, when that source website is long gone, Wikipedia will have to delete the image because the source is no longer available? That sounds daft. This is supposed to be a repository of images, not a mirror of images located elsewhere. This image is obviously very old and in the public domain. Amcaja 00:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- To be fair, this image had been uploaded earlier that same day. Normally you do expect links to work that long ;-) Carl Lindberg 01:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. howcheng {chat} 18:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
From Google search? WTF -Nard 02:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- No from User:Googleaseerch that's a user's name from the English WIki. Sort of like N. It seems no one uses their real names anymore huh? :)--97.80.120.243 04:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please do make an effort to avoid vulgarity (i.e. "WTF" above); I imagine it is a tough job that you are doing but it is not necessary to say it that way.--97.80.120.243 04:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- What is wrong with What The Fiasco? It seems to often be the perfect expletive to express feelings about a situation. -- carol 03:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Withdrawn, someone fixed the image source. -Nard 04:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please do make an effort to avoid vulgarity (i.e. "WTF" above); I imagine it is a tough job that you are doing but it is not necessary to say it that way.--97.80.120.243 04:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. howcheng {chat} 19:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative image -Nard 03:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete It's a photo of the copyrighted artwork. --Simonxag 00:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 07:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No way this is self-made -Nard 04:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. howcheng {chat} 19:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader states below that this image is his photo, then says it is "not directly" from him, but was "given" to him, and will not rectify the source (see Discussion page on w:fr)
Some other pictures of lighthouses by this uploader may suffer the same problem, but no action was taken on his part.--Jul 10:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Physical possession of a photograph does not equal intellectual rights ownership. Durova 04:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 07:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No longer in use, broken --Harris 20:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC) fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Looks like it's just suppose to be some text anyway. Rocket000 12:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 07:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's the cover of a book. Without proof of otherwise, I assume it has copyright and that it's still active, but other users believe that PD-Ineligible should apply Thialfi 16:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, PD-Ineligible. --Kjetil r 17:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, this was published in France by a French publisher, so the cover art is most likely also French - we should apply French law, then. I see two possible cases:
- (1) PD-old. Commons:Licensing#France is quite interesting to read. It says that anonymous, pseudonymous or collective works (to which book covers often belong) are protected until 70 years after publishing, which would be 2004. Copyright extensions were granted due to the world wars, so that would make it either 2010 or 2019. I don't know in how far these extensions apply to anonymous works. However, if I read the corresponding article in French Wikipedia correctly, then the normal copyright duration was 50 years p.m.a. (they don't mention anonymous works), and it was only prolonged to 70 years in 1995. This 20 year extension "absorbed" the war extensions, in all cases where these were less than 20 years (all cases where the author did not die for France). This means that the work went PD in about 1993, maybe was protected again from 1995 to 2004. In any case, if I understood this correctly and the French Wikipedia is right, it is PD-old now.
- (2) PD-ineligible. According to this, the threshold of originality lies in "the work carrying the mark of the author's personality" (elle porte la marque de sa personnalité). This is a rather low standard, and so the book cover might well not be pd-ineligible.
- In light of this, I say Keep as pd-old. --rimshottalk 17:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as PD-ineligible, for I can't see anything on this cover that would be the mark of the author's personality. *And* it's PD-old, as per Rimshot. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I already removed the request for speedy deletion yesterday since this is a extremely simple design which can't be protected by copyright law at all. Keep --Polarlys 19:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Like I said I would :) I say this is PD-ineligible. Rocket000 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep even if we're wrong, Hitler isn't going to sue us, right... Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 13:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
identical to Image:Vurnik-Ljubljana.JPG Jabbi 16:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I didn' notice that I uploaded 2 pics. One pic must be deleted, but it would better be Image:Vurnik-Ljubljana.JPG. Reason:
- Ivan Vurnik is the architect
- Zadruzna Gospodarska Banka was the original title of the building; so it is a better title than the other
- pics are equal (=same pic)
thx., Ziga 20:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept and Image:Vurnik-Ljubljana.JPG deleted. howcheng {chat} 19:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Higher resolution version of the same image at Image:Clint Dempsey USA training.jpg Ytoyoda 18:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Next time, use {{duplicate}} or better yet, upload the larger version on top of the first upload. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 19:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
sorry, it was a mistake to uplode this picture! Rokwe 22:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleteper request. Durova 23:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 13:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Radswiki does not own this image and cannot freely license it -Nard 04:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- RadsWiki claims that they are copyright owners and there is a link to permission page Filip em 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - See above claim. --Karelj 23:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio -Nard 04:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 12:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
picture apdated Ambamascate 07:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: In category Unknown as of 9 January 2008; no license
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
identical to Image:Tromostovje 2.JPG except slightly better contrast Jabbi 16:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Alison ❤ 16:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this is just taken from some website; no evidence it was ever released under GFDL. My understanding is the GFDL allows commercial use, so if it's supposed to be "used for educational or non-profit purposes" it shouldn't be here. Alex Jones is not necessarily the copyright holder anyway. --P4k 18:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The licensing conditions are not compatible with the licensing policies in Commons (they mean NC) Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 12:51, 17 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 20:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 20:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work (as provided in the description page). Even if the coat is in the public domain, a given realization of it is not and cannot be taken as is. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 12:52, 17 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 20:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 20:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I think this is a mistake in the transfer from da.wiki. Originally uploaded as bildfrei, which is more equivalent to norightsreserved or pd-self. I am going to update the tag to pd-self. -Nard 02:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not familiar with the de.wiki templats but if thats what bildfrei means then Keep with the new license. /Lokal_Profil 02:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I uploaded this picture from de.wiki and asked on the IRC-channel for the appropriate licensetag on Commons. I'm sorry, if I was misinformed, but I am pretty sure that the German license means PD, and that this picture was taken by the German user himself. --Sir48 11:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. License was corrected ChristianBier 09:00, 17 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 20:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 20:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work (as provided in the description page). Even if the coat is in the public domain, a given realization of it is not and cannot be taken as is. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 12:54, 17 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 but most likely a derivative image of a copyrighted logo though. /Lokal_Profil 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 12:55, 17 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 20:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 20:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It's a derivative. That it is on a building/public place is not identifiable. --GeorgHH • talk 23:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Freedom of Panorama is okay. Photo was first licenced with GFDL but was relinced by other User at German Wikipedia (this was not okay), so I changed informations in the template and fix the licence. So now it's okay. ChristianBier 19:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the comment of the uploader of flickr say : "Great seats for this game! Check out the note to see where I am sitting! " and a comment say : "The picture was on the Montreal Canadiens website the day after the game". So I think the licence given in Flickr isn't good. --TaraO 17:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete On the Flickr image, if you move the mouse over the image, you can see the note by the original uploader saying "Here I am" and identifying himself in the background. Unless he has the ability to be in two places at once, I don't think he was in the stands AND the photographer pit simultaneously. Ytoyoda 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I usually do not check all the fancy tools of flickr...wether I read all these comments. So I uploaded it. --Xgeorg 07:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't blame you for uploading it - it's really up to the original Flickr uploader to be clear about where the picture comes from, and to license it correctly. Ytoyoda 12:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 18:28, 8 April 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 20:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 20:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Clearly not copyright ineligible as claimed; no alternative reason it should be free licenced offered. -- Infrogmation 18:30, 8 April 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 20:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 20:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Clearly not copyright ineligible as claimed; no alternative reason it should be free licenced offered. -- Infrogmation 18:31, 8 April 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 20:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 20:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Clearly not copyright ineligible as claimed; no alternative reason it should be free licenced offered. -- Infrogmation 18:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The fact that you are an illegal organization in the US doesn't mean that you lose the right to copyright your works. Lokal_Profil 20:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The organization couldn't even legally own the copyright in their home country. Actually, if you look at the FARC's thinking, they are a separatist organization. The territory they own is sovereign unto them. And they have no copyright law. Ergo, this is copyright free in its home country. Although I do not believe anyone on Commons would accept this legal fiction and therefore I do not actually vote keep. -Nard 02:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I do. Keep as per the above. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 14:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Torax 22:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep -- Vince90 18:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I do.
DeleteAll new art works are copyrighted by someone. The FARC may be an illegal organisation now, but so were the current rulers of South Africa and Israel. The FARC and its members may be in no position to enforce
copyright now, but they may well be in the future. --Simonxag 00:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- So is the FARC a member of a copyright treaty? Do they have a copyright law? For that matter do they even have a civil code? -Nard 02:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Is that relevant? From Colombias point of view FARC members are Colombian citizens and I'm sure Colombia has signed a copyright treaty. Unless colombian copyright law has a clause about terrorists (in the eyes of colombian law) not having the right to copyright protect their works we must assume that copyright protection applies. /Lokal_Profil 08:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is ridculous. Keep the picture and declare it for fairuse. Amonixinator 05:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- There's no fair use on the Commons.--Simonxag 00:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
We do not know who actually took the photo, nor may anyone else for that matter.I am sure copy right is the last thing on their mind from a practical point of view. They also are a bunch of outlaws by everyone —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.176.159.13 (talk • contribs)
- If the owner can actually prove copyright, then simply send a Cease and Desist letter from their attorney. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.242.239.249 (talk • contribs) 05:17, January 15, 2008
- Or why don't they wait until there's money to be made from a lawsuit like smart people do?!!!!!!!! Old music industry proverb:- Where there's a hit, there's a writ. --Simonxag 01:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Copy right or not the world need to realise the FARC are not more than mercenaries with no-political objectives different than kidnapping, murdering and drug-trafic.—the preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.171.129.70 (talk • contribs)
Keep the picture and declare it for information use!! Internet it is about info and as far FARC does not have a legal form or any representation to bring the site down, as of being persecute by any lawyer, and more important, as long as they keep them selfs abstract, there will not be any copyright for them.
- I think that copyright matters little to a Marxist organisation.--76.238.153.237 03:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Closing as kept per majority of discussion. If there is additional information or reason to think this image is not free to reuse, please relist. -- Infrogmation 18:37, 8 April 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 20:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Lokal_Profil 20:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Clearly not copyright ineligible as claimed; no alternative reason it should be free licenced offered. -- Infrogmation 18:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Claimed to be a work of the U.S. government. The LoC doesn't know about this.[83] Lupo 13:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- it says published between 1920 and 1937, so there are several possibilities for it being PD. Published before 1923, published between 1923-1963 and copyright was not renewed, or anonymous PD since 1937 with no author mentioned makes it 70 years old at most Madmax32 20:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. But (a) not a US-Gov work, and (b) no proof of non-renewal. In fact, we don't even know the photographer. Might just as well be an unpublished portrait photograph, in which case it's either 70 years p.m.a. (if author known) or 120 years since creation (if unknown, or author's death year unknown). Pointing out possibilities without providing evidence won't get us nowhere. We need evidence. Besides, where did you get "anonymous PD since 1937 with no author mentioned makes it 70 years old at most" from? I don't see that in 17 USC. Lupo 07:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- (a)quite possibly true and (b) no proof but likely since most copyrights were not renewed, I am not familiar with that 120 year since creation rule, but it's obviously been published since the LoC obtained it and doesn't list a private donor. I was thinking of the Anonymous-EU template but maybe that doesn't apply here since this is probably a US photo, but that would make it PD in most of the world (LoC says published 1920 and 1937) so more than 70 years. Besides to me it looks like this photo was taken the same time as this underwood and underwood photo [84] because she is wearing the same clothes and appears to be the same age, but not conclusive proof obviously. The underwood & underwood photo is PD because that photo agency went out of business in the 1940s and none of their copyrights were renewed.[85] I guess the only way to prove copyright for this image is if the LoC updates their information, but that seems unlikely. Madmax32 10:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, that's a pretty good observation. Indeed she is wearing the same clothes as in the Underwood & Underwood photo. I think I could agree to treating it as {{PD-US-not renewed}} under these circumstances. The only minor problem is that we don't know whether this image was received by the LoC through copyright deposit (known PD due to non-renewal in that case) or as a "stock surplus" gift (unclear copyright status in that case, the company restricted use of the gift images to non-commercial uses, but the LoC says that "searches have not turned up any existing copyrights for Underwood & Underwood images"). Lupo 07:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I say keep. Put it this way. it was taken before 1937, perhaps long before because Earhart went missing in 1937, so an photo of her could not have been taken after 1937. DragonFire1024 22:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, that's a pretty good observation. Indeed she is wearing the same clothes as in the Underwood & Underwood photo. I think I could agree to treating it as {{PD-US-not renewed}} under these circumstances. The only minor problem is that we don't know whether this image was received by the LoC through copyright deposit (known PD due to non-renewal in that case) or as a "stock surplus" gift (unclear copyright status in that case, the company restricted use of the gift images to non-commercial uses, but the LoC says that "searches have not turned up any existing copyrights for Underwood & Underwood images"). Lupo 07:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- (a)quite possibly true and (b) no proof but likely since most copyrights were not renewed, I am not familiar with that 120 year since creation rule, but it's obviously been published since the LoC obtained it and doesn't list a private donor. I was thinking of the Anonymous-EU template but maybe that doesn't apply here since this is probably a US photo, but that would make it PD in most of the world (LoC says published 1920 and 1937) so more than 70 years. Besides to me it looks like this photo was taken the same time as this underwood and underwood photo [84] because she is wearing the same clothes and appears to be the same age, but not conclusive proof obviously. The underwood & underwood photo is PD because that photo agency went out of business in the 1940s and none of their copyrights were renewed.[85] I guess the only way to prove copyright for this image is if the LoC updates their information, but that seems unlikely. Madmax32 10:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. But (a) not a US-Gov work, and (b) no proof of non-renewal. In fact, we don't even know the photographer. Might just as well be an unpublished portrait photograph, in which case it's either 70 years p.m.a. (if author known) or 120 years since creation (if unknown, or author's death year unknown). Pointing out possibilities without providing evidence won't get us nowhere. We need evidence. Besides, where did you get "anonymous PD since 1937 with no author mentioned makes it 70 years old at most" from? I don't see that in 17 USC. Lupo 07:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no evidence that copyright was not renewed. LOC record for this image is at http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3c12514 and has no information on renewal/non-renewal Calliopejen 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per previous keep, image not renewed as company went out of business and did not renew copyrights. -Nard 02:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep speedily, we've just had this discussion. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 13:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, copyright expired after 70 years. --Wrightbus 04:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
pictures should go to Camponotus galleries --5 January 2008 User:Sarefo Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No harm in having a page with "ordinary" name. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Our policy says they should use the scientific Latin name (I think that applies more to galleries), but we have many common name galleries that coexist with scientific name ones. Rocket000 12:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I was under the impression that the "Latin only" referred to categories specifically. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept - move it if you feel the need. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Radswiki does not own this image and cannot freely license it -Nard 04:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- RadsWiki claims that they are copyright owners and there is a link to permission page.Filip em 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - See above claim. --Karelj 23:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I did. I also read the bio of the user "WikiSysop" who doesn't even have a talk page. He's a medical STUDENT. He cannot own these radiographs. He doesn't even have his own patients. -Nard 23:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Don't trust another wiki. Doubt they owned it in the first place. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Radswiki lists no source MichaelMaggs 06:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Radswiki does not own this image and cannot freely license it -Nard 04:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- RadsWiki claims that they are copyright owners and there is a link to permission page. What is the reason that you believe they doesn't own those images? If the image is from other internet source, then it's licenced like here Filip em 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - See above claim. --Karelj 23:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Don't trust another wiki. Doubt they owned it in the first place. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Image has been deleted from Radswiki MichaelMaggs 06:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Radswiki does not own this picture and cannot freely license it -Nard 04:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- RadsWiki claims that they are copyright owners and there is a link to permission page Filip em 18:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - See above claim. --Karelj 23:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Don't trust another wiki. Doubt they owned it in the first place. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Image has been deleted from Radswiki MichaelMaggs 06:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Keep
Do not delete the photograph of the letter. It is something that was written by a very famous man of high authority (though not necessarily a *good* leader) as a child. Please leave it up. Thank you, Rithschap
As per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Castro to Roosevelt,.jpg: at best, the tag is highly misleading (Castro's letter is not the work of the US Federal Government, even if the reproduction was made by the Government), but even in this case, it would still requires someone to show that Castro does not have a copyright on the letter. See also Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2007Dec#Image:FCR_to_FDR_letter_complete.jpg for the beginning of a discussion. Schutz 14:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Country of first publication was the United States, where it has no copyright. -Nard 02:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- The tag requires the publication to have occured between 1923 and 1977; do we have any indication that it is the case ? Note also the reply to your comment that was made during the discussion linked above — just sending the letter to another individual is not a publication. Schutz 10:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- The letter is dated November 6, 1940. Second line in Fidel's handwriting. 202.7.183.130 09:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Which is the date of writing, not the date of publication. Schutz 17:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, KEEP- letter was written to the US, and therefore has been subjugated to the realm of public domain, and is kept at the National Archives, a public agency of the government.—the preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.128.120.92 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 19 February 2008
- As far as I know, this does not make any difference from the copyright point of view. Schutz 17:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Is property of the US government.—the preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.148.0.27 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 19 February 2008
- Same reply — irrelevant from the copyright point of view. Schutz 17:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - The recipient of a letter has a right to distribute the contents of a letter at will. Since the recipient was FDR, the letter belongs to the US government. And since it belong to the US government, it is public domain. --RedShiftPA 21:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- And could you provide us with a few reference on copyright law to back your claims ? Thanks ! Schutz 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I have to strongely agree with RedShiftPA. He said it best. 69.250.167.239 22:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Keep 71.76.205.168 14:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- See above; I'd be really happy to be proven wrong (so that the image can stay here), but this is not a vote, and just saying "keep" is not enough to provide us permission to post the image. Schutz 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP -- I do believe that all letters written to the Office of the President of the United States do become the property of the Federal Government, as to all gifts to the Office of the President. QUESTION: Anyone know if this has been reviewed or commented on by the U.S. Government , and did anyone ever send him the 10$>? --Steve
- Yes, the letter is without doubt the property of the Federal Government, there is no question about this. But this is not the problem at hand — we are talking about the copyright of the text, an immaterial right. Schutz 11:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As per above Booksworm 17:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The letter is real. Don't delete it. I heard about it on a TV show.
- Keep It represents history. Means to be free to everyone
- Comment - Someone can trying inquiring about the date of publication or copyright status at the following address: inquire@nara.gov ~ UBeR 23:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It is irreplaceable. It is a brief letter written by a highly significant political figure. If Fidel complains, we can take it down. MagnesianPhoenix 18:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The discussion of whether Fidel has or no copyright overt the content of the letter is irrelevant, posting this is Fair Use, additionally it is obvious that sending a letter to the President or Santa does not constitute a secret 'thus the material and it's contents may be revealed. http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
- Comment Surely the relevant question is whether the text (and hence the image) is copyrightable. If it is deemed copyrightable then Castro owns the copyright and Cuban copyright law becomes the only relevant fact since we on Commons require the content to be free in the US and the source country. But yes if it is deleted it can be copied to en.wiki as fair use. /Lokal_Profil 03:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I personaly think that everyone is indeed missing the point, since most of the comments avoid the points you are mentioning. Hopefully some people will come to discuss the copyright status of this image instead of its historical significance... Schutz 16:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Surely Castro did not intend to reserve copyrights. This is not some academic discourse written in the form of a letter. When you write someone a postcard, especially the U.S. government, you are basically consigning possession of it to them, regardless of your legal rights. This letter is already in the public domain literally if not legally. There is no evidence that Castro would object to this reproduction, and unless he does, deletion would be a moot misapplication of the law. MagnesianPhoenix 13:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment All right here is a paper on Cuban copyright law: http://www.cnap.cult.cu/instituciones/adaviswebsite/html/ley14_derecho_autor.pdf Article 37 section b declares that it is licit to reproduce the whole thing if is justified for knowledge in pretty much all media, without remuneration or consent of the author, so the Commons criteria is met after all.
- Comment Cuban copyright law does not apply to the United States . It has no copyright notice and entered the country prior to 1923 . --Frank.trampe 08:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Commons:Licensing, 7 lines down, also mention in the discussions above. /Lokal_Profil 19:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't see that , but I think that we could argue that , because the letter was submitted in the United States , its copyright lies here . Not only is there no record of copyright in Cuba , there was no copy of the letter in Cuba after Castro mailed it until the United States government released copies of it that could get back to Cuba . Just as a travelling journalist files and receives copyright for a story in the country of publication , a letter in American custody by the original intent of its author ought to be considered free from Cuban copyright law in its American distribution . Either way , I don't think that Cuba's attempts to suppress freedom of expression ought to bind what ought to be an open forum . If Richard Nixon can't claim that the Watergate investigators violated his copyrights by copying and playing his tapes , I don't think that Castro ought to be able to suppress this letter . --Frank.trampe 06:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Commons:Licensing, 7 lines down, also mention in the discussions above. /Lokal_Profil 19:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. I dont see any reasoning here to say its copyvio. ShakataGaNai Talk 07:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm not sure that the logo is free, according to the en.wiki Yuval Y § Chat § 17:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
MATY1206
It is free
You can read the licence from Mint officila web site> http://www.linuxmint.com/
Please contact to Clem for dubts about our logo.
I am a MInt official developer, so I know that our logo is under GPL licence
- Delete No real license information is provided in there. Only this:
Linux Mint is free of charge (thanks to your donations and adverts on the website) and we hope you'll enjoy it.
Some of the packages we distribute are under the GPL. If you want to access their source code you can use the apt-get source command. If you can't find what you're looking for please write to root AT linuxmint DOT com and we'll provide the source to you.
- Nothing is said about the logos license. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 12:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Linux Mint Logo is licensed with GPL, see http://www.linuxmint-art.org/content/show.php/Mint+Logo+%28svg%29?content=82193 Shooke 23:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio -Nard 04:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
tell the reason please -Timming 15:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you Mr Kardeshlek? No? Then why can you use this image? -Nard 02:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- You will laugh at it, but yes I am =) (that's my nickname at some of web-sites). And I have rights to post this image. Actually, the Kardeshlek is a student organization in Moscow, Russia. So, how can I approve it? -Timming 13:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Is this student organization officially sanctioned by the school? If so I would support keeping this image with a change of license to Template:PD-RU-exempt/2008. -Nard 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the Kardsehlek is an official organization. Here is the web-site of it: www.kardeshlek.ru. But i am not sure, that you can read sth there, because it is in Russian... I have almost no knowledge about the types of licenses, so i can be mistaken in choosing the right one. -Timming 19:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment (1) Template:PD-RU-exempt/2008 was proposal, this change of PD-RU-exempt was applied. (2) This image doesn't fall under {{PD-RU-exempt}} terms. Alex Spade 17:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Obviously copyvio and this little "I am" "are not" argument doesn't help. OTRS or delete. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted.Permission needs to be provided to OTRS MichaelMaggs 16:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- (This is NOT an YIQ seperated image. Wrong calculation. Should not be used.) --19:49, 4 January 2007 User:Wdwd
- (Wrong calculation. This is NOT a YUV-seperated image. Please remove) --19:51, 4 January 2007 User:Wdwd
- Comment Fixed request. It seems the original subpage had the wrong template on it and was deleted mid-december as being "done", but the image still exists (was image kept)? Was the template not taken off the image? Re-nominating - I have no idea whether the reason is valid or not. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete both - Not YIQ. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:YIQ_components.jpg for proper YIQ. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 06:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Euro adoption x
[edit]- File:Euro adoption.JPG
- File:Euro adoption 01.svg
- File:Euro adoption 02.svg
- File:Euro adoption 03.svg
- File:Euro adoption 04.svg
These diagram can be easily reconstructed with HTML tables. If so, the content can be updated and translated easily. There's really no need for these images. There is also a en:Template:Euro adoption future that serves the same purpose. See all image files that begins with "Euro adoption". --Chochopk 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete: I agree. The table in w:Eurozone is well done : It is possible to sort the date column. Sovxx 11:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment And it still takes more effort to nominate these for deletion than it does to just leave them there. Who cares, anyway. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 14:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment So if somebody uploads 100 identical copies of the same file and categorize them differently, do we just leave them there? --Chochopk 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Delete all of them. The point is not the fact that they are redundant and useless. The 'danger' is that unexperienced editors might insert them. I've at least three times removed them from different euro-related articles in english wikipedia. People should instead learn how to make wikitables or easyTimelines.- Ssolbergj 22:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. As none were used. ShakataGaNai Talk 07:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
January 10
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Coyvios Talk2lurch 00:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep could reasonably be self-made. -Nard 02:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Lupo: per Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by Thiago Temer
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvios Talk2lurch 00:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It is quite possible with a good sunset to take a picture like this. -Nard 02:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Lupo: per Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by Thiago Temer
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'd like to close my Commons account please --Mbz1 02:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: user request
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'd like to close my Commons account please --Mbz1 03:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: user request
- Since when do we delete talk pages?? At en-WP, these are kept in general. Lupo 16:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm not sure why we need to discuss such an image instead of speedydeleting it. However, her is what I have to say about it:
- The image is of low quality. It is 120 × 121 pixel (not counting the borders) and uses no anti-aliasing at all. A vector version is available.
- There is a factual error in the image: It has a transparent background. Additive color mixing as shown in the image is done by adding light on a black background (for example, rgb(0%, 0%, 0%) + rgb(100%, 0%, 0%) + rgb(0%, 100%, 0%) = rgb(100%, 100%, 0%)). It's not possible to add something to a white background because white is already the maximum (rgb(100%, 100%, 100%)).
- It's only used in an old discussion page and in the image galleries of the author. --TM 11:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image is in use then and serving a purpose within scope. -Nard 11:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep, It could be useful as icon and Superseded images will not be deleted per discussion and consensus. VIGNERON * discut. 13:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
foto existente en http://www.nellyfurtado.com/gallery/default.aspx?fid=1842 con derechos reservados de Universal Music Group —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Armenta Asai (talk • contribs)
- Deletion fix. -Nard 11:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. -Nard 11:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete speedily, blatant copyvio. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 13:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The claim that the uploader took this photo himself is not credible, and a description is missing. High on a tree 02:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Take a look at the uploader's talk page, ban him immediatelty and delete everything he ever uploaded. --h-stt !? 16:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 02:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- BTW I've reported this editor on an admin board. You're right, H-stt. This is a serious problem. Durova 02:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 11:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The claim that the uploader took this photo himself is not credible, and a description is missing. High on a tree 02:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 11:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The claim that the uploader took this photo himself is not credible (see his other deleted uploads), and a description is missing. Re-uploaded for the third time after having been deleted two times. High on a tree 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. Likely copyvio given the uploader background. User blocked Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 11:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The claim that the uploader took this photo himself is not credible (see his other deleted uploads), and a description is missing. High on a tree 03:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. Likely copyvio given the uploader background. User blocked Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 11:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The claim that the uploader took this photo himself is not credible (see his other deleted uploads), and a description is missing. High on a tree 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unlikely self-made claim, more likely to be a work of the Chilean government (see flag, although it's backwards). No reason to trust the uploader. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 13:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. Likely copyvio given the uploader background. User blocked Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 11:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The claim that the uploader took this photo himself is not credible (see his other deleted uploads), and a description is missing. High on a tree 03:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete this guy either travels a hell of a lot and has a lot of friends in the world's militaries, or he's lying. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 13:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. Likely copyvio given the uploader background. User blocked Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 11:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The claim that the uploader took this photo himself is not credible (see his other deleted uploads), and a description is missing. Re-uploaded for the third time after having been deleted twice. High on a tree 03:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 03:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. Likely copyvio given the uploader background. User blocked Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 11:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The claim that the uploader took this photo himself is not credible (see his other deleted uploads), and a description is missing. Re-uploaded for the fourth time after having been deleted three times. High on a tree 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 03:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. Likely copyvio given the uploader background. User blocked Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 11:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
died 1807, photography invented in 1826 --elTom my talk 00:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, identification of person supposedly shown seems very dubious. -- Infrogmation 01:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 05:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
btw, the uploader, user:Ahellwig acknowledged the deletion request on his talk page. --elTom my talk 15:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted - also dubious sourcing, uploader requests deletion - Alison ❤ 03:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
possible copyright infringement (nominate as uploader) --Royalbroil 01:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is on a building right? And its a permanent part of the building? Like, part of the building since the initial construction? -Nard 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- On the building: yes, permanent: yes, and it was built a few years ago during a building expansion. The building was built 50 years ago. It is located in a stairway leading down to the Hall of Fame. Here is talk on the English Wikipedia about this topic. Here is the original photograph before cropping. I could upload the original over the top of this image if that is consensus. Here is a related image that I was planning to upload to replace this image since it is simular. Royalbroil 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 13:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
We just deleted this, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:MaleGlans.JPG. -Nard 03:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 03:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Delete it, per nom Mønobi 04:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 07:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Yay! ball pics! -Nard 03:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete for shitty quality and exhibitionism. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 07:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Yay! a random dick! -Nard 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Male penis...is there any other kind? Durova 03:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. As nonsense. __ ABF __ ϑ 13:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Nothing included at the source to suggest this is a free image; this says everything on the site is copyrighted.--Peta 05:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 09:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete a simple {{copyvio}} will suffice for cases like this. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 07:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Published in Australia in 1956 [2] so not PD; no evidence that copyright holder has released it for use. --Peta 05:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC) --Peta 05:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 09:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 13:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
incomplete name for category. --水と土 09:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted — Giggy 13:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio - certainly not a work of the UK gouvernment, but of the Third Reich, thus copyrighted. h-stt !? 12:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure it's not from the UK gouvernment, there is no source (that's an other reason for deletion). VIGNERON * discut. 13:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- How could the UK-government take this kind of picture of a Wehrmachts-General? This is an official portrait, taken in Germany. --h-stt !? 15:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 01:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 13:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to United States copyright law, "[i]f the work was a work for hire (e.g., those created by a corporation) then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter." Discuss. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 13:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Disney recently traded Al Michaels to re-acquire the rights to Oswald, so we can count on the character still being copyrighted. --dave pape 21:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment To be clear, the issue is not character copyright. It is that this work itself is still copyrighted under US law, not just the character. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 11:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 13:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
G. H. Hardy was English, it is doubtful whether this is a US work Phrood 14:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete it's not Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 14:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 13:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
claimed copyright status not clear from given source [86]; copyright holder not clearly identifiable -- Ddxc 14:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete also it's an ugly-ass animated GIF. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 14:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it's particularly bad, actually, but we don't normally delete images based on image quality anyway. -- Ddxc 14:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Info: Basically I was using this on my old userpage for Wikipedia. If you want to delete it, delete it, but I may use it in the future so I will 
Abstain . StonedChipmunk 18:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC) (Note: was not logged in when I posted)
Deleted. — Giggy 13:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like a magazine scan - making it unlikely to be free. Megapixie 15:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 02:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 07:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source. Watermark suggests copyvio. Megapixie 15:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 02:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 07:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's a picture without any quality and there are enough better pictures of magnesite in the category. -- Ra'ike Diskussion 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
--Dyet 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC) I think the picture should stay. You are correct in stating it is a lower quality. However, the picture does show several characteristics that should be noted; 1) you can see the texture 2)it is a good example for the location 2)it does show some fracture characteristics that I don't see in other photos. 3)the photo is masked and makes it useful for quick insertions into reports. ie no editing required.
Delete The object isn't identifiable. I'm sorry, but at first glance it looked like a potato chip. --Zinnmann 12:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete *ACK* Zinnmann, this is an agglomeration of coloured pixels which resembles a potatoe chip, but nothing that I can identify a a stone. --Eva K. tell me about it 22:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete *ACK* Zinnmann,its an eye pain not a stone (and not a picture) --Jom 22:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Out of the question. --Bjoern 00:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 07:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm asking the deletion of my own image... Talk2lurch 16:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete As requested. --Gepardenforellenfischer 17:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Surely this image could be valuable? -Nard 03:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- This image does not have author's permission... This guys are musicians from a band [87] that plays Beatles. One of them is my cousin so I asked him who took the photo and he couldn't rememeber... so it has to be deleted.
- Surely this image could be valuable? -Nard 03:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 07:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Old unlisted request by User:Mbz1 12. Mai 2007: I believed it was a mirage, but it is not. Should be deleted. GeorgHH • talk 20:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep looks cool, is within scope. -Nard 01:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, N. I'm really glad you liked my images. May I please ask you to take a look at this other image of mine, which shows how a real inferior mirage of the boat looks. Thank you--Mbz1 14:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Delete I edited this image within the german de:Wikipedia:Bilderwerkstatt, and cropped it form original image Image:Preuss Abteilwagen C3 P9030013.JPG. The license of the original is (maybe) coverd de:Panoramafreiheit / en:Panoramafreiheit, but this doesnt cover this crop. So, due to possible copyvio, please delete this image. Nyks 20:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Although some national legislation does, the German law does not contain the provision that the copyrighted work not be the object of the photo, so I think the deletion request is invalid on that ground. However I am concerned as to whether the original was permanently installed. -Nard 03:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: In the german Wikipedia we agree, that the image has to be deleted. This includes the uploader of the original image, and me, as uploader of the edited image. The author of this image with the green train doent know anything about the publishment of his image in the wikipedia, and has given no license. --Nyks 11:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Work not permanently installed, and train pic may be derivative of yet another copyright. -Nard 11:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete it was not uploaded by me, and i think its better to upload only in wp-de, because the rights of "paoramafreiheit" are there better akzeptet! --Jom 21:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 07:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown author, no indication for GFDL. GeorgHH • talk 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The "scaled down" part makes me think it was for fair use. Rocket000 02:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete+1. --Albedo-ukr 04:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, as the site clearly notes, "КАКВО ПОВЕЧЕ ДА КОМЕНТИРАМЕ" GoldenUSA 11:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 13:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
source NOT PD, maybe copyvio--Shizhao 09:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio - it is higly unlikely that copyright has already been expired since 1929. h-stt !? 12:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The odds of finding out who the photographer was are minimal; chances are that we can legitimately claim this as PD due to it being 70 years post-publication from an anonymous author. Shrug. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 14:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just because we don't know the photographer, doesn't mean the picture was published as an anonymous work. And only then it would be legal to use the 70y-post-publication-rule. --h-stt !? 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, but if it is impossible to discern the name of the author, then that is treated the same as an anonymous work. With that said, I don't care. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 11:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just because we don't know the photographer, doesn't mean the picture was published as an anonymous work. And only then it would be legal to use the 70y-post-publication-rule. --h-stt !? 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Simonxag 01:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. As far as copyright is unclear. __ ABF __ ϑ 13:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio - copyright can't be expired since 1938 h-stt !? 12:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright Owner is still alive. ChristianBier 09:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source, no author. 130.83.73.6 14:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 02:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Seems likely image is copyvio. Megapixie 15:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Old unlisted request by User:Mbz1 12. Mai 2007: I believed it was a mirage, but it is not. Should be deleted. GeorgHH • talk 20:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep image is within scope, and looks cool. -Nard 01:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Same reason as the duplicate file Alex:D 16:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete for the same reason given on the other file. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete one or the other (whatever's a better name). But keep one as both are heavily used. Rocket000 23:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Both can be replaced automatically with Image:Flag of Romania.svg. --Alex:D 14:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Arria Belli: Universally replaced by Image:Flag_of_Romania.png. Reason was "see the debates"
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images by User:Doncsecz
[edit]User:Doncsecz has requested all his uploads, his userpage and his talkpage for deletion stating that he wants to leave. There are no reasons for deletion given on any of the images besides one (see below). I'm bundling them into one request for ease.
- Image:Dorfmeister- Az 1664-es szentgotthárdi csata.jpg.jpg (domed ceiling painting)
- Image:A szentgotthárdi csata (XVII. századi festmény).jpg (illustration of battle)
- Image:Szentgotthárdi csata (német rézmetszet).jpg (an illustration. Also has no license template on it.)
- Image:A dobrai uradalom (1785).jpg (old map)
- Image:A szentgotthárdi csata (német kép).jpg (illustration of battle)
- Image:Szentgotthárdi csata (csapatok felállása).PNG (map)
- Image:Grunwald 1 blank (Hungarian).jpg (map) The title is bad
and then User:Doncsecz and User talk:Doncsecz. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the user page, and since I can't be arsed to go through all the images to see what's useful and what's not (and nobody else should have to), Keep the images. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 14:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was expecting some very questionable licensing on these, but for the most part, everything seems fine. I say go ahead and Delete the userpage/talkpage and possibly any unused images as "author's request" and Keep any used images. (P.S. Image:Szentgotthárdi csata (német rézmetszet).jpg does has a license temp. on it.) Rocket000 22:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleteeverything. All the images have been uploaded in the last 3 days.--Simonxag 01:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- With the help of User:Rimshot, I asked User:Szajci to leave a message in Hungarian for this user. He then left the below message on my talkpage, and has taken the deletion requests down on all images as well as on user's talk/userpage (although I don't see a message on the userpage, this might have gone through email):
- Doncsecz sagte, dass er nicht zu commons verstehe. Ich sagte ihm, dass ich ihm helfe. Keine Problem. Danke, dass message. Tschüss! User:Szajci 08:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Meaning roughly that Doncsecz said he didn't understand Commons, but that User:Szajci would help him. Closing request as issue seems resolved. My thanks to all involved.
-- Deadstar (msg) 13:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Issue seems to be resolved. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Clearly not a two-dimensional work of art, as stated in the image license 217.26.87.7 16:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, which license would be appropriate? I remember when I uploaded this image I was looking for a license option that would better fit the case, but I didn't find one. Please note that this is a new version of a file that was already uploaded by someone else, and as far as I can see the old version had the same kind of license. - Till 17:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well the appropriate license would be whatever the photographer released it as. Rocket000 23:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- That photographer is Till. I explained the situation to him and asked him to set an appropriate license. --h-stt !? 19:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- And I, the photographer, explained that at the time of uploading it was not clear to me which type of license would be appropriate for this kind of work of art—and it still isn't. It wasn't obvious to me that the template that was used by me, i.e. "PD-Art", translates to something like "... two-dimensional work of art", so will somebody please point out to me a license template that gets this image out of the Commons:Deletion requests, because it really doesn't deserve to be here just because of the word "two" instead of "three". Thanks. - Till 20:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I didn't see H-stt's hint on my WP discussion page - thanks. I changed the license and granted GFDL as well as CC-BY-SA-2.5. I hope that this issue is resolved now. - Till 21:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Plaquebox
[edit]This page and the transcluded template seem to actually encourage vandalism. At first, I thought it meant test edits like a sandbox, but no, it says "You can place copyrighted, offensive or libelous content in the plaquebox as this location is for vandalism." I don't think that's a very good thing to suggest. The page hasn't been used since it's creation and nothing links to it. Related pages: Commons:Dirtbox and Template:Dirtbox should probably be deleted too. I don't see why we need more than Commons:Sandbox. -Rocket000 03:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, either Delete or redirect to Sandbox, I think. en-wiki has no plaquebox, but does have dirtbox as a redirect to Sandbox. There are a bunch of redirects to the above pages too. User:VolkswagenKing28, who created these, has some pretty odd edits interspersed among useful ones... including Image:Commons-logo-new.PNG and Specials. I'm not sure what to make of them. Plaquebox and Dirtbox were created within a couple days of each other. Carl Lindberg 06:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, thanks for pointing those out. I deleted the Specials redirect, as it made no sense. The image is clearly out of our scope, so I (or someone) will be deleting that too, but I'm curious to hear what VolkswagenKing28 has to say about these edits. Rocket000 21:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to the Sandbox. —Scott5114↗ 15:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not relevant to our scope. MichaelMaggs 16:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
January 11
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
empty - see category:province of Vercelli --「Twice29.0 · contributi · talk」 10:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedily deleted as empty duplicate of Category:Province of Vercelli. In the future, please use {{duplicate|correct name}}. --rimshottalk 14:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader seems to have had some problems with tagging this image, reuploading it 4 times before realizing you had to edit the page to change the description. Then he added the source code of the GFDL template. License is therefore questionable -Nard 22:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- My name is Anabase and the lonely owner of this picture. In fact, I had many problems with provider and connection during picture uploading. Sorry for this waste of time, I hope the wiki community will enjoy and use my pictures. Best regards. --Anabase 16:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- kept Problems fixed, no reason to delete. Next time try to speak with uploader before requesting deletion ChristianBier 15:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
User deleted my no permission tag. The image is not freely licensed on Flickr. I have nominated the en.wiki image for deletion for the same reason. On his talk page, uploader accuses us of being "forros de mierda" (shitbags) and on the image page accuses us of having "un pelo en el culo" (a hair up our ass). -Nard 02:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Question I see a link to a Creative Commons license on the image page. I'm not sure whether it's one of the ones we accept. What makes you say it isn't freely licensed? Durova 05:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Creative Commons license at the Flickr image is a non-derivative, non-commercial license, which is incompatible with Commons. Ytoyoda 05:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- In that case Delete and recommend a fluent Spanish speaker communicate that to the editor who uploaded. Durova 07:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- In that case
- The Creative Commons license at the Flickr image is a non-derivative, non-commercial license, which is incompatible with Commons. Ytoyoda 05:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, incompatible license at flickr. --rimshottalk 14:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted (flickr ink). __ ABF __ ϑ 07:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Appears to be copyrighted logo. Tagged here same as Flickr source, but Flickr source suspected of mistagging: Wall Stree Journal logo, Google logo and Paypal logo all mistagged as CC-BY-SA 2.0 by same Flickr user. --Kelvinc 05:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete in future, tag blatant copyright infringements with {{copyvio}}. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 15:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicate image. I uploaded the same image using a different format. --SharkD 05:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment use {{duplicate}} if they're exactly the same, otherwise, superseded images are not deleted. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 11:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is marked "All Rights Reserved" at its source on Flickr. Ytoyoda 13:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the image failed Flickr review less than a day after it was uploaded. Please tag this sort of thing with {{copyvio}} next time to save us all time. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 15:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Preuss Abteilwagen C3 P9030013-2.JPG, work not permanently installed, FOP does not apply -Nard 11:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 11:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Originally from Wikipedia, but uploader has had all images on Wikipedia deleted due to copyright violations. This image was also used long before being uploaded on this blog: http://liverpoollivesinme.blogspot.com/2007/07/auxerre-0-2-liverpool.html 81.94.104.106
- Delete Relisting the image - the original deletion request was incomplete. No reason to believe this image is in public domain, especially since all other uploads by the user on the English Wikipedia were copyright violations and the user is banned for vandalism and copyvios. --Ytoyoda 12:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 06:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
likely copyvio, original uploader on en made a whole series of bad or dubious uploads Future Perfect at Sunrise 12:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 06:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is a violation copyright. See at http://www.flickr.com/photos/dougphotos/1321745401/ . Moreover, this image was deleted some days ago as Centrodeuberlandia.jpg (see at: Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Luis Alves Nogueira ). I have sufficient reasons to believe the uploader of this image is another sock puppet of Thiago Temer (see at : Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by user Thiago Temer, Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by Thiago Temer, Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Luis Alves Nogueira, and Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by Mário Yamashita Junior) and all of these users are the same person who infests the article of Uberlândia in pt.wiki (including Arthur Nunes). Talk2lurch 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Either it's a copyvio or the wrong license. Both isn't ok. -- Ra'ike Diskussion 12:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 06:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not know any reason why this photo from the Peruvian Navy Archive should be under a CC license. Please provide proof for that. ALE! ¿…? 16:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 06:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
IDF tags can't be {{PD}} Hidro 17:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why not? Maybe not {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-Art}}, but they can be PD like anything else. (Not saying this is.) Related image: Image:Bahad 10.jpg. Rocket000 23:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Benefit of doubt here, until proof that IDF =/= PD is brought forward. — Giggy 06:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
three dimensional object, copyright has not expired Polarlys 18:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is about as non-artistic a shot as you can imagine. It is a mechanical reproduction. And the "third dimension" is a bit of scroll rolling at the ends, in short not creatively picked. Does not even begin to pass the threshold of originality. -Nard 21:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- “Mechanical reproduction” in the sense of “individual holding camera, adjusting lights to reduce shadows, choosing aperture and other parameters, pulling the object out of its context”? With this argumentantion we can call any related photography “non-artistic”. --Polarlys 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry but sweat of the brow in exact duplications of PD works has been ruled out as a reason to claim copyright on an image in the U.S., even if the person worked for two days on it http://www.studentweb.law.ttu.edu/cochran/cochran/Cases%20&%20Readings/Copyright-UNT/Copy'ability/batlin.htm and this case did involve 3D objects. -Nard 04:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- “Mechanical reproduction” in the sense of “individual holding camera, adjusting lights to reduce shadows, choosing aperture and other parameters, pulling the object out of its context”? With this argumentantion we can call any related photography “non-artistic”. --Polarlys 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is no “exact duplication” since “exact duplication” does not imply the possibility of various perspective with different results. And US case-law doesn’t matter here. --Polarlys 11:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Legally it matters. This isn't an faithful reproduction. (It's 3D, how can a photo be a copy?) And N, if you want to argue based on works passing the "threshold of originality", let's talk about "neighboring rights" or photographer's rights where they get copyright-like status for merely making a faithful reproduction of a 2D work. I don't mean things like lighting, shadows, and perspective, where you can tell one copy from another, I mean as close to the original as you can get. Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me either, but Commons respects these weird laws. Rocket000 00:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I restored the request since „Giggy“ closed it with „kept“ without any comment on the discussed matter. Provide arguments, this is no autocracy. --Polarlys 23:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The result is delete as PD works can be copyrighted if they are not faithful reproductions. For example, a image of Mona Lisa hanging from the Louvre is copyright by its photographer (unless otherwise specified) but a scan of the image is not. See [88]. — DarkFalls talk 00:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work without reference of the originals (I don't think the author personally took a photo of every animal) --Marcok 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I made some changes on the information of the image and specified every author of the 4 photos, making reference to the originals. I'm not sure if I chose the licence correctly, but as you can check I used the photos that were already on Wikicommons and tried to use the licences that were chosen by original authors. The purpose was to show the diversity of the mammals, on the Mammals page of Wikipedia. Wikicurious 12:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. Now it's ok. I think this request may be closed. --Marcok 00:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Everything seems in order now. (There may be some license compatibility issues, but that's nothing new for Commons. All the images were from here, anyway.) Rocket000 00:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
taken from [89]. Must be author's permission --Ahonc 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
[90] Copyright © Вадим Дзыгун 2000-2007. Использование материалов сайта возможно только с согласия автора.
Must be used only after author's permission.--Ahonc 20:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep there was an original permission back in 2006 when I contacted the author, back then the rules were more relaxed, I have asked him to follow the new protocol, but he has not answered for a while. Moreover there are numerous images from Kiev metro from his site that have been added as GDFL I request we keep this as well.--Kuban kazak 13:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Needs OTRS confirmation from what I can see. — Giggy 06:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Lists Wikipedia image as source, but the version on Wikipedia does not have a source. Ytoyoda 20:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is claimed as self-authored, so it's not really no-source. However, it appears to have been taken from here (or here, the current location of the site), where it was put up in 2005, and that is not the likely original source either. At any rate, this is an obvious copyvio. Delete Carl Lindberg 23:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 06:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images from Italian Navy website
[edit]- File:Portaerei Cavour.jpg
- File:P490.jpg
- File:San Giusto Upright.jpg
- File:Toti banchina.jpg
- File:Sottomarino Todaro Taranto.jpg
- File:Nave etna.jpg
- File:Reina Maria.jpg
- File:CREST garibaldi.jpg
- File:Crest Bersagliere.jpg
- File:Bersagliere.jpg
- File:Profiloaudace.jpg
- File:Perseo011.jpg
- File:Perseo010.jpg
- File:Nave minerva.jpg
- File:Nave Orsa.jpg
- File:Mimbelli.jpg
- File:Libra patrol boat.jpg
- File:Doria11.jpg
- File:Doria10.jpg
- File:Audace.jpg
- File:Artigliere4.jpg
- File:Artigliere.jpg
- File:Ardito.jpg
- File:MMI San Giorgio.jpg
- File:Andrea Doria (C 553).jpg
- File:Vega patrol ship.jpg
- File:Orizzonte03.jpg
- File:Nave Perseo.jpg
- File:Granatiere.jpg
- File:IT-Navy-OR2.jpg
- File:Doria06.jpg
- File:Cassiopea.jpg
- File:Aviere.jpg
- File:Lupo1.jpg
- File:Regina Elena class battleship.jpg
- File:RNConte di Cavour-Taranto.jpg
- File:RNConte di Cavour-Reconstructed.jpg
- File:RNConte di Cavour-Trieste.jpg
- File:RNLeonardoDaVinci.jpg
- File:RNZara-Punta Stilo.jpg
- File:Bandiera garibaldi.jpg
I believe that images from Italian Navy official website (http://www.marina.difesa.it) are not PD (see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-ITGov-Military-Navy, debate is closed) neither free provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed ({{Attribution}}). They are copyrighted works only allowed for non commercial purpose (on it.wiki there is a permission about that, see (Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni ottenute/MarinaMilitare). This correspondence is ambiguos and clash with this: via OTRS we have request a clarification, but an answer still has not arrived. Trixt 02:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Available authorization clearly excludes commercial use. Therefore, it's not compatible with Commons licensing conditions. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 13:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Chiba Prefecture Logos
[edit]- File:Chiba Prefecture Logo 1.jpg
- File:Chiba Prefecture Logo 2.jpg
- File:Chiba Prefecture Logo 3.jpg
- File:Chiba Prefecture Logo 4.jpg
Inappropriate Licensing:
These images (Source[91]) use {{pd-japan}} and {{PD-ineligible}}, but Chiba prefecture's web site[92] says: "Every documents and images are owned by Chiba prefecture, and reuse without permission are prohibited.". Additionally, Masayoshi Nakajo[93], the logo designer is still alive now, so these licence tags can not be applicable. I think these licensing is not suitable. --おむこさん志望 06:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio.--Marine-Blue [ talk contribs ] 09:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Desktop Angels
[edit]Claims of PD by Desktop Angels are unreliable, original pictures are probably not PD. This image for instance is very obviously from a promotional image of the movie King Arthur. Dammit 17:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Laetitia Casta one can be found here; it was apparently from a Sports Illustrated shoot. Delete Carl Lindberg 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Alison ❤ 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The author, the painter Heinrich Vogeler, died in 1942, so that this picture won’t be public domain until 2012. Gepardenforellenfischer 17:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete simple copyvios should be flagged as such --Simonxag 20:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The author, the painter Heinrich Vogeler, died in 1942, so that this picture won’t be public domain until 2012. Gepardenforellenfischer 17:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
While this image does come from a US Government website[94], it is authored and copyrighted by St. Mary's College of California, not the government agency. The usage statement for this image requires notification before use, and also bars commercial use, which is too restrictive to host on Commons. Carl Lindberg 23:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Carl Lindberg 23:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- To be very honest here, I felt uncomfortable uploading the image in the first place. That copyright watermark is where I hesitate. It is the first and only image I have uploaded here with such a watermark. I will not remove them either (although I am capable of this). My preference would be for the uploading of watermarked images to be disallowed here.
- When I did upload it, my idea was to replace it with an image from this years crop when it is available and after that send it through this very same deletion process. I am not going to vote for its removal (yet) but I also will not vote for it to be kept.
- Given the opportunity, I would vote to disallow the uploading of images with copyright watermarks at all, regardless of the license.
- Another question. Is St. Mary like 'my psychic friends' where perhaps you should just be able to send a prayer (or strong thought out) and have faith that permission was given? I am not Catholic, so I am uncertain how contacting the groups there should work. -- carol 02:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, when you see a watermark, that usually requires more investigation to make sure the license is OK :-) We allow the uploads if the license is OK, mainly because we can then remove them or crop them out (attribution is done via the image page description). We most definitely do not want to leave watermarks on images; tag it with {{watermark}} if it cannot be removed prior to upload and hopefully someone else can fix it. If the license prevents removal of the watermark, it is then not free enough for Commons. There is/was a proposal at Commons:Watermarks but I don't think it progressed beyond the basics.
- In looking further, the usage rights statement seems to be the standard USDA statement for any third-party image, so the copyright owner may very well allow it to be licensed more liberally if asked. The usage page has a contact email address. Carl Lindberg 03:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- How about those prayer beads? Do churches support all the past technologies they have advocated as well as all of those rules? I would rather do that than use the phone or email. -- carol 03:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Even if they do, OTRS would not ;-) Carl Lindberg 03:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 06:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(this was fraudulently claimed as self-created work, and has had it's usage undone. As the creator of the original image, I've marked the proper source, but that makes this poorly modified image unused, I feel it can be deleted.) --74.13.46.211 23:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- (My goal is to delete the part of Opera web-browser from the picture, which is an encouragement to non-free software. Showing non-free software to present OpenBSD project is a non-sense for me. I do an error in giving my name but if you are agree I want to change the name of the creator. If you can excuse me.) Sylvain Decremps (no fix ip) 13:37 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- OpenBSD developers and users don't have anything against Opera, in fact, if you intent to use flash on OpenBSD, Opera is the only way to do it. The biggest flaw in your action is that it is not a screenshot, it is an obvious edit of an image, which is hardly a trustworthy reference. While I can understand your perspective, I don't share it, and I'd been the one that took that screenshot, running on my OpenBSD 3.9 desktop. Most OpenBSD users believe in the right tool for the job, which when forced to deal with flash, is Opera, as gash is not a functional alternative. You are able to do as you wish with public domain images, but when you're putting a modified version of a file on the same site you got the original, it's rather obvious, so claiming it as your own made it look worse than it would had you just made that statement and pointed at the original to begin with. 74.13.46.211 18:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I realize that my theft of your picture is nerving you, I know that all wishes are subjective. But I just thought that after "the discussion" about non-free software (with RMS), it was interesting to show that OpenBSD is a project which don't encourage non-free software. I know that Opera could help with flash, and gnash is not really efficient. But it was just about the "first look" about this project. So, I apologize about what I have done. Sylvain Decremps 21:15 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Source is OK now, but the image is unused and as a modified screenshot is unlikely to be. Deleted as out of scope. MichaelMaggs 08:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
January 12
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio -Nard 05:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted — Giggy 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Transformers Figure - (Takara) SCF Black Zarak (Combiner - Scattered Parts Thru Series) (Act 5 - Chase) (486074113).jpg
[edit]derivative work --KTo288 00:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Derivative --GeorgHH • talk 12:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Transformers Figure - (Takara) SCF Fortress Maximus (Combiner - Scattered Parts Thru Series) (Act 3 - Chase) (486073817).jpg
[edit]derivative work --KTo288 00:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Derivative --GeorgHH • talk 12:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work --KTo288 00:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Derivative --GeorgHH • talk 12:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work --KTo288 00:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Derivative --GeorgHH • talk 12:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work --KTo288 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Derivative --GeorgHH • talk 12:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like a scan of a postcard -Nard 16:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
"Deutsch: Ich habe das schriftliche Einverständnis, alle Bilder frei nutzen zu dürfen. Daher ist dieses Bild public domain." I will change this to {{npd}}. Samulili 15:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
reopened: Scan of a postcard. Previous delete request was strangely closed as "keep" with a tag of no permission. Someone else removed the no permission tag. The German text says they have written permission. Without more information that is not enough to maintain this image on Commons. -Nard 04:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The debate was closed and {{npd}} was added to the image because, only proper permission information was missing. The bot thought this debate was closed as kept, however. Regarding removing the "no permission" tag, that should not have be done. Samulili 12:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted by User:Polarlys as "no permission". Samulili 12:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dubious claim of authorship -Nard 04:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete obvious copyright violation. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Boricuæddie 18:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
User has many copyvios -Nard 05:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete looks like a cropped screenshot, no reason to trust the user. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Boricuaeddie: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Production photo - seems a likely copyvio. Megapixie 05:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete User has many copyvios -Nard 05:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete this and all the uploads from this user. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Boricuæddie 18:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
doubt this image is self-made (see other uploads from this user) Matt314 13:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copyrighted artwork for an album. Tagged as {{copyvio}}. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by RedCoat: Copyvio, non-free album cover
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyrighted --MB-one 12:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious publicity shot. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, promotion photo Samoborac 14:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Flickrvio. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No license tag, the source does not look like the image is licensed under a Wikimedia compatible license. This is most likely a copyvio. 32X 03:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the sauce page says "All rights reserved", so you can lose the "most likely". Please tag obvious violations with {{copyvio}} in future, k. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 13:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
error in name Pander 10:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 12:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and please use {{badname}} next time Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Gnome-folder-saved-search.svg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown subject, bad file name, image is not usable. GeorgHH • talk 12:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep image in use. -Nard 21:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and N has given it a description --Simonxag 22:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept: 
I withdraw my nomination --GeorgHH • talk 18:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown subject, bad file name, image is not usable. GeorgHH • talk 12:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image is used and I fixed the description. -Nard 22:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Good image --Simonxag 22:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rlevse: Dupe of Image:Huanbeach.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It seems to me that the stained glases of this church are quite recent (Hitler is being shown in one glas) and are still copyrighted. Also, freedom of panorama does not apply inside buildings. ALE! ¿…? 17:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This also applies to:
- Image:Graz Stadtpfarrkirche 13.jpg
- Image:Graz Stadtpfarrkirche 15.jpg and
- Image:Graz Stadtpfarrkirche 14.jpg
--ALE! ¿…? 17:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Have you read COM:FOP#Austria? Austrian law does apply indoors. Keep. -Nard 21:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
request withdrawn, thank for the information --ALE! ¿…? 12:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside project scope--uploaded just to harass another user, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana PMS 20060414.svg -Nard 21:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 22:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Created for the purpose of attacking another user. Rocket000 11:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, {{attackimage}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think that both wrong flags shouldbe deleted, not only this one. --User:G.dallorto 03:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Have you expressed your view at the other discussion? -Nard 03:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
closed as delete, joke turned sour no need for continued discussion. close without prejudice to any other deletion discussion. Gnangarra 13:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Seems like a deriv/copyvio. Megapixie 05:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and please use {{copyvio}} next time, plox. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Seems like a screengrab. Copyvio. Megapixie 05:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and please use {{copyvio}} in future for obvious cases like this. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
huh? -Nard 05:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete; no license and the source website doesn't show any evidence that it's anything but all rights reserved. Also, what? Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside project scope -Nard 05:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete also looks like a copyrighted pub shot. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside project scope -Nard 05:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete also no source, license, or information about the subject. ;\ Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside project scope -Nard 05:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete not useful. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
error in name Pander 10:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 12:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and please use {{badname}}, DR is clogged enough without shit like this Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
error in name Pander 10:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 12:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and please use {{badname}} next time Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No real source information - dubious license. Megapixie 14:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Probably a simple {{copyvio}} case. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not believe that User:JarlaxleArtemis is the copyright holder of this image. The photograph is of low resolution (300×360), yet appears professional. While that's not decisive, images of this nature are often taken from random websites. More importantly, this user has a history of uploading problematic images. He has been banned from the English Wikipedia for vandalism and copyright violations. The image doesn't have any specific source or any real information at all, just a boilerplate template. Unless Jarlaxle is willing to clarify to the satisfaction of the community, I think this photo should be deleted. --Crotalus horridus 11:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Even the tag doesn't specify on what basis this is PD. --Simonxag 22:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 06:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Found this at the Library of Congress where it clearly says "Rights status not evaluated." howcheng {chat} 00:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's probably PD, but Delete unless someone wants to track it down themselves. Rocket000 05:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 06:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work --KTo288 00:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deriv work - clearly a screengrab. Megapixie 03:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 18:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No FOP in USA -Nard 04:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 18:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative -Nard 05:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Simple geometric design, fails the threshold of originality for copyright. It may need a {{Trademarked}} template, though. Crotalus horridus 01:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep PD-ineligible, I think. Rocket000 05:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio -Nard 05:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is a table inside a UK operated train which has promotional material on it. It would be acceptable to submit a Photograph the exterior of the train why not the interior? Oxyman 21:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
DeleteThat does not look like a picture of a table. That looks like a picture of some artwork, that if you look at carefully, you can see is on a table. --Simonxag 22:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- How can the uploader be expected to know what you perceive the picture is of, It is of a table no matter what you think it is of Oxyman 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Dubious license -Nard 05:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
KeepImage does contain metadata, and doesn't look overly polished (for instance, there appears to be a bit of red-eye left over in the photo). This web site seems to back up the claim in question. Unless there's some substantive evidence of problems or specific reason to believe the attribution is false, I think this image should be kept. Crotalus horridus 11:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Description: author „Marcus Cancelo“; EXIF data: „Paul Smith“. --Polarlys 11:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- And Paul Smith's website from the EXIF data is here. Delete. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, this user's uploads definitely have problems. Delete Crotalus horridus 22:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, this user's uploads definitely have problems.
- And Paul Smith's website from the EXIF data is here.
- Description: author „Marcus Cancelo“; EXIF data: „Paul Smith“. --Polarlys 11:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Some more problems with photos originally uploaded by en:User:Imageboy1 at the en-WP:
- Image:Kay Panabaker.jpg is the same as ©wirimage.com, photo ID 6287031, photographer: Amy Graves, date: 23 Oct 2005.
- Image:Jennifer Garner.jpg has a wrong description: At the Children's Defense Fund 2006, she wore different clothes. The image was evidently taken at the Hollywood Film Festival - 10th Annual Hollywood Awards on Oct 23, 2006. (None of the WireImage photos is exactly the same as ours, though.)
- Image:Amanda Bynes.jpg has a missing description again: taken at the premiere of Robots in L.A., 6 March 2005.
- Image:Avega1.jpg indeed is from the Sin City premiere, 28 Mar 2005, and does not match any of the WireImage photos. But the original upload at en-WP said "Photographed by Carlos Marcia, of Los Angeles Daily Report. Public Domain." But en:User:Imageboy1 claims his first name was "Roger", and that he was working for the Santa Monica Celebrity Report.
- Update: copyvio from Getty Images: Photographer Frazer Harrison/Staff. Lupo 21:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Elizabeth Hurley.jpg: at the Serving Sara premiere, she wore different clothes. The image was taken at the WWD Black, White and Diamonds Pre-Oscar Party, 21 Mar 2001.
- Image:Brenda Song.jpg: is the same as ©wireimage.com, photo ID 6591322, photographer E. Neitzel, date: 22 Nov 2005.
- Image:JoJo 2006.jpg was uploaded on 15 Dec 2006 at en-WP. It's the same as 12th image from slide show at KRBE. ©KRBE, or bohemianphotography (Houston, TX), or Nothin' Negative.
- Image:Mileycyrus2.jpg is the same as this much larger photo at miley-cyrus.com.
- That doesn't look good at all. Some may have been taken by en:User:Imageboy1, but some others clearly are not his images. For a full list, see upload log at en-WP. I've asked the user to comment here, but the user has been inactive there since May 8, 2007. The uploads of his account here as User:Imageboy1 also need checking. Lupo 18:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Here goes:
- Image:Erika1.jpg: ©Bob D'Amico/ABC
- Image:Holly marie.jpg, claimed to be taken in June 2003, at a promo event for Charmed. Really? Compare with these photos from August 2002, where she wears exactly the same clothes!
- Image:Mileycyrus.jpg: this much larger photo at miley-cyrus.com. See also here: "thanks to HannahMontana.net for some of these."
- Image:BeverleyMitchell027.jpg: based on the clothes, that would be from the Scream 3 premiere, 3 Feb 2000, not from a 2003-02-28 "press conference for T-Mobile", as claimed.
- This needs some really good explanations. Lupo 21:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I should add that all this makes me feel rather uneasy about Image:Britney-Spears082.jpg, too. Lupo 21:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm not going to hunt down the rest, it just takes too much time. I've found copyvios from wireimage.com and Getty from a variety of photographers, mis-attributions, wrong location statements, and so on. Delete all uploads of User:Imageboy1, including Britney Spears, as well as all images of his that have been transwiki'd to the Commons. We may lose a few images that he might indeed have taken himself, but this user is IMO no longer trustworthy. Lupo 21:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Update: even that "Santa Monica Celebrity Report" doesn't seem to exist. Their alleged internet presence looks very amateurish, has next to no content, is stale since Feb 1, 2007, and in general looks like someone just set it up to fake the existence of such a paper. Of the three images they show at [95], the third is a Getty image again: photographer Vince Bucci. The Google results for "Santa Monica Celebrity Report" are also very interesting: a grand total of four hits: the user's user and talk page at en-WP, the fake site mentioned above, and this very page here. Lupo 21:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- And Image:Britney-Spears082.jpg comes from here, part of a whole set of which I cannot find any attribution. Lupo 22:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete ALL per lupo. Clearly the user uploader these photographs with the intent to pass them off as their own. Can we get the user in question blocked ? Megapixie 05:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- He's inactive since April/May 2007... Lupo 09:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per Lupo MichaelMaggs 18:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
While the image was used by the DEA, it is clearly a page from El Nuevo Siglo, a Colombian newspaper. In fact, the words "El Nuevo Siglo" are visable at the very top of the page as well as in small italic letters further down. --Descendall 09:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 12:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted - Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Obvious copyvio Megapixie 14:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and please tag obvious ones like this with {{copyvio}} in future. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 18:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deriv work. Megapixie 14:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
What does Deriv means? And, Don't delete it, it is an official Barnstar on SimpleWiki. IuseRosary 15:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please read Commons:Derivative works. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 22:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom unless the uploader demonstrates that they are the photographer and copyright holder of the photo of Elvis used in the barnstar. -- Infrogmation
- Keep. I see no reason to delete this. -- LastUserNameEver 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- ! Do you not think copyright violations are a reason for deletion? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 18:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry but whoever took take photograph of Elvis has certain rights and we can't host it without knowing it is PD or the author released under a free license according to our policy. And being a copyright violation is a very very good reason to delete. Rocket000 00:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 18:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I uploaded a better quality image Hovev 06:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 12:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment yeah, let's just take his word for it even though he can't be bothered to give us the link to the "better quality" version. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Better image is apparently Image:Israel Eighth Gov.jpg. It is higher resolution, although a slightly tighter crop, so nominated image has a couple more details and does not cut off any of the people. Carl Lindberg 21:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown subject, bad file name, image is not usable. GeorgHH • talk 12:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
LaughtDeleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As with Commons:Deletion requests/Image:WonderWomanReborn.jpg Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As with Commons:Deletion requests/Image:WonderWomanReborn.jpg Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As with Commons:Deletion requests/Image:4GatsIssue1.jpg Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown subject, bad file name, image is not usable. GeorgHH • talk 12:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Maxim: Deleted because "In category Unknown as of 12 January 2008; no license/permission/source". using TW
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
file is damaged Erik Baas 15:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Firefox and IE6 say there's an error, but Opera 8 does show the image... - Erik Baas 16:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Problem is solved. - Erik Baas 16:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Transformers Figure - RID RAILRACER COMBINERS Midnight Express Accessories (486549001).jpg
[edit]derivative work --KTo288 00:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Appears more functional than copyrightable. --MichaelMaggs 18:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Completely functional. Toy. - Rocket000 10:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is derivative work of the copyrighted gollum caracter of Jackson's film. ALE! ¿…? 17:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
On Flickr it belongs to the section of images with Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 Commons license, but if it is a fake license, please go ahead and delete it. --Manudosde 20:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 22:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann: Copyright violation
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I don't think the original poster from Flickr is the creator of this photo, like for 90 percent of the photos from Flickr. D-slay 16:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Probably not - so a {{copyvio}} --|EPO| da: 17:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
User has many copyvios -Nard 05:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete now tagged as {{copyvio}}. Re-upload of a previously deleted picture; please protect it against being re-uploaded. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was only uploaded twice... SALTing it may be a bit much. Rocket000 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Rocket000 00:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The painter, Jacques Emile Blanche is not in the public domain (he was dead in 1942) Kirtap 21:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
speedy delete PD-US being used on a French image (where it doesn't apply for the Commons). --Simonxag 22:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. PD-US on French work Badseed talk 23:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The painter, Jacques Emile Blanche is not in the public domain (he was dead in 1942) Kirtap 21:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
speedy delete PD-US being used on a French image (where it doesn't apply for the Commons). --Simonxag 22:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. PD-US on French work Badseed talk 23:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is doubtful that Zinn owns the copyright on this photo as it seems that he didn't take the photo himself. Only the photographer may license the photo under GFDL Phrood 12:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep If Zinn gave permission for it, I don't see the issue here. -- LastUserNameEver 14:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- The issue is that if Zinn didn't take the photo himself, he does not own the copyright and therefore cannot "give permission" for it. --Phrood 14:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Possibly the rights to this photo belong with the photographer per the nomination, but I think it possible that the permission might be correct. Zinn may have taken the photo himself with a timer, or set up the shot with his own camera and asked a relative to press the button, etc. If license permission is unclear, perhaps someone can contact and ask? Image seems to have been transfered here to Commons from de:Wikipedia, can someone with access there check? -- Infrogmation 16:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe in good faith that Zinn owns the copyright to this image. LastUserNameEver 15:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If this picture is deleted, please also delete the identical file Image:Zinn.jpg. --Phrood 17:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 16:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This statue looks rather recent, after WW2 in any case. Please provide author's name and/or his/her death date in order to avoid deletion. --User:G.dallorto 20:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No FOP in Italy. MichaelMaggs 16:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Proof of license? -Nard 23:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep — Oh, please. Take a look at the original upload log. It clearly says "Keith Mlynarski took this photo with Koji Kondo at Mr. Nobuo Uematsu's Tower Records Signing Event. He graciously gave me permission to use the image on Wikipedia. I found the image on Keith Mlynarski's blog, here". You can just contact the original uploader en:User:PyroGamer for the e-mail and request that he forward the e-mail to OTRS. Sheesh. Taric25 00:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, I just e-mailed Keith, and he e-mailed me back. I've forwarded the e-mail back to OTRS. So, nyah. :-P Taric25 00:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, I've updated the page and added the ticket: 2008011410000797. Geeze, don't you people have anything better to do than delete content? It makes me sick. Taric25 07:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, I just e-mailed Keith, and he e-mailed me back. I've forwarded the e-mail back to OTRS. So, nyah. :-P Taric25 00:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I, the author, want to delete this image as it is superseded by a SVG image (also mine). I've replaced this one everywhere with the SVG version. Alex:D 17:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, this is a tough one. I know we don't delete superseded images anymore, but I'm a bit confused because this is an author-requested deletion. Should we allow this as a author-requested deletion, or deny it because of the "Do not delete superseded images" rule? I'll comply with your wishes and just say Delete for now. Vipersnake151 20:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think I'd go for Keep; the images are different (the bitmap has shadows) and would also appear in many page histories. Carl Lindberg 21:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Author's request of an unused image. "Do not delete superseded images" only applies if that's the only reason. Rocket000 00:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Perhaps the author should have simply acted by adding {{badname|name of the new image}} or, even better, named the new images as the old one and overwritten it: that would be the best solution in the future. --User:G.dallorto 01:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I cannot overwrite a png image with a svg one ;) --Alex:D 14:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. as a user request, also PNG not used anywhere and svg a far superior versionBadseed talk 06:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Terms of use ("publication, reproduction, printing and comercial use forbidden" not compatible either with the license (CC-sa-2.5) chosen or with WikiCommons requirements. --User:G.dallorto 17:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- After checking, I noticed ALL of the images by this uploader (Special:Contributions/Roadsmaster) fall under the same restrictions.I dropped him a note about either removing this limitation, or to accept the removal of the images. --User:G.dallorto 21:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 16:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Terms of use ("publication, reproduction, printing and comercial use forbidden" not compatible either with the license (CC-sa-2.5) chosen or with WikiCommons requirements. --User:G.dallorto 17:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I can't read it, but who slapped those licenses on there? The author, if so then they apply. You can't put more restrictions on top of it. Rocket000 00:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the point is that it is not self-evident which of the two conflicting licenses apply. Nowhere it is written that he can not. In these case, we normally refuse the donation and ask for removal unless the conflict is solved. We are not playing the game to dupe the uploader "too late, now that you have uploaded 'em, we own them, so go f yslf". I think solving the contraddiction would be a wiser move. --User:G.dallorto 01:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 16:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Terms of use ("publication, reproduction, printing and comercial use forbidden" not compatible either with the license (CC-sa-2.5) chosen or with WikiCommons requirements. --User:G.dallorto 17:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 16:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Terms of use ("publication, reproduction, printing and comercial use forbidden" not compatible either with the license (CC-sa-2.5) chosen or with WikiCommons requirements. --User:G.dallorto 17:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 16:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work and verry bad quality for me __ ABF __ ϑ 20:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep It's clearly marked as with trademark and getting in that close was the only way I could get in enough details. No one objected to the GFDL tagging all the time it was on enwiki. If it's derivative then we ought to delete the entire coke bottle category, many of the images in which have the Coke logo shown at about the same size. It's slightly shaken, but the words are still legible, therefore it's sufficiently encylopedic. Daniel Case 20:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please note also that the Coke logo itself, the central aspect of that bottle label, is in the public domain in the US. Daniel Case 20:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- And is this photo any different, really? Daniel Case 20:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not a copyvio. It is laughable to think that such an object is a copyrightable "work of art". -Nard 21:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete All over the world, courts protect commercial artwork. They don't apply value judgements just copyright law. Do you really think Transformers toys are art? --Simonxag 22:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, the copyrighted elements of this image are minimal ... the words "Vanilla" and "Zero", assuming Coke actually went and got them copyrighted as well as trademarked, and that's about it. The bottle itself, not that much is shown, can't be copyrighted as it is a "useful article." It's hardly a value judgement, just a legal one. Daniel Case 06:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The only thing copyrightable on there is the background design -- not the logo, not the text. I'm not sure if that is enough to delete on, but maybe. Carl Lindberg 21:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright commercial artwork (the Coca Cola logo itself is old enough to be out of copyright, but the rest is not). MichaelMaggs 17:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image is said to have been "allowed to appear", however it comes for a commercial CD. I think we need a ticket to be sure about its copyright status, then. --User:G.dallorto 20:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Needs permission sent to OTRS to keep this. MichaelMaggs 17:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image is said to have been "allowed to appear", however it comes for a commercial CD. I think we need a ticket to be sure about its copyright status, then. --User:G.dallorto 20:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Needs permission sent to OTRS to keep this. MichaelMaggs 17:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image is said to have been "allowed to appear", however it comes for a commercial CD. I think we need a ticket to be sure about its copyright status, then. --User:G.dallorto 20:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Needs permission sent to OTRS to keep this. MichaelMaggs 17:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is missing permission from Jorg Hammes, but someone removed my no permission tag. -Nard 04:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No need for a permission, the original log at de.wiki says
- 17:52, 14. Jul. 2007 Fockel007 (Diskussion | Beiträge) hat „Bild:Calmont pano.jpg“ hochgeladen ({{Information |Beschreibung = Panorama vom Calmont Gipfelkreuz |Quelle = selber fotografiert |Urheber = Jörg Hammes |Datum = 12.7.2007 ),
so Fockel007 and "Jörg Hammes" are the same person. Therefore the license is {{PD-user-de|Fockel007}}. --GeorgHH • talk 15:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. per GeorgHH. Licence tag corrected. MichaelMaggs 08:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
mmm, copyvio grocery, provision products and frozen foods -Nard 05:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is a symbol of the UK Monarchy rather than a trade mark Logo Oxyman 21:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. I would want to see evidence that this particular realization of the warrant is old enough to be out of copyright. It is more likely that copyright in this realization is owned by the College of Arms. (Image is unused). MichaelMaggs 08:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Absurd license claims -Nard 05:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- As I stated in the other image for deletion request related to this one, there is no absurd license claim here. Here's the two links documenting the granted permission given for these pictures and any pictures they took that day while there.[96][97] Since you joined that board, those links should work for you. If not, just go to the bottom of the site where it says Event recaps, select that, and then while inside, select the thread titled Lyss & Char @ AMC Studios. Pages 2 (at the very bottom) and 3 (at the top, since there isn't nuch conversation on Page 3 of that topic) will display the permission given to freely use the images they took that day, permission given to use them on Wikipedia. And you can contact either of the two administrators there, who happen to be the ones who took these images, and they will verify that they gave permission for the use of these images on Wikipedia. Flyer22 07:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Permission for use on Wikipedia is not enough. The copyright holder must have explicitly licensed it under a free license or released it into the public domain. If you would paste the text in which they granted this permission, we might be able to tell for ourselves (I'm also not signing up for the forum; I shouldn't have to). Failing that, Delete. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I had a feeling that an editor might say permission for use on Wikipedia is not enough, but I point out that they did not say for use on Wikipedia only. They made it clear that they did not care how these pictures were used. And you're right that you shouldn't have to sign up at the forum there, but that's the only way to see the permission granted with your own eyes, well, without me providing the text. Here is the text:
- Permission for use on Wikipedia is not enough. The copyright holder must have explicitly licensed it under a free license or released it into the public domain. If you would paste the text in which they granted this permission, we might be able to tell for ourselves (I'm also not signing up for the forum; I shouldn't have to). Failing that,
- Showblaze: Hey, Lyss and Charity, would you guys mind a few of these pictures being used on Wikipedia? Alexa Havins needs an image for her article, and Wikipedia doesn't allow what they call fair-use images for real-life people when it comes to main images, though it can be fair-use when it's just promotional or a magazine cover that is not used as the main (lead) image for the actor or actress' article. Anyway, I realize that Jacob needs an image for his article as well, but I'm willing to wait for an image where his hair is shorter than in the pictures you two took with him (LOL). However, the pictures you two took with Alexa, I think there's a picture out of those that could be used for the main image of her article on Wikipedia if cropped right. I was wondering if one of you would crop one of those pictures you took of Alexa, to where it is just Alexa in the picture so that it can be used for her article on Wikipedia. And, also, would you guys mind a picture of the cake being used in the J.R. and Babe article on Wikipedia for commentary use about the fans of this couple?
- Charity: I don't care...but, let me ask Lyss what she thinks and I'll let you know.
- xoadbox89: i dont care either, go for it!
- Showblaze: Okay, thank you guys. Could one of you crop one of the pictures you took with Alexa and post it here in this thread? The computer I'm using lately isn't allowing me to see the pictures in the link on the first page of this thread, unless you guys took those pictures down from there. And, also, this computer doesn't have my cropping program on it, and not enough space to download a new cropping program. I already have the pictures of the cake saved on this computer due to them being posted at this link: http://www.fanforum.com/f29/jr-babe-amc-because-theyre-hot-62763521/index3.html
- Showblaze: I went ahead and cropped it myself. I hacked into my other computer, and got a hold of the images that I saved of you guys and Alexa and a few others from the show All My Children, then I cropped one of the images of Alexa with an online cropper, and had it added to Wikipedia. I'll probably use your pictures of "Colby" and of Jeffrey Carlson (Zarf/Zoe) as well. Anyway, thank you guys again for the permission.
- Charity: Your Welcome. Glad we could you out.
- I mean, if these images are deleted even though the authors of them have given full permission for their use and they are entirely free images, then I suppose the best alternative would be to ask one of the authors to sign up on Wikipedia just to upload these images for me. But I really don't see the point in that, considering the permission given. Flyer22 21:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- IMHO that permission is not clear enough. "Showblaze" only mentioned use on Wikipedia, but didn't mention derivative work and commercial use. So how can we be sure, that the authors really agree with that? --Kam Solusar 06:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- They can be contacted at that forum, of course, or emailed. However, I know that no one here wants to go through contacting them at the forum, which is where you'd get their emails, so I could have them contacted at the forum in that thread, and then present their agreement to complete use as well. Flyer22 03:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- IMHO that permission is not clear enough. "Showblaze" only mentioned use on Wikipedia, but didn't mention derivative work and commercial use. So how can we be sure, that the authors really agree with that? --Kam Solusar 06:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I guess the best solution would be to let them fill out the Email template and send it to the OTRS. --Kam Solusar 10:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- The owners of these pictures have now given explicit statement that they have released these images into the public. Here is the dialogue:
- I guess the best solution would be to let them fill out the Email template and send it to the OTRS. --Kam Solusar 10:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Showblaze: Lyss and Charity, I have a new favor to ask of you guys about these pictures. Two of the pictures are up for deletion at Wikipedia, as seen in these two links: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...lexa_Havins.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...e_fan_cake..jpg. It's Alexa's picture and the Jabe fan cake picture. The reason they were put of for deletion is because the person who nominated them for deletion thought that the license claims were bogus. But proof was provided that you two are the authors of those pictures. The only other problem now is that it can appear to some people that you two only agreed to their use on Wikipedia. Well, Wikipedia policy requires that you state that the pictures are released into public domain, not just to Wikipedia. If it isn't too much trouble, can you two please state here that you release these images into public domain? I'm sure that no one is going to take these pictures and horribly alter them on some other site, but Wikipedia wants you to state that you wouldnt mind if someone were to do that, as they are released to the public. Let me know here if you guys grant this. Your agreement will be posted in those deletion debates, and these images will most likely be spared.
- Charity: So, are you saying that they are going to delete them if me or Lyss don't say that they can go into public?
- We said that you could post them there. We took those pix. So, shouldn't that be good enough that me and her both said yes, that you could use them?
- Showblaze: One would think. But they'd rather it be made clear. But I think that from what you just stated, it is clear now. This part of the conversation will be posted there to show this. But if either of you want to state the exact words "I release them to the public", go ahead. It couldn't hurt. In fact, it would only help.
- And, of course, the link to that conversation is found above...for anyone who registered there and wants to register there to look at it with their own eyes. Sorry about that, having to register there just to read this yourselves. Flyer22 03:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. This is no good. The image is tagged as GFDL but nowhere in the posted text do the authors (not sure why there should be two?) grant that particular licence. Their last posting reads "We said that you could post them there. We took those pix. So, shouldn't that be good enough that me and her both said yes, that you could use them?". I think that is a question (isn't what we have said already enough?) rather than the explicit grant of any licence. There is only one way forward, and that is for the photographer to send formal permission to OTRS, as in fact Kam Solusar suggested above.MichaelMaggs 09:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Flickr copyfraud account also host http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonrubin/2126788757/ as by Megapixie 14:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also Image:John cassavetes 1.jpg, Image:John cassavetes 3.jpg, Image:John cassavetes 4.jpg Megapixie 14:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not for Image:John cassavetes 3.jpg ! Why do you want delete this image ? I understand for all ohter, but not this 82.252.179.88 06:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Because look at the original title of the image - Rosemary. Rosemary's baby = movie. Image = screencap of the movie. Megapixie 06:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not for Image:John cassavetes 3.jpg ! Why do you want delete this image ? I understand for all ohter, but not this 82.252.179.88 06:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The Flikr source lists two as taken from a book and the last as "I had this photocopy over my desk". Not promising as a valid source. MichaelMaggs 09:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This imahe and all other uploads by the same uploader should be deleted, as it seems that the uploader is not the author of the artworks. ALE! ¿…? 18:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a portrait of my niece Yariza, and I am really the author of this artwork, Juan Carlos Gonzalez. The upload is correct.
- Keep If that is truth I don´t see any reason to delete.
Is a good image,a beautiful work.By the way,Juan carlos, why you don´t firm like an user?Vicond 22:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Sounds ok. The image includes EXIF data MichaelMaggs 09:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wasn't sure if this was correct, undid and bring here for discussion. — Giggy 07:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm don't know if these characters would be treated the same as Latin ones, but I would think so (even though they're a little more complex). It maybe ineligible. Or it may just be a case of thinking {{logo}} applies to all logos. The PD-self is most likely wrong though. Rocket000 06:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. {{pd-ineligible}} even though they are not latin characters. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is redundant now that NASA has released a better processed version - Image:PIA09813 Epimetheus S. polar region.jpg WolfmanSF 20:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep These are not the same image. -Nard 21:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- He didn't say they were, but do appear to be of the same thing. One's just flipped and enhanced. Rocket000 06:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Users may choose one or the other; it is not our decision to make. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Absurd license claims -Nard 05:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- What's absurd about the license? And they aren't claims. The source provided clearly shows permission for use of the image. Flyer22 05:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Source unverifiable. I even joined the board and I cannot see the topic. -Nard 05:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Let me see what I can do. The source is there. I haven't visited that thread in a few months, but I certainly didn't make up that source. Permission was most definitely given by the owners of that site, who took these pictures. Flyer22 07:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, here's the two links documenting the granted permission given for these pictures and any pictures they took that day while there.[98][99] Since you joined that board, those links should work for you. If not, just go to the bottom of the site where it says Event recaps, select that, and then while inside, select the thread titled Lyss & Char @ AMC Studios. Pages 2 (at the very bottom) and 3 (at the top, since there isn't much conversation on Page 3 of that topic) will display the permission given to freely use the images they took that day, permission given to use them on Wikipedia. And you can contact either of the two administrators there, who happen to be the ones who took these images, and they will verify that they gave permission for the use of these images on Wikipedia. Flyer22 07:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Let me see what I can do. The source is there. I haven't visited that thread in a few months, but I certainly didn't make up that source. Permission was most definitely given by the owners of that site, who took these pictures. Flyer22 07:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Source unverifiable. I even joined the board and I cannot see the topic. -Nard 05:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Permission for use on Wikipedia is not enough, but I point out that they did not say for use on Wikipedia only. They made it clear that they did not care how these pictures were used. And none of the editors here should have to sign up at the forum there, but that's the only way to see the permission granted with your own eyes, well, without me providing the text. Here is the text:
Showblaze: Hey, Lyss and Charity, would you guys mind a few of these pictures being used on Wikipedia? Alexa Havins needs an image for her article, and Wikipedia doesn't allow what they call fair-use images for real-life people when it comes to main images, though it can be fair-use when it's just promotional or a magazine cover that is not used as the main (lead) image for the actor or actress' article. Anyway, I realize that Jacob needs an image for his article as well, but I'm willing to wait for an image where his hair is shorter than in the pictures you two took with him (LOL). However, the pictures you two took with Alexa, I think there's a picture out of those that could be used for the main image of her article on Wikipedia if cropped right. I was wondering if one of you would crop one of those pictures you took of Alexa, to where it is just Alexa in the picture so that it can be used for her article on Wikipedia. And, also, would you guys mind a picture of the cake being used in the J.R. and Babe article on Wikipedia for commentary use about the fans of this couple?
Charity: I don't care...but, let me ask Lyss what she thinks and I'll let you know.
xoadbox89: i dont care either, go for it!
Showblaze: Okay, thank you guys. Could one of you crop one of the pictures you took with Alexa and post it here in this thread? The computer I'm using lately isn't allowing me to see the pictures in the link on the first page of this thread, unless you guys took those pictures down from there. And, also, this computer doesn't have my cropping program on it, and not enough space to download a new cropping program. I already have the pictures of the cake saved on this computer due to them being posted at this link: http://www.fanforum.com/f29/jr-babe-amc-because-theyre-hot-62763521/index3.html
Showblaze: I went ahead and cropped it myself. I hacked into my other computer, and got a hold of the images that I saved of you guys and Alexa and a few others from the show All My Children, then I cropped one of the images of Alexa with an online cropper, and had it added to Wikipedia. I'll probably use your pictures of "Colby" and of Jeffrey Carlson (Zarf/Zoe) as well. Anyway, thank you guys again for the permission.
Charity: Your Welcome. Glad we could you out.
I mean, if these images are deleted even though the authors of them have given full permission for their use and they are entirely free images, then I suppose the best alternative would be to ask one of the authors to sign up on Wikipedia just to upload these images for me. But I really don't see the point in that, considering the permission given. Flyer22 21:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- The owners of these pictures have now given explicit statement that they have released these images into the public. Here is the dialogue:
- Showblaze: Lyss and Charity, I have a new favor to ask of you guys about these pictures. Two of the pictures are up for deletion at Wikipedia, as seen in these two links: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...lexa_Havins.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...e_fan_cake..jpg. It's Alexa's picture and the Jabe fan cake picture. The reason they were put of for deletion is because the person who nominated them for deletion thought that the license claims were bogus. But proof was provided that you two are the authors of those pictures. The only other problem now is that it can appear to some people that you two only agreed to their use on Wikipedia. Well, Wikipedia policy requires that you state that the pictures are released into public domain, not just to Wikipedia. If it isn't too much trouble, can you two please state here that you release these images into public domain? I'm sure that no one is going to take these pictures and horribly alter them on some other site, but Wikipedia wants you to state that you wouldnt mind if someone were to do that, as they are released to the public. Let me know here if you guys grant this. Your agreement will be posted in those deletion debates, and these images will most likely be spared.
- Charity: So, are you saying that they are going to delete them if me or Lyss don't say that they can go into public?
- We said that you could post them there. We took those pix. So, shouldn't that be good enough that me and her both said yes, that you could use them?
- Showblaze: One would think. But they'd rather it be made clear. But I think that from what you just stated, it is clear now. This part of the conversation will be posted there to show this. But if either of you want to state the exact words "I release them to the public", go ahead. It couldn't hurt. In fact, it would only help.
- And, of course, the link to that conversation is found above...for anyone who registered there and wants to register there to look at it with their own eyes. Sorry about that, having to register there just to read this yourselves. Flyer22 03:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. This is no good. The image is tagged as GFDL but nowhere in the posted text do the authors (not sure why there should be two?) grant that particular licence. Their last posting reads "We said that you could post them there. We took those pix. So, shouldn't that be good enough that me and her both said yes, that you could use them?". I think that is a question (isn't what we have said already enough?) rather than the explicit grant of any licence. There is only one way forward, and that is for the photographer to send formal permission to OTRS. See also the closed deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Alexa Havins.jpg where the issues are the same. MichaelMaggs 14:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please provide author's name and/or his/her death. The dedication plaque dates only from 1936, but the manufact could be older. --User:G.dallorto 20:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC) --User:G.dallorto 20:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Are you arguing for or against deletion? I've never seen someone argue that something could be older and thus still copyrighted. Surely it works the other way around? -Nard 21:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Neither. To make my mind, I need to know the author's name and his death date. It is not percentually very likely that the author died immediately after completing the work, but it might have happened: people have to die, soon or late, and no date is written in advance. So, it suffices to tell us who the author is ans when he died. Othwerwise, someone who was alive in 1936, is too close to the limit date for copyviol (1937). Furthermore, the plaque is dated 1936, but was the bust made in 1936, or they simply added a plaque to an older bust? And so on. To make it short, uploader should provide evidence of the work of art being in the PD. Does this sound new to you? --User:G.dallorto 21:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete More fundamental informations are needed. Without, this image could be an anauthorized derivative work - a copyvio.--Trixt 23:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
January 13
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contains various deriv works. Megapixie 00:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Drini: www.foroswebgratis.com/mensaje-dioses_del_mal-51698-712247-1-2338289.htm
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Linked-to page says nothing about Creative Commons -Nard 02:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as copyvio. The user is already known. -- Cecil 17:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work --KTo288 10:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Derivative work. --GeorgHH • talk 11:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The sole purpose of the photograph is to show the copyrighted cover art of the DVD. Unauthorised derivative work. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, obvious copyviol -- Infrogmation 18:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of a non-free copyrighted work. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - no brainer deriv work. Megapixie 12:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, probably. The reason I didn't speedy it was that it's been around for so long without being challenged (it was probably overlooked at the time, but still) (and because I was speedying quite a few non-free cover images on today's scavenge as it was). —LX (talk, contribs) 13:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -- Infrogmation 18:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete As the autor of this image, I'm ok with the deletion of this image since 1. It contains the "LOST" logo and it's copyrighted (At the time I imported this image I thought it was ok) 2. It is not used anymore on any wikimedia project. So, you can delete it right away if you want. --polo200 02:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence that the copyright holder of the DVD authorised relicensing of screenshots of it. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- de:Benutzer:Siegfried Hartmeyer is a registered author in the German Wikipedia and as such he produced the DVD, did the screenshot and the upload in the DE-WP too. I did move it from de to the commons only. This is just an "own work" as you can see in his other contributions: [100]. Denis Barthel 18:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. I see from http://www.hartmeyer.de/ that the uploader did indeed not just produce the screenshot, but also the DVD from which it was taken. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Appears to be promotional material for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2O:_Just_Add_Water deriv/copyvio. Megapixie 12:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: cv
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probably a copyvio related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2O:_Just_Add_Water Megapixie 12:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: cv
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probably a copyvio related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2O:_Just_Add_Water Megapixie 12:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: cv
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deriv work - screencap of TV show H20 Megapixie 14:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: cv
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deriv work - screen cap from TV show h20 Megapixie 14:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: cv
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deriv work - screen cap from tv show h20 Megapixie 14:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, obvious copyviol. -- Infrogmation 16:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deriv work - probably promotional materials for TV show h20 Megapixie 14:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, obvious copyviol -- Infrogmation 16:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Screencap from TV show H20 Megapixie 14:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, obvious copyviol -- Infrogmation 16:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Appears to be a screen grab - I'm guessing from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2O:_Just_Add_Water - deriv/copyvio. Megapixie 12:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ChristianBier: copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probably a copyvio related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2O:_Just_Add_Water Megapixie 12:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ChristianBier: copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Free to use" is not the same as permission to anyone to create derivative works and use commercially. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's not eligible for copyright, it's just a simple word.--Wiggum 12:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, it's "Tohu wa-Bohu" taken from some old printed Biblical Hebrew text of Genesis 1:2, projected onto a dim monocolor background. Not much creativity there, I would say. AnonMoos 17:11, 13 January 2008 (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.
Screencap from TV show H20 Megapixie 14:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ChristianBier: copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio, probably screencap of H20 Megapixie 14:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ChristianBier: copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Screencap of H20 Megapixie 14:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ChristianBier: copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deriv work related to tv show h20 Megapixie 14:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ChristianBier: copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work --KTo288 10:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio --Simonxag 21:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deriv work. Megapixie 12:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio --Simonxag 21:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Absolutely no evidence creator has been dead for 70 years. Megapixie 12:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-self, artist is Leonetto Cappiello, dead 1942. http://www.cappiello.fr/ --Tomia 13:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Logos / deriv work. Megapixie 14:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Plase delete --Motopark 15:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
replaced by png 20percent 15:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
replaced by png 20percent 15:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
replaced by png 20percent 15:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
replaced by png 20percent 15:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Commons is not a file hosting service for personal files. -Nard 22:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Image quality. --Simonxag 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh gosh, young love. Deleted. Thuresson 04:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bad version of file....oops Dylanpack 01:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Alison: Author requested
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source. Appears to be a deriv work. Megapixie 00:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. See also narutoleague.forumcommunity.net/?t=9707012. --Christian NurtschTM 11:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 18:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of non-free copyrighted works. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I shot the photo so the copyrights are mine. It is true that in the photo you can see cd covers, but it is not simply a picture of a cd cover. Neenche 12:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as deriv work. Megapixie 12:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- You hold the copyright to your contribution to the photograph, but you cannot publish or license it legally without consent from the other contributing copyright holders (namely the copyright holders of the CD covers). See Commons:Derivative works#If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders? The photograph is used to show the CD covers, not to illustrate the piano in the background. The inclusion of the CD covers cannot be considered de minimis. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete A nice arrangement for the photo, but as the covers of the cds are likely coprighted, derivative, so not allowed on Commons. -- 17:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The piano, and the arrangement are the key in this photo, I still feel it is not derivative, because it's not just a picture of one cd, it does not show this album or another but Bebop. Artists, albums, piano, and a vibe. But I might be mistaken... Neenche 20:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- This assumption that adding a background to a copyrighted work and taking a picture of it decouples it from its existing copyright is addressed in Commons:Derivative works#If I take a photograph of a kid who is holding a stuffed Winnie the Pooh toy, does Disney own the copyright in the photo since they own the Pooh design? You're trying to dodge the copyright protection of the album covers by adding a piano, but the piano is not the subject, the albums are. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 18:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image seems to exist for the sole or principal purpose of attacking or intimidating other users and is of a nature apparently intended to shock or give offense to some, and appears to have no encyclopedic or other Wikimedia related use. Attack images should be considered a form of vandalism. Thuresson 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is a candidate for a {{speedydelete}}. Mutter Erde 18:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I was thinking that it's the same of Image:Non aux religions.png, Image:No god.PNG, Image:No music.svg or Image:Anti-soccer.png, isn't it?--OsamaK 10:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We have a large number of such images aimed at activities, ideologies and religions. --Simonxag 21:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete sorry, but I am not seeing any encyclopedic sense. __ ABF __ ϑ 11:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- We have too many images that's unencyclopedic (e.g. Personal photos or above ones..)--OsamaK 13:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This picture is only in use by OsamaK [101] and I don't think, that you can use this picture in any Wikipedia-Article -- Ra'ike Diskussion 11:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- All these images (Image:Non aux religions.png, Image:No god.PNG, Image:No music.svg or Image:Anti-soccer.png) not in used but in users pages, I can't see the different--OsamaK 13:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete ack ABF and Ra'ike Ireas talk•de•en 17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. /Slarre 17:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Any answer for my questions? Remember that "Polling is not a substitute for discussion"--OsamaK 18:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't this fall under "The file/page is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project" not necessarily suitable for a speedy, but the fact that other similar but not the same images haven't been deleted isn't any sort of explanation of why this one shouldn't be, right? Jessamyn 04:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- What about usera pages, aren't these one of Wikimedia's project pages? there are too many images that don't use but in a user page (e.g. Personal photos..).--OsamaK 10:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, if it will be deleted, I'll request all these images above (and othere) ;) (can't see the different).--OsamaK 10:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I will tell you the difference. Flags/coats of arms/seals are symbols of countries. When you put a cross on a flag of a country, you are insulting that country's nation. No-one will be offended if you dislike, hate or even disrespect music or football which is not the case for flags. --Meno25 04:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. --Kjetil r 10:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone here who would support to ban this Osama troll? see [102], [103] and many more of obvious PD art (most of them deleted by others, sigh) Mutter Erde 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Troll? Many users don't agree with that, you can see this link :).--OsamaK 11:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- It would be very useful to see this request too.--OsamaK 11:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, let´s do 2 votes: One for these people, who want to install you as admin and the other for these who want to ban you. I´m very curious. Mutter Erde 11:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mutter Erde, please try to stay calm and civil. Calling people names in a discussion remotely connected to Israel is like smoking in a petrol station. Rama 11:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- It would be very useful to see this request too.--OsamaK 11:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Troll? Many users don't agree with that, you can see this link :).--OsamaK 11:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete:
- We do have numerous images which are not a direct encyclopedic nature. Remember that we feed images to all Wikimedia projects, like Wikinews for instance
- That the image is not of an encyclopedic nature remains to be proved
- We do host images for the benefit of users' pages
- We do host images which are scarcely used, if at all.
- Keep I agree with Rama. --Maderibeyza 12:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedfa is no place for antisemitic racist propaganda. Someone ban this troll. /Jebur 22:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is not Wikipedia. This is Wikimedia Commons. I would be grateful if you could refrain from insulting people. There is nothing antisemitic or racist in this image, your usage of the term "troll" in unwarranted. Rama 22:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This image is an insult to Israel. Flags are symbols of countries. All flags should be treated with respect. Today someone puts a cross on Israeli flag, tomorrow someone will put a cross on the Saudi flag saying that Saudi are terrorists (because OsamaK is Saudi) then the American/Chinese/Russian etc flags. This will cause unnecessary site-wide drama. Remember that Commons is politically neutral as pointed out by Erik, a former member of the Board of trustees. Commons is not the place for solving the Arab Israeli conflict. --Meno25 04:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- {{ar|ما رأيك بصورة [[:Image:No god.PNG| كهذه[[ ألا تستطيع أن ترى فيها أسوأ أنواع الإهانة، احترام المعتقدات أهم بكثير من احترام أعلام الدول والشعارات، وبالمناسبة لست أهتم إذا قام أحد المستخدمين بوضع إشارة "خطأ" على علم السعودية، ويكيميديا كومنز هي مكتبة عامة؛ يوجد صور "أسوأ" بكثير من هذه، ستجدها في الأعلى. لست أبالي، لنحذف هذه الصورة، بشرط أن نعامل بقية الصور بنفس المنطلق. ويكيميديا ليست مؤسسة إلحادية إسرائيلة، ويكيميديا مؤسسة للجميع.}}
--OsamaK 08:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- English: What do you think about this image can't be seen the worst kind of insult, respect for religions is much more important than respect for the states and logos, I do not care if a user has upload an image includes a "cross" to Saudi flag. Wikimedia Commons is a public library; there are many pictures "worse" much than this (see them above) I don't care to delete this image, but we must delete other images. Wikimedia is not Israelis and atheists foundation, Wikimedia Foundation is for all.
--OsamaK 09:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- All theses images will be deleted, I guess!--OsamaK 09:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. ~ bayo or talk 12:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- All theses images will be deleted, I guess!--OsamaK 09:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Altough the discussion is closed already, here my opinion:
- A real use in Wikipedia or real life should be given. Commons should not be depository for selfmade symbols waiting to be used somewhere some day.
- Not very no-sign is a problem. If you dont want icecream eaten by children in your library you have a sign. This ok.
- A sign in a certain way calling for war against a state is not ok.
- So far for now Simplicius 13:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted --Zirland 12:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: the results of this DR were overturned by subsequent UDEL requests. Please see the image's talk page for details. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Although WP screenshots are allowed, the screenshot contains a copyrighted pop-up ad, and thus is a derivative work. Vipersnake151 16:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Infrogmation 16:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep popup is composed mostly of Windows elements, and some non-copyrightable text. Furthermore, the virus itself is illegal, meaning no court would enforce the copyright. -Nard 21:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. As it contains the Internet-Explorer Logo wich in fact is unfree. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown person, no description, unused, useless. GeorgHH • talk 18:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Microcline_variety_Amazonite_Potassium_aluminum_silicate_Klienspitzkoppe_Area,_Nambia_2846.jpg
[edit]It's a picture without any quality and there are enough better pictures of amazonite in the category. Ra'ike Diskussion 20:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep in project scope. With all the copyvios and whatnot, bad pictures of minerals are not high on the radar. -Nard 20:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Better have many different images to identify.--Tomia 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete on this picture is noting to identify because its without any quality (its an eye pain not a picture) --Jom 21:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete If we'd have many images to identify, we'd have images that help us doing so. This one doesn't, it's only a collection of coloured pixels which resemble a stone. --Eva K. tell me about it 21:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wow. The stone enthusiasts are out in force for this one. -Nard 22:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Actually not that bad, even though we have better images at Category:Amazonite. To Nard: see Bilder mit "unsäglicher" Qualität löschen?... Lupo 11:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- KeepNot great, but PD and usable. --Simonxag 21:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Quality means more than "usable". Actually, this image is not really usable. --Bjoern 00:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.77 14:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Microcline_variety_Amazonite_Potassium_aluminum_silicate_Klienspitzkoppe_Area,_Nambia_2846.jpg
[edit]The Image was recent deleted one time by me after the last request because of its quality, wich is much to lousy. There are enough Images this can be replaced with. After a short undeletion discussion it was restored and i dont think this is okay. __ ABF __ ϑ 13:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The quality wasn't that bade. I upload a reworked version of that image. I think this is a better one. ChristianBier 13:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep there was not enough consensus, IMO, to merit deletion the first time round. I don't see much wrong with the image. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 14:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I would say, based on the discussion above, I don't think deleting the image in the first place was ok. In quality issues, follow consensus. Lupo 15:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
EN Please delete because better version uploaded as png - DE Bitte löschen, da bessere Versions als png hochgeladen
--Cvf-ps 22:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
lousy picture; even cropping will not help Erik Baas 23:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I've been uploading some of my raw stitches because they are generally high-resolution, in case there's an item within the image that someone can crop for an article. This nomination might have something to do with some bitterness between Eric Bass and myself. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, it does not; this is about the "quality" of the image. - Erik Baas 00:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete In this one, the automatic stitching clearly didn't work well. Lupo 14:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown person, no description, inappropriate file name, useless GeorgHH • talk 18:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. I agree. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is my own picture. I made a mistake by uploading it and not providing licece info. There is a new and better picture. Now I cannot delete it. Please do for me. Holger Casselmann 17:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Where's the other picture? --rimshottalk 14:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Loco085: In category Unknown as of 13 January 2008; no license
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside project scope -Nard 02:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Nice picture. --Karelj 23:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! :D Jecowa 12:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Its ® and definetly outside project scope. __ ABF __ ϑ 17:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No author information -Nard 02:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Author info added as requested. Vmenkov 09:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Informations added. --Karelj 23:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Geagea 21:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Broken JPEG. Not useful. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The JPEG can be fixed, but I'm not sure how useful it is without a description, and since the image is of a ton of other photographs, who knows what the licenses of those are. Delete Carl Lindberg 22:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually this is used on pt:Cidade 2000 (Fortaleza), which would probably explain what it is (and the JPEG displays fine there for whatever reason). I still can't fathom how the uploader can claim PD though. Carl Lindberg 22:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to display there for me, but I did manage to open it in the Gimp after downloading it, so now I've actually seen what it is (a collage of 80 snapshot portraits and the text "DVD da Cicade 2000 (memórias do foto Argentina) Compré ja o seu, encomende aqui só R$ 10,00 Você está nele?"). I don't know if I believe that the user is the copyright holder of all those photos without a more informative assertion, especially given that they had also uploaded Image:Cidade2000.jpg (a satellite image with the text "Image © 2006 DigitalGlobe © Europa Technologies") with a {{GFDL}} tag. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 17:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused file, bad file name, no description, not usable. GeorgHH • talk 16:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. I agree. __ ABF __ ϑ 17:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown subject, no description, unused. GeorgHH • talk 18:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 17:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown subject, no description, bad file name, unused. GeorgHH • talk 18:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 17:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown subject, no description, bad file name, unused. GeorgHH • talk 18:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 17:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown subject, no description, bad file name, unused. GeorgHH • talk 18:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 17:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown subject, no description, bad file name, unused. GeorgHH • talk 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 17:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown person, no description, image unused. GeorgHH • talk 19:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 17:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown person, no description, bad file name, unused. GeorgHH • talk 20:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. --rimshottalk 14:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 17:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Painting by Nils Nilsson Skum, who died in 1951. The copyright resides with the artist's legal heirs until 70 years PMA. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Support Das Original befindet sich in meinem Besitz--Holger.Ellgaard 14:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Owning a copy of a work (even if it is the only copy) does not mean you are the copyright holder of the work. That's why the Swedish and German words for copyright are upphovsrätt and urheberrecht, respectively (directly translating into originator's right). 1 kap. 1 § Lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk states that "he who has created a literary or artistic work holds the copyright to the work," not "he who is in possession of a physical representation of the work holds the copyright." This is also why copyright is called an immaterial right, not a material right, like the right to physical property. This has been dealt with many times before here. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ja, wenn das so ist, muss das Bild wohl gelöscht werden. Schade, ich werde es aus den Artikeln entfernen.--Holger.Ellgaard 17:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you know who the artist's legal heirs are, perhaps you could convince them to put the work under a free licence? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Nej, tyvärr inte! Hälsningar--Holger.Ellgaard 10:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear that/tråkigt att höra. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [104]. Yann (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uhh, are you SURE the Goatse hands are GFDL and such? Derivative work, and I know, I think I spelled it wrong. Vipersnake151 16:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete In addition to above derivative work concern, is a joke/prank image, out of Commons scope. -- Infrogmation 16:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It is a parody. Parody is the exception to the rule. Let's have a sense of humor. Evrik 15:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Use of the goatse hands is de minimis. It's also in use so it's not out of scope at all (and it's hilarious). With that said, there's the copyright on the Wikimedia logo blah blah blah, so I vote shrug. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 15:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Goatse hands are not GFDL, Wikimedia logo is not GFDL (and it has other usage restrictions we might want to consider), the only thing the uploader has copyright to is the composition. Mormegil 22:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Proof of free license lacking (warning, extremely gruesome image) -Nard 18:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- What proof do you require? MikeHobday 13:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Where does it say that IFAW UK has released this image under GFDL and Creative Commons licenses? -Nard 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- SasharH claims to be the copyright holder. What proof would demonstrate if he works for IFAW? MikeHobday 18:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please see en:Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Due to the anonymous nature of the Internet there is nothing stopping anybody from claiming to be someone else. -Nard 19:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have contacted Sasha and asked him to supply proof. Please do not delete the photo pendiong teh fulfilment of this request MikeHobday 17:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please see en:Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Due to the anonymous nature of the Internet there is nothing stopping anybody from claiming to be someone else. -Nard 19:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- SasharH claims to be the copyright holder. What proof would demonstrate if he works for IFAW? MikeHobday 18:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Where does it say that IFAW UK has released this image under GFDL and Creative Commons licenses? -Nard 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Release confirmed via OTRS. howcheng {chat} 23:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the given user is shuer not the copyright holder. Please check up if its in PD anyway. __ ABF __ ϑ 19:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Possibly pd-ineligible. -Nard 19:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept, Template:PD-UA-exempt. Kameraad Pjotr 20:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Scanning an image does not make it public domain --Wafulz 00:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
requirement for public domain when scanning text or photographing text
[edit]I have done a bit of reading and am confused and looking for help. I'm not trying to be defensive or waste anyone's time.
I was under the impression that I have scanned pure text and not a specific image. I could have run OCR and created a pdf. I understand that a photograph is an image that needs to be in public domain. Is a scan of pure text the same level of "image" that requires the same "process" to be in the public domain?
My understanding is that in the jpeg there is enough content about the source of the document. See document here:times article There is the published date, the publisher, the title of the article, and the author. If I were to create block text and type the article into Wikipedia by hand and give all that reference material it would be more than adequate for Wikipedia, but it would take a lot of time. The author is dead and I have contacted the family and the New York times about my efforts to try to objectively describe the "Neversink Gorge Controversy;" I am waiting for them to get back to me and I anticipate their support. I am happy to remove the .jpg if it clearly flys in the face of established wiki practice; please refer me to the specific precedent that makes this clear so I do not waste more time.
I have vital documents, articles, photographs, recorded interviews, etc, from over the last 150 years, to create an important "document" about the Neversink Gorge and the unique waterfall therein, High Falls, that is part owned by the state and part owned by Benjamin Wechsler. This battle between public and private interest is very complicated and I am excited to engage a larger audience in the debate of public access vs. private land owner rights.
In a nutshell: how do I deal with a personal letter from Ariel Sharon to Ben Wechsler. Can I scan it? Can I photograph it and call it my "work" or do I need Sharon and Wechsler to give me permission to use any copy of it. See scanned "image" here: Sharon Letter
Please do not delete the image in dispute until DragonFlySixtySeven has told me what to do.
Thank you.
--Petebertine 01:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Even if you had put the text in, it would still be deleted. Wikipedia would not accept a complete rip of a NYT article. The New York Times is exceptionally vigilant about the copyright on their text and images. The text is not public domain. You may get away with using it for fair use on your own website, but Commons only accepts completely free content. As for the letter you scanned, I changed the tag on it. You may be able to get away with it due to a quirk in US copyright law. -Nard 02:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reply and helping me with the Sharon letter. Is there a way to place some of the text from the NYT article in wikipedia if properly referenced? I am trying to show a positive response by a New York Times article to the situation in the gorge and a negative response by a different article in The New York Times. It illustrates the enormous complexities of the issues, I am not trying to "discredit" the Times or prove a specific point. Nor do I stand to benefit. All sides agree that the Gorge and High Falls should be put to the best possible use without destroying it.
I have articles from local papers from towns surrounding the Gorge. How do I best reference them? --96.224.202.28 03:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- You can use Template:cite news for citing newspapers on Wikipedia. Also, the New York Times has an online archive- while this only gives you a short preview of an article, it can provide a URL to link to. For example, I found this article.-Wafulz 05:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland at 10:22, 14. January 2008 (UTC) – “In category Derivatives of copyrighted works; no license”. Mormegil 22:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
German photo, but "PD-UKGov". --Soondesk 16:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Unless the photographer is known. More than 70 years old, so PD if author is anonymous. As Hitler & Hindenburg. This pic was took more than 70 years old and the author is not known. --Clockwork Orange 16:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note that the IWM hosts material captured during WWII, which is often PD inside the UK due to specific laws, but those do not apply outside the UK. Carl Lindberg 22:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but it was took by an unknown author more than 70 years old. --Clockwork Orange 22:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- But how do you know that the photographer is indeed unknown ("unknown" ≠ "I don't know the author"). --Kam Solusar 02:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Photographer: - (- = unknown) [105] --Clockwork Orange 14:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. I didn't notice that. --Kam Solusar 21:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Agreeing with Clockwork Orange. - Zarbon 02:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Agreeing with Clockwork Orange. --Achim Hering 01:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Mike.lifeguard: per User_talk:Clockwork_Orange#Blocked - highly likely to be a copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is not an old radio. Probably it is a part of printed circuit board of TV from 1970's --Avin 23:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep then fix the damned description. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Which I just did. If you want something done right... Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 15:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
watermark suggest not selfmade. Megapixie 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Watermark suggests not self made. Megapixie 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Funny, but did the NIH really produce this? -Nard 01:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Not quite -- the NIH source is here, but it is credited to the CDC. It is available on PHIL (search on ID# 3394) which says it is in the public domain. Another CDC page with it is here. So keep, but change license to {{PD-USGov-HHS-CDC}} and change credit to "CDC/Alexander J. da Silva, PhD/Melanie Moser". Carl Lindberg 22:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept, looks good to me. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
In the absence of any suggestion of any earlier publication, the Lafayette Archives has a type of copyright called Publication right over this image. See UK Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1996. MichaelMaggs 17:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep the user had to get it somewhere. -Nard 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. To Nard: yes, of course. From the V&A web site, namely here. For the history of that collection, see [106]: "lost" negatives, rediscovered 1968, then again forgotten for 20 years until 1988. Many of them unpublished. We need publication information for these images. If they were published while they were originally copyrighted, V&A does not have that dreaded publication right on them. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Consuelo Vanderbilt;coronation- 9 augustus 1902.jpg and the links given there. Lupo 23:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is my understanding that the UK has a fixed date of January 1, 1938 before which unpublished works where the natural author is unknown are absolutely PD (see {{PD-UK-unknown}}). -Nard 03:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- And what is unknown about the photographer? James Stack Lauder ("James Lafayette"), 1853 - 1923. Lupo 07:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- {{PD-UK-known}} then xD -Nard 11:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- But that tag applies only to works that were published while they were originally copyrighted. (And the date is not fixed, BTW. Its "January 1 of the current year minus 70 years".) Please go read publication right: if a hitherto unpublished work is first published after its original copyright has run out, the publisher is granted this exclusive right for a period of 25 years. (BTW, that rule applies in all EU countries, not just in the UK.) Unless we have publication info on these Lafayette images, they must be treated as being subject to this publication right, given the history of that collection. Lupo 11:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- {{PD-UK-known}} then xD -Nard 11:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- And what is unknown about the photographer? James Stack Lauder ("James Lafayette"), 1853 - 1923. Lupo 07:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is my understanding that the UK has a fixed date of January 1, 1938 before which unpublished works where the natural author is unknown are absolutely PD (see {{PD-UK-unknown}}). -Nard 03:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Mareczko 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a vote. Why? Lupo 19:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Publication right still holds here. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
out of project scope, maybe derivative background __ ABF __ ϑ 16:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - All images by User talk:Der Maddin appear to be photoshops of cars with new backgrounds and heavily modified bodies. Certainly do not belong here. The359 21:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated all the user's images here. Rocket000 04:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's keep it all together over there. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am shure this image cant have a self or a user- license. Please check up if this coat arm is copyrightet or not. I myself do not definitly know it. __ ABF __ ϑ 19:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep PD-ineligible. -Nard 19:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. PD-Ineligible or PD-old, whatever Badseed talk 00:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio -Nard 03:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I doubt that this image was created by the uploader. It shows "Caras Galadhon", a place in Lord of the Rings. The same image is also available on this site. And this matte painting shows the exact same place, but it looks slightly different. So I guess the image is either a screenshot from a LOTR movie or a derivative work of the matte painting. Note that the other uploads of this user were deleted because of missing licenses or sources. --Kam Solusar 01:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Kam Solusar 01:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. as copyvio either ways Badseed talk 06:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's determination of the picture author. I am the photograph and I wish to delete it in respect for the author rights. Paulo Camelo 23:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep I have reverted the removal of the license (present since September last year). Commons licenses are not revocable. If you want the image deleted, please say why you think it should be. --Simonxag 21:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Nomination retracted by Paulo Camelo [107] Badseed talk 06:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's determination of the picture author. I am the photograph and I wish to delete it in respect for the author rights. Paulo Camelo 23:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep I have reverted the removal of the license (present since September last year). Commons licenses are not revocable. If you want the image deleted, please say why you think it should be. --Simonxag 21:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Nomination retracted by Paulo Camelo [108] Badseed talk 06:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"archiv" suggests uploader is not photographer - therefore cannot release the image into the public domain. Megapixie 00:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment "svoleni autora" seems to means "permission of author". I hope he will send it to OTRS. Herr Kriss 00:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Needs permission sent to OTRS to keep this. MichaelMaggs 17:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong name Peterwhy 07:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- It would probably help when you make a deletion request to state what you consider the 'right' name is, or where the duplicate exists. Subsequently, I have found that you re-uploaded icons I created the week before to new names and changed the copyright / PD release on them. I find myself upset with your behaviour and lack of discussion beforehand and have commented on your talkpage regarding this. --AlisonW 20:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No clear basis for deletion request. MichaelMaggs 17:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "information that is common property and contains no original authorship" (and as far as I can see, it falls one year short of PD-US). Would it be in the public domain for any other reason? —LX (talk, contribs) 12:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- see here, that'll tell you that it's PD. Waylon 14:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, Image:BillFlagg TetraRecords.jpg is in the public domain because it has nothing but text on it. That does not apply here. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The content of both images is the same. What's different? They're only from different label and different artists, that's all. Waylon 15:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The difference is that this one has more than just text on it. Or are you saying that the decorative banners are purely informational and contain no original authorship? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sceptical that this record label design is PD ineligible. This image may or may not be PD-US for some other reason. What is the latest date on the series of copyrights at the bottom of the label? (I can't quite make them out at this resolution, and while I do happen to have a Columbia flag label of that era, the print is so miniscule on the original that I can't read it without a jewler's loupe or microscope, neither of which I have at hand.) If the most recent copyright date is 1922 or earlier, keep. Even if this disc is a couple years later, if the label design is pre-1923, it is PD-US; I think if the only change to the PD-US by age label is the text stating the artist and title, that modification would indeed be PD ineligible. -- Infrogmation 17:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep PD-ineligible. -Nard 18:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you develop that argument a bit more? Say, by explaining why or even addressing the concerns raised? I'm afraid simply repeating the name of the licensing tag used when the applicability of that tag is called into question doesn't really bring the argument forward. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Contains some text and some generic wavy banners. If this was a flag image we'd say it was pd-ineligible. -Nard 01:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
In the absence of any suggestion of any earlier publication, the Lafayette Archives has a type of copyright called Publication right over this image. See UK Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1996. MichaelMaggs 17:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep the user had to get it somewhere. -Nard 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany (1859-1941).jpg below. Lupo 07:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
In the absence of any suggestion of any earlier publication, the Lafayette Archives has a type of copyright called Publication right over this image. See UK Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1996. MichaelMaggs 17:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep the user had to get it somewhere. -Nard 18:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany (1859-1941).jpg above. Lupo 23:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Mareczko 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a vote. Why? Lupo 19:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong shape of the flag, cut of tongue (right side) --JDavid 00:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- it is also superseded by raster file Image:Wloclawek Flaga.png --JDavid 00:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 09:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No proof of free license -Nard 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Have you tried to send an e-mail to the website? --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.77 14:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - --Karelj 23:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- .... At least try giving a reason when you vote keep. I mean I don't even just vote keep without saying why. -Nard 23:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- As with the image Beaufort_fox2.jpg, I have contacted the uploader and explained how to fulfill the criteria with respect to permission. Please do not delete pending this. MikeHobday 17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. A very nice image which would be good to keep. Unfortunately, there is still no permission.MichaelMaggs 09:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author not given. No proof that actual author released into public domain --Superm401 - Talk 09:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No indication that the uploader and the copyrightholder are the same person. The duplicate Image:Thermoflash-perf-40-2.jpg by the same uploader is tagged with "CC-BY-SA-2.5" and "Copyrighted free use" GeorgHH • talk 11:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of the non-free, copyrighted contents shown on the screen. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Is not used, at your choice. But, why this image of Coca-Cola logo are no correct and, for example, Subaru logo at Image:Chris Atkinson 2006 Rally Australia Dwellingup.jpg yes? --museo8bits 23:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- The video shown on the screen is a copyrighted work and it takes up most of the image. Any logos included on Image:Chris Atkinson 2006 Rally Australia Dwellingup.jpg are ' and incidental to the depiction of Atkinson himself. Thanks for looking at my gallery. I hope you enjoyed it. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The Ubuntu Logo is subject to trademark restrictions which render it unsuitable for Commons. --Fibonacci 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Trademarked is not a reason to delete... it would need to be tagged with {{trademarked}}. However, I don't see a clear indication that the copyright is licensed cc-by-sa, though it is certainly quite possible. The original source appears to be here, and the credited author appears to be wrong based on its description. Carl Lindberg 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not even if the trademark policy explicitly states that "Permission from us is necessary to use any of the Trademarks [for] Any commercial use"? --Fibonacci 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Trademark law has limits to it, which are different than copyright. Trademark's "commercial use" is quite different than copyright's "commercial use"... the former is for situations where it is used for a product different than Ubuntu's, or implying a connection to Ubuntu in some way; i.e. using Ubuntu's reputation for a purpose other than simply identifying Ubuntu or one of their products. It should be fine to display it on an encyclopedia article about Ubuntu, or in other contexts (even commercial products, like magazine articles) when it unambiguously is used to identify Ubuntu. See w:Trademark infringement and w:Trademark dilution... a "trademark license" cannot bar usages which are already fine under trademark law; they can only allow usage in cases where trademark law would otherwise not allow it. Now, if Ubuntu is also using copyright to enforce those restrictions, then there is a problem. Carl Lindberg 23:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- If it's only OK when "it unambiguously is used to identify Ubuntu", then it is not free. --Fibonacci 04:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Our use of "free" is specific to the copyright license, not laws external to copyright. See this note on COM:L. It is a slippery slope otherwise, as there many kinds of non-copyright restrictions out there. For example, there are many commercial uses of photos of identifiable people which are restricted due to marketing and personality laws, but we host those too. Carl Lindberg 04:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- If it's only OK when "it unambiguously is used to identify Ubuntu", then it is not free. --Fibonacci 04:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Trademark law has limits to it, which are different than copyright. Trademark's "commercial use" is quite different than copyright's "commercial use"... the former is for situations where it is used for a product different than Ubuntu's, or implying a connection to Ubuntu in some way; i.e. using Ubuntu's reputation for a purpose other than simply identifying Ubuntu or one of their products. It should be fine to display it on an encyclopedia article about Ubuntu, or in other contexts (even commercial products, like magazine articles) when it unambiguously is used to identify Ubuntu. See w:Trademark infringement and w:Trademark dilution... a "trademark license" cannot bar usages which are already fine under trademark law; they can only allow usage in cases where trademark law would otherwise not allow it. Now, if Ubuntu is also using copyright to enforce those restrictions, then there is a problem. Carl Lindberg 23:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: The URL above says that commercial use is not allowed. Diti (talk to the penguin) 19:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: +1 Kyro 20:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The trademark restrictions expressed in [109] are essentially the same restrictions as for Image:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg (accepted on Commons) : usages or adaptation restrictions exist because of the very (legal) nature of the thing, but there is no authorization needed nor fee to pay for any lawful usage. Since the "logo" nature of the picture is essential to its interest, no license can ever dismiss the legal nature of the picture. Therefore, the picture is "as free as it can legally be", which makes it acceptable according to Commons criteria. Michelet-密是力 21:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This was previously nominated for deletion because of trademark issues; keeping it was entirely appropriate on those grounds. But there is no evidence that this logo (which, I think, is clearly above the threshold of originality, and is therefore copyrighted) has been released under the given, or any, free license. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 19:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I thought I'd be kind and comment before a summary deletion of this image. But here is what I've found:
- The source website is "Copyright © 2006 - 2007 Mark Shuttleworth"
- Ubuntu.com is "© 2008 Canonical Ltd. Ubuntu and Canonical are registered trademarks of Canonical Ltd."
- The trademark policy states:
- "It should also be borne in mind that the more you wish to vary our logos from their standard form the smaller is the chance that we will be able to approve your proposed use." - Which means it is essentially ND.
- Same Policy page states:
- "Permission from us is necessary to use any of the Trademarks under any circumstances other than those specifically permitted above. These include: Any commercial use" - Which means it is NC.
- Nothing tells us where this "cc-by-sa-3.0" license on the image comes from.
- Uploading user only has that 1 contribution, which is suspicious in and of itself.
- From the Ubuntu Legal page:
- "The website HTML, text, images audio, video, software or other content that is made available on this website are the property of someone - the author in the case of content produced elsewhere and reproduced here with permission, or Canonical or its content suppliers. Before you use this content in some way please take care to ensure that you have the relevant rights and permissions from the copyright holder." - This includes the logo.
- So that is everything I found worth mentioning. Unless someone has permission or a convincing argument. I will delete this image. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 02:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- On point #3 and #4, please stick to the issue. If you're not using it in such a way as to misrepresent yourself or your product, i.e. within the scope of their trademark, than their trademark policy is completely irrelevant (and they're actually granting permissions that traditional trademark law does not). Copyright is the only issue here. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 02:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- The "issue" here is if we (Commons) have permission to use this image. Now I figured that it is possible that they may mean to explain the copyright status and usage of their trademarked material (Which includes their logo). So I figured it was relevant to include. Additionally, since we have very little information directly regarding the logo, I figured that ANYTHING that would shed some light on the situation here would be helpful. That being said - yes, I know we (Commons) don't give a shit about trademarks other than {{Trademark}}. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 02:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- You may as well try to derive their copyright policy from a page talking about what they had for breakfast that morning; other than the fact they're both mistakenly lumped into the category of "intellectual property", copyrights and trademarks have nothing to do with each other. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 02:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- The "issue" here is if we (Commons) have permission to use this image. Now I figured that it is possible that they may mean to explain the copyright status and usage of their trademarked material (Which includes their logo). So I figured it was relevant to include. Additionally, since we have very little information directly regarding the logo, I figured that ANYTHING that would shed some light on the situation here would be helpful. That being said - yes, I know we (Commons) don't give a shit about trademarks other than {{Trademark}}. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 02:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- On point #3 and #4, please stick to the issue. If you're not using it in such a way as to misrepresent yourself or your product, i.e. within the scope of their trademark, than their trademark policy is completely irrelevant (and they're actually granting permissions that traditional trademark law does not). Copyright is the only issue here. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 02:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Permission needed to use -> no go. Also CC license is probably void - Badseed talk 02:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- comment Can't find any evidence the logo is under a free license although there IP policy is seriously messy.Geni (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Per previous comments. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 02:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no improvement over jpg 20percent 18:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no improvement over jpg 20percent 18:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no improvement over jpg 20percent 18:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work for me __ ABF __ ϑ 19:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no improvement over jpg 20percent 19:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is my understanding this license is only for the IOC logo -Nard 21:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not validly licensed -Nard 21:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The linked document from the license tag was tl;dr but this looks like a TV screenshot, so whatever. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 15:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Gone; this image nonetheless has insufficient source information. --O (谈 • висчвын) 20:59, 08 June 2008 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
lousy picture; even cropping will not help Erik Baas 23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I've been uploading some of my raw stitches because they are generally high-resolution, in case there's an item within the image that someone can crop for an article. This nomination might have something to do with some bitterness between Eric Bass and myself. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, it does not; this is about the "quality" of the image. - Erik Baas 00:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
lousy picture; even cropping will not help Erik Baas 23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I've been uploading some of my raw stitches because they are generally high-resolution, in case there's an item within the image that someone can crop for an article. This nomination might have something to do with some bitterness between Eric Bass and myself. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, it does not; this is about the "quality" of the image. - Erik Baas 00:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Coat of arms must be 1/4 of flag's area. Height of tongues might be maximum 199% of grid. --JDavid 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- http://www.kalisz.pl/_portal/118951331146e6885fd493f/Flaga_miasta.html citation: Polski: Na szachownicowym podkładzie chorągwi usytuowany jest przy drzewcu w górnej części herb Miasta zajmujący 1/4 powierzchni.Polski: Chorągiew zakończona jest dwoma równymi trójkątami, nie dłuższymi od długości dwóch kwadratów.--JDavid 00:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- {{sofixit}} – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. giggy (:O) 05:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Proof of license? Nomination also includes crop Image:Iwata-e3-2006 crop.jpg -Nard 02:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment At the bottom of the source website is a link to a CC-BY license. The site doesn't seem all that stringent about copyrights, though. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I took this image at Nintendo's E3 2006 media briefing. It was posted on our E3 blog and that's why it seems like it is from a website. If you wish, you can email the LITHCast admin at Daniel@lithcast.com and enquire as to whether this image is released to Wikipedia. I am positive that you will get a yes because I am the one on the other end of the email. --DSCUBED 06:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Source website licenses content under CC-BY, +benefit of doubt per above comment. giggy (:O) 05:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ironically redlibre logo is unfree. Source website license is cc-by-nc-sa [110] -Nard 02:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The "cc-by-nc-sa" license referes only to the introduction text, as it was taken from another project that uses this license. RedLibre site content license is not specified (yet), but this image should not be deleted.--IvanStepaniuk 17:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - As above. --Karelj 23:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- ....As above? As above the guy admits there's no basis for the cc-by-sa-3.0 license, which makes this a straight copyvio. -Nard 23:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Isn't that just text with a few simple geometric shapes? Rocket000 05:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - {{pd-textlogo}} applies, I think. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
January 14
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work from a wax figure of the Barcelona Museum of Wax Figures --Chabacano 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as deriv. See also rest of uploaders recent uploads Special:Contributions/Michelangelo-36 Megapixie 05:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Clearly derivative works. I don't think a museum with right to refuse entry qualifies as a "park, street, square or other public thoroughfare" as required for FOP in Spain. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. FOP cannot be applied indoors in Spain. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 14:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
pd-self for an image of a band that broke up in 1959? -Nard 05:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Оставить--Reino Helismaa 09:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. It was actually just copied from [111], and it wasn't the first time that he uploaded that picture. -- Cecil 15:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
as conflict with german wikipedia uploaded again under the name Moritz von Schwind 2.jpg Olivhill 15:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dafür gibt es den Schnelllöschgrund {{duplicate|Image:neues Bild}}. -- Cecil 15:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate of Image:Moritz von Schwind 2.jpg. -- Cecil 15:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope. If the uploader is really the author, he surely can provide a version where you are actually able do more than guessing what it shows. -- Cecil 15:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd hardly call it out of scope, but the image resolution is suspicious. I'm inclined to Delete. Patrícia msg 22:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Это как раз действительно моя собственная фотография. ОСТАВИТЬ--Reino Helismaa 22:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Reino, if this is indeed your photograph, please do upload a higher resolution version. Your recently deleted image (red link on [112]) makes me think you may not be very sure on copyright questions. If I am wrong, I apologize. Patrícia msg 08:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Это как раз действительно моя собственная фотография. ОСТАВИТЬ--Reino Helismaa 22:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's in use on three wikis, so it's hardly out of scope. Judging by context (I can't read those languages) it seems to be the gravesite of en:Ilya Repin. Yep; (non-free) Flickr image of same here. The image size is definitely suspicious, but I can't find a source version of this image online with a search. Can a higher-resolution version be uploaded? Carl Lindberg 07:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's in use in three wikis only because the uploader itself added it there. That's also the reason why I noticed it (we have some problems with him in German WP and so all his edits are checked). And yes, according to the description, he added in German and Finnish WP, it is Repins grave indeed. Maybe somebody who speaks Russian can tell him to upload a better version, because that's the only language he is able to communicate in. In other languages it's just some words. -- Cecil 08:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Загрузил более качественную версию этого же файла. Во все четыре Википедии, где он используется, внёс изменения. Эту версию теперь можно удалять.--Reino Helismaa 08:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. User provided better resolution. Thanks! -- Cecil 08:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I don't think the source site is the original photographer - see http://www.rodrigoafonso.org/adulto/ for other random not work safe content post on this guys blog. Not cc-by-sa. Copyvio. Delete. Megapixie 04:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- See also Image:Monicaleigh02.jpg, Image:Monicaleigh03.jpg, Image:Monicaleigh04.jpg through to Image:Monicaleigh15.jpg. Not work safe. Megapixie 04:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the whole lot. This Rodrigo Afonso slaps his logo on just about anything. Lupo 21:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Thuresson 04:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Is this free software? GeorgHH • talk 22:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete no it's not. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Mercury Messenger, OS X and probably that wallpaper are not free. Rocket000 23:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
From [113]... Lupo 10:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Brenda Song red carpet.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BrendaSong Katrina.jpg. Lupo 23:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I see no reason why this book cover should be GFDL. ALE! ¿…? 08:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Pensé que con las cubiertas de libros valía la misma regla que con las imágenes tomadas de películas de cine (fotogramas) donde se permite subirlas a Commons si son de baja resolución (y obviamente uno no es el autor). Si no corresponde subir cubiertas, se deben eliminar. Saludos, --Germanramos 22:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- No hay "fair use" en Commons! --ALE! ¿…? 13:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyviol, false license. -- Infrogmation 05:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I see no reason why this book cover from 1985 should be under GFDL. ALE! ¿…? 08:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Pensé que con las cubiertas de libros valía la misma regla que con las imágenes tomadas de películas de cine (fotogramas) donde se permite subirlas a Commons si son de baja resolución (y obviamente uno no es el autor). Si no corresponde subir cubiertas, se deben eliminar. Saludos, --Germanramos 22:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- No hay "fair use" en Commons! --ALE! ¿…? 13:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 05:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
From fan site, much higher resolution, no attribution info. Uploaded there in December 2006 by "Kyrit100". See also en:User talk:Prepelos: many copyvios before. Lupo 10:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Ecemaml: Per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Brenda Song red carpet.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
From here... Lupo 10:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete along with the other offending uploads and warn the user. --Simonxag 21:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 06:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Ecemaml: Per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Brenda Song red carpet.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
From here... Lupo 10:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Ecemaml: Per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Brenda Song red carpet.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
From here. Lupo 10:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Lupo 10:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Original source: ©Michael Tran/FilmMagic.com, photo ID 5863759, sept 8, 2005. Lupo 11:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- It should be noted that other uploads by this user "Kyrit100" at brenda.fan-sites.org are taken from other sites/other photographers. The whole gallery he's uploaded here, for instance, is also ©FilmMagic.com (photographer: Albert Chau). So, even if we assumed that User:Prepelos were "Kyrit100", it's clear that Kyrit100 does not own the copyright on the images he uploads at that fan site. And neither does Prepelos. Lupo 11:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Ecemaml: Per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Brenda Song red carpet.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate image bad name 194.80.106.135 12:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- true image is Image:Farringdon_junction.JPG. 194.80.106.135 12:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I had mispelt the name of the original, but I have uploaded a new file with the correct name. Sunil060902 16:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate of Image:Farringdon junction.JPG. --rimshottalk 14:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Double Upload. Exists also as Herzogtum Warschau.svg Kgberger 12:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete In the future, since this was your upload, you can just tag it with {{badname}} instead of going through a deletion request. Carl Lindberg 06:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is the copy of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Lech_II.jpg Mareczko 19:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep For non-scaleable raster images, having multiple scales and qualities is not necessarily a bad thing. In this case it appears to be good. -Nard 23:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and delete the other one. It is the part of complete Chronica Polonorum. Niki
09:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Result: Keep jossi 22:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader removed self-licensing and whether it is within project scope is unclear. Jusjih 00:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Scope. Just a block of text. --Simonxag 21:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete All text page --Tomia 19:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The software FlightGear is under {{GPL}}, so the license tag {{PD-self}} is not correct. I would have corrected that but the screenshot is showing the unfree Continental logo on the tail (see: Commons:Licensing#Screenshots). ALE! ¿…? 09:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- There's going to be some argument that this screenshot is not designed to illustrate the Continental Logo, but rather, the program in question, but it's present and clear all the same. If this was a photograph, there would be no question, it would be purely incidental inclusion, but with it being software and the inclusion being deliberate within the program, I think I would probably go with the image being a derivative work, but it's a really really close call. Nick 11:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Change the license. The picture includes a plane that has a company logo on. Most things have company logos on. --Simonxag 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The Continental logo is irrelevant since that isn't the subject of the photo (unless you're planning on going through the aircraft section and baleeting everything, and then you can start with the cars section, COPYRIGHTED LOGO O NOES). Also, I fixed the license tag so that's not a reason anymore either. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 15:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The logo isn't the main theme of the screenshot... Elektron 07:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. License changed. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is protected under crown copyright and is the property of the Queen of Canada. Therefore, it cannot be released under CC or GDFL --Nat 12:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like it was generated from en:Image:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg, which is marked crown copyright there and used under fair use. Very nice SVG, but Delete this version. Carl Lindberg 06:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Speedy tagging removed in favour of discussion here. I abstain. — Giggy 09:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, alas, despite being splendid. The crown copyright won't expire for a very long time yet. Wish forward to seeing it back in 37 years! Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 09:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This isn't a SVG. It's a PNG of a SVG. Someone downloaded the preview instead of the actual file when they stole from enwiki. If we keep this for some unknown reason, at change to the actual file Rocket000 08:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Part Spam, Permission of the persons possibly not given. tox 15:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete No information at all. --Simonxag 21:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I have added {{nsd}} to the image. User's only upload. -- Infrogmation 16:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete No information given. --Svens Welt 21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Propably copyvio, used many pages like http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000723.html and http://johnstrain.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_archive.html#110058027054066823 Tomia 21:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete these other uses long predate the upload of this file to Commons. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete better speedy. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The source was once claimed to be "Friedrich der Grosse - Ausstellung des Geheimen Staatsarchivs Preussischer Kulturbesitz anlässlich des 200. Todestages König Friedrichs II. von Preussen, Berlin 1986, s. 125-126." but then changed to own work, thus not readily able to tell which is true. Jusjih 00:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It is my own photo. Sorry for the confusion (I have very big library) . I have just found the book "Friedrich der Grosse - Ausstellung des Geheimen Staatsarchivs Preussischer Kulturbesitz anlässlich des 200. Todestages König Friedrichs II. von Preussen, Berlin 1986 " And the photo of the ship is different there, so I'ts my own photo I made in Berlin (in Berliner Kunstgewerbemuseum). TomasoAlbinoni 21:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Nazi images are not public domain in Germany. Although these can be considered PD in the U.S. by virtue of being seized enemy property, they are not eligible for hosting on Commons. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:26543e.jpg. --howcheng {chat} 17:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The images are PD in US and in Poland - country of origin and first publication. What else needs to be proven? Just being Nazi images does not prevent plenty of images in Hitler category. --Jarekt 18:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that as Stroop is a German citizen, German law applies, despite the fact that the images were taken in Poland. howcheng {chat} 18:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Jurgen Stroop was nor author, nor the first editor of this photos. There were made by unknown author, and first published in Poland in 1946. According to Berne Covention Art. 5. [114] the place of first publishing resolves the question of law, which should be in effect towards the photo. It is not a matter of nationality or citizenship of an unknown author ( It could be anyone from Eastern troops of SS ( Russian, Latvian, Ukrainian in the commando of Jurgen Stroop - commander of SS troops attacking Warsaw Ghetto in 1943) see- en:Holocaust, see en:Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.
The question is resolved by the place of publication ( Poland).
See also: Image talk:The Bochnia massacre German-occupied Poland 1939.jpg with its final conlusions.
Best regards: Andros64 19:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wait a second. It could not have been published in 1946 because the Stroop Report was compiled before the end of the war. During this time, can one actually say that it was published in Poland such that Polish laws would take precedence when the country was under Nazi occupation? Wouldn't German law be in effect? howcheng {chat} 22:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unless I'm badly mistaken, Warsaw was never annexed into Germany. So country of photography = Poland. If the first country of publication is also Poland than Polish public domain law would apply, I believe? Just because, say, a Canadian manager hires a photographer of unknown nationality to take a photograph in Nigeria and publishes it in Nigeria, I don't see why Canadian law would apply. Am I missing something here? Durova 00:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Polish 1946 book (which I have) was obviously printed after WWII. The original report was not published, it was typed and hand-written in 2 copies, each one quite different. I believe one copy is in US and one in Polish archives.--Jarekt 13:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then I don't see how German law would be relevant. Even if Poland was occupied at the time these were shot, Poland's own laws were applicable. Right? Durova 03:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wait a second. It could not have been published in 1946 because the Stroop Report was compiled before the end of the war. During this time, can one actually say that it was published in Poland such that Polish laws would take precedence when the country was under Nazi occupation? Wouldn't German law be in effect? howcheng {chat} 22:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment
See also Image talk: Forced labor, workers captured by german police (Poland 1941).jpg with its final conclusions (according to international law - particulary the Berne Covention).
Best regards: Andros64 09:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- These “final conclusions” doesn't matter. As always, one of your frieds closed the discussion without any arguments and discussion about the arguments provided by other users. --Polarlys 10:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - first POV, second - you was the only one agaist ( and perhaps one of your friends :). Third - {{PD-Polish}} is clear in this situation and it has been discussed , resolved - and confirmed many times before.
All the best:
Andros64 10:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The country of origin rule stumbles on war cases. It seems to me that we usually look on the nationality of the photographer rather than the country were the photo was taken, see US-Gov pictures of the afghan or iraqi wars. Therefore i think that german rules have to be applied.--Wiggum 14:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me, like we are splitting hair, arguing about set of images that were some of the most iconic and most reproduced images from WWII, and which are PD in Poland and US. If the unknown author of the photographs ever materialize to claim his copyrights, he can argue his case with Polish Archives, which are in possession of this collection and released them to PD. I do not know anything about German copyright law, but those images clearly fall within template:PD-Polish, which suppose to be valid worldwide and which explicitly covers foreign photographers published first in Poland. I am not a lawyer qualified to argue international law issues here, I just assumed that if an image clearly falls within one of PD templates, than it is safe to invest time and effort to properly research and label it, without a danger of someone coming and deleting weeks of your effort.--Jarekt 17:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it's just a matter of whether these images are eligible for hosting on Commons. I certainly think they can be hosted locally on pl-WP and en-WP. It was just my impression from en:Wikipedia:Public domain#German World War II images and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:26543e.jpg that the home country was Germany and per Commons rules, the images need to be free in both the home country and in the U.S. It's also not a matter of "we'll do it unless we get caught"; we have principles to uphold here at Commons and all material should be subject to those principles regardless of how valuable/educational/informative they are. howcheng {chat} 20:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment ***The original ( the only one existing copy) of Jürgen Stroop report was transferred to the property of Polish State by US- Army authorities , just after Nuremburg Trials.This original is now in property of Institute for National Rememberance in Warsaw (Poland). The first publication of all photos from this document was made in Poland in 1946. The author of all photos is unknown - and for the reason he was a member of Stroop commando ( with nationality unknown - it was Germans, Latvians, Russians, Ukrainians) he is from the beginning in prosecution for participating in genocide and for this reason he will never in fact be disclosed personally.
According to Berne Convention art. 5. [115] in any case of anonymous works the law, shall to be in effect is the law of country of the first publication of photo.
For the reason - the country of publishing is Poland , the clear regulations of Polish copyright law are in effect. See {{PD-Polish}}. See discussion on enwiki about.
Best regards:
Andros64 21:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but why are you assuming that the report was never published in Germany before the end of the war? howcheng {chat} 21:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per above. Halibutt 21:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Answer: Because it was secret report ( made in one copy) delivered by Jurgen Stroop to his chief Heinrich Himmler in course of his duties in June 1943.
Andros64 10:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep These photos were taken and first published in Poland. So the Polish law appliaed ... Elektron 08:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Given lack of evidence of publication in Germany, I have to favor first publication in Poland. Without evidence, the claim that an anonymous work may have previously been published in Germany is just as strong as a claim that maybe it was previously published by an unusually advanced herd of cattle. Current U.S. copyright law is practical in treating anonymous works in accordance to whatever publish date or creation date is known (see, for example title 17, chapter 3, section 302c describing conditions when an anonymous author is revealed) [116]. If anyone has reference information on similar copyright law in Poland for the time period in question, I would think it is definitive. b6miller 07:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what in this sentence is unclear for you: "This image is in the public domain because according to the non-retrospective copyright law of July 10, 1952[1] of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are assumed public domain. This applies worldwide. [1] for pictures before 1952 - see similar Polish copyright law 1926-1952 (PDF file)"? Elektron 08:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The author of all photos is unknown --Jaro.p 12:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep With respects to the editors who want to err on the side of caution, it really does look like Poland has the right to declare this material public domain. German law doesn't appear to be applicable here. Durova 12:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Trang Oul 21:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment "The Photograph Book" (ISBN 0 7148 3937 X) is a book of 500 photographs by 500 most famous photographers. Image:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 09.jpg is chosen as a most famous picture by "Unknown" Photographer.--Jarekt 01:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I will attempt to summaries the arguments so far:
- History of the photographs:
- All photographs in question are of Polish-Jews taken in 1943 in Poland, during Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, by unknown photographer of unknown nationality, fighting on the German side in SS unit of Jurgen Stroop. The photographer was either German or belonged to one of the Russian, Latvian or Ukrainian units operating in the ghetto.
- Photos were part of the famous Stroop Report to Himmler. The report was typed and hand written in a single official copy and different single known draft.
- "Seized as enemy property by the U.S. government and used by the Office of the U.S. Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis Criminality as evidence in the Nuremberg Trials." quote from here. As such they are considered Public Domain on English Wikipedia after long discussion here. They are also listed as public Domain by w:United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (see http://www.ushmm.org/uia-cgi/uia_doc/photos/5296 )
- In 1940's the images (and the report(s)) were given to Polish Government, which published them in a book: Stanisław Piotrowski (1948) Sprawozdanie Juergena Stroopa, Warsaw: Spółdzielnia Wydawnicza Książka no ISBN, without any copyright claims. The book is in my possession.
- Only subset of the photographs found in both versions of Stroop Report were uploaded to commons - The ones included in Piotrowski's book.
- Legal status
- The images clearly fall within scope of template:PD-Polish and as such are PD in Poland, and should be PD world-wide
- Wiki commons rules state that images have to be in public domain in US and in "Country of origin"
- Concerns were raised that the country of origin should be Germany instead of Poland, because high probability that unknown photographer was of German nationality; however, according to Berne Covention Art. 5. [117] "The country of origin shall be considered to be: (a) in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country". Poland has first known publication of those photographs.
I hope this should put this issue to rest. --Jarekt 16:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept as per all of the above. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
hardcore sex 85.226.166.167 20:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Useful image, not just another penis shot. --Simonxag 21:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep How lonely some people are...yes, useful in its way. Durova 00:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Totally educational! --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.77 14:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Jesus Christ, what the fuck. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 15:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sometimes people can find language offensive too :-) --Simonxag 01:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Informational and educational. -- LastUserNameEver 18:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know... it says for "educational purposes". That's too restrictive for Commons. Rocket000 09:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Look at the licensing underneath that. It's a public domain image. -- LastUserNameEver 15:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- STRONG Delete It's not Public Domain at all. This image, as well as Image:Ejaculation educational seq 4.png, Image:Ejaculation educational ani short.gif, and Image:Ejaculation educational ani.gif all come from the porno website ---removed, see history--- For verification, just enter this website and then type the word "spritzing" in the search box located at the upper right hand corner. You will see multiple sections of the video that this still frame sequence was made from there, and they are copywrited by the website. This image and the animated gif video versions will have to be deleted. 68.219.251.131 07:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe a word of that. I think this is just an anon trying to get people to visit his porn site. -- LastUserNameEver 16:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's educational, the subject is male ejaculation and here is a male ejaculating. It's informative - if this was 'here is a flower blooming' and there was an animation of a flower blooming this wouldn't even be up for deletion - it's important that prudity not be allowed to interfere with information. 66.108.211.145 23:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It is educational and very informational. Prudity, religious beliefs etc. have no place in a modern world 2007 encyclopedia. Bravo! --Tomakos 23:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I'm more upset with the prudes who object to anything dealing with sex. While most adult men know what an ejaculation is and looks like, lots of young people, both male and female, may want to know about it. And it's perfectly normal that they might. I grew up in the Christian church. What a sick environment that was. Let's bring sex out in the open. It's much more healthy for young people to know about sex. To not know develops a morbid interest.
- KEPT Commons does not prohibit sexual content if it is good quality and useful -- Editor at Large • talk 04:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Beatrix Potter images
[edit]Beatrix Potter, British author and illustrator, died 1943. All images from books simultaneously published in both the UK and in the U.S. In the U.S., these are U.S. works (and PD by virtue of having been published before 1923). But in the UK, these are UK works, and copyrighted until 70 years after Ms. Potter's death, i.e., until the end of 2013. Since they're copyrighted in their non-U.S. source country, we shouldn't host them. Delete here and move back to en-WP and en-WS, as appropriate. (Or undeleted there and then deleted here.) See also the mention at COM:HELP. Lupo 14:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Benjamin Bunny.jpg
- Image:Benjamin_and_Flopsy_Bunny_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_14220.jpg
- Image:Peter_Rabbit_-_Benjamin_and_Flopsy_Bunny_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_14220.jpg
- Image:Jeremy_Fisher_Cover.jpg
- Image:MrRat-butter.jpg
- Image:Peter-rabbit.PNG
- Image:Squirrel Nutkin.jpg
- Image:Timmy Tiptoes.jpg
- Image:Story_of_Miss_Moppet.jpg
- Image:Tailor_of_Gloucester.jpg
- Image:Tale_of_Mrs._Tittlemouse.jpg
Delete per nom --Simonxag 21:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. At the moment, I'm waiting for feedback as to whether or not I should upload these and others to Wikisource, for use as illustrations of Potter's original books. But whatever the outcome there, it seems to be in violation of Commons policy to host them here. Cowardly Lion 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --MichaelMaggs 22:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
All deleted. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Files restored on 31 Dec 2013, when UK copyright expired. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:DSC00396.JPG
[edit]This image was uploaded without my permission. I am concerned about my privacy. --148.241.76.251 17:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is no image with the name Image:DSC00396.JPG. Did you mean Image:DSC00396-2.JPG ? --Christian NurtschTM 18:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Already deleted. --Christian NurtschTM 18:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All files by User:Renova
[edit]Private photo album against Commons:Project scope, all files unused. --GeorgHH • talk 22:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Delete all per nom. Durova 23:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment We first have to ask the uploader if s/he thinks about using those pictures on one or several of his/her Wikimedia profiles. If it's the case, there's no reason to delete them. --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.77 14:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, we haven't to ask uploaders about they're wishes to use the images. And in case of files by User:Renova, the files was uploaded in december 2006! --GeorgHH • talk 15:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope if unused. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 07:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Self-nomination, due to: uploaded PNG version for usage instead. --Dark journey 14:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as nom and original uploader (is there a speedy delete option instead if you were the original uploader of the image? Also this deletion process is very difficult to navigate, instructions are bad.) Dark journey 14:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC).
- Yep, it's {{speedy|your reason}}. Rocket000 10:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, BTW, for normal deletion, there's a link in the side bar. Rocket000 10:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks, I replaced the deletion request with the speedy tag. Dark journey 10:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, BTW, for normal deletion, there's a link in the side bar. Rocket000 10:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bad quality image. There are another images: Image:Flag of Kharkiv Oblast.png and Image:Kharkiv.jpg Ahonc 20:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Disagree; it shows details that the other two don't. The image is plenty good enough to be identified and thus useful, so I don't think it comes anywhere close to a "low quality" deletion level, even if one of the others is usually preferable on wiki articles. Keep all of them. Carl Lindberg 07:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - another image, 63 kb (second image - 10 kb!) Licens. = free--Vizu 17:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - just because its bad quality why delete it? --Kuban kazak 13:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Ahonc (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(images now in Category:Garde kyrka) --Godewind 13:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Since turned into category redirect Badseed talk 06:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not used Kelvinyiu 07:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep No reason for deletion. --Simonxag 21:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment What is this a picture of? --rimshottalk 14:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. MichaelMaggs 17:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image has been hand-drawn to approximately show the spread of Swedish in Finland. However, if more than 8% of a municipality is Swedish-speaking, then the municipality must become bilingual. Therefore, it is accurate to replace this map with the newer map, where Finnish municipalities are individually colored. Also, the image is in JPG format. Also, the image is necessarily POV and inaccurate, because it is hand-drawn and fails to show subnational borders.
- Keep In use at several wikipedia's and also see Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. Multichill 23:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Also note there's a difference between this and the "superseding": The latter shows only the legally bilingual municipalitieas (with over 8% Swedish-speakers - more than 17,000 Swedish Finns live in officially monolingual Finnish municipalities, and are thus not represented on the map). The suggested deletion shows a larger area, including where less than 8% are Swedish speakers. --Janke | Talk 07:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader claims to have permission to publish the photo but will not give out the source. Thuresson 13:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe we can tell the uploader about the OTRS system. It may respect the will of the author? --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.77 14:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've obtained a permission from an author, who was not interested in revealing his name in Internet. That's all. Pibwl 14:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If the author prefers to be an anonymous we should respect his/her will... Elektron 07:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. If the author permits publication of this image, (s)he or the uploader must give the permission to OTRS, which is not public. --O (谈 • висчвын) 21:50, 08 June 2008 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image was not created by NASA and is not public domain 84.142.66.80 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- The source page states Image Credit: NASA. Do you have evidence that this is wrong? (maybe NASA made a mistake?) Patrícia msg 22:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Luna 3 was a 1959 Soviet space mission. Carl Lindberg 07:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that's an excellent argument :D; but then NASA is also wrong on Image:Luna 3 wide angle.gif, Image:Luna 3 first close-up of the Moon.gif and Image:Luna3mosaic.jpg (probably more, I haven't searched yet). I sent an e-mail asking if the image credit was correct, but given the facts, I'm inclined to think the credits are wrong and hence that the images should be deleted. Patrícia msg 08:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Luna 3 was a 1959 Soviet space mission. Carl Lindberg 07:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Similar photos have been deleted before, see Venera images after 1973. Thuresson 03:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- The image was taken before 1973. Isn't it free by soviet copyright law? --Bricktop 14:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. giggy (:O) 05:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Self-nomination, due to: uploaded PNG version for usage instead. --Dark journey 14:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as nom and original uploader (is there a speedy delete option instead if you were the original uploader of the image? Also this deletion process is very difficult to navigate, instructions are bad.) Dark journey 14:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC).
Deleted. Badseed talk 06:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I18n templates of closed Wikipedias
[edit]All of these are unused, and won't ever be used because their Wikipedias have been closed due to inactivity. {{Cho}} is not even translated. -- Prince Kassad 19:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. These are not for links to other Wikipedias, but for text on Commons in those languages, which can still be used whether or not the Wikipedias exist. --dave pape 03:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- That doesn't make them more useful, considering they're unused and there's no speaker of these languages registered on any Wikimedia project. -- Prince Kassad 06:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Davepape. If there would be no speakers the wikis would never have existed. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually all the listed wikis except for mus and cho were bot-created, without request, without any speakers, without anything. Some of them started to develop some years later - these 5 didn't. -- Prince Kassad 19:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Same as Davepape Rastrojo (D|ES) 20:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete
for Template:Ho, Template:Hz, Template:Ii, Template:Kj, Template:Kr and Template:Mus, because these wikipedias are closed and so, you don't need this templates any longer. Only Template:Cho could be used, because this wikipedia is still open. -- Ra'ike Diskussion 08:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)- Cho is also closed. Try to create a new page... -- Prince Kassad 13:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, you're right. Then it's senseless to keep one of that templates. -- Ra'ike Diskussion 23:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Cho is also closed. Try to create a new page... -- Prince Kassad 13:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
January 15
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
i have no permission to use Aeusnd 08:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Christian NurtschTM 11:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photo was taken in Italy, so {{PD-AR-Photo}} might not apply. ALE! ¿…? 13:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Ale. "Roma" is not the Italian city, but an Argentinean goalkeeper (Antonio Roma) from Boca Juniors, who used to play pro soccer in the 60s. The game was a famous one, played in Buenos Aires (Argentina), between River and Boca in 1962. The picture was taken there (in Buenos Aires, Argentina) and published the next day in Clarin newspaper. Reagards, --Roblespepe 21:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
request withdrawn, sorry --ALE! ¿…? 22:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Inappropriate file name, no description, unused - useless image. GeorgHH • talk 19:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept I withdraw my nomination
Indentified as Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald. --GeorgHH • talk 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I made this svg file but it just doen't display the letters right no matter what I try to fix it. The jpg file actually displays much better than this one so I'd rather get rid of this. Please delete. Thank you. WTCA 05:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 06:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted - per user request - Alison ❤ 07:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm the uploader. I have given the image the wrong name, so it should be deleted. SoylentGreen 13:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Upload mistake, uploader request. -- Infrogmation 16:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I uploaded it to the wrong location Jacoplane 19:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 21:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted - by Alison (talk • contribs) - Alison ❤ 06:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No FOP in France ---Nard 03:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep The Grande Arche is an integrating and unavoidable part of this image portraying as main subject the fountain (which is not a artwork). When artworks are an integrating part of the picture and do not constitute the main subject photos are allowed. Same case for the Pyramide du Louvre, which is an integrating part of numerous pictures of Louvre on Commons; same for Grande Arche, see Grande Arche. --Atoma 23:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Grande Arche is peripheral to this photograph. FOP does not apply. Cary Bass demandez 17:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep main topic is the fountain, ligtened water, also a big squared building in the background ;) Greudin 17:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep agree with Atoma. Kameraad Pjotr 20:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep FOP applies in France in some cases like those. Also I suppose we don't care if FOP doesn't apply in France since Wikimedia is hosted in the USA. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The Grande Arche is only a part of the photo and in backgroud of it... Elektron 08:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Bastique. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Although we do care that France has no FOP, in this case the copyright-protected building is sufficiently incidental to the overall photograph to make the problem de minimis. MichaelMaggs 18:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work. Esrever (klaT) 03:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Obviously derivative. Durova 06:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Derivative_works says: "Object of daily use are not copyrightable." A bottle seems to me to be an object of daily use. --MB-one 07:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- A bottle would not be copyrightable. The label upon the bottle is. That's why many commercial photographs that show bottles have the labels turned away from the camera. This is a photograph of a label, and hardly of anything else. It's copyvio. Durova 12:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious, per nom. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 14:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The "artwork" on it might be copyrighted and it's too close to be a "panorama freedom" picture. --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.77 14:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete derative __ ABF __ ϑ 14:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted jossi 00:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello. I would like an admin to delete this picture. It has just been deleted on fr Wikipedia [118]. Thxs 83.197.97.106 10:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, the image is still used. Why has it been deleted on fr ? --Christian NurtschTM 11:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, you've stuck this into a deletion request for a completely unrelated item. Please create a deletion request page for this photo. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp)
- Comment The author (Gypsy) has to ask the deletion himself if that's what he wants (as specified on French WP request). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It has a no license since template from the 15th Jan. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused personal photo that the author/subject wants deleted. With no license. (Let's not make it too hard for people.) Rocket000 09:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. No FOP in Italy. Aalto died in 1976. --User:G.dallorto 11:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 02:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown subject, unused. GeorgHH • talk 12:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, bad name as well. --rimshottalk 15:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work 134.221.139.114 14:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, can this be speedied? --rimshottalk 15:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo is obviously not selfmade. ALE! ¿…? 23:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 02:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Uploader claims to be the boxer's grandson, and therefore actually might have the rights to this picture. --rimshottalk 16:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- He and all other heirs. --ALE! ¿…? 09:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative from copyrighted object 134.221.139.114 14:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, can this be speedied? --rimshottalk 15:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why? This image was uploaded on nl:wiki on 31 July 2005 bij nl:User:Snoop, who claimed it as own work. Where is it derivated from? Adnergje 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is derivative work of the smurf. If you want to contest the deletion, you can go to Commons:Undeletion requests. --rimshottalk 09:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why? This image was uploaded on nl:wiki on 31 July 2005 bij nl:User:Snoop, who claimed it as own work. Where is it derivated from? Adnergje 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivate work 134.221.139.114 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- The smurfs are located at a public amusement park at Ankara which belongs to government and can be admitted without any entrance fee. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Nevit (talk • contribs)
- Looking up FOP law of Turkey. -Nard 22:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like it's there. Law No. 5846 of 5 December 1951, on Intellectual and Artistic Works, as last amended on 7 June 1995 by Law No. 4110, section 40, says: The duplication through illustrations, graphics, photographs, etc., promulgation, demonstration by projection at public places and broadcasting through radio and similar media of the works of fine arts stationarily placed on the public roads, streets and avenues are allowed. This authority is exclusive only to the outer shape in the works of architecture. Unless a prohibitory record is clearly placed on them by their owners, the works of fine arts can be demonstrated at public places by their possessors or by others upon their approval. The law has had a few more amendments since then, but I don't see any that changed that section. Carl Lindberg 05:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Added to COM:FOP#Turkey. Lupo 08:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Bah you beat me. Keep -Nard 21:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Bah you beat me.
- Added to COM:FOP#Turkey. Lupo 08:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like it's there. Law No. 5846 of 5 December 1951, on Intellectual and Artistic Works, as last amended on 7 June 1995 by Law No. 4110, section 40, says: The duplication through illustrations, graphics, photographs, etc., promulgation, demonstration by projection at public places and broadcasting through radio and similar media of the works of fine arts stationarily placed on the public roads, streets and avenues are allowed. This authority is exclusive only to the outer shape in the works of architecture. Unless a prohibitory record is clearly placed on them by their owners, the works of fine arts can be demonstrated at public places by their possessors or by others upon their approval. The law has had a few more amendments since then, but I don't see any that changed that section. Carl Lindberg 05:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looking up FOP law of Turkey. -Nard 22:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 14:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work 134.221.139.114 14:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- The smurfs are located at a public amusement park at Ankara which belongs to government and can be admitted without any entrance fee.—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Nevit (talk • contribs)
- Comment This should not be speedily deleted pending investigation of a) Turkey's FOP law and b) the existence of the park. -Nard 22:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Turkey appears to have full FOP (see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Harikalar Diyari Smurfs 06048 nevit.jpg), and the existence of the park doesn't seem much in doubt ;-) (do a search of "Harikalar Diyari" on images.google.com). Carl Lindberg 06:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep FOP applies. -Nard 23:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 14:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It can be seen very clearly that the image has been scanned from a paper source, and that it isn't a photo taken by the user Thialfi 19:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong. Let me explain this, in fact, it was a photo taken by me. I taked the photo from a political campaign poster in the Buenos Aires's neighborhood of San Telmo. So, I didn't scanned from a paper source.--Diablo del Oeste 04:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative. Scanned or photo of a poster, if you did not take the original photo you have no rights to license it. Please understand this. Any photos of posters, images on tv, etc that you uploaded if you do not own the copyright on the original source should be tagged for deletion. -- Infrogmation 17:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It can't be under CC, it's including un-free items] OsamaK 10:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the primary subject of the photo is the copyrighted paper, it's not just incidental Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 15:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Note that the articles depicted ([119] [120] [121] [122]) are all available online for appropriate citation. I would advocate transwikiing to Wikipedia but it's really too self-referential to be a fair use depiction of the print version of the onion. Bigbluefish 19:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 17:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contradictional license statements and most probably not self-made. ALE! ¿…? 23:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looking at the upload history of copyvios of this user, I assume that this COA is not his own work. ALE! ¿…? 23:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete shure not self-made. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted —LX (talk, contribs) 23:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Considering th low quality of the drawing, the wrong file format used (jpg) and having a look at the history of copyvios of this users, I think it is not his own work. ALE! ¿…? 23:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I replaced it with an improved variant. Finetooth 00:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mind giving a link? --rimshottalk 15:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, no. Sorry. I'm relatively new at this and clumsy. It has since been pointed out to me that I should have used the same file name but simply overwritten it with the new version, which I named Image:Shackleton Endurance Aurora map2.png. I also inadvertently created an identical correct version named Image:Shackleton Endurance Aurora map2.PNG. Please don't delete either of these but only the one marked for deletion. Finetooth 02:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Shackleton Endurance Aurora map2.PNG and Image:Shackleton Endurance Aurora map2.png are the same, why shouldn't I just delete one of them? --rimshottalk 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- That would be fine. I was afraid it might confuse things to make two requests at the same time. Finetooth 18:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have manually eliminated Image:Shackleton Endurance Aurora map2.PNG from use on any pages and replaced it with Image:Shackleton Endurance Aurora map2.png, which is the one I want to keep. Finetooth 22:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have added Image:Shackleton Endurance Aurora map2.PNG to the list of requests for deletion. Finetooth 22:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have manually eliminated Image:Shackleton Endurance Aurora map2.PNG from use on any pages and replaced it with Image:Shackleton Endurance Aurora map2.png, which is the one I want to keep. Finetooth 22:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- That would be fine. I was afraid it might confuse things to make two requests at the same time. Finetooth 18:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Shackleton Endurance Aurora map2.PNG and Image:Shackleton Endurance Aurora map2.png are the same, why shouldn't I just delete one of them? --rimshottalk 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, no. Sorry. I'm relatively new at this and clumsy. It has since been pointed out to me that I should have used the same file name but simply overwritten it with the new version, which I named Image:Shackleton Endurance Aurora map2.png. I also inadvertently created an identical correct version named Image:Shackleton Endurance Aurora map2.PNG. Please don't delete either of these but only the one marked for deletion. Finetooth 02:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Duplicate and inferior, resp. rimshottalk 23:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no source, most or all of norman rockwell's art (if that is what this is) is copyrighted 140.247.225.233 17:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, no reason why this image should be public domain offered. -- Infrogmation 22:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Per this comment, a response to the user's comment at user talk:Giggy — Giggy 12:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, but with {{Trademarked}} added to the Licensing section. —Zachary talk 12:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Starscream 18:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Because this image show fair use logo of company.
- Keep Incidental inclusion, the image is about the DRINK INSIDE THE CUP, not to exclusively depict the logo. Vipersnake151 20:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- The "with trademark" template has been added; I think this should be sufficent in this case. Keep per Zachary & Vipersnake151. -- Infrogmation
- Delete Trademarked logo; permission NOT granted for post. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.122.146.191 (talk • contribs)
- Keep - I agree with above, per {{trademarked}}. giggy (:O) 22:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Same as friends above. Gridge 19:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC).
Kept. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused template, last edited 6. Mär. 2006. See someone a reason to keep this? --GeorgHH • talk 17:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- No prob. notafish }<';> 22:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not used and doesn't seem like it will be. The original author says no problem, I see no problem, it's gone. - Rocket000 13:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. As per here Freedom of Panorama in Finland does not apply to single objects and in any case not for commercial use, which conflicts with Common's requirements. Aalto died in 1976. --User:G.dallorto 11:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Just common furniture and not a sculpture or some other piece of art. --Herbert Ortner 13:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep A table similars to others... Elektron 08:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This picture is made in the Netherlands, in a home, with permission of the owner. Elly 12:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Closed as kept per votes & comments. -- Infrogmation 18:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
image is copyright 1954 per source 140.247.225.233 17:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation -- Infrogmation 18:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
? -Nard 03:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep This image is not violating some kind of copyright, due to the fact it's an attempt to reproduce (in Photoshop) a specific art design for the artist. However, looking at the details, it´s not the art design made for the artist. It's not a copyrighted material but an image that tends to be confused with the original. It can also be confused with a derivate of the original, but it's not. It is not an edition of the original. It´s an image constructed from nothing else but it's author, who tried to make it similar to the original. That was the main idea, to make it similar...for it to be kept in Commons. I'm the author.Tijs Tiesto 3:55 15 ene 2008 (UTC)
Delete Derivative work of album cover and presumably unfree photograph. --rimshottalk 15:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Rimshot. Unless the uploader is the real en:Tiësto. In that case, he should give appropriate permission through OTRS. Untill then, a similar image is just what is called a derivative work.
- the same should apply to Image:Tiesto collage.jpg and Image:Tiesto collage2.jpg.-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 commons es 07:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have nominated these two images for deletion too. – Ilse@ 08:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Portrait photograph taken from the cover of "Elements of Life", non-free logos ("tiësto" and "Elements of Life") used. – Ilse@ 08:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. It's definitely a derivative work if you try your hardest to make it look the same as the original. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No indication for PD-old. Without name and date of death of the author {{PD-old}} can't be used. GeorgHH • talk 18:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Photo more than 100 year old. And actually, your argument is contrary to the actual policy. Photos are kept even if the author is unknown is there are more than 100 years old. Yann 09:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- They aren't. This rule is for pictures older than 150 years, PD-old-100 exists on de. Code·is·poetry 13:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if that's true, but it is silly anyway. This image is obviously in the public domain, and nobody cares about the author anyway. There is no valid argument since last January, so I will close this case soon. Yann 15:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- "obviously in the public domain"? This image was taken in 1904, a photographer of lets say 40 years (fairly old) could easily have reached an age of 74, not to mention these special french rules about WWI soldiers ... sorry, but this is not even probably public domain. Code·is·poetry 18:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if that's true, but it is silly anyway. This image is obviously in the public domain, and nobody cares about the author anyway. There is no valid argument since last January, so I will close this case soon. Yann 15:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- They aren't. This rule is for pictures older than 150 years, PD-old-100 exists on de. Code·is·poetry 13:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. No proove of PD and is probably not. Commons does not work with 'maybe'. Cecil 18:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
For this licence Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication. which was not done. This image was now uploaded the third time by Yann without any respect for previous deletions. (Where actually he was the only one, who was for 'keep' (see above) and miss-used his admin-rights by just restoring the image immediately after its deletion by a neutral admin, see deletion-log). -- Cecil (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I think that you are abusing here. What's wrong with the licence now? Yann (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think I marked that by writing it in bold font. And I didn't recreate/restore my own image just because an admin made a decision against it. And I would like to hear where I am miss-using my admin-rights here. -- Cecil (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- What's more, we need the date of publication, not the date that it was made, in order to take publication right out of play. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 02:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete: So far I haven't seen any information on the image page telling us where this image has been published more than 70 years ago. As long this is missing, {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} is inappropriate. In addition, simply telling that the photographer is unknown is likewise not acceptable as long as no indication is given why this is the case and/or what you have done to research the photographer's name. Why was this image restored after the previous deletion? --AFBorchert (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that this request for deletion is pure bullshit. But I am ready for a compromise. Will you follow the French Wikipedia contributors who are certainly the most competent to work out if the image is in the public domain in France? So I will accept the deletion if the image would be deleted on the French Wikipedia for a copyright violation. Yann (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Äh, no. Just in July I've seen that there are a lot of French contributors who would prefer to ignore the laws of their country and keep things that are a copyright violation just to have something to illustrate their articles. There were a few who understood and encouraged the deletion request, but the majority just called the law stupid. So I would prefer someone neutral. -- Cecil (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Who is neutral? People who request completely irrelevant criteria? Or normal people who try to use their common sense? There are thousand of images like this one on Commons. Do not single out one. If you really mean it, make a list and a deletion request for them all. In a side note, you didn't said why {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} would be "inappropriate". Yann (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- So because we're not deleting everything erroneously claimed as an anonymous work, we should delete none of them at all? By the same logic, we'd never delete anything (because after all, we're never going to eliminate every copyright violation from here). Anyway, if the author is truly anonymous, then present some evidence that the author never claimed authorship of the work, or demonstrate that it can not be found with a reasonable amount of effort. Either that, or ask some fr.wp users to do it for you if you like (and no, zerging the deletion request will not work). There is nothing "bullshit" about demanding this. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Collard, don't expect to much from Yann. After all, he creates his own rules: Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Synagoga_Głogów_1.jpg. Commons has no 100-years rule, but still he keeps them with that rationale. -- Cecil (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Your gratuitous hostility is disturbing, as it was told you before. It is not the first time that you attack other contributors (Commons:Deletion_requests/French_architects). This is a warning. Yann (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's not hostility, that is severe concern of seeing an admin regularly miss-using his admin-rights by restoring images and using invalid rationals. -- Cecil (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- When do you stop accusing me for what you do yourself? Yann (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Where did I use my extra rights as admin in the wrong way? I have not restored images that were deleted by other admins and I don't keep/delete images with my own private rationale. With this deletion request I just took the rights every user has. I doubt that it would have been miss-use to delete the image again with reference to the previous request, but instead decided to get a few more opinions which currently all look approving to me. -- Cecil (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- When do you stop accusing me for what you do yourself? Yann (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's not hostility, that is severe concern of seeing an admin regularly miss-using his admin-rights by restoring images and using invalid rationals. -- Cecil (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Your gratuitous hostility is disturbing, as it was told you before. It is not the first time that you attack other contributors (Commons:Deletion_requests/French_architects). This is a warning. Yann (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Collard, don't expect to much from Yann. After all, he creates his own rules: Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Synagoga_Głogów_1.jpg. Commons has no 100-years rule, but still he keeps them with that rationale. -- Cecil (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- So because we're not deleting everything erroneously claimed as an anonymous work, we should delete none of them at all? By the same logic, we'd never delete anything (because after all, we're never going to eliminate every copyright violation from here). Anyway, if the author is truly anonymous, then present some evidence that the author never claimed authorship of the work, or demonstrate that it can not be found with a reasonable amount of effort. Either that, or ask some fr.wp users to do it for you if you like (and no, zerging the deletion request will not work). There is nothing "bullshit" about demanding this. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Who is neutral? People who request completely irrelevant criteria? Or normal people who try to use their common sense? There are thousand of images like this one on Commons. Do not single out one. If you really mean it, make a list and a deletion request for them all. In a side note, you didn't said why {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} would be "inappropriate". Yann (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't restore this image. I uploaded another one with another template, because I think there is a misunderstanding on the rationale for keeping this image, which is available on several Wikipedias with exactly the rationale I advocate here. So yes, you attack me with wrong facts and false allegations, and you abuse your admin rights in deleting this image. Yann (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- You restored the image one time. This time you just waited a few weeks before trying it with a different licence for which you have not yet brought a proove that it is valid. -- Cecil (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Previous deletion requests accepted the rationale that old photos without an author can be considered as PD (see Commons:Deletion requests/World War I era images (02/08/2006)). Why not now for this one, which is even older than WWI images in the RfD mentioned? See also Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Anonymous_work... and I forgot Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Anonymous-EU and many others. I think that double standard is applied here. Yann (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- You should consider taking up acrobatics; the contortions through which you have gone to avoid the issue would be impressive were it not for the fact that you're an administrator and really should know better. Again: Where is the evidence that the author of this work was never known or is undeterminable with a reasonable amount of effort? "I haven't bothered to try and find out the author" is not the same thing as "the author was anonymous". Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 03:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Previous deletion requests accepted the rationale that old photos without an author can be considered as PD (see Commons:Deletion requests/World War I era images (02/08/2006)). Why not now for this one, which is even older than WWI images in the RfD mentioned? See also Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Anonymous_work... and I forgot Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Anonymous-EU and many others. I think that double standard is applied here. Yann (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
And this is not the only missing point, Lewis Collard, as we still have no proof that this image was published 70 years ago as required by {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}:
- Notice to uploaders: To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions: (1) published over 70 years ago, and (2) the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. Images that lack either of these two conditions should not use this template.
Please note that some countries grant copyright for editio princeps that extend for some years (in Germany 25 years) independent from the time of the author's death. In other words: Even if the author is dead for more than 70 years, it might still be copyright protected if it has been published for the first time just some years ago. I would recommend to hunt for images in old publications and not on random web sites as these proofs become much easier if you scan these images from old prints. Another option is, of course, to correspond with the maintainers of the referenced web site to inquire where this image has been taken from. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Now a claim that it wasn't published... and I was told to "take up acrobatics"... Ah! Ah! Ah! Yann (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- I do not claim that it wasn't published. It has obviously been published on the web site you have copied that image from. The question is whether you have any proof that this image was already published 70 years ago which is one of the preconditions to take advantage of the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} template. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Now a claim that it wasn't published... and I was told to "take up acrobatics"... Ah! Ah! Ah! Yann (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
For reason unknown, the image was not properly deleted. I deleted it again. Rama (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rama. Lupo 14:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Category has no purpose. All medieval churches in Denmark are made of stone or brick. Keeping it gives no new information and a 2,000+ entry category will be useless. 14 January 2008 User:83.89.43.14 Fixed request -- Deadstar (msg) 16:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- From the talkpage: This category is so little used that i has no point. 90% of all Danish churches are medieval stone churches so either they should all be here (and the category would be overpopulated) or the category should be dropped. --User:Heelgrasper 21:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Badseed talk 11:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. As per here Freedom of Panorama in Finland does not apply to single objects and in any case not for commercial use, which conflicts with Common's requirements. Aalto died in 1976. --User:G.dallorto 11:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Just common furniture and not a sculpture or some other piece of art. --Herbert Ortner 13:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This picture is made in the Netherlands, in a home, with permission of the owner. Elly 12:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
cannot determine copyright status from given sources --Jtir 05:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The information on the image page points at an image that is identical to this one (with different post processing/scanning it appears). That image says: "Early version of Boeing 247 10-passenger twin-engine transport; 1933 [Peter C. Boisseau]". That means we can assume that the image was provided and made by Peter C. Boisseau and dates from 1933. There is no indication that Peter is not the photograper, and he was an engineer at NASA's Langley research center as indicated by the technical reports that can be found in a google search. The only thing I think that is wrong here, is the license tag, since NASA didn't exist yet in 1933. It was still NACA at that time. TheDJ 13:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I have uploaded Image:Boeing 247 1933.jpg, so this one is a duplicate. --Jtir 20:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as a duplicate; kept as proven PD. --O (谈 • висчвын) 22:37, 08 June 2008 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. As per here Freedom of Panorama in Finland does not apply to single objects and in any case not for commercial use, which conflicts with Common's requirements. Aalto died in 1976. --User:G.dallorto 11:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Just common furniture and not a sculpture or some other piece of art. --Herbert Ortner 13:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This picture is made in the Netherlands, in a home, with permission of the owner. Elly 12:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Panorama freedom is about taking of photographs in *public* spaces, which does not seem to be the case. We don't have to go legalistic to the extreme. Otherwise one won't be able to photograph a pencil or a plate, just because some country does not care about freedom of panorama. --Ghirlandajo 09:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. As per here Freedom of Panorama in Finland does not apply to single objects and in any case not for commercial use, which conflicts with Common's requirements. Aalto died in 1976. --User:G.dallorto 11:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Just common furniture and not a sculpture or some other piece of art. --Herbert Ortner 13:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep i agree with Herbert. Multichill 14:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. As per here Freedom of Panorama in Finland does not apply to single objects and in any case not for commercial use, which conflicts with Common's requirements. Aalto died in 1976. --User:G.dallorto 11:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Just common furniture and not a sculpture or some other piece of art. --Herbert Ortner 13:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Just a chair and did you notice the photographer is Dutch? --Simonxag 03:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This picture is made in the Netherlands, in a home, with permission of the owner. Elly 12:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. As per here Freedom of Panorama in Finland does not apply to single objects and in any case not for commercial use, which conflicts with Common's requirements. Aalto died in 1976. --User:G.dallorto 11:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Just common furniture and not a sculpture or some other piece of art. --Herbert Ortner 13:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This picture is made in the Netherlands, in a home, with permission of the owner. Elly 12:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. As per here Freedom of Panorama in Finland does not apply to single objects and in any case not for commercial use, which conflicts with Common's requirements. Aalto died in 1976. --User:G.dallorto 11:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you think it was photographed in Finland? It is from the German Wikipedia so you would think the photo was taken in Germany or something. // Liftarn
- In this case it should be declared: if you want the "freedom of panorama" clause to apply, you should state it. Furthermore, if the images was shot in Germany, then the image should be deleted, since the Freedom of panorama calsue does not apply in interiors, but only utdoor. Therefore, please clarify the issue. --User:G.dallorto 16:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Just common furniture and not a sculpture or some other piece of art. --Herbert Ortner 13:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that too. // Liftarn
- If it were just "common" forniture, then it should be presented as "a table". This is no commons forniture, this is design forniture by Aalto, and as such it is patented. --User:G.dallorto 16:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Furniture is furniture. If it's meant to be used it's not an artwork. // Liftarn
- Keep It generally doesn't matter how stylish the design is -- if it relates to the functional use, it's not artwork. If a picture was made on the surface, that can be different. If the maker has a design patent on it (not the same as copyright), that should be noted probably, but I would assume that would only restrict other furniture makers from using a similar design, and not photographs of it. Carl Lindberg 17:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- That is not universally true. In the U.S., there is this (conceptual) "separability test". But other countries may see things differently. In Switzerland, a Watch was in 1998 considered copyrighted.[123] In Germany, utilitarian objects that are artistic (in the sense that their elaboration is clearly above the norm) may be copyrighted.[124] Mart Stam got a copyright in Germany in 1932 on a chair.[125] See also this old discussion. But I don't know whether Aalto's "Teewagen" would be copyrighted in either Germany or Finland. Lupo 20:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting. Yes, I should have said that the situation may be different countries other than the U.S., as I'm less familiar with them, though we often apply that test from what I've seen. The Commons:Image casebook#Utility objects section seems to say the same thing. These types of copyrights seem to be the exception rather than the rule as well. Also, are they copyrighted under general artistic copyright concepts, or more of a design copyright with perhaps different restrictions? It seems a little odd to suggest that a photograph is a derivative work of a table design (rather it would exist to prevent other makers from making furniture with similar designs), but who knows. In looking around, I did find out that even the U.S. has a framework set up for design copyrights (17 U.S.C chapter 13), which gives a period of protection of 10 years if registered, but even that still allows photographs of the objects. However, it is currently limited to boat hulls only (it was put in place for the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act of 1998, gotta love it). The U.S. does have design patents as well, but those are harder to get. Carl Lindberg 03:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- That is not universally true. In the U.S., there is this (conceptual) "separability test". But other countries may see things differently. In Switzerland, a Watch was in 1998 considered copyrighted.[123] In Germany, utilitarian objects that are artistic (in the sense that their elaboration is clearly above the norm) may be copyrighted.[124] Mart Stam got a copyright in Germany in 1932 on a chair.[125] See also this old discussion. But I don't know whether Aalto's "Teewagen" would be copyrighted in either Germany or Finland. Lupo 20:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- If it were just "common" forniture, then it should be presented as "a table". This is no commons forniture, this is design forniture by Aalto, and as such it is patented. --User:G.dallorto 16:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that too. // Liftarn
If the vase is free from trademark patents, then, this ought at least be remarked in the description of the object. This is not a thing than may be taken for granted without knowing about it. Furthermore, I insist we are dealing with an object which intends applying art to a functional object. BTW I don't want it to be deleted, I'd rather like it to stay. But I am not convinced at all about the fact "functionality" thing may work except for your average geranium pot, not certainly for a design work signed by an artist. Otherwise, why bothering in having him design it? And why would people pay 1,000 times the cost of the geranium vase, if it were a mere question of function? It's patent they are buying it as a work of art. --User:G.dallorto 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Trademarks, patents, and copyright are all very different from one another. On commons, we usually are concerned just about copyrights. If an item is trademarked, but not under copyright, we generally keep it and mark it with {{trademarked}} (since in all likelihood there is a wikipedia article we can use it on without violating the trademark). Photographs of patented objects are generally not specially protected (other than the usual copyright on the photo itself) and are almost never an issue for commons. The question here is if the table is copyrighted (and if pictures of the same count as derivative works), which is usually not the case for utilitarian items, but if you know of a specific copyright or law in this case, let us know. I have no knowledge of Finnish law. Given the usual practice though, I think we should tend to allow photographs of utilitarian objects, unless a demonstrated copyright, law, or court case seems to indicate otherwise. If not we are on a pretty slippery slope to disallowing photographs of almost any object, since a huge number of products have some distinctive design twist which could then be claimed as "art". Carl Lindberg 03:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, you convinced me. Obviously a table can't be copyrighted. If you say that patents are of no importance to Commons, then we sorted the thing out. As far as I know a design object is protected as a work of art in Italy (there have been rather nasty disputes about Italian furniture makers making and selling replicas of design furniture designed by dead artists) but entering the subtilities of the Finish law is beyond my reach. My only doubt is, then: why may I not upload, say, an IKEA object here, then? Or may I? --User:G.dallorto 13:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, there is a difference between making a replica of a table and showing a picture of a table. One is a question of en:Design patent and/or en:Industrial design rights. The other is a question of the photographer's rights. You may take a photo of an IKEA chaif and upload it here, but you can't make copies of the chairs and sell them. And why Finnish law? Was the photo taken in Finland? // Liftarn
- Ok, you convinced me. Obviously a table can't be copyrighted. If you say that patents are of no importance to Commons, then we sorted the thing out. As far as I know a design object is protected as a work of art in Italy (there have been rather nasty disputes about Italian furniture makers making and selling replicas of design furniture designed by dead artists) but entering the subtilities of the Finish law is beyond my reach. My only doubt is, then: why may I not upload, say, an IKEA object here, then? Or may I? --User:G.dallorto 13:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. As per here Freedom of Panorama in Finland does not apply to single objects and in any case not for commercial use, which conflicts with Common's requirements. Aalto died in 1976. --User:G.dallorto 11:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Just common furniture and not a sculpture or some other piece of art. --Herbert Ortner 13:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- What? We can only take pictures of nature now? Rocket000 09:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Herbert. --67.204.1.2 01:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio. As per here Freedom of Panorama in Finland does not apply to single objects and in any case not for commercial use, which conflicts with Common's requirements. Aalto died in 1976. --User:G.dallorto 11:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a lawyer and I'm not the author either. Contact one of those; I have nothing to do with this pic...
- Nevertheless, I do not like the idea that somebody couldn't make a photo about his vase at his home.... -- CsTom 18:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- If it is only that, you can't even publish a photo of your HOME, were it designed by Aalto... greed sucks, but laws are made by greedy people. And the weird thing is that we supposedly elected them... --User:G.dallorto 10:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Er, isn't this a utilitarian object? I don't think you can copyright a vase.... Carl Lindberg 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, you may not copyright the vase as a concept, as far as I know. You may trademark the shape of "Carl Lindberg's vase", though. Or Alvar Aalto's one, as far as I know. --User:G.dallorto 00:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- You could conceivably trademark it yes, but that is different than copyright (and freedom of panorama is specific to copyright). It would also not preclude uploading a photograph. The question here is copyright, and in general we allow photographs of utilitarian objects (see Commons:Image casebook#Utility objects). Carl Lindberg 04:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I read the part you refer to. I agree on the fact that a "plain" vase may be photographed. Vases are a 30,000 years old concept. What I am saying is that this particular vase is not a "plain" vase, this is a sculpture, which is usable as a vase (this is the concept of "design" objects: work of art to be used as utilitarian objects). It is signed by a famous artist, so much so that it is in fact uploaded here as an example of his work. Are there not any precedent cases on the issue, to refer to? It's unlikely this problems is surfacing for the first time now. --User:G.dallorto 12:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- If this was taken in the U.S., there is definitely no problem -- utilitarian objects are not subject to copyright. From [126]:
- A "useful article" is an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. Examples are clothing, furniture, machinery, dinnerware, and lighting fixtures. An article that is normally part of a useful article may itself be a useful article, for example, an ornamental wheel cover on a vehicle.
- Copyright does not protect the mechanical or utilitarian aspects of such works of craftsmanship. It may, however, protect any pictorial, graphic, or sculptural authorship that can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of an object. Thus, a useful article may have both copyrightable and uncopyrightable features. For example, a carving on the back of a chair or a floral relief design on silver flatware could be protected by copyright, but the design of the chair or flatware itself could not.
- It goes on to say that a design patent must be obtained to protect against other manufacturers using the design. Other countries may have different dividing lines, but this test is still often used here. This photo came from en-wiki supposedly, so it may well be a U.S. photo. Carl Lindberg 14:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete To me that looks like what is called "art glass", i.e. as much glass sculpture than utilitarian object. So the picture may well be a copyvio. --Simonxag 02:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete A creative copyright attaches to utilitarian items that have a substantial creative component. Durova 21:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not in the United States; the creative part has to be separable from the utilitarian aspect (i.e. a graphic design on the surface). If this is a U.S. photo of a product sold there, there is definitely no problem. Other countries may be different, but is there any indication that such copyright would actually carry through to photos of the object, as opposed to just preventing competing vase makers from using the same design? Is there any case law which indicates it might? That would seem odd for a design copyright; which I think is very different than regular artistic copyright applied with pure sculpture. Carl Lindberg 16:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. giggy (:O) 05:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The file is not potentially usable by any Wikimedia project. Woefully incomplete tree. (Nominated for deletion by the creator.) --msh210 22:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Used in articles on es & vi wikipedias. --dave pape 03:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The OTRS permission specifies Höglund as the photographer. Only the creator (i.e the one who drew) of the Coat of arms can release it under a free license, the photograph is meerly a derivative work of the original. Lokal_Profil 14:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Does the OTRS ticket say anything about the creator licensing it freely? giggy (:O) 05:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete Free use granted at OTRS but only for the image as a photo of a third-party interpretation of the seal (i,.e. not own creation of photographer) therefore deriv/copyvioBadseed talk 18:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This game is not under GPL. The authors (Dmitry Pavlovsky and Vadim Gerasimov) never release it under GPL. But (s i say on the village pump), the game is in text mode and graphically very simple. May it possible to clam non eligibility for copyright for some of this screenshots ? --bayo or talk 22:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete designs aren't simple enough for ineligible, IMO. giggy (:O) 05:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I think that screenshots may be copyrighted.--Trixt 23:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Badseed talk 18:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. As per here Freedom of Panorama in Finland does not apply to single objects and in any case not for commercial use, which conflicts with Common's requirements. Aalto died in 1976. --User:G.dallorto 11:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep These are utilitarian objects which are generally not subject to copyright (they are not works of art). If there was a design on the surface, then maybe, but there does not appear to be any here. Carl Lindberg 17:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Had it been merely utilitarian, it would have not been uploadad as an example of Aalto's art, then. May you upload IKEA's vases (ugly as they are) merely for being "utilitarian objects"? --User:G.dallorto 00:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- You can usually upload photographs of them, yes. In the U.S. at least, Copyright does not protect the mechanical or utilitarian aspects of such works of craftsmanship. It may, however, protect any pictorial, graphic, or sculptural authorship that can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of an object. Thus, a useful article may have both copyrightable and uncopyrightable features. For example, a carving on the back of a chair or a floral relief design on silver flatware could be protected by copyright, but the design of the chair or flatware itself could not. [127] Other countries may have other dividing lines, but that is a common test that we use (see Commons:Image casebook#Utility objects). If you have specific information on Aalto claiming copyright (or know of a Finnish law which indicates that distinctive craftsmanship counts as sculpture, it may be different. Carl Lindberg 03:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Had it been merely utilitarian, it would have not been uploadad as an example of Aalto's art, then. May you upload IKEA's vases (ugly as they are) merely for being "utilitarian objects"? --User:G.dallorto 00:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept, with no prejudice to this DR being re-opened. They seem like utilitarian objects to me, and the utilitarian elements of it are, as I see it, inseparable from whatever artistic elements there are. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
January 16
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio (http://www.mtr.com.hk/chi/train/system_map_pop_up.html) Keithorz (talk‧對話) 11:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete tag obvious cases like this with {{copyvio}} in future (I just did). Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:42, 16 January 2008 (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.
Other picture of him already added to this site Benjaminso 01:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted. Look, you are not allowed to upload photos from imdb.com. Also, if you read the small print you can read "Photo by Jesse Grant - © WireImage.com - Image courtesy WireImage.com". Thuresson 01:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:James cromwell.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No utilizable texto archivo no descriptivo hay otro más actual Thecubillo 13:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rlevse: Dupe of Image:Fresneda de la Sierra (Cuenca).jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
nothing can be seen in the image. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copyright violation too, comes from here (see the thumbnail under the big image). Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by --ßøuñçêY2K 21:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC) - copyvio violation from here.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Filmed person's consent is questionable. Metadata identifies a commercial source not mentioned in uploader's description. Same uploader as Image:Sheerimg03-2007.jpg and Image:Wetlookunderwear.jpg, which are also suspicious, with similar descriptions but different metadata. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted for all of the above reasons and for being outwith project scope. Nick 11:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
typo --Applebee 21:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted typo. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Painting is not uploaders work. Megapixie 15:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. --User:G.dallorto 16:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope. ALE! ¿…? 21:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- delete --Motopark 14:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of COM:PS __ ABF __ ϑ 15:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Commons:Project scope jossi 00:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is obviously a screenshot from a videoclip. (I've seen the PV) So it should be a copyright-violation, right? Franczeska 11:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, screenshots from copyrighted videos are copyright violations. Delete -- Infrogmation
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Scan from magazine Yarl Talk • PL 17:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Next time use {{speedy}} Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE, low quality. Dodo 18:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Collage of images from different sources. I marked as no source but someone reverted. ---Nard 21:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope as well. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. I reverted because self-made was said, and for me it was possible that he self-made all them. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unused, out of scope, possible copyvio, but still - most likely out of scope. Vipersnake151 02:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. Unsourced elements. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rocket000: copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request: Picture seems to be a fake or joke, but is used to demonstrate real things. Please give date, place and organization or group. Picture is unsourced and the uploader simply added self-made. See User_talk:Froofroo --Panic 01:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep — what proof do you have that it is "fake or a joke"? And, what difference does it make if it's fake or not? Is it not a representation of modern Neo-Nazism? I think that this is worth keeping, especially since it is so widely used. --Boricuæddie 01:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Boricuæddie. --Kjetil r 11:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Such a scandal-like representation needs a source. Wikipedia should not be a collection of different kinds of mad looking people unless they are important persons.Tuohirulla 20:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep What if it were a joke? ----ßøuñçêY2K 20:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image might be staged representation. If so it looks fairly accurate. Useful illustrative image. No personality rights problems as creep/model not identifiable. --Simonxag 02:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per simonxag. I also belive its a reproducion, but its to often in use to delete it. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not belive its self made. Therefor the subjects are to old. __ ABF __ ϑ 06:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- This a imagem from a newspaper...Talk2lurch 17:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Makes it not automatically free. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Self made? Yes, it could be, but this picture looks like made from TV and that's also not allowed. -- Ra'ike Diskussion 09:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 17:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work, out of scope, bad quality __ ABF __ ϑ 08:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. By Marcus Cyron. __ ABF __ ϑ 17:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Flickr user SLPTWRK has been to a gallery for photographic art and photographed the exhibits. See for example [128] or [129]. This Patti Smith photograph is obviously a derivative work of somebody else. Thuresson 01:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as a derivative work. --wL <speak·creatively> 10:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Marcus Cyron: Copyright violation
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I uploaded it when I did not understand well about copyright regulations. I have no clue about who made the portrait. --User:G.dallorto 00:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Public Domain. Author died before 1938. Mareczko 19:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- It says "Author:unknown". If you know who the painter was, please tell us, and provide a verifiable and reliable external source for it. Lupo 19:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Many files in Wikimedia Commons haven't got source Mareczko 19:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- It says "Author:unknown". If you know who the painter was, please tell us, and provide a verifiable and reliable external source for it. Lupo 19:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete In fact. And they should be deleted too. I am the uploader, and I requested the deletion of this file, because now I have a better understanding of copyright laws than I had when I first uploaded it. I have no idea about the author of the painting, but when I uploaded the image I wrongly thought it was enought for the file being older than 70 year, which is false. If Mareczko has andy clues about authorship, please let us know about it. Otherwise, the claim of "Public domain" is groundless. --User:G.dallorto 15:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Polarlys __ ABF __ ϑ 15:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
for me it loocks similar to a copyrightet caracter and therefore derivative. __ ABF __ ϑ 06:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why did you remove this tag and opened a (definitely more bureaucratic way of deleting a condemned image) deletion request? If you know which character is - why isn't it tagged as copyvio, then? Patrícia msg 09:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete "Picture taken by uploader"? -- Deadstar (msg) 15:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I want to delete it because SVG version is loaded. Дмитрий Сутягин 12:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. We can't do that anymore I'm afraid. Vipersnake151 12:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is an absolutely identcal images. Please compare: SVG and GIF --Дмитрий Сутягин 13:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Identical images. ----ßøuñçêY2K 21:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral, er, Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded? Daniel (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Superseded images are not deleted. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per above. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not belive in self-made because the Photo is so old. __ ABF __ ϑ 06:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Dodo: copyvio - scanned newspaper
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Encruzilhada does not exist. Only Encruzilhada do Sul. It is the name official of the town. --19:53, 10 January 2008 User:FrancoBras Request fixed. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can be redirected. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Redirected -- Deadstar (msg) 16:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The copyright is not owned by as this is attached to the logo of the DPP and therefore cannot be considered PD and is automatically considered non-free, unless a) the DPP has released it into PD or B) ROC laws states that flags and symbols of this nature are PD. --Nat 21:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- The image was made by Dyfsunctional.--Jerrypp772000 00:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Image created by the person doesn't mean that that person owns the copyright to that image especially in these circumstances where an image is a logo, or derives from a logo. Nat 02:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep You can't claim copyright on the shape of a country. Or squares. Rocket000 09:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- If they were individual images, I would agree with you, however, this is a branding image used by the DPP and should be treated as if it is derived from the party's logo, in which case, it is. In other words, this image can only be used under fair use and therefore does not belong on commons. Nat 21:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Other speedy deletions; no permission
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no source; I think that it is non-free image Ahonc 20:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Code·is·poetry 12:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
engrish --Applebee 19:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted Julo 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
seal would have been created after statehood (1959) so there is no reason this would be PD Calliopejen 19:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Alaska's state legislation Sec. 44.09.010 states "A person may not use or make a die or impression of the state seal for any advertising or commercial purpose, unless written permission has first been obtained from the lieutenant governor". Commercial use prohibited=not on commons, but other sites say the image was designed in 1910.[130] auburnpilot (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, at least the older version, I think. The original upload version looks like the one from the US embassy site here. A slightly larger version was uploaded but no source specified... that may be an issue although they do look like the same rendering, with very slight differences. Hm, it looks like the version from here, which implies they probably both came from the same source vector version. Maybe the State department has the original vector version on the CD-ROM?
- Seals are defined in law, but each independent rendering usually carries its own copyright (they are not derivative works of the textual description, and can vary quite a bit, as there is usually a lot of room left for artistic license), so the source of the image is important. Obviously if it was drawn using an existing rendering to help, that would be derivative -- but, this seal does date from 1910 (and even a 1959 work which was not renewed could be PD), so there are existing PD sources to draw from. This rendering is newer, but if the US Federal Government made it, then it is PD (from a copyright standpoint at least) on that account. As for the second point, yes there is a state law restricting usage analogous to trademark, and it should be marked with {{insignia}} to indicate that. That restriction is not part of copyright law though, and commons' commercial use prohibition is only if that restriction is part of the copyright license itself. In this case, the use of any rendering is restricted no matter who makes the image, so we just need to make sure our use does not violate that law. Displaying it on a Wikipedia article about Alaska should be fine though. The tag will probably need to be changed to PD-USGov-State though. See also Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_7#Template:US_state_seal where this was discussed at length. Carl Lindberg 15:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per above --Avala 00:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
such a self-portait cant be self-made __ ABF __ ϑ 14:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Yes, if you have a timer in your camera, as now every digital camera has. Given the poor result, I would say it just this. --User:G.dallorto 16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per COM:SCOPE. I can't see any encyclopedic use for this picture. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well is the picture that I have in my wikipedia spanish user, i saw a lot of users got his own picture. I didnt knew that can bring problems, let me know, thanks and sorry!--Pino1982 19:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, using a picture on a user page is fine. Entirely plausible that he used a self-timer (my 1954 camera has one of these, so it's not implausible that a digital camera would).. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not useable Yarl Talk • PL 17:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- 744 wikis searched. Abc.jpg is used on 17 pages in 9 projects. Keep -Nard 21:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but only in sites like Help:Edit toolbar. Yarl Talk • PL 14:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- So we need a test image to use on those pages. Why not this one? -Nard 17:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but only in sites like Help:Edit toolbar. Yarl Talk • PL 14:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Used as an example image on a few pages. Keep Pekinduck 16:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. If it's freely licensed and used, it's definitely in scope. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Does George Mitrevski own the copyright on this artwork? Phrood 17:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have no reason not to trust en:User:Afil, who had submitted this image into en-wiki. Nevertheless I'd ask him for comments. Whould you wait for his ansver with the deletion? --MaryannaNesina 21:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have uploaded the picture from site [131]
- The site spefically indicates the owner of the copyright. Copyright ©. George Mitrevski. Auburn University. e-mail:mitrege@auburn.edu I used this e-mail to request the authorization. This is a respected University, not some kind of unknown entity and there is no doubt that they know what copyright is. I see not to beleave the information.
- The site presents only the uploaded picture so there cannot be any confusion about what the copyright refers to.
- I consider that the deletion tag should be removed.Afil 22:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
On this page, Mitrevski has links to dozens of artworks, all of them labeled "Copyright ©. George Mitrevski". Surely he cannot be the heir of all those artists. --Phrood 02:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Two facts:
- Natan Altman died in 1970 year.
- Portrait of Akhmatova by N.Altman created in 1914-15 y. and currently holded in Russian Museum
- What if there Mitrevsky ? --Kaganer 13:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't understand your last question. --Phrood 14:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Pavel wanted to say, that Mitrevsky can't own the copyright on this portreit, for Natan Altman had died in 1970 and this portreit is in Russian Museum (St-Petersburg, Russia). So, you were right in your opinion - the image should be removed from Commons. Sorry for the mistake. --MaryannaNesina 18:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- The date of the work is before 1923 (it's done in 1914), so, copyright doesn't apply here [132] (no matter where the painting is). Alefbe 20:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- But Natan Altman had died only in 1970 MaryannaNesina 20:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter. According to this, just because the work is published before 1923, the work is in public domain. No other condition is needed. Alefbe 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- ...except that it has to be a U.S. work, which is not the case here --Phrood 19:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter. According to this, just because the work is published before 1923, the work is in public domain. No other condition is needed. Alefbe 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- But Natan Altman had died only in 1970 MaryannaNesina 20:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- The date of the work is before 1923 (it's done in 1914), so, copyright doesn't apply here [132] (no matter where the painting is). Alefbe 20:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Pavel wanted to say, that Mitrevsky can't own the copyright on this portreit, for Natan Altman had died in 1970 and this portreit is in Russian Museum (St-Petersburg, Russia). So, you were right in your opinion - the image should be removed from Commons. Sorry for the mistake. --MaryannaNesina 18:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't understand your last question. --Phrood 14:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
On the same page it is explained that all art works published by non-USA artist before 1923 are public domain. I think it is enough to remove "for deletion" tag.
- Deleted. Mitrovski is not the copyright holder; copyright by Altman has not ended; on Commons, PD-US is only used for works which were originally published in the US. Samulili 06:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source and author. Probably unfree image Ahonc 20:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 16:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I want to delete it because SVG version is loaded. Дмитрий Сутягин 12:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is an absolutely identcal images. Please compare: SVG and GIF --Дмитрий Сутягин 13:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. As superseded raster, their deletion has been suspended Badseed talk 07:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
demasiado grande Megasako 23:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No license, user request Badseed talk 18:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A copyright sculpure. The US has no Freedom of panorama for such images MichaelMaggs 07:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 06:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Is it not copyrighted stuff? --User:G.dallorto 12:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The photographer is George T. Sassoon, so User:Wjbean cannot put this photo under a free license without permission Phrood 18:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 18:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Sculpture by Ottar Espeland (1913-1996) [133], no FOP in Norway. Kjetil r 13:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete According to COM:FOP#Norway: ...works of art and photographic works may be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or a publicly accessible passage through some place. However, this does not apply when the work is clearly the main motive and the reproduction is exploited commercially. So it seems while the Norwegian law would allow us to put the photo on Commons the Norwegian law, we still can't put it here due to our own policies about -ND licensing. Too bad. --Aqwis 16:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. giggy (:O) 10:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No author's permission Ahonc 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- source provided. License — under author's hint to media. Note, user Ahonc recommended such license for this source and, in the same moment, requests for deletion.--Albedo-ukr 21:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- But you didn't provide author's permission (or link to permission)?--Ahonc (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
how long this requst will be active? Where is consequences?--Albedo-ukr 05:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission.Ahonc (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
License has to be checked up. I have got not enough experience with this. __ ABF __ ϑ 06:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Coat of arms of Sölvesborg, Sweden. The source is solvesborg.se. Thuresson 10:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. giggy (:O) 05:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no evidence that statue is a work of the federal govt or otherwise public domain - this was contributed to the collection by the state of new mexico 151.199.60.21 13:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Speedy keep. This image is PD as are the rest listed in Category:National_Statuary_Hall_Collection. 151.199.60.21 is wrong on the facts. Evrik 14:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- What are the facts? Does New Mexico have state employees making statues? If so, why should stuff from New Mexico be public domain? Thuresson 05:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment "The National Statuary Hall Collection in the United States Capitol is comprised of statues donated by individual states to honor persons notable in their history. The entire collection now consists of 100 statues contributed by 50 states. All fifty states have contributed two statues each." These are statues commissioned by state governments and given as gifts on behalf of the people of the state to the U.S. Capitol. The sculptors do not retain the copyright on these images as the statues are "work made for hire." [134] Some of the history can be found here.
- Nominations by I.P. addresses should be dismissed out of hand. If this were to be deleted it should be part of a mass deletion, because if this ones goes, then the entire collection here on the commons is suspect (which it isn't). Evrik 19:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Statue by Per Palle Storm (1910-1994), no FOP in Norway. Kjetil r 13:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:FOP. A.J. 16:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is an official statue of King Haakon VII (look at the pedestal) and therefore is presumed to be public domain unless proven otherwise Mutter Erde 22:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Do you know legal basis for official works of Norvegian government? A.J. 12:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- {{PD-NorwayGov}} does not apply for works of art. A.J. 12:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. giggy (:O) 05:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I was told that Freedom of panorama in Germany only applies outdoor. I think this is weird, but if it is true, then this image is a copyvio. --User:G.dallorto 16:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is not an artwork, per se, so I'm not sure it is copyrighted... -Nard 21:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Pretty well resembles artwork... giggy (:O) 05:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Per this comment (deletion questioned, seek consensus). Next diff points to an undeleted tagging of the image, for non admins. For the record, I abstain. — Giggy 10:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose This concrete vector graphics is my own work. I draw it in a vector edit for usage in a articles about «Lenenergo» power company (a Russian name is Ленэнерго). It's possible the logo itself is copyrighted. At Image:Lenenergo logo.svg is specified {{PD-self}}, because i keep in my mind this concrete vector graphics file. It's possible I specify a unaceptable license template for this case. Which template i must specify in such situation? -- Sergey kudryavtsev 11:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- NB: I found a interesting {{PD-textlogo}}. The fact is that logo is a stylized Russian letters «Л» and «Э» («ЛЭ» is a abbreviation for «Ленэнерго») Is
isit aceptable for this logo? -- Sergey kudryavtsev 12:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC) - This is a example stylized text logo: Image:IBM logo.svg, Image:M in Blue.svg, Image:Leica Logo.svg Image:Čez logo.PNG, Image:Zon.svg etc. -- Sergey kudryavtsev 12:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- NB: I found a interesting {{PD-textlogo}}. The fact is that logo is a stylized Russian letters «Л» and «Э» («ЛЭ» is a abbreviation for «Ленэнерго») Is
- i support question about licensing template for such situation. Kaganer 13:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Some time ago i found this graphic copyvio because i thought that it's impossible to repeat such a specific logo. I'm not sure if a self-made logo is copyrighted or not but how about rights of the owner of this logo-pattern :? patrol110 00:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I get a raster image from Internet, trace it in Inscape, save result as simple SVG and simplify SVG in notepad. Logo itself used by Lenenergo for a very long time. The company has been renamed to Lenenergo (Ленэнерго) in 1932. Therefore the this logo (stylized «Л» and «Э») cannot be older than 1932. Unfortunately i cannot found a logo history. -- Sergey kudryavtsev 12:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept as simple shapes. I don't think this is anywhere near the threshold of originality. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
January 17
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete:-Unned-We have Image:I-470 (KS).svg--SCal55 04:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete (file uploader). Redundant image caused by changes in naming schemes. —Scott5114↗ 02:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This image has left the building. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:18, 17 January 2008 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete:Unneed-We have Image:I-470 (MO).svg--SoCal55 04:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete (file uploader). Redundant image caused by changes in naming schemes. —Scott5114↗ 02:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Much like the one that I closed earlier, this image has left the building. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:32, 17 January 2008 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete-There is not ever and I-705 in CA and never will be an I-705 in CA.--Freewayguy 20:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I uploaded this; and agree with this DR. Gone. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 23:49, 17 January 2008 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
IMHO that’s a copyvio Ireas talk•de•en 17:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. You can use {{copyvio}} for an obvious case like this. --dave pape 18:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the same as here, a copyvio Ireas talk•de•en 17:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted - copyvio --dave pape 18:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unfree: scanned page Ahonc 13:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. PD-old is okay! ChristianBier 17:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Non-free image (screenshot) Ahonc 13:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:No Israel.svg OsamaK 13:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep attacks noone (only racists) and its encyclopedic, because of a german politic debatte nearly one year ago. __ ABF __ ϑ 13:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion. Rama 13:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep it seems like Osama wants to "revenge" the deletion of the no israel image Ireas talk•de•en 14:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion. Grasyop ✉ 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep useful image. --Simonxag 18:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep for obvious reasons. // Liftarn
- Comment Personally, I'd say we keep them all, including the No Israel image, assuming it was just a crossed-out image of Israel. Either that or delete them all. I just cannot see an adequate standard to differentiate between what, to me, appears to be similar subject & usage among Anti logos. I'd think they could all be handy on Wikinews, which tends to have more use of clip-art-ish images such as these. On another note, I am not particularly fond of OsamaK's apparent disregard for WP:POINT. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This is under discussion at the Village pump. We should close this DR and take the discussion there. This sums up well what I think about the matter. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 07:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Further discussion at village pump per Collard. — Giggy 07:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not used, there is needed catogories --11:37, 8 January 2008 User:Typ932 Fixed request -- Deadstar (msg) 16:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Cat was Deleted
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Taken from the web" is a rather bizarre copyright statement. --User:G.dallorto 18:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Another one of those images that should not be on Flickr and hopefully will not be on the Commons much longer. --Simonxag 02:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright infringement: This photo is copyrighted to the photographer John Dunning and VIREO. A small version can be found here. As mentioned on that page: Each image is legally protected by U.S. & International copyright laws and may NOT be used for reproduction in any manner without the explicit authorization of VIREO. --Rabo3 03:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete As the Commons version is clearly cropped from the copyrighted one, this has to be a copyvio. --Simonxag 18:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Copyvio. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
2 problems: (1) copyvio (building refurbished in 2002) -- (2) license restricting the use to Wikipedia alone. --User:G.dallorto 17:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete --User:G.dallorto 18:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 19:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is out of the project scope and probably a copyvio. ALE! ¿…? 13:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. __ ABF __ ϑ 13:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is a posed photo of an identifiable individual, probably at a private event like a party. Did they agree to have their vampire act published to the world? --Simonxag 19:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It's a image of Kayky Brito(a brazilian teen actor) playing a role in a brazilian soap opera called "O Beijo do Vampiro" (The Kiss of the Vampire). However, it's a copyvio. See at: http://ondeanda.multiply.com/photos/album/1316 Talk2lurch 17:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
promotial photo, i belive its unfree __ ABF __ ϑ 12:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Unless uploader can provide an explanation. They have uploaded 4 images of 3 bands, all promotional photos, all self licensed, 3 supposedly taken by themself and 1 by André Henriques. --Simonxag 18:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 12:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:No Israel.svg OsamaK 13:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete non-encyclopedic and attacking. __ ABF __ ϑ 13:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion. Rama 13:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Idem. Grasyop ✉ 15:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I voted against the No Israel deletion and oppose this deletion the same. --Simonxag 18:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Personally, I'd say we keep them all, including the No Israel image, assuming it was just a crossed-out image of Israel. Either that or delete them all. I just cannot see an adequate standard to differentiate between what, to me, appears to be similar subject & usage among Anti logos. I'd think they could all be handy on Wikinews, which tends to have more use of clip-art-ish images such as these. On another note, I am not particularly fond of OsamaK's apparent disregard for WP:POINT. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This is under discussion at the Village pump. We should close this DR and take the discussion there. This sums up well what I think about the matter. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 07:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep -- Is not a hate image, expresses political views held by many individuals. AnonMoos 11:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:No Israel.svg OsamaK 13:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep attacks noone (only racists) and its encyclopedic, because of a german politic debatte nearly one year ago. __ ABF __ ϑ 13:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion. Rama 13:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Idem. Grasyop ✉ 15:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- strong keep The sort of image users might want to put on their pages. --Simonxag 18:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Personally, I'd say we keep them all, including the No Israel image, assuming it was just a crossed-out image of Israel. Either that or delete them all. I just cannot see an adequate standard to differentiate between what, to me, appears to be similar subject & usage among Anti logos. I'd think they could all be handy on Wikinews, which tends to have more use of clip-art-ish images such as these. On another note, I am not particularly fond of OsamaK's apparent disregard for WP:POINT. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This is under discussion at the Village pump. We should close this DR and take the discussion there. This sums up well what I think about the matter. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 07:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not a hate image, expresses sentiments held by many individuals. AnonMoos 11:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:No Israel.svg OsamaK 13:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion. Rama 13:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as per this. __ ABF __ ϑ 13:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as no reason for deletion was given. // Liftarn
- Keep it seems like Osama wants to "revenge" the deletion of the no israel image Ireas talk•de•en 14:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that shouldn't have been deleted, but that's no excuse. // Liftarn
- Keep No reason for deletion. Grasyop ✉ 15:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment With regards to ABF's link regarding usage, note that it appears that all instances of usage are on userpages only. Personally, I'd say we keep them all, including the No Israel image, assuming it was just a crossed-out image of Israel. Either that or delete them all. I just cannot see an adequate standard to differentiate between what, to me, appears to be similar subject & usage among Anti logos. I'd think they could all be handy on Wikinews, which tends to have more use of clip-art-ish images such as these. On another note, I am not particularly fond of OsamaK's apparent disregard for WP:POINT. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment WP:POINT doesn't really apply here, especially to OsamaK considering he is hardly active in en.wiki. Mønobi 23:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This is under discussion at the Village pump. We should close this DR and take the discussion there. This sums up well what I think about the matter. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 07:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion. That would amount to censorship. I would not delete a "No atheists" logo either. --User:G.dallorto 15:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose If the image hurts certain people's feeling, and is not used in any article, then it should go. BTW, this does not seem like a "revenge" for the no-Israel image deletion whatsoever. Drork 16:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep
Absolutly no grounds for deletion. Christians throwing their toys out of the pram as usual!--194.81.80.52 10:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please login!--OsamaK 18:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:No Israel.svg OsamaK 13:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete attacks in my oppinion those who are in such a religion. It also could be racistic. __ ABF __ ϑ 13:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion. Rama 13:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep it seems like Osama wants to "revenge" the deletion of the no israel image Ireas talk•de•en 14:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Why delete? Please notice it says "no to religions" not "no to religious people". Grasyop ✉ (creator) 15:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Personally, I'd say we keep them all, including the No Israel image, assuming it was just a crossed-out image of Israel. Either that or delete them all. I just cannot see an adequate standard to differentiate between what, to me, appears to be similar subject & usage among Anti logos. I'd think they could all be handy on Wikinews, which tends to have more use of clip-art-ish images such as these. On another note, I am not particularly fond of OsamaK's apparent disregard for WP:POINT. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This is under discussion at the Village pump. We should close this DR and take the discussion there. This sums up well what I think about the matter. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 07:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This image really serves no purpose. It's a collage of a bunch of other images with an X through it. Mønobi 23:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:No Israel.svg OsamaK 13:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion. Rama 13:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- weak Keep as its in use for a project at en: but imho it can be used as '''<s>GOD</s>''' or something as that. __ ABF __ ϑ 13:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as no reason for deletion was given. // Liftarn
- Keep it seems like Osama wants to "revenge" the deletion of the no israel image Ireas talk•de•en 14:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion. Grasyop ✉ 15:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Personally, I'd say we keep them all, including the No Israel image, assuming it was just a crossed-out image of Israel. Either that or delete them all. I just cannot see an adequate standard to differentiate between what, to me, appears to be similar subject & usage among Anti logos. I'd think they could all be handy on Wikinews, which tends to have more use of clip-art-ish images such as these. On another note, I am not particularly fond of OsamaK's apparent disregard for WP:POINT. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sure he's making a point, but it's only disruptive if the previous image was deleted in error. If not, most of these images should share the same fate. They should be nominated if they are violating policy. We can't have double standards. Rocket000 06:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This is under discussion at the Village pump. We should close this DR and take the discussion there. This sums up well what I think about the matter (namely, that "double standards" are sometimes entirely appropriate). Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 07:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
loire 84.129.165.180 15:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep loire??????? --Simonxag 02:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
delete. no images here left. invalid category name19:48, 16 January 2008 User:Tuohirulla
- Comment Fixed request. Category has sub-category. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Both are empty. Rocket000 02:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong category name --18:14, 8 January 2008 User:Typ932 Fixed request -- Deadstar (msg) 16:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 03:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
2006 building. No FOP in Italy --User:G.dallorto 18:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 02:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 13:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No FOP in Italy. --User:G.dallorto 19:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 02:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 13:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of a copyrighted relief. ALE! ¿…? 22:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per nom --User:G.dallorto 01:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Also because of an not okay license-change. __ ABF __ ϑ 13:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Explicit image showing a clitoris without EXIF data. Looks more like a cropped porn image to me. So in the end: Most probably a copyvio. ALE! ¿…? 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - likely copyvio. In any event, Commons has plenty of clitoral images to illustrate articles that require them. WjBscribe 06:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: at 759 × 611 pixels, the odds that this is a "cropped porn image" seem remote (unless there's a niche porn market for high-zoom shots which don't show up in Google searches, that is), given the zoom level. Nothing else in the uploaders' contribs history suggests he/she is lying about it being self-made, except for the lack of EXIF data and (slightly on the cynical side) few contributions overall. Dunno about this one - it could have been cropped slightly in a simple program, hence the lack of EXIF data. Daniel (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've deleted two uploads by the same person that contained no license info and had absurdly long titles that make me suspect their intention is disruptive. I take your point about size, but would point out that even aside from the copyvio, we have enough genetalia illustrations to be selective about what we keep. WjBscribe 06:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- A very good point about being selective (per Riana), and the deleted uploads are also interesting. I'll take your word that there is reason to suspect that this user may be acting disruptively with regard to the deleted title names, and agree with the fact there's no shortage of these types of images so we can be picky from a sourcing sense. Delete. Daniel (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- A very good point about being selective (per Riana), and the deleted uploads are also interesting. I'll take your word that there is reason to suspect that this user may be acting disruptively with regard to the deleted title names, and agree with the fact there's no shortage of these types of images so we can be picky from a sourcing sense.
- I've deleted two uploads by the same person that contained no license info and had absurdly long titles that make me suspect their intention is disruptive. I take your point about size, but would point out that even aside from the copyvio, we have enough genetalia illustrations to be selective about what we keep. WjBscribe 06:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's the best, most high-res picture of a clitoris so far and there's no indication that it's copyvio. Deletion would be stupid.--Lamilli 16:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Herby talk thyme 08:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Pure speculation. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The image is of high quality and we should not base a delete decision on speculation!
212.27.185.253 11:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with the others it is of high quality and is one, if not the best, image showing the clitoris. IvanTortuga 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 13:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image without EXIF data. Considering the other uploads by this newbie I assume that this iamge is a copyvio. ALE! ¿…? 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - likely copyvio. Commons has plenty of anus images to illustrate the topic in any event. WjBscribe 06:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Clitoris zoom.jpg. Daniel (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep That's a good picture and as long as there is no proof, not even a probable cause that this pic is copyvio, we should keep it. --Lamilli 16:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Pure speculation. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. (and a big *würg*) __ ABF __ ϑ 15:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Apart from that it's not in use and it's not really a good quality, because it doesn't show anything from the rest of the body, so it's detached out from it's context. -- Ra'ike Diskussion 09:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 13:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
LOC says "publication may be restricted". this is an AP photo, not necessarily a NYWTS staff photo, so the PD claim on the image page is invalid. Calliopejen 23:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - sorry, did not see that may be restricted part. Delete it --Clockwork Orange 11:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 13:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete-This is duplicate below Image:I-345.svg--SoCal55 04:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio --SoCal55 (03:16, 18 January 2008)
- Keep They are not duplicates. In regards to the copyvio statement, Image:I-345.svg states: "Interstate shield <snip> (United States law does not permit the copyrighting of typeface designs, and the fonts are meant to be copies of a U.S. Government-produced work anyway.)" No need to list it again (listed on 15th and 18th January already). -- Deadstar (msg) 10:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per above. →Christian NurtschTM 12:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete While this image is not a copyvio, the colors on the PNG are much brighter than they are in reality. The SVG image is more accurate, and hey, it's an SVG, so it scales better too. No reason for keeping the PNG around. (No other wikis use it). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Different file formats, hence not duplicates (and superseded images are tagged, not deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks more like promotional shot than a private photo taken by the uploader. ALE! ¿…? 11:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I know that it looks like a promotional photo, that was the meaning by shooting it in the photo studio in our school. I was the photographer, and I used my camera my father gave me in christmas present, and the blue background is just the wall in my school. Hope that this information will help you judge the picture. But since I was the photographer, there is no problem at all by publishing it on wikipedia, the dreamboiz-members are my friends in real life and they agree to let me do so with all the pictures I've been taking! dandoe ¿…? 15:19, 17 January 2008
Keep Seems a reasonable explanation in the absence of evidence to the contrary. --Simonxag 18:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Good enough for me too. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Portraits are considered "works of art", since they do demonstrate original and personal contribution from the photographer Joonasl 12:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then delete. --Hautala 19:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
self promotion --11:59, 16 January 2008 User:Davin7 Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- The image isn't mine, I simply added it because it demonstrated what OpenGL+theora can do, it can be viewed by people who may prefer not to use Flash to watch the video, and it is available under a CC-by-SA license. Plus, I'm certain that there are a number of images and other material that are on the Commons which are not being currently used on Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia project. --Rayne Van-Dunem 04:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you add it to a relevant article, I will skipp the deletion nomination. Please suggest a proper subcategory (you can make one too) under the main category category:video where to store it. Davin7 16:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept, interesting, if silly, demonstration. "Not in use" is not, by itself, an argument for deletion. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
video is not in use anywhere and it is nog to be expected either --13:04, 16 January 2008 User:Davin7 Fixed request -- Deadstar (msg) 16:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept, not much of an argument for deletion. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of a copyrighted relief showing a wolf. ALE! ¿…? 21:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom --User:G.dallorto 01:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep the crest is my property and it's a memory of the time in this ship —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Gaetano56 (talk • contribs)
- Yes, but you are not the author of the crests! --ALE! ¿…? 15:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please read Commons:Derivative works before stating an opinion here. --ALE! ¿…? 08:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- No the crest is 3D. Just like coins are. But why does that matter? 2D works are just as copyrighted. Rocket000 03:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think i'll write to Jimbo Wales--Gaetano56 16:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please do not hesitate to do so. Jimbo is interested in free content. But you crests aren't free. --ALE! ¿…? 21:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand, if another administrator deleted the Deletion request now you put again it.--Gaetano56 23:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Other admins sometimes have other view. I only have put the deletion request here because I think that the image is not free. If other admins think, that it is free, then the image will be kept. It is nothing personal against you, but you are on my watchlist because you sometimes seem to be unsure about copyright. --ALE! ¿…? 08:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- That was not an administrator that removed the notice. That was just some IP vandalism. Rocket000 03:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious derivative work. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No prrof provided, that the author died more than 70 years ago. ALE! ¿…? 21:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per nom --User:G.dallorto 01:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of a copyrighted relief showing a sailing ship. ALE! ¿…? 21:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom --User:G.dallorto 01:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope. ALE! ¿…? 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Erroneous name Óðinn 15:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- What's the new name? Rocket000 02:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Christian NurtschTM 10:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:1st 3rd Trinity rowing blade.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
according to me it's simply useless--87.6.8.99 00:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- "[F]iles uploaded to the Commons have to be useful for some Wikimedia project. Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons. -- -- However, uploading images of yourself and others in small quantity is allowed as long they are useful for some Wikimedia project (for example, a Wikipedia article, a Wikinews report, a meta article, a user page)." (from COM:PS, emphasis added) Although not a photo of anyone, this is a "self-created artwork" mentioned in the same paragraph of the policy. Hence, Keep. Samulili 08:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Typical example of a useless/polarising {{attackimage}}.
- Delete Siebrand 09:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't oppose to deleting if this kind of images are forbidden on user pages of most projects (or in many of the biggest). But I was influenced to vote for keeping because the image is used a lot. Samulili 09:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia/Wikimedia is not censored, especially if there is nothing polarising here, Siebrand.--Svetovid 09:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 11:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Noreligion.jpg
- DeleteOther images can be used to avoid gods' hurting representations : image:Noreligion.jpg, Image:No god.PNG--Florent.pecassou 18:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment to Florent.pecassou - That’s Gods problem and not ours. --FSHL 21:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's not a reason for deletion. And don't forget that blasphemy is a victimless crime.--Svetovid 13:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
image is used and therefore kept (of course!) --ALE! ¿…? 10:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:No Israel.svg OsamaK 13:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep attacks noone (only god himself, but i do not think he cares) __ ABF __ ϑ 13:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion. Rama 13:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Idem. Grasyop ✉ 15:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Personally, I'd say we keep them all, including the No Israel image, assuming it was just a crossed-out image of Israel. Either that or delete them all. I just cannot see an adequate standard to differentiate between what, to me, appears to be similar subject & usage among Anti logos. I'd think they could all be handy on Wikinews, which tends to have more use of clip-art-ish images such as these. On another note, I am not particularly fond of OsamaK's apparent disregard for WP:POINT. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This is under discussion at the Village pump. We should close this DR and take the discussion there. This sums up well what I think about the matter. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 07:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
osvio<smväl<idpsfgt 79.198.48.164 18:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Huh? This is a Landsat image from the description, which is in the public domain. I'm guessing this request was someone playing around with the delete button. Carl Lindberg 18:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Request closed. Nothing to see here, move along. Thuresson 03:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This one can but be a film frame shot. Since its author is given as "unknown", its copyright status is worse than uncertain, not certainly a GFDL license. --User:G.dallorto 17:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Unknown author Badseed talk 23:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
double Aloxe 07:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Dupe was deleted [135] Badseed talk 11:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author claims self-made, but no image description is given. Possibly a screengrab. Ytoyoda 15:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a press photo. From my experience with photography at sports events, this would need to be taken by a professional sitting in a media-allocated area on the grassed area, with a full-blown professional scope. Couldn't find anything with a quick check of Google, but still, no source information plus looks like a professional photo should mean delete. Daniel (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No proof of copyright violation. How do you know that author is not professional photographer? --Dezidor 11:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's up to the uploader to provide evidence, if not proof, that the image is copyright free. The fact that it's a reduced and/or cropped image without any EXIF data, in addition to the graininess and the blue-ish tint that raises the possibility that it could be a TV screengrab, should be a red flag. --Ytoyoda 06:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, as per Ytoyoda and Daniel. --Yerpo 11:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 06:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
and Image:Monument 2 Bronnaya Gora, Belarus.jpg.
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. According to this article monuments were installed in 1994. --EugeneZelenko 15:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep I can't see the point. This would mean, that it's illegal to publish any pictures from Belarus'. Sorry, but I think this deletion request is big bullshit combined with in-advance-subjunction under non-existing censorship. --C.G. 14:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Monuments are main subject of these images. Article 19 of copyrights law of Belarus doesn't allow to use such images commercially without author consent. If you have sculptor permission, please send it to Commons:OTRS, otherwise licensing these images under {{CC-BY-SA-2.5}} is sculptor's copyryghts violations. --EugeneZelenko 15:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I admit that I never ever read anything on Belarussian copyright, would be glad if you could make this Article 19 available. But still I can't see the point. Even if you're right with the article, it's impossible to read the inscription on the photo or watch details of the monument. The photo shows the monument in the context of forest and the square, additionally it gives an impression of wreaths and flags people left. The same concerns the second image. So, don't be even more papist than the Pope. By the way: What is a monument for if not to be seen? Hardly anyone is able to go to that place! So it should be logical to have these pictures in the Commons. But may be that's the point? There are certainly people who would like to make people forget about this history. --C.G. 14:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Again: monuments are main subjects or images.
- Please read Commons:Licensing carefully. Belarus is not single country which have such unpleasant restrictions. Similar restrictions exists in almost all ex-USSR countries, USA, Italy, Denmark, France and many other countries (see Commons:Freedom of panorama). If you don't like this restrictions, please organize compains or lobby parliaments of these countries to introduce changes in laws which will allow freedom of panorama. Until laws will changes, you must obey existing ones. --EugeneZelenko 16:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Zhenja, I've done some reading on the matters and had to learn that – unfortunately – you are right concerning Image:Monument 1 Bronnaya Gora, Belarus.jpg. This legislation is of course absolutely stupid and usually I avoid obeying stupid laws. But policies in Commons differ somewhat from my. The horrible thing about it is that we have to delete nearly everything in the categories Monuments in Belarus, Buildings in Belarus, but the same (and even worse) in Ukraine (where I'm currently living), Italy... Concerning Belarus it's not only the legislation, it's also the Commons politics that make it impossible to use those photos: If it would be possible to license files under the terms of „no commercial use“ we could use at least pictures of Belarussian monuments etc. May be one should reopen the discussion on that topic? It would be much easier to change them than several national laws... When I told my students about the legal situation they asked me how one can inform the people of the world about Ukraine, if it's virtually impossible to show something else than nature.
Concerning Image:Monument 2 Bronnaya Gora, Belarus.jpg I would argue that a) this tombstone-like thing hardly reaches threshold of originality and the „artist“ parts of the stone (upper part) are hardly recognizable and b) this stone is shown in the context of the territory (flowers, fence, forrest, meadow). Regards ---C.G. 10:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I would try out and wait if there is some official request for the deletion of the pictures because of this strange copyright laws. By the way - how would you react if China would set all pictures of tibetian monks under chinese copyright restrictions? --84.173.114.180 20:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, nobody changed Commons:Licensing yet. Same restrictions exists, for example, in USA and France. You could learn more on Commons:Freedom of panorama. --EugeneZelenko 14:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom.--Trixt 23:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work. Does museum's director hold copyrights? EugeneZelenko 15:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep I thought Pravda was a government publication and that stuff from the 1940s was PD. --Simonxag 19:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Publication should be PD, because Soviet material from 1944. --C.G. 14:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Latest changes in Civil Code of Russia clarified for such publications that copyrights belongs to authors, not state. See also Template talk:PD-Russia. --EugeneZelenko 15:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per arguments of another users. --Dezidor 11:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. giggy (:O) 05:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Changes to Template:PD-Russia-2008 have gotten in the way of discussion here; I'm going to relist it. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eto sdelali Nemci.JPG (2). giggy (:O) 08:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no reason to think the illustrator died over 70 years ago, as claimed Calliopejen 23:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is anonymous artwork, and PD from 2006 after Danish law.
- It is from a periodical and PD from 1986 after Danish law.
- Images from Danish source is PD if the owner do not demand a copyright. And if a owner demand a copyright, you can remove the image, and the owner can not summons you.
--haabet 08:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- How do you know it was anonymous? just because you don't know the illustrator doesn't mean it was anonymous. can you refer to a link or a template justifying your interpretation of Danish law. Currently the template for PD-Denmark redirects to a template saying it is PD only if the author died 70 years ago. Calliopejen 22:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
{{PD-Denmark}} Is this English?haabet 10:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Kill {{PD-Denmark}} with fire. (Or redirect to {{PD-old}}.) Gosh, even the first sentence is wrong: Authors' rights are copyrights, and go way beyond a right to a royalty. Furthermore, the template even mentions "fair use" provisions (Citatret). And finally, for "simple photographs", there is {{PD-Denmark50}}. Not that that applied here. Lupo 23:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and in Denmark authors do not have to "demand a copyright". Works are copyrighted by default, and without registration. Lupo 23:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The shroud as such is in the PD, but it is unlikely that the site quoted as the source owns the copyright on the pictures. --User:G.dallorto 19:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please explain how this is different from any other pd-old? -Nard 00:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Given the conditions of the "shroud" (fading above all, plus yellowing, plus the damage suffered in the fire), special techniques must be used to photograph it, given its low contrast. This is not a thing you can photograph with your pocket Sony of with your mobile camera. The situation is similar to that of a medieval manuscript that has to be photographed under special conditions, on which copyright from the photographer is allowed even if the manuscript is patently in the PD. Furthermore, the object is not on display, it is kept, folded, within a (silver) box, therefore photographing it can be done only upon by appointment with the owners. Since the object is a private property, the owner has the right to put contract conditions on photographing it. Therefore to be sure the image sis FREE from rights from third parties we need to know who the photographer is. --User:G.dallorto 01:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This discussion should only answer the question, if this image is PD just like the object itself or not. The question of private property is not an issue as long as we don't know if there's something like a "right to the image of ones's property" in Italy. (I doubt so.) Usually no one cares about this question here, otherwise we would have to delete thousands of images taken in museums, galleries etc. I'm sure we went through that already in the past. --194.48.128.75 14:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I TOTALLY agree with you. And until we know who shot the image, we can't know whether it is in the PD or not. The image was shoplifted from a Russian website. Did this site own the right to publish it in the first place or not? Who shot the image? As you may notice, there is no hint about its authorship in the description. You may not simply go around taking images from the web and assuming they are in the PD merely for the fact of being on the web. We need to know who shot the picture, or otherwise discard this very shot. C'mon, I am not asking a difficult question.
- BTW, if I own an object which is in the PD and I allow you to shoot it under a contractual agreement that you may not publish these images, the contract stands. It is true that the value of this contract for third parties is questionable, since it only binds me and you, and if you disregard it, it is you that I shall sue for compensation and damages, not to the third parties infringing it after you infringed it for the first time; nevertheless the question of private property is of some importance, in this case. Which is our case. The Curia might have sold exclusivity rights to someone. The only way to be sure about the fact that these images are FREE for ANY use, as requested by our policy, is knowing who shot them. Fullstop. --User:G.dallorto 15:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Given the conditions of the "shroud" (fading above all, plus yellowing, plus the damage suffered in the fire), special techniques must be used to photograph it, given its low contrast. This is not a thing you can photograph with your pocket Sony of with your mobile camera. The situation is similar to that of a medieval manuscript that has to be photographed under special conditions, on which copyright from the photographer is allowed even if the manuscript is patently in the PD. Furthermore, the object is not on display, it is kept, folded, within a (silver) box, therefore photographing it can be done only upon by appointment with the owners. Since the object is a private property, the owner has the right to put contract conditions on photographing it. Therefore to be sure the image sis FREE from rights from third parties we need to know who the photographer is. --User:G.dallorto 01:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Unless photographer's rights are claimed, there's no reason to think this isn't PD. If there was some contract involved, we're not the ones that broke it. And neither are any future users. If something is PD then it's PD. Just because you own a famous painting or something doesn't mean you own the copyright. That's why people make those kind of contracts, because the law gives them no control over it through a copyright. Rocket000 05:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete "PD-art" concept is not applicable in this case, afaik the "work of art" is always been in Italy, and no "PD-art" concept for Italian law (before 20 years). The photographic reproduction may be copyrighted.--Trixt 02:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Making a decent picture of the Shroud maybe difficult, as User:G.dallorto explains above, but "The Supreme Court of the United States has explicitly rejected difficulty of labor or expense as a consideration in copyrightability in Feist v. Rural." (see [136]). And since the copyright of the creator of the Shroud has certainly expired, it's PD. Channel ® 21:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- You should consider that photo has been probably created in Italy, not in USA. Per Commons:Licensing, Commons accepts only media that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.--Trixt 23:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Italy doesn't appear to have a specific PD-art law. So therefore all other images of works of art that are now in (or have been photographed in) Italy should go as well? Nah, that doesn't add up. Channel ® 09:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- More information is needed about how Italian law handles this type of image. I have asked Lupo if he knows of anything. --MichaelMaggs 17:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I posted a suggestion in Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag#(repost) Italy, but obviously an expert is needed.--Trixt 21:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- More information is needed about how Italian law handles this type of image. I have asked Lupo if he knows of anything. --MichaelMaggs 17:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Italy doesn't appear to have a specific PD-art law. So therefore all other images of works of art that are now in (or have been photographed in) Italy should go as well? Nah, that doesn't add up. Channel ® 09:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. On the basis that we are still unsure on the PD-art conditions for Italy. If these are clarified a new DR can be started. giggy (:O) 07:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to http://www.artnet.de/artist/607249/jean-de-bosschere.html Bosschere, a Belgian national, died in 1953. So I think that his works will enter into the public domain in 2024. ALE! ¿…? 22:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble finding publication info for the works of Ovid illustrated by Bosschere, but apparently it was a US work. It was published by Rarity Press, NY in 1930[137]. -Nard 00:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, as per wikisource:Ars Amatoria: The Art of Love - the book, both text and illustrations, were copyrighted in the United States in 1930 as US works. Their copyright was not renewed, and both are now in the public domain. Sherurcij 03:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- The image is in the The Love Books of Ovid book --38.99.105.250 11:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. giggy (:O) 07:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
January 18
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
From [138] --Gimmetrow 02:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio --Simonxag 02:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. (speedy as copyvio) __ ABF __ ϑ 05:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This needs a verification of it uses state shield in state document otherwse we dont need this many. The neutralization begun in 1987 and no longer instal state shields. Delete --SoCal55 23:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This needs a verification of it uses state shield in state document otherwse we dont need this many. The neutralization begun in 1987 and no longer instal state shields. Delete --SoCal55 23:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request: As creator and uploader of the images nominated, I hereby request that they be deleted --Tomascastelazo 20:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep Useful images including at least 1 quality image. Commons licenses are not revocable: uploader has no more right to have them deleted than anyone else. That said, uploader has every right to make a case for their deletion and we should respond reasonably, but no reason has even been put forward. --Simonxag 23:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I am not revoking licenses, just requesting that the images that I have created and uploaded be speedily deleted. If someone has downloaded them and wants to reupload that is OK I guess. There is a precedent that grants people the deletion of images that they have uploaded and I request the same courtesy. However, images that are currently linked to articles may be kept in order to not disrupt people's work. All others please delete. --Tomascastelazo 02:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep I'm sorry to hear that Tomascastelazo intends to leave the project. Tomascastelazo, however, granted us the privilege to keep his images under free licenses (Creative Commons Share Alike and/or GFDL). Thes grants cannot be revoked. Please note that one of these images is featured and among the candidates of POTY 2007. --AFBorchert 08:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC) BTW, none of his images has been tagged that they are filed for deletion. --AFBorchert 08:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The user licensed all his images under either GFDL or CC licenses. According to Section 9 of the GFDL and the Creative Commons FAQ, none of these licenses are revocable. --Boricuæddie 15:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative of a copyrighted work -Nard 21:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio --Simonxag 23:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete i added this long time ago, and yes it should not be at Commons, but in national wikipedia via fair use. Feel free to delete (voting is not needed AFAIK).--Zache 00:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 05:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
pd-art license cannot apply to 3d object -Nard 21:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's a series of paintings on a curved wall. The paintings themselves are not 3-d, but the wall is. (or, was this the wrong license tag to use for this photo?) Parkerdr 21:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reading the description of use on Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag, it looks like the wall and the window frame around the pictures qualify as a 3D frame. As such, the PD-Old tag should be used instead. Anyone disagree? Parkerdr 22:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- What is the license for the photo? The correct license if you took the photo is pd-self, not pd-art or pd-old. -Nard 02:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I took the photo, and I have changed it from pd-art to pd-self; should I remove the deletion tag? Parkerdr 15:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Go ahead. Self-closing own nomination. -Nard 15:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I took the photo, and I have changed it from pd-art to pd-self; should I remove the deletion tag? Parkerdr 15:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- What is the license for the photo? The correct license if you took the photo is pd-self, not pd-art or pd-old. -Nard 02:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio, uploaded by mistake Grigio60 22:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per request. Durova 02:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Boricuæddie 17:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is a copyvio: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jazminmillion/453966829/ Zanimum 17:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Flickr upload predates the upload here by several months. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 06:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE. -- Dodo 07:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Image out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
IMHO this image is way too small to be useful. ALE! ¿…? 14:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 17:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 16:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This should be replaced by math code. ALE! ¿…? 14:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The L with stroke cannot be produced in WikiTeX at the moment. -- Prince Kassad 17:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. It seems like there's a good reason for it and it is being used. Rocket000 04:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative of a copyrighted work -Nard 21:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 02:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative of a copyrighted work -Nard 21:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 21:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Simple copyvios should be labeled as such. --Simonxag 23:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete i added this long time ago, and yes it should not be at Commons, but in national wikipedia via fair use. Feel free to delete (voting is not needed AFAIK).--Zache 00:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 02:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am unsure about this one. The Photo looks like the Korda photo. But anyway I think the billboard advertisment is covered by copyright law. ALE! ¿…? 14:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete appears to be copyvio Durova 17:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with Durova. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This user was blocked on the English Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Miracleimpulse , where the image is from. It's the exact size ratio of a television screen (and about the same resolution as one), has not real source information, and no pages using it. Zanimum 17:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have any actual reason for it to be deleted? // Liftarn
- Yes, this user was blocked on EN.WP, and has numerous instances of uploading unfree content, under the guise of it being free. There is no reason to suspect this image isn't just another one of his bad uploads. -- Zanimum 14:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as per Zanimum. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
because it says Permission=Wiki articles only __ ABF __ ϑ 18:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Note from Lewis Collard: This also applies to the following images:
- File:Heston.jpg
- File:Alicia Silverstone main.jpg
- File:Ben stiller2.jpg
- File:America ferarra.jpg
- File:Halle Berry.jpg
- File:Antonio Sabato.jpg
- File:Harmon.jpg
- File:William Shatner.jpg
- File:Phil 1.jpg
- File:Luke Wilson.jpg
Damned shame. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 03:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am the creator of the image, what other uses would there be? And as the author, please tell me what should go in that field besides it's intended use? Jerry Avenaim 18:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do you think I'm going to let anyone use the images I've spent my life creating, just so anyone can use them at will? That makes no sense, I'm trying to contribute to the Wiki community where images are controlled. If my watermark doesn't splatter the image what would prevent another party from using the image? For instance, it is at a resolution good enough for a cell phone company to use it for wallpaper on a phone. What would prevent that? Help me to understand my images are still protected. Because if they're not, delete away. Jerry Avenaim 02:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Read Commons:Licensing; if you don't want your images to be used outside of Wikimedia projects, don't upload them here. We want people to reuse images from the Commons (as long as they respect the terms of the licenses etc etc). I can fully understand why you, as a professional photographer, would not. But the rules here are what they are.
- With all that said, Delete if Mr. Avenaim will not change his mind about this. He does not seem to understand what he was consenting to when he uploaded. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 02:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Give me the weekend to think about this Mr. Collard. I've spent my life creating images... Jerry Avenaim 04:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Right on. :) We're not into trapping our contributors into things that they wouldn't otherwise consent to, so your decision will be respected either way. By the way, the other images have been tagged for deletion as well to ensure they're not used by anyone until you make your decision. See you soon! Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 04:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Give me the weekend to think about this Mr. Collard. I've spent my life creating images... Jerry Avenaim 04:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
(reset) Mr. Avenaim, thank you for your wonderful contributions. There are some really good photographers on Commons, and more are always welcome. We understand your confusion. By licensing images with a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license, you are allowing it to be used for any end, including commercial ones, and also the production of derivative works. This is a good thing for Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia, but not limited to them. These "free licenses" allow us to make educational contents that is easy to redistribute and use. You have uploaded quite small resolution photos, and indeed the could be used for certain small commercial resolution ends, as you pointed out, but I do believe companies prefer high resolution pictures (I'm not an expert on that field, so I can't tell for sure). However, whichever is your decision, it will be respected, as Lewis said. Regards, Patrícia msg 17:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Lewis, Patricia, Adam and the others that have allowed me the time to give this decision much needed thought. I have changed the permission on all the images (up for deletion) except the Halle Berry (I can not take the chance of devaluating the Halle berry image). Please lift the deletion request on all images. However, I am sad to say the raw Halle Berry (Halle_Berry.jpg) image must go. Now that I have a better understanding of how the commons works, I will be very careful in my image selections before uploading them. I hope I did it correctly... Thanks! Jerry Avenaim 18:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delivered. Image:Halle Berry.jpg will be deleted shortly. Good to have you on board, Mr Avenaim. :) Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 18:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Lewis, Patricia, Adam and the others that have allowed me the time to give this decision much needed thought. I have changed the permission on all the images (up for deletion) except the Halle Berry (I can not take the chance of devaluating the Halle berry image). Please lift the deletion request on all images. However, I am sad to say the raw Halle Berry (Halle_Berry.jpg) image must go. Now that I have a better understanding of how the commons works, I will be very careful in my image selections before uploading them. I hope I did it correctly... Thanks! Jerry Avenaim 18:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- My pleasure Lewis, the Image:Luke Wilson.jpg still has a deletion tag on it... Jerry Avenaim 19:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- (Hate to edit an archived request, but for anyone reading, this is dealt with too... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC))
- My pleasure Lewis, the Image:Luke Wilson.jpg still has a deletion tag on it... Jerry Avenaim 19:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Halle Berry.jpg deleted per request, all other images dealt with by Lewis above. Nick 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicate of borderless version Image:Mayan Language Migration Map PT.png Jlrsousa 19:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Some might prefer one with a border, who knows? Not duplicates, anyway. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The copyright to this image belongs to Apple Inc, and you can't release it into the PD. It can be re-uploaded to Wikipedia with a fair use rational, or replaced by a picture you take yourself. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.201.21.187 (talk • contribs)
- Deletion fix. -Nard 21:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative. -Nard 21:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete this is a straightforward {{copyvio}} case. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 04:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as simple copyvio. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Grainy and was able to replace with a similar and better quality image. --Dtbohrer 21:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 02:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete original was unusably blurry. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 04:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, as uploader requested it. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request, and bad name. --Comyu 22:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Duplicate of Image:Tobus A-W293 low-floor prototype.jpg -- Deadstar (msg) 11:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate, use {{badname}} or {{duplicate}} next time, plox Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
scope ? Megapixie 23:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete No license, probable copyvio. --Simonxag 23:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
scope ? Megapixie 23:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. That would make sense only for use in the User page, but the image is used nowhere. --User:G.dallorto 01:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work, so maybe copyvio. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have taken the photo!
- http://delatorre.deviantart.com/art/Joan-Saura-58383504 I uploaded tu my Deviantart account some months ago. You can check it. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Delatorre (talk • contribs)
- Delete your photo of the advertisement is only a derivative work of the copyrighted original photo. --ALE! ¿…? 15:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I toke the photo! ¿Where is the problem? I am the photographer and the designer. I don't understand you.
I didn't take a photo of and advert. I CREATED the advert, I have the originals in freehand format if you want to check it.
- Comment Well, the problem seems to have several aspects. The first one is if you really created the advert (I don't hesitate you're the author, but verbal claim is not enough). The second one relates to the copyright of the picture you're using as basis of the leaflet. Finally, who owns the copyright of the leaflet? You or ICV-EUiA? As you can see, it's not that simple. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It's an electoral announcement and it's copyrighted by ICV-EUiA. Rastrojo (D|ES) 15:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as derivative of copyright work. — DarkFalls talk 08:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bloody quality again. Not used and cant be used anyhow. I will make a few good photos of THW-cars in a few weeks. __ ABF __ ϑ 05:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I tried to give that foto more quality with my Photopaint 10, but there is nothing to do. So I think, the only way is deleting :-(. -- Ra'ike Diskussion
- Delete per above Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (BTW: I uploaded a new Picture of THW MTW under Image:THW OV Naumburg (Saale) MTW.jpg) ChristianBier 23:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 09:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Sie können das Foto verwenden; die Rechte sind bei mir." means to me it cant be PD. __ ABF __ ϑ 13:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless better explanation of copyright status is forthcoming Durova 17:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note to admin: please give this editor a little time to comply - no rush - I'd be willing to change this vote if he/she establishes permission. Durova 19:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Der Fotograf des Bildes, Heinz Albers, sandte mir am 08.01.2008 zu diesem Bild folgende Mail: "Hallo, Herr Münch, hier ist noch ein Bild vom 1. Zerstörergeschwader. Rechts Zerstörer 2, links Zerstörer 3. Fotografiert von mir von Z 1 auf dem Atlantik 1965. Sie können das Foto verwenden; die Rechte sind bei mir. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Heinz Albers" Genügt das oder muss ich noch einen unnötigen Büroktratenkram erledigen? --Milgesch 10:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Leider genügt das nicht. Herr Albers muss schon explizit einer freien Lizenz zustimmen. Es muss ihm klar sein, dass eine freie Lizenz nicht widerrufbar ist, und es auch Drittnutzern erlaubt, das Bild weiterzuverbreiten und auch für kommerzielle Zwecke zu verwenden. Die Freigabe wäre "nicht-exklusiv", d.h., er könnte nach wie vor das Bild selbst kommerziell nutzen (Lizenzierung an andere zu anderen Bedingungen.) Siehe auch Commons:Emailvorlagen. Lupo 16:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
IMHO this photo is out of the project scope. ALE! ¿…? 14:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not.--Lamilli 14:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Out of project scope. User:Lamilli is dumping a lot of garbage at WikiCommons. Thuresson 01:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please reconsider your judgement: what Lamilli uploads is not garbage but illustrations of tattooing and body piercing. It's just a question of personal taste! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unused user(?) photo. Rocket000 05:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Even if it's not a great picture, it's an illustration of tattoos and piercing. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not really. The human subject happens to have some tattoos and piercing, but I wouldn't say this was created to illustrate them. (If it was, they did a really bad job.) A few tattoos doesn't justify keeping some unused personal photo. Rocket000 03:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused, grainy, taken before I had a good digital camera. I'm going to replace it with a similar, better quality image eventually. --Dtbohrer 20:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, or you could overwrite this picture when you get a better one. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 04:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, I would overwrite if I could find the same exact bus, but haven't had any luck yet. --Dtbohrer 06:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like a magazine scan (browning on the right hand side) - have my doubts that it is "self-made" Megapixie 23:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Simonxag 23:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This site shows his career running from 1951 to 1961. The Spanish Wikipedia article on him says he was born in 1933, and he does look somewhere between 19 and 29 in this photo. If this was published between 1951-1961 (or any time before 1983), then it would qualify for {{PD-AR-Photo}} (25 years after publication). More information is needed on this count, though. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 01:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- That should be "any time before 1971". If the photo was copyrighted in 1996 in Argentina, the URAA restored its copyright in the U.S. Lupo 16:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source to verify publication date, and the authorship claims are bogus. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:US DOT FHWA MUTCD SHS 2004 3-1 M1-1 750x600mm 678 NY.svg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete-This is duplicate below Image:I-345.svg--SoCal55 04:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio --SoCal55 (03:16, 18 January 2008)
- Keep They are not duplicates. In regards to the copyvio statement, Image:I-345.svg states: "Interstate shield <snip> (United States law does not permit the copyrighting of typeface designs, and the fonts are meant to be copies of a U.S. Government-produced work anyway.)" No need to list it again (listed on 15th and 18th January already). -- Deadstar (msg) 10:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per above. →Christian NurtschTM 12:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete While this image is not a copyvio, the colors on the PNG are much brighter than they are in reality. The SVG image is more accurate, and hey, it's an SVG, so it scales better too. No reason for keeping the PNG around. (No other wikis use it). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Different file formats, hence not duplicates (and superseded images are tagged, not deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contributions by Melisa-15
[edit]Uploader claims to be the copyright owner of Image:Aotus.jpg but it is actually available from geocities.com
Uploader claims to have photographed Colombian actor Manolo Cardona (Image:Manolo cardona.jpg) on January 17 but the photo is available at perumagiayencanto, apparently with the date Nov. 11, 2006
Uploader claims to have photographed the Spanish actor Unax Ugalde on January 17 (Image:Unax ugalde.jpg) but the photo is also available at lahiguera.net
Uploader claims to have photographed the Colombian actress Flora Martinez (Image:Flora martinez.jpg) on January 17 but the photo apparently comes from notas.com
Uploader photographed the Chilean pop group Kudai on January 17 (Image:Kudai .jpg) but oddly enough the same photo is available at mpuentealto.cl
Uploader also had the chance to photograph US actress Lindsay Lohan on January 17 (Image:Lindsay dee lohan.jpg) but the photo seem to be a cropped version of a photo available at moldova.org. Please note that the uploader uploaded the same photo on December 11 and that it was deleted by User:Ecemaml with the summary "Obvious copyvio".
Uploader is also the copyright owner of Image:Grupo Camila.jpg, a Mexican pop group. The photo bears an uncanny resemblance with the groups latest album (amazon.com
Uploader has also created a number of coats of arms and licensed them as GFDL
- Image:Escudo aracataca.jpg.gif is identical with the same coat of arms available at the official webpage of Aracataca, [139]
- Image:Escudo envigado.jpg.gif, coat of arms of Envigado, is identical with the same coat of arms available at a web page about the city, otraparte.org
- Image:Escudo itagui.jpg appears to be a lightly modified version of a coat of arms from ccas.org
Thuresson 03:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete delete all. Is this a new editor or were there previous deletions also? Durova 17:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all. Clearly, none of the photos are self-made. --B1mbo 01:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all. Block the user, too, since AGF time is over. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 06:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 16:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Israelian Coins
[edit]Wrong licensing, moreover I doubt that Israelian Coins are PD. --Code·is·poetry 06:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Image:005agurot h.jpg
- Image:010agurot h.jpg
- Image:005agurot v.jpg
- Image:010agurot v.jpg
- Image:050halfshekel h.jpg
- Image:1000shekel h.jpg
- Image:500shekel v.jpg
- Image:050halfshekel v.jpg
- Image:1000shekel v.jpg
- Image:500shekel h.jpg
- Also note that the photographer, i.e. the person who scanned the coins, asks for deletion due to "dissent" (I'm not quite sure what he means, so the translation may be wrong, as well) on articles where he intended to insert the images (permissions-de, ticket 2007123110007801). —Pill (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not pd-ineligible. -Nard 04:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ich habe eine Fehler im Dateiname, blüender mit h Kintaiyo 15:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept, Image was uploaded as duplicate Image:Bluehendes Gras.JPG but with a much lower resolution, i will copie this image to the correctly named duplicate and then delete it. --Martin H. (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Elements of the display may be enough to qualify it as an artistic work - i.e. the text, the arrangement, etc. Megapixie 23:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 06:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
January 19
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete This is dupicate under Image:I-270 (MD).svg.--SoCal55 23:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I uploaded this, and agree. Gone. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:07, 19 January 2008 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
error in svg, contains local link: image xlink:href="J:\DCIM\100MSDCF\DSC03774.JPG" Erik Baas 02:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Giggy 06:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contains visible copyrighted material like simpsons figure. GeorgHH • talk 11:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work. --Boricuæddie 15:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
official renaming into Disney's Hollywood Studios in january 2008. All media have been transferred into Category:Disney's Hollywood Studios. --Gdgourou 15:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept and redirected to Category:Disney's Hollywood Studios. --Boricuæddie 15:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I made a mistake in the upload, the correct one is Image:Wikinews-logo-sv-originalreportage.svg --Ainali 18:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 19:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Boricuæddie 23:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Permission should be asked before, not after uploading the image. --User:G.dallorto 16:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- The image has been authorised, at the ticket stated in the image description. I only copied the description from it.wikipedia, but in the meantime the authorisation is there, otherwise why on earth one should refer to an ticket? --Cruccone 19:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, it's true: this is the ticket n:
{{PermissionOTRS|id=2008010510007333|category=}}
- Please close the deletion request. I corrected the page already and deleted the part saying the request for permission was still pending, which is superseded.--User:G.dallorto 19:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Permission is given --GeorgHH • talk 00:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
source link leads to ΑΤΤΙΚΟ ΜΕΤΡΟ Α.Ε. ©2007 All rights reserved Geraki TLG 17:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 19:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --User:G.dallorto 01:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Copyvio per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a 1950s postcard. Hardly "self-made". The uploader has a record of rather easy-going uploads, under different nicks. --User:G.dallorto 18:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Has there been a noticeboard report on the user? I sampled a couple of other uploads and didn't notice any obvious problems. Durova 19:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Not yet. The user, uploading under several names, is more in the "total mess" category than in "bad faith" one. I am still assuming good faith, since he simply seems not to grasp how Commons work. He uses categories as if they were galleries, and galleries as if they were categories using demential names (eg. : Palazzetto Coppedé dall' angolo arrontondato all' incrocio con la via Cardines(Gino Coppedè)), builds galleries with one enlarged images alone (eg Convento S.Francesco(Messina)), gives cryptic sources to his uploads, uploads works whose author did not die at least 70 years ago (eg. Palazzo dell'INA(Giuseppe Samonà)). But to date he did not engage in flames to pretend to keep his copyvio works. Therefore I assume he is more messy than in bad faith. I am just halfway dismantling his categories/galleries to build regular ones. :-( --User:G.dallorto 00:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks for the hard work. Durova 02:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I stupidly uploaded the wrong file. I don't mind it staying up, but the filename is inappropriate. --Eric my en:wp talk page 18:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination
- Looks like I should have nominated it for speedy deletion. Too late now? --Eric my en:wp talk page 21:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I added the speedydelete tag--hope that's okay. --Eric my en:wp talk page 18:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: author request
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete Duplicate under Image:I-H2 (HI).svg--SoCal55 00:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant image caused by evolution of naming schemes. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Delete this quickly! Duplicate image is annoying too confusing to people. --SoCal55 00:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- No double-voting please. And it's not like it's going to ruin someone's life if there's a duplicate image...no need to rush. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Hurry, it's ruining my life. Rocket000 05:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Use {{Duplicate}} --Dezidor 11:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted / Redundant --Fanghong 01:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
To avoid an edit war over the no source tag, I submit this for deletion. The notion that a 1509 image can be a copyvio is ludicrous. Even if someone had publication right, there is no way they could prove this was their copy as it is exact to the original. -Nard 02:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Nordic countries, PD-Art only applies to swedish photographs which are from before 1969. If were just going to ignore these rules even for images that have just been moved to Commons then we might as well delete the Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Note that I'm not suggesting that all already uploaded PD-Art images should be deleted straight of but we should at least require that new images follow our rules. /Lokal_Profil 12:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, as ridiculous as the law is on this count. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Screenshot taken from what is most likely a copyrighted work. Video in question can be found here with the addition of the site's watermark. WARNING: Adult content. BrokenSphere 05:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I'll take your word for it. Probably a simple {{copyvio}} case. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 05:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kinda useless too with the poor quality and the yellow bars. Taking the nominator's word for it probably be for the best. Rocket000 05:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment There's a strong possibility that the arrangement and the behavior of the two people in the restroom at the same time is contrived. Their behavior in the video hints at this. BrokenSphere 06:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment We'll take your word for that as well. No more details, plox. ;( Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 06:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
either derivative work or copyvio. Because I am not as shure I do not speedy, but feel free to do so. __ ABF __ ϑ 16:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This is the cover of the 7" single "Sharkfest" from 2001 by the Belgian group "Los Venturas". The photo is available at losventuras.be, click on "Sound". Thuresson 01:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It seems clear that the stated source is not the copyright holder of this photo. Even if it is, there is no evidence that the source is under a free licence. JeremyA 20:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted straightforward copyvio pub shot. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete This is carbon copy of Image:I-H3 (HI).svg.--SoCal55 00:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant image caused by evolution of naming schemes. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Delete this quickly! Duplicate image is annoying too confusing to people. --SoCal55 00:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Duplicate voting is annoying and confusing too :) Rocket000 11:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete Exact carbon copy of Image:i-H1 (HI).svg.--SoCal55 00:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant image caused by evolution of naming schemes. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Delete this quickly! Duplicate image is annoying too confusing to people. --SoCal55 00:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Deleted. :) Rocket000 11:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No FOP in France ---Nard 02:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note, I am excluding Image:Grande Arche de La Défense et fontaine.jpg from this nomination, because it was recently kept at a deletion request. -Nard 19:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Sadly this is the case. They'll all have to go. --Simonxag 22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --User:G.dallorto 01:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep rename it as "Big arc" or something else in english et voilà ;). Johann Otto von Spreckelsen will not attack Wikimedia for this photos. Greudin 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Try to get an OTRS release then :) -Nard 18:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- There are exceptions to fop in france : Template_talk:FoP-France, don't be "plus royaliste que le roi" (sorry cant find english expression like that) all of this exceptions are recents. The chances to be sued by the danish architect Johann Otto von Spreckelsen are quasi null, imho. Greudin 18:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- "More royal than the king" :) I think the equivalent in English is like "holier than the pope". -Nard 01:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Ridiculous! Actually FOP may apply to the place where Wikimedia is hosted not where the pictures were taken. Or am I wrong?! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, it applies where the pictures were taken. (Which is good because the U.S. has no FOP either.) Rocket000 15:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Quote Greudin --Lalupa 01:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The chance of being sued over any image is quasi null - until there's any money to be had. Then the copyright holder "discovers" the unlicensed use. Money driven entities like corporations or the estates of deceased architects take advantage of whatever rights the law gives them. Is anyone saying that FOP actually applies here or that we'd just like to ignore copyright and keep the images? --Simonxag 01:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well I do think FOP applies here. 1) I think this is part of the exceptions in France, 2) I still think (but want a confirmation) that FOP may apply to the place of publication (i.e. where Commons is hosted) and not where the photo is taken, because if it's the contrary it would mean that it's possible to publish a photo of an American modern building designed by a Frenchman in a French newspaper although the French law doesn't recognize FOP... which would seem ridiculous to me! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Some of the images show the arch as an incidental part of the composition, and are OK. Others have the arch as the primary subject, and those should be nominated for deletion one by one. There is no reason to delete the category even if we have to lose some of the images --MichaelMaggs 22:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No FOP in France. -Nard 02:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 22:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --User:G.dallorto 01:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. RedCoat 18:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope, no proof of license -Nard 03:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 18:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown person, no description, unused. GeorgHH • talk 10:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --User:G.dallorto 01:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 18:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contains visible copyrighted material like simpsons figure. Petar Marjanovic 16:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
See also: Log.
- Delete Derivative --User:G.dallorto 01:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No, focus is the laptop itself, not the contents. Vipersnake151 01:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I have photoshopped this photo and removed the screen, therefore this image is obsolete. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:MacBook_Air_black.jpg. Save-Me-Oprah 16:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Illustrates typical MacBook AIr usage scenario and shows the LED-backlit screen. Kaomso 16:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This might be on point to the derivative issue: If I take a photograph of a kid who is holding a stuffed Winnie the Pooh toy, does Disney own the copyright in the photo since they own the Pooh design? If someone takes a photograph of a MacBook Air showing the iTunes Music Store on-screen, does <$corporation> own the copyright in the photo since they own the copyright to a small advertisement found on iTMS on that screen? The focus of this photo is clearly the MacBook Air and its nice screen, with iTunes open showing typical usage. Are pictures of Times Square in New York, with its advertising nearly everywhere, allowed on Commons? Kaomso 03:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it is there to show GUI, right? If not, what's wrong with Image:MacBook Air black.jpg? Those icons are definitly part of what it's meant to be showing. Rocket000 12:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This might be on point to the derivative issue: If I take a photograph of a kid who is holding a stuffed Winnie the Pooh toy, does Disney own the copyright in the photo since they own the Pooh design? If someone takes a photograph of a MacBook Air showing the iTunes Music Store on-screen, does <$corporation> own the copyright in the photo since they own the copyright to a small advertisement found on iTMS on that screen? The focus of this photo is clearly the MacBook Air and its nice screen, with iTunes open showing typical usage. Are pictures of Times Square in New York, with its advertising nearly everywhere, allowed on Commons? Kaomso 03:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Software is just as important as hardware. And shows the hardware specs of the screen, too.--HereToHelp (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Resolution of all MacBook Air models is fixed. The image indicates the native resolution of all publicly-available MBA models. 67.168.62.166 07:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is pretty much a screenshot of non-free software, which we delete. These keep votes are starting to sound like fair use rationales. Rocket000 12:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 18:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I thought about the undeletion again and I got the problem into my mind wich was not mentiont in the last discussions: Its cc-by! Means you can cut and license it again as cc-by. So if you cut Homers Image it would also be cc-by. With cc-by-nd the last undeletion reason might have been valid, but not here. So I herby request to Delete it. abf /talk to me/ 13:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm, what? If the original was cc-by, and it's been edited and licensed as cc-by, what's the issue? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Clear derivative work of Mac OS X and copyrighted matereal. Or just blank computer screen. --EugeneZelenko 15:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete again. A quote from the undeletion request: I discussed this matter with ABF (the deleting administrator), and he/she indicated that the deletion was based upon the argument by Rocket000 that "this is pretty much a screenshot of non-free software, which we delete." In fact, this isn't "pretty much a screenshot," as the clear purpose is to illustrate the computer, not to illustrate software. So based on either person's logic there (mine or David Levy's) the copyright material doesn't need to be there. Rocket000 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, I don't think it was rightly undeleted in the first place. Copyright overrules consensus. Rocket000 19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Idea: blank the screen and detour. I'll do that when I have a minute. Rama 11:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- comment Surely the design of the laptop is covered by copyright? edward 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted version with screenshot; kept other. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source, no date and no Author, said. The copyright needs to be revised. 23:37, 24. Dez. 2007 User:Jrc261094
- Delete per nomination. Durova 03:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a collage of various in-game images from Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3, an arcade game. As such, it's not suitable for use on Commons because the images can be used only under a claim of fair use. (Some of the icons probably don't meet the threshold of originality, but others, like the Raiden head, almost certainly do.) Crotalus horridus 13:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete collage of material source of which not specifically seperately mentioned. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as missing essential information. Cowardly Lion 00:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. "Flawless Victory!" Rocket000 15:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No reason given why this admitedly copyrighted image should be freely usable. --User:G.dallorto 19:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 19:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Surely not ineligible, no source given. GeorgHH • talk 23:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 02:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No source. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not ineligible? Are you sure. There's no artistic input. It's made by a machine. Rocket000 09:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The authorization is expressly given but the physician's name is going to stay anonymous and so the outpatient's name (it is not the real name on the sonogram). This is part of the agreement. Both are known to me. Simplicius 09:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Proof of license? -Nard 03:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- fuck off —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.10.146.85 (talk • contribs)
- I have contacted an administrator on German Wikipedia who confirms the image was uploaded by that user claiming own work and releasing the work into the public domain. --|EPO| da: 11:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
As I see no reason to question the authority of administrators on German Wikipedia or the user in question I am now closing this deletion request. --|EPO| da: 11:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
YES Mcscool 17:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion given. --User:G.dallorto 01:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Nominator is the uploader. I've asked him to come here and tell us why he wants it deleted. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 04:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep unless a good reason provided. Rocket000 12:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"see here" has no proof this is PD -Nard 03:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rocket000: Unfree for commercial use: http://www.cducsu.de/Titel__Impressum/TabID__29/SubTabID__30/Texte.aspx
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Why exactly is this PD? -Nard 02:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No original source, no indication for PD. --GeorgHH • talk 09:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source Badseed talk 07:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Sculptural artwork - used inside a building. Protected by copyright. Deriv work. Megapixie 02:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, the artwork within the building is not protected by copyright law, upon completion ownership was transferred to the school and the school has since adopted a policy of free use, in essence there is no copyright held on the artwork. Under the terms of the senate agreement and acts (1991) attribution is not required since any artwork found in a public location within the school is to be presented by any means possible under any conditions, this include electronic copies with or without the schools knowledge. Theonlysilentbob 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm assuming this is this http://www.yorku.ca/web/about_yorku/ - their copyright page doesn't seem to mention any of this. Is this documented somewhere online (or could you upload a temporary scan of any documentation) so that we can verify this. I own DVDs, that doesn't mean that I can upload them to the internet. Megapixie 02:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No originality, just some glass stuck to the wall. I definitely do not find this to be "art". -Nard 02:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- The copyright issues listed on that web page deal with educational issues governing CanCopy, institutions in Canada once upon a time were able to copy everything and anything until CanCopy limited the amount of copyable material to 10% of a work. After the 10% threshold is crossed a royalty fee must be paid. In short, that governs access copyright but the school has a senate resolution which I don't see on their website governing actual artworks which have been donated to the school. If need be I will grab a copy. Whatever the case, I don't think the University really even cares anymore. Theonlysilentbob 05:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of artistic quality or "I don't call that art" is irrelevant: the copyright on John Cage's use of silence has (in)famously been upheld. Also the opinion of the school is irrelevant: the copyright belongs to the artist not the owner of the artwork. --Simonxag 22:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, the dispute over 4'33" was settled out of court. Not that I agree with N's argument... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There is no official "author" of the artwork, the author is anonymous and probably did that with the greatest intention to remove credit from him/herself and the artwork was "donated" to the school in order to be placed on exhibit. In this case the school is the only possible entity that can claim copyright, the issue of inalienable or "moral" copyright cannot apply in this case because the author is unknown and will remain unknown. Thus in legal standing the author no longer has any rights to the work, at least not under Canadian law unless it was somehow possible to prove who the author was and then have them claim the work as theirs which simply is not going to happen. Going back to the first argument, the schools free use/echibit policy exempts it from traditional copyright. Theonlysilentbob 01:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per Megapixie. Clearly a copyright work of art, and if the artist really did transfer copyright to the school that should be proved by means of an OTRS ticket. The argument to keep essentially rests on no more than an allegation that the school now owns the copyright (unproved) and that they will not mind (ditto). MichaelMaggs 17:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No proof of license -Nard 03:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment For such cases we have {{No permission since}}.... --GeorgHH • talk 00:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- In ambiguous cases, it is best to submit to deletion. The generic PD tag used to be acceptable, submitting such images to no-eyes deletions is poor form, especially one such as this that has been on Commons since before we required rigorous sourcing. -Nard 00:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No response on this for 4 months now. MichaelMaggs 17:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The sculptor died 1949, also it's not a two-dimensional work of art. GeorgHH • talk 14:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The photo was taken at an exposition in the United States in 1904. Image is PD-US. In addition, the UK copyright term was pma+50 until 1995. As an aside, if this image had been taken in the statue's home, the UK, it would have been legal to take due to FOP. This image is copyright free in both the UK and the USA. -Nard 15:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment When you make changes to the image description during the deletion debate, you should say it here, so others know it was changed after nominating. Thank you. --GeorgHH • talk 16:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I posted the image in good faith in the belief that it complied fully with Wikimedia's public domain requirements. That's all I have to say on the matter. Lee M 16:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I think the current licensing is ok for that kind of image given date and place. --User:G.dallorto 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. giggy (:O) 05:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
What makes this PD? -Nard 02:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. giggy (:O) 07:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Proof of license? -Nard 03:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Although this foto seems to show a selfperformer (de:User:Der Polizist), he assures that he is the copyright-holder of this fotography, that it was taken from his proper website http://members.inode.at/289988/ and that he puts it under the public domain. Are there any reasons to doubt that this is true? Personally, I'd be against using that foto in WP, but i see no reason why its use inside WP shouldn't be legal. (Also see: de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Der_Polizist#Bild:Attackierter_Polizist_1.jpg --redtux 00:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- So it's supposed to be PD-self? -Nard 01:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. giggy (:O) 07:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
What makes this PD? -Nard 02:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- PD-self I would think based on the source. // Liftarn
- Yeah. -Nard 12:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I left a note to Jackpukk. // Liftarn
- Any progress? giggy (:O) 07:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I left a note to Jackpukk. // Liftarn
- Yeah. -Nard 12:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Withdrawn I think this has gone on long enough. -Nard 20:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept; withdrawn. --O (谈 • висчвын) 00:47, 15 June 2008 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is broken. DaFool 16:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment When you click on it, it works. So we might re-upload it with another name. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted.corrupted MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This looks like a 1950s fresco --User:G.dallorto 19:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. As stated here, the author of the work of art is Cesare Vagarini, death in 1990.--Trixt (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong, compare to image:M bih03.png --Ante Perkovic 09:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment In before Eastern European territory flame war... Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 10:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with Ante that the map is off in regards to the Brčko district and the FBiH/RS border in that area. However there's nothing much I can do about it since this map is from the CIA Factbook. Only they can fix the boundary. All I did was to highlight the IEBL, RS, and FBiH. Hoshie 12:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, I thought this is wiki - a place where mistakes can be fixed in no time. But, now I see it isn't - looks like we must first explain to CIA that they made a mistake on the map. What's the point in having wikipedia if we have wrong data here and do nothing about it??? --Ante Perkovic 23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not saying anybody can't fix it (feel free to) but that the source of the mistake in Brcko area is the CIA's fault, not mine.
Kept. We do not adjudicate in content disputes. This is in use on two Wikis, which is enough. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Proof of license? -Nard 03:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, self made is claimed... giggy (:O) 07:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Giggy (but a de.wiki admin should check the local description page version and control if self made is truly claimed).--Trixt (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept and local description page checked. →Christian.И 08:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
January 20
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio, you need special permission to park a car in the middle of the freeway. No professional studio would release this image under this license -Nard 14:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. See OTRS if needed. The Photographer sends permission long before transfer to commons! ChristianBier 14:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bad name wg 22:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I used the wrong template - should have been "duplicate - bad name" instead. --wg 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Boricuæddie 03:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
loocks like a copyvio is not enough for me to speedy. http://images.google.de/images?hl=de&q=Josie+Maran&btnG=Bilder-Suche&gbv=2 diont tell me more at the moment. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Right.... So a photographer takes a professional lit 100 pixel shot of a supermodel. Compresses it to crap. And then uploads it to wikipedia. You can either trust me. Or you can trust the random uploader here. I didn't go looking for it because she's a model there are probably tens of thousands of images of her (most semi-clothed) - but in any case here is a thumbnail of where the image appears to be from. http://www.tustrucos.com/wallpapers/famosos/varios/images/josie_maran_wall_1_th.jpg Megapixie 23:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete You never know, those 13-kilopixel digital cameras are quite popular these days. I think he used his 17 kilopixel camera to take this one, though. Dude, just speedy them. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 02:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No source specified either. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. All uploads from this user were similar. User blocked for 12 hours. Thuresson 22:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
por error, subi de mi ordenador el archivo incorrecto, borrad esta por favor Robertonoia 15:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- "By error, I uploaded from my computer the wrong file, erase this please." Ok. Delete -Nard 21:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image has dubious license information, no provenance, and appears to be that of a minor, with no model release or personality rights. ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. A hearty "LOL" to the question "y"? in response to permission. hbdragon88 23:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete promotional photo for Chinese actress (see zh:鄭羽婷. -Nard 23:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is likely a minor and the license is very unclear... likely that the image was taken without a model release. No personality rights assertion made either ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note also that this is essentially a recreation: Image:Maria isabel.PNG deleted already for lack of license, is essentially the same image. I will go farther, and say I have some misgivings about the whole Category:Lolita ... perhaps it needs removal altogether. ++Lar: t/c 19:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree that we need to remove the category; this makes it easier to catch this kind of upload... Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp)
- Delete pesonal picture not being used in any Wikimedia project – outside of our scope. hbdragon88 22:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete images and category. Even if there were model releases signed by a parent or guardian, we do not need to provide a means to access photographs of "sexually precocious young girls". Kablammo 23:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I'm quite sure "eigen werk" means "own work" and I see no reason not to trust that. If this is true, the pose might indicate the consent of the person and her parents (maybe the photographer himself actually). So it seems like a pure speculation to say there's a problem of licence. As the picture itself, why wouldn't it be in the project's scope? It may illustrate lolita, preteen, etc. As for the legal aspect, I have to say I don't know the law (especially US law) for such non-porn picture that may be considered as pedophilia by some... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Needs a model release. The original uploader has been contacted, if no model release is supplied, it should be deleted. ++Lar: t/c 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "model release"? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- A statement by the model (if the model is of age) or a person we have strong reason to believe actually is their legal guardian (AGF is not enough in this case in my view) if the model is not of age, stating that this image is consented to. In general this applies to any picture of a minor, in my view, although others feel differently. ++Lar: t/c 19:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Needs a model release. The original uploader has been contacted, if no model release is supplied, it should be deleted. ++Lar: t/c 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Creepy. Good Lolita pics could be made. This is not one of them. -Nard 21:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well if there's such a statement how can we prove it's really the person's statement and not the uploader's invention?! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is a personal taste judgement IMO, not an argument of deletion! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maria Isabel is a popular child singer in Spain. However, the image seems to be a typical promotional picture. As no source is given, nothing allows to think otherwise. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
New version is "image:dornstadt.svg" pmox 13:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep we do not delete superseded images. -Nard 13:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept as per Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio: source Mérimée is from the French government, which detains copyright on the pictures. Jul 16:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Arria Belli. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is likely a minor and the license is very unclear... likely that the image was taken without a model release. No personality rights assertion made either. ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Very fishy – each of the three accounts made exactly one upload. What is going on here? Did someone set us up the bomb? hbdragon88 23:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not as implausible as you think. Does anyone else think a request for checkuser is called for here? Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 03:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing a strong enough correlation to justify one, but you could mention it at COM:CHU and see what our other checkusers think. ++Lar: t/c 01:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not as implausible as you think. Does anyone else think a request for checkuser is called for here? Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 03:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete image and category, which appears to have been created to provide easy access to images of underage females in provocative dress and attitudes. Kablammo 23:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete in before party van Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 02:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Maria isabel.jpg --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Creepy. If you want a good Lolita pic make it. This is not it. -Nard 21:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Looks like a copyvio pub shot of some kind, out of scope if it's not (as per Kablammo). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File is missing any content. Contains only SVG framing info. --Karl Hahn 19:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per request. Durova 20:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete File does not open for me. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not sure what the user did, I can't even view the source code. (It's asking me to "view image" like it was in PNG format). Description says "Prepared using ACD/ChemSketch 10.0 and GIMP 2.2 and InkScape". Yeah, mixing all that together in a SVG most likely will cause problems. Gotta keep those rasters and vectors separate. Rocket000 03:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, this should have been speedied as a corrupt file. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No model release, dubious licensing, no provenance information, possible underage model ++Lar: t/c 23:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the "400px" in the filename means it was saved from somewhere else. User also uploaded another one that's up for deletion (talk, contribs, en.wp) 01:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio, probable pub shot lacking permission, user has uploaded copyvios before and there's no reason to trust him. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The Flickr user given as the source is unlikely to be the copyright holder JeremyA 01:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete user on Flickr also has a ton of newspaper scans and other stuff he is not the copyright holder for under the same CC license. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 04:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Lewis Collard. Cowardly Lion 00:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. RedCoat 18:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I dispute the CC-SA-2.5 license that this image carries. See the following weblinks: naic.edu gallery naic.edu imagelink naic.edu copyright statements conflicting statement by NASA attributing the image to: NAIC - Arecibo Observatory, David Parker / Science Photo Library TheDJ 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. This image is in use on quite a few Arecibo wikipedia pages. Deletion would require some proper clean-after work. TheDJ 02:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I think the uploader thought that the Arecibo Observatory was part of the NSF, which appears to not be the case -- www.naic.edu carries a copyright notice, and the gallery page (as noted) says You are welcome to download these images for non-profit / non-commercial use. Carl Lindberg 16:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Carl Lindberg. Cowardly Lion 00:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
FITS image header shows that this is not a NASA image - it was created by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. and all rights are reserved Papa November 10:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 11:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
given permission link says nothing about cc, as it was told to me in #wikipedia-da on freenode irc. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The given link show the mail I send to the company that owns the pictures and the respons I got from them. So if somebody told you that I couldn't use it they should their schoolmoney back.
Translation:
My mail
Hello Mellemgaard,
I am doing a small update for the bio about Brian Roland Larsen at Wikipedia.
I have written the text there is about him but was wondering if I could use the picture of the author and the 4 pictures of the books that are at your website (the 4 cover pictures at this site http://www.mellemgaard.dk/group.asp?group=19&sub=19) Since I think the bio need to more flesh added to it.
Regards
René Krøll The reply
You can use the pictures.
Regards Kaj
Team mellemgaard.dk
So as you can see, I am allowed to use all the 5 pictures, and knowing the publisher I am allowed to use the 5 book cover image when the 5th book hits the shops in the spring 2008.
So please stop deleting the image!!!
- Dear René Krøll, as you can read on this page, the statement: "You can use the pictures" is too ambiguous and doesn't specify "Kaj" as the sole holder of the rights to the picture or which license he approves. On that page, you will also find an email-template, you could use to obtain a valid permission. We would like very much to keep the picture, but the international licensing rules have to be followed. Regards --Sir48 19:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
seems to be derivative. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Pardon, what does that mean? I took this photo of the aspik-powder-container some days ago here in my room. It came directly from my kitchen. What is here "derivative"? --AM 15:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Keep
- Solved the problem. --AM 17:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete This is not a picture of a container, this is a picture of the artwork on a container. The artwork is copyrighted by the company that produced it. So your photograph is derived (a derivative) from a copyrighted work. Is there permission from the original copyright holder? No. So this is a copyright violation (a copyvio in the local slang) and has to be deleted. If the picture was of the container, it might have been OK, but only if the artwork was incidental to the picture, like a photo of a kid who happens to be wearing a Mickey Mouse teeshirt. --Simonxag 20:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Obvious derivative work Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Unfortunately the uploader failed to specify where this image has been taken. As this poster advertises an event regarding the Walloon language, it has most likely been photographed in Belgium or France. Neither of these countries grant freedom of panorama. --AFBorchert 18:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's a derivative work of a copyrighted character. —Angr 21:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like a generic alien to me. I wouldn't even have recognized him without the description, and I'm a Star Wars geek. -Nard 22:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep You are right. The likeness is very little... Elektron 07:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unfortunately, N, I don't think the copyright holders would see it that way. (I would have recognised it without the description.) Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 02:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Same as Lewis. It's not the greatest likeness of Greedo ever, but it's recognizable enough for this file to be deleted, I think. Arria Belli | parlami 21:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
few better images of Limax maximus are available --Snek01 23:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep image is in scope. -Nard 23:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing wrong with image. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Poor quality, but I don't think it's bad enough to delete. Rocket000 10:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a image tranferred from the Wikipedia's old image directory. Its source was suspected but noything was done in the past in Wikipedia (see at: [140]). Moreover, the quality of the image is very low and the original uploader is not a trustable user, what would indicate a copyvios from a website. Talk2lurch 20:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Talk2lurch's arguments. I did a clear mistake in transwiking that image; the user's deleted contributions on pt.wikipedia aren't very reassuring either. Patrícia msg 11:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Boock cover is derivative work and the User does not seem to be the Potographor, the metadata says its scanned. and I belive it cant be used anyhow. __ ABF __ ϑ 20:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- It could be a scan of a real photograph taken by the user; I have some of those myself. But I still say Delete simply for being of no use to any Wikimedia project. It would be inappropriate in an article about the book (and, as the nom says, a derivative work), and we have enough photographs of naked women already. —Angr 21:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's supposed to be humorous meta-commentary. AnonMoos 01:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I thought wiki commons was outside the field of just having to be of use to Wikimedia projects. You have pictures of yourself uploaded, for example, Angr, and many of Commons' featured pictures are irrelevant to the WMF's projects. Therefore your endorsement of a deletion is not IMHO a fair one. And if you read the image's talk page you will see that it can be used - not that, as I have explained, that matters anyway*
*(Terms and conditions apply) 19:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC).
- Comment Uploader says photo is from 1998. Commons has a great number of scans of film photos from before digital cameras were common; if there is no other reason to suspect the uploader is not the creator of the original photo I don't think that's a valid reason for deletion. -- Infrogmation 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- You could tell that it was scanned even without the metadata, since greyish-white areas are visible at the corners where the original photo was slightly tilted. But I don't see anything necessarily suspicious about it -- and the book-cover thing is a non-issue, since the book takes up a small area of the photo and is being commented on (and the cover consists mainly of generic-font text on a plain single-color background anyway...). AnonMoos 01:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Book cover is non-decorative text. It's pd-ineligible. -Nard 23:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Nard. What's more, may panorama freedom apply? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Very doubtful, but it depends, some countries are very forgiving on photographs that just "happen" to include a copyrighted work. This doesn't apply, however, where you are intentionally holding the work. -Nard 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The book cover's PD ineligible because it consists of simple text. Rocket000 10:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with all above. But not just free - useful as well (see image's talk page)*
*(Terms and conditions apply) 19:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC). - CommentNon-dekoratative text, face not shown, person at most identification from the background, persononal upload from it seems a paper-foto, the title of the book and this picture is a good joke :-) take it in a article? I don't know. Europe? Netherlands? --Fg68at de:Disk 21:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well actually it may illustrate irony! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've notified the user on his Wikipedia discussion page. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to log in very often anymore, but well, at least he's done it in a few days ago. (It would've helped if the user who's requested deletion had already asked himself...) As for the picture, it's been said before: Scanning does not imply the original is someone else's work. I still don't own a digital camera. Regarding the book cover, "voting" for or against it does not get us anywhere. Either those among us who know a bit more about copyright suggest that it is or that it isn't protected. The rest of us had rather shut up and listen. :o) --Ibn Battuta 05:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I still don't own a digital camera > exactly! and even if you do you still have your former non-digital works that you may want to upload! It's exactly the same case with screenshots since anyone can make screenshots of one's own videos! SO this is not a very good argument indeed. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I’m the author of the original photo. I scanned it because it is not a digital one. I think that the photo could be used in many articles: feminism, sociology, Bourdieu, irony, etc. I can understand that SOME people do not like it, but some other do (some feminists as well). The photo shows a woman reading a book written by a famous man. The girl is free of accepting or not Bourdieu’s arguments about women rights and the use of woman’s body. It is not an irony against Bourdieu, it is an argument about women freedom. She is naked, it is true, but why is that a problem? If pornography stigmatizes women, this photo evocates -on the opposite- both the beauty and the intelligence of women. If the sculpture "The Thinker" by Rodin is a naked man philosophizing, why not a photo about a naked woman reading? I also asked a very good copyright lawyer and he told me the photo is perfectly ok from the legal point of view. At the same time, I do not have the time to start a crusade in defense of my photo, so I will respect your decision. Maurice Marcellin 00:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually could you re-upload a better scan of the picture? (especially because it's tilted) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I will as soon as possible (I do not have my own scanner). Ciao. Maurice Marcellin 16:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason given for deleting. It's nice, keep it.86.145.1.102 12:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. For one, the argument "it was scanned" is nonsense. Photography existed before the digital era, and it still does (you can go delete a few of my images if you would like to differ).
Moreover, it's not clear that the cover is even eligible for copyright; if it is, then the inclusion of the book is largely incidental; the primary focus is not the artistic nature of the book cover, it is the fact that there is a naked woman who happens to be reading this book. Angr, despite wanting deletion, actually supports my view here. Indeed, the very fact that this could not be used to illustrate an article about the book (unless, of course, this photo became famous as a parody...) shows that this is not a derivative work. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work __ ABF __ ϑ 19:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep it's a screen capture of a free program, though this images is quite small... Yuval Y § Chat § 19:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Solaris 10 is not free as freedom software (OpenSolaris is). Image also includes screenshot of Sun website and most likely images of Sun advertisement. --EugeneZelenko 16:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Screenshot of proprietary OS, also incl. Sun logoBadseed talk 00:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Marked as a copyvio but I disagree. -Nard 23:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete it is in fact. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyrighted logo Badseed talk 00:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
claims expired crown copyright but the vickers MBT was private not a goverment project --Geni 15:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- But it would have been made for the government, right? -Nard 23:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. Built as a private venture for the export market as a cheap MBT. The design can be thought of a lightly armored centurion. British tank doctrain post WW2 was that tanks should have big guns and lots of amour.Geni 02:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No author info, unverifiable and unlikely crown copyright Badseed talk 11:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not believe this is the real author, source, and license information for this image -Nard 22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment painting was made in 1877, author died in 1884, according to this page. I've tagged it as {{PD-old}}. But, according to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, the law about faithful reproductions of art in France (which is where this painting currently resides) is inconclusive. So hm. :\ Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 01:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I do not object on that ground. Thank you for fixing the information, it looks much better. -Nard 02:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mhm. But this might end up being a copyvio anyway... :\ Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I do not object on that ground. Thank you for fixing the information, it looks much better. -Nard 02:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not believe this is the real author, source, and license information for this image -Nard 22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment painting was made in 1877, author died in 1884, according to this page. I've tagged it as {{PD-old}}. But, according to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, the law about faithful reproductions of art in France (which is where this painting currently resides) is inconclusive. So hm. :\ Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 01:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I do not object on that ground. Thank you for fixing the information, it looks much better. -Nard 02:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mhm. But this might end up being a copyvio anyway... :\ Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I do not object on that ground. Thank you for fixing the information, it looks much better. -Nard 02:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
redundant. higher quality image here -> Image:Mac Nab.jpg --Celtus 09:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Different colors, slightly different crop. To me that's enough difference to keep for comparison/reference purposes. Carl Lindberg 15:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It is a pub panel, et the entry of the manufacture, the picture was taken from a public road.
Lucyin 18:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Still a copyvio even if taken from a public road. Sorry. MichaelMaggs 07:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I've made a better, updated version @ Imagem:Pib pe 1994 2005.GIF Uniemelk 16:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Badseed talk 18:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image was uploaded as an intermediate step in a development process in the Graphic Lab. It has been supplanted by Image:ISO_and_UTS_Thread_Dimensions.svg, which shows internal and external threads, permissable rounding and corrects an error in the diameter lines (they should not end at the centre line). --Inductiveload 18:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I actually prefer the layout of Image:ISO Metric Thread.svg, cleaner, more balanced (without the internal thread), less cluttered and the pitch dimension outside the shaded part like the other major dimensions. But not much use keeping it with errors. --Tony Wills 10:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a image tranferred from the Wikipedia's old image directory. Its source was suspected but noything was done in the past in Wikipedia (see at: [141]). Moreover, the quality of the image is very low, the right-down corner is modificated and the original uploader is not a trustable user, what would indicate a copyvios from a website. Talk2lurch 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Suspicious, on the balance of probabilities. Could consider undeletion if more information comes to light. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Proof of license? -Nard 22:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could someone point me to the info page or specify what proof you want? I have verbal from Jessica's mother to use this photo and any photo from that site. They were all provided by the owner Debbie Goldyn to that web site and she specifically told me that they were free use. I can get an email or something but not sure where to upload that giving me permission. It would not be until late in the week, she is in Cambridge working at another location this week. Thanks for any help you can provide for a new user here trying to understand the process and get everything documented appropriately. Njcraig 23:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please forward all proofs to Commons:OTRS. giggy (:O) 07:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Could someone point me to the info page or specify what proof you want? I have verbal from Jessica's mother to use this photo and any photo from that site. They were all provided by the owner Debbie Goldyn to that web site and she specifically told me that they were free use. I can get an email or something but not sure where to upload that giving me permission. It would not be until late in the week, she is in Cambridge working at another location this week. Thanks for any help you can provide for a new user here trying to understand the process and get everything documented appropriately. Njcraig 23:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The claimed licence is not apparent on the website from which this was taken, and oral permission from her mother (who is probably not the copyright owner anyway) is not enough. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
January 21
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm quite sure it's a copyvio... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted copyvio from http://udrivel.blogspot.com/2007/04/redox-chemical-brothers-at-coachella.html Nick 11:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Problem of licence. Flickr indicates CC-BY but it's written "copyright" on the photo itself (the uploaded photo is cropped). Maybe we may try to contact the website in order to know if this Flickr user is linked to them (same name) and if those pictures are CC-BY or copyrighted. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hem... After reading that should I say we may cancel this request and keep the picture? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, we've had that discussion before... Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 11:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK so let's keep it then! Sorry for that! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Forgiven. ;) Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK so let's keep it then! Sorry for that! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, we've had that discussion before... Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 11:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Close. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Commons name reverted to file’s default. Re-uploaded under more descriptive name --Bellhalla 11:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete but please tag this picture with {{badname}}. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted duplicate of Image:Henry T. Mayo and Thomas S. Butler.jpg. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
by my mistake --18:01, 8 January 2008 User:L84AD8
- Comment Fixed request. Image doesn't open for me. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as corrupted file, contains no content except an image xref. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation 04:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hobiti jsou předci gebaueruFlickr pone que está bajo la licencia apropiada. --Vëon Menelion 13:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I understand but Flickr unfortunately doesn't respect all the rules and laws! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, entonces borrala si es trabajo derivado, no hay problema. --Vëon Menelion 13:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Boricuæddie 16:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Marked as fair use -Nard 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted sourced to site with copyright notice. -- Infrogmation 04:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
FOP does not support this picture Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 11:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment According to its description it's a "Picture taken at the Museo de la Ciudad, Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico... a public place", that is, it has been taken inside a museum. However, according to COM:FOP#Mexico "Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without auhorization from the copyrightholder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases... VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places." I don't think that the inner of a museum can be described as a place "visible from public places". --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 11:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete And even if this were so, from what Ecemaml just pasted we'd only have a fair use claim anyway. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Below, a transcription of a Ecemaml request for opinions as to how to proceed with regards to this image.
- Hi all, I've found this image, Image:Catrinas 2.jpg which, BTW, is a featured picture and is being used in more than seventy wikipedias. The problem with the image is that its description states that it's a "Picture taken at the Museo de la Ciudad, Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico... a public place", that is, it has been taken inside a museum. However, according to COM:FOP#Mexico "Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without auhorization from the copyrightholder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases... VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places." I don't think that the inner of a museum can be described as a place "visible from public places". As it's a featured image and candidate to picture of the year, I didn't want to start a regular deletion request (although I'm definitely sure about its license being wrong). Do you have any suggestion on how to proceed? Should I open a regular deletion request? Should it be solved here? In other place? Best regards and many thanks in advance --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have an opinion... If you are definitely sure about it´s license being wrong, it is your duty, as administrator, in order to guard the interests of Wikipedia and within the scope of your responsibilities and obligations, to start a Deletion Request. Regards.--Tomascastelazo 03:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- True... Nothing we can do about it. File a deletion request. I also doubt its copyright status. Luckily the chance that this one will be closed before the end of the competition is zero ;) -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year/2007/Committee"'
He clearly states that he is “definitely sure about its license being wrong”, and due to the seriousness of the allegation, I propose, as creator of this image, that he come forward with the evidence to that effect, due to the fact that the image is widely used and represents a very important aspect in Mexican culture, and there are very few such images in Wikipedia. Therefore, its deletion would be highly disruptive to the 70 plus pages where it appears.
The Museum is a Government owned museum, a public place, and the picture was taken with the permission of the management of the museum, of an exhibit of the work or artisans about the Day of the Dead celebrations in Mexico. These sculptures were unsigned, part of a wider arrangement (this is a detail), and no different than an arrangement found in public markets. So, since the picture was taken in a public place, with the permission of the authorties responsible, freedom of panorama applies. --Tomascastelazo 15:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Some remarks, Tomás:
- You've been already warned about avoiding personal allusions, not taking a deletion request as something personal. Your allusion to Bryan ("... due to the seriousness of the allegation, I propose, as creator of this image, that he come forward with the evidence to that effect") is out of place and I should remember that it's up to the uploader to prove that the license is right and not the other way around. If Bryan has stated that he doubts about the copyright status of the image is clearly because he doesn't not think it's covered by the freedom of panorama.
- "...the fact that the image is widely used and represents a very important aspect in Mexican culture, and there are very few such images in Wikipedia." Irrelevant argument. This concept is called fair use and it's explicitly forbidden in the Commons. More information in Commons:Licensing (BTW, it can be used in 70 or 700 wikipedias; it does not fix the licensing problem).
- "The Museum is a Government owned museum". Yes, and? Is there any law in Mexico stating that the copyrights of the contents of a government-owned museum is in the public domain? Both know there isn't.
- "the picture was taken with the permission of the management of the museum". Also irrelevant. Even if that's true (I have no evidence to take is as false) it cannot be proved, and what's more, it is not known whether the permission is to make a photo or to make a photo that can be freely commercialized and modified.
- "These sculptures were unsigned". Irrelevant. According to the Berne Convention, copyright is automatic.
- "the picture was taken in a public place". That's what has to be proven (and you haven't provided any argument to believe so). I don't think so just because in no place in the world the inner or a museum is considered a public place and therefore freedom of panorama is applicable.
- And that's all. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 16:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am curious what medium this was made in. Is this a candy skeleton or what? Who is the author? -Nard 16:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Regretfully, I think we have to delete this excellent picture. We don't know who the artist is and we have no indication that she or he wanted to release their work under a free licence. Haukurth 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Ecemaml,
- In response to your comments:
- 1. That comment that I have been “warned” is, in my opinion, patronizing, and should be put in the context that resulted in me being blocked by you by what I consider an act of abuse of power and is being discussed in the appropiate forum, and to bring that discussion here is irrelevant. But if you want, I will gladly transcribe your conversations that you had with a member of the POTY committee that could have some intersesting implications as they relate to the art world and competitions, etc., so I suggest we leave that out of this discussion.
- 2. I was not “alluding” to Brian. I was refering to the allegation, you made, not him. And your allegation was: (although I'm definitely sure about its license being wrong). So the burden of proof rests upon you, not me. Prove what you stated publicly. If you already have proof, show it and proceed to the deletion. Simple.
- 3. For your information, and so nobody “attaches” any meaning to any words, I resort to the meaning exposed by Webster:
- Allegation: Main Entry:
- al•lege
- Inflected Form(s):
- al•leged; al•leg•ing
- 3. For your information, and so nobody “attaches” any meaning to any words, I resort to the meaning exposed by Webster:
- a) archaic : to adduce or bring forward as a source or authority
- b) to assert without proof or before proving <the newspaper alleges the mayor's guilt>
- c) to bring forward as a reason or excuse
- 4. A government owned museum is a public place and therefore freedom of panorama applies. Furthermore, the works in question are not being photographed in its entirety, only portions of them, and in any case, blank space predominates in the image area. Your arguments about being a public place, etc., etc., would set a dangerours argument for censoring countless images where copyrighted works appear as part of the landscape. Even worse, every single handcrafted object would be a candidate for deletion.
- 5. Are you a lawyer? Do you live in Mexico? Are you even an artist?
- 6. Well, I am not a lawyer. I do live in Mexico and I am an artist well versed in the practical application and reach of Mexican copyright law. I am a staunch defendant of copyrights.
- 7. If you propose to censor an image, I suggest that you lay out the argments based on legal fact and sound arguments and not mere “hunches” disguised as authoritative statements, (using your own words) "definitely sure about its license being wrong."
- Oh, and below I reproduce the meaning of censor, lest it be thought that I am engaging in personal attacks. Definition by Webster:
- Entry Word:
- censor
- Function:
- verb
- Synonyms clean (up), expurgate Related Words cleanse, purge, purify; abbreviate, edit, shorten; cut (out), delete, excise, expunge; repress, silence, suppress; censure, condemn, denounce; examine, review, screen, scrutinize
- Oh, and below I reproduce the meaning of censor, lest it be thought that I am engaging in personal attacks. Definition by Webster:
- 8. Also, you want me to “prove” that the picture was taken in a public place and that I haven´t provided any evidence (as you put it in your own words: That's what has to be proven (and you haven't provided any argument to believe so)). Imagine the burden this places on thousands and thousands of images in Wikipedia! Guilty before proven innocent. I have to provide to you evidence contrary to your belief in this Inquisition.
- Inquisition: definition by Webster:
- a) the act of inquiring : EXAMINATION
- b) a judicial or official inquiry or examination usually before a jury; also : the finding of the jury
- c) a former Roman Catholic tribunal for the discovery and punishment of heresy b: an investigation conducted with little regard for individual rights c: a severe questioning
- 9. And last, using your logic, the following image, and thousands and thousands like it would have to be censored because I doubt that this company would appreciate the use under certain circumstances their image. Image:Montinari Milano.jpg.
- Regards, --Tomascastelazo 22:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Tomás, I thought to remove your umpteenth mention to censorship, Inquisition (those nice guys who happened to burn people alive) and so on you use whenever someone dares to nominate one of your nice pictures for deletion (see here or here). You've been repeatedly warned avoid using personal attacks instead of simply sticking to the proposed question, so it's up to you to behave in a proper way or not (unless you aim to give us a self-fulfilling prophecy). As you know (regardless of the overwhelming amount of text you use to not answer the key question) the question is this: "Is the inner of a museum a public place according to Mexican law?" Yes or no?
As you say you're kind of expert on copyright in Mexico, you'll be happy to provide us with references on that statement. As I've previously said, it's you (the uploader) the one who has to prove the license is right, not the other way around. The picture is fantastic and I'd be quite happy to keep it (and not only that, if what you say is true, it would be possible to take photos of the works of any contemporary artist in a Mexican museum without worrying about copyright issues). We're waiting for the references that show the jurisprudence on considering the inner of a museum as a "public place". As you can understand, I have nothing to say on your repetitive tale on censorship, Inquisition and other unrelated questions. It's boring. Best regards --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC) PS: and sorry, the Catrina is the main and prominent element in the picture (otherwise, we'd not been talking about it)
- Ecemaml, here we go again... just read a dictionary.... Inquisition is the act of Examining... Yes, the inside of a public place is a a public place. By the way, the catrinas fall in exactly the same category as your Image:Instrumento musical Tarija.jpg. They are artisan creations. Did you obtain permission from the creator? Was it taken in a public place?
- So is this type of proof demanded and examined from everyone in every instance?
- And thank you for reverting the censoring (same as editing) that you did a few minutes ago. --Tomascastelazo 23:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Again: which references you have stating that the inner of a museum is a public place according to the Mexican law? "Yes, the inside of a public place is a a public place" is not an explanation. Everything is as easy as answering such a question. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC) PS: yes Image:Instrumento musical Tarija.jpg belonged to the same category. It was uploaded by me in 2005 when I didn't know all what I know now. BTW are you reviewing all my contributions? ;-DDDDDDDDDDD Wasn't you said not to take a deletion request as something personal?
- Ecemaml, just make it easy on all of us... You started this... You said you were: "definitely sure about its license being wrong", this is what started the argument. Just put forward the proof that makes you "definitely sure!" Since the beginning of the argument you have held the truth, why would you want me to contradict you with all this diatribe? Unless of course you want to read the ramblings of a fool. --Tomascastelazo 23:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
To sum up, you can't prove that a museum it a public place according to Mexican law. Well, everything is clearer now. Best regards --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ecemaml, I have a better one... this is the Mexican Copyright Law...
Capítulo II De la Limitación a los Derechos Patrimoniales Artículo 148.- Las obras literarias y artísticas ya divulgadas podrán utilizarse, siempre que no se afecte la explotación normal de la obra, sin autorización del titular del derecho patrimonial y sin remuneración, citando invariablemente la fuente y sin alterar la obra, sólo en los siguientes casos: II. Reproducción de artículos, fotografías, ilustraciones y comentarios referentes a acontecimientos de actualidad, publicados por la prensa o difundidos por la radio o la televisión, o cualquier otro medio de difusión, si esto no hubiere sido expresamente prohibido por el titular del derecho;
Capítulo III Del Dominio Público Artículo 153.- Es libre el uso de la obra de un autor anónimo mientras el mismo no se dé a conocer o no exista un titular de derechos patrimoniales identificado.
And were is your "definite sure the license being wrong?" --Tomascastelazo 23:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, I'm definitely sure about the license being wrong from the arguments you provided in your description of the picture. I remember that the description states that it was took into a museum, a public place. That's a FOP argumentation, something I go on disputing because of two reason: a) no similar provisos in similar FOP articles in intellectual property legislation all over the world; and b) if the Mexican law allowed such an interpretation, it would be widely known (since it would be the first law in the world that allow photographs of contemporary works inside museums to be in the public domain). Now, you pull a rabbit out of hat mentioning a totally different proviso in the Mexican law that you hadn't mentioned, neither in the description of the photo nor in your initial argumentation. Fine, I'm very glad to have arguments to keep the picture in commons. (but of course, it would have prevented you from playing the role of young and innocent artist being censored by an evil administrator ;-) it stinks). --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- ¿Y dónde dice ahí que los adentros de un museo son públicos? --Boricuæddie 00:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can someone that's fluent in Spanish maybe sum that up in English? From what I got, I think it says unless the work is specifically restricted by the copyright holder it may be used freely. I'm probably reading it wrong, though. Rocket000 00:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- It says that the work may be freely used if the author is unknown. But that still does not prove that the insides of a museum are a public place, which is Tomas's main argument for keeping the image. --Boricuæddie 00:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Rocket000,
Public Domain: Article 153. The use of the work is free from an anonymous author if the author himself does not make himself known or if there is no owner identified of the patrimonial rights.
That means that this photograph, of an object whose author is not known, taken in a public place, advertised, promoted, and in which no author or owner of rights came forward, is fair game.
These people want to delete the images because I cannot come out with a document or evidence, that state that photographs of images in public places are public domain. This picture is fair game according to Mexican copyright law. --Tomascastelazo 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note also that the cited Article 153 does not seem even to require us to resolve the contentious question of whether the inside of the museum is "public". - Jmabel | talk 01:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Closer to a verbatim translation:
Chapter II
Of the Limitation to Patrimonial Rights
Article 148.- Literary and artistic works already divulged can be used, as long as they do not affect the normal exploitation of the work, without authorization of the title-holder of the patrimonial right and without
remuneration, citing invariably the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases:
II. Reproduction of articles, photographs, ilustrations and referent commentaries a acontecimientos
de actualidad [not sure what to make of that: "to present-day accounts?" - Jmabel], published by the press or distributed by radio or television, or whatever other medium of distribution, if this not having been expressly prohibited by the titleholder of the right; [I don't seen how this part has bearing - Jmabel]
Chapter III
Of the Public Domain
Article 153.- The use of the work of an anonymous author is free while that author does not make him/herself known or there does not exist an identified titleholder of patrimonial rights.
Feel free to edit the above if you can improve my translation; my Spanish is quite decent, but far short of native. - Jmabel | talk 01:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- II is for fair use, you can reprint articles of acontecimientos de acualidad (current affairs) in your own publication, but this is a far cry from the Commons requirement of "free for any use". Article 153 is interesting though. -Nard 02:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm still not completely clear on what that means exactly but I'm going to look in to it more. It's seems very different from U.S. law. Rocket000 06:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete {{Derivative}}, unless uploader can get permission from the museum and the original author of the statuettes. By the way: the censorship/inquisition tale is badly worn out theses days. How many times does Tomascastelazo think he can disrupt Commons before got blocked again? --Dodo 08:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep --It is said these statuettes were made by an artisan (note : not an artist) so imo it's not an artistic work. I don't see the difference between this one and images of other artisan-created objects (because this one has only a decorative purpose ?), for example music instruments (like Image:5_string_electric_violin.jpg or Image:Stroh_violin_right.jpg) or furnitures (like Image:Mezzadro_1957.jpg or Image:Rietveld_chair_1.JPG designed by Gerrit Rietveld – died in 1964 – ), etc. Sting 13:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep -- per Sting. I also think artisan is a keyword here. Lycaon 15:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Well, I think you are mistakenly considering who the author is and not which the object is. Being an artisan or an artist (who distinguished between both? You? Are the picture in Commons from artists, artisans or none of them?). The object you're mentioning are kept because of being more or less an "object of daily use", as COM:DW states. I don't think a catrina is an object of daily use and definitely, artisan or artist, is an artwork. The keyword here seems to be "anonymous" and not "artisan" --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Precedents and Public Policy in Mexico with regard to the definition of a Public Place
- Comment This is from the Interior Ministry of Mexico and one of its departments, the National Institute for Federalism and Municipal Development. The Interior Ministry is responsible for among many things, the establishment of criteria and regulations that that have to deal with the governance of Mexico. Its decisions and opinions are considered the official posturo of the Mexican Government. Many States and municipalities in turn take as a model the rules and regulations and apply them to their own public policy processes. In short, they are utilized as precedentes where there are legal voids or lack of adequate reglamentations.
- Chapter VIII
- … It is understood as a public place every space of common use and free transit, including plazas, markets and shows or events of leisure or recreation, as well as public transports.
- A public museum is a place that provides leisure and recreation, as well as being a public place by the fact that is government owned. All government owned buildngs and infrastructure are considered public place.
- This is from Mexico City´s Regulations
- Article VIII. Public place: every enclosed place that the public in general have access to, either by invitation or pay.
- So the questions as to if a Museum is a public place, there are legal precedents in Mexico to characterize it as such, (and “freedom of panorama”, which by the way is a legally non existent term in Mexico and many countries, if it existed, it would be applicable), secondly, the statues themselves were part of a collective annonimous exhibition of folk art, and according to Mexican copyright law cited above, fair use. Both issues are clear.
- Now, the Catrina itself depicted here is a derivative work anyway of Jose Guadalupe Posada, dead, who invented the physonomy, and catrinas are made by thousands and thousands of artisans and are sold in thousands and thousands of markets in Mexico. Setting the precedent of qualifying and artisan object as a work of art (which may be) for copyright considerations would be very detrimental to uploading important photographs of objects that illustrate important cultural elements in every culture, and it would have to start a revision of every single object photographed in Commons. A monumental task of editing. Think of Santa Clauss... It is a generic figure.
Ecemaml: I am still waiting for your "definitely sure about its license being wrong"
Keep Under the assumption that COM:FOP is correct, this image is to be kept:
- According to COM:FOP#Public places a public place in Mexico also includes publicly accessible interiors.
- According to COM:FOP#Mexico freedom of panorama applies for artistic works visible from public places.
I see no obligation for Tomascastelazo to prove anything that is already stated in our policies. IMHO, any doubts regarding these claims in COM:FOP should be discussed there first. --AFBorchert 18:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Fine :-). I didn't have noticed the "Public places" section. I'll update the COM:FOP#Mexico section to link that of public places. Thank you for contributing with a little bit of common sense. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Per AFBorchert and comments Tomascastelazo on public places definition in Mexico. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
OTRS permission has been pending since October 2007. Thuresson 19:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a trap!. Also, with this and other images you have nominated for deletion for the same reason, what do you mean "pending"? Do you mean that permission hasn't been sent to OTRS? Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 23:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)- Delete Permission not given. HiDrNick 23:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think this can be safely Deleted now, we've been waiting on this for a while... Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 13:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Flickr says "All rights reserved" -Nard 16:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep — the uploader says he has permission; let's wait until the OTRS sorts this out. --Boricuæddie 16:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- We've been waiting since last April. -Nard 16:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I should probably go to sleep now; I missed the dates. My bad. --Boricuæddie 16:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- We've been waiting since last April. -Nard 16:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative image? -Nard 16:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Yeah, a character of the Talismen series. The Wikipedia article on the series got deleted. But answers.com delivers here. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 07:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted copyvio -- Deadstar (msg) 09:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No proof of license. -Nard 22:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 18:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
keep|it's licensed by Cottbuser Kindermusical and for free use
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The PD-self claim does not seem true while it does not seem to qualify for w:Template:PD-NZSection27. Jusjih 00:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete not self-made, it's from here. Not PD for any other reason as far as I can tell. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 03:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, simple copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The source is unlikely to be the copyright holder, given how many other publicity shots they have on there. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 02:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 05:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, in retrospect, this is a simple copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Appears (to me) to essentially be a duplicate of Image:National Guard Bureau.svg, though they are not the same exact file. They were both converted from the same source EPS, and I don't see any differences. The width and height parameters on this are set bigger, but it has a larger filesize for whatever reason, was uploaded more recently, and is unused. Carl Lindberg 07:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I (image creator) agree with this deletion request. I didn't see the existing svg when I uploaded. Good find. --Ktims 07:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. They look the same to me, and the uploader has no objections, so... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to the author the image is only for academic purposes --22 December 2007 User:190.31.140.191
- Delete Fixed request. {{self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0}} licensed, but additional comment in the text "solo para uso académico". -- Deadstar (msg) 12:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment "For academic use only"? Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Disregard that, I'm too stupid to read the nomination before commenting. Delete. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Disregard that, I'm too stupid to read the nomination before commenting.
- Keep uploader removed the restriction. -Nard 15:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept, restriction removed. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
GFDL image based on a cc-by-sa image, incompatible licensing -Nard 15:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- On second thought this one might be changeable to pd-ineligible, which would help. -Nard 15:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hm. Terminology error, I should have probably stated "inspired by" rather than "based on" - the actual image is entirely mine; the general "wave" shadow appearance was visually suggested by the other image. 69.70.54.210 22:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- That was me, not noticing I wasn't logged on. Coren 14:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Uploader's explanation is good enough for me. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative -Nard 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, fair use. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I uploaded this screenshot to illustrate a bug on dsb.wikipedia.org. The matter is solved now, the image is obsolete. --User:Johannes Rohr 07:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Fixed request -- Deadstar (msg) 15:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 21:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyrighted image --13 January 2008 User:190.31.176.250
- Delete Fixed request. Copyrighted image. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No encyclopedic value, used only to illustrate a deleted article on WP:fr --7 January 2008 User:192.130.245.234 Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 21:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not sure what this is, but I don't think it falls within our scope -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Flessibilità_e_staticità_degli_ordinamenti_nel_quadro_delle_mutazioni_del_mercato_globale_-S.pdf
[edit]Not sure what this is, but I don't think it falls within our scope -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like it was taken from some website Fred J (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The shot looks a little too professional and it's the editor's only upload (and almost the only edit). Unlikely to have been self-made because of the angle and outdoor setting. I share the copyright concern. Durova 04:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom & Durova's comments --Herby talk thyme 10:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image has not been used and will not be used! --18 January 2008 User:Saikano
- Delete Fixed request. Image more likely to be a copyvio because of the images used in the diagram. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete probable copyvio and not particularly useful. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Do we really need the BLANK pages from this book? -Nard 22:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- We do. Have a look at Category:De Wikisource book where you can get a clear picture of our small, but industrious community.
Jonathan Groß 
22:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept, in scope. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Do we really need the BLANK pages from this book? -Nard 22:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- We do. Have a look at Category:De Wikisource book where you can get a clear picture of our small, but industrious community. Jonathan Groß 22:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If the Wikisource project finds the image of use, it is within scope. (Shrug) -- Infrogmation 03:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. In scope if Wikisource says it is. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Do we really need BLANK PAGES from an old book? -Nard 22:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- We do. Have a look at Category:De Wikisource book where you can get a clear picture of our small, but industrious community. Jonathan Groß 22:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If Wikisource wants it for whatever reason, and it is free licenced, leave it. -- Infrogmation 05:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. In scope if Wikisource says it is. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source = Vangelis personal files - seems unlikely this has been release under cc. --Megapixie 09:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 19:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image replaced for image:Escudo de Jorquera.jpg -- 28 October 2007 User:Albaceteño Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not a reason for deletion. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
outside project scope -Nard 17:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Looks to me like a free licensed image that could be of use for illustrating topics. -- Infrogmation 05:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - in what way is that outside scope? It's used in an article as well. // Liftarn
- Keep why would it be outside project scope? The title tells everything: it illustrates loyalty! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
outside project scope -Nard 18:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No proof of model permission to publish here. Durova 02:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that's an issue, the uploader seems to be the star, see Image:Gaynewyorker.jpg. -Nard 02:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Seems to be" v. "is"? Anyone can pretend to be anything on the Internet. Durova 06:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment When I read such things I always wonder: "how can we get a proof of the model permission?" --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- For all the shots in this group where the faces are visible, and for all shots of this type in general, it's my opinion that the uploader seems to be the star is a sure route to trouble: a certain percentage of this type of image gets uploaded by bitter ex-lovers who pretend to be the star. We don't need to be in the middle of that. Durova 19:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that's an issue, the uploader seems to be the star, see Image:Gaynewyorker.jpg. -Nard 02:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 19:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
outside project scope -Nard 18:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No proof of model permission to publish here. Durova 02:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment When I read such things I always wonder: "how can we get a proof of the model permission?" --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 19:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Judging from the Flickr user's uploads, it appears this may be a copyrighted image, not belonging to the Flickr user. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete for suspicious Flickr user. Although I can't find this photo on the Web with a date that predates the upload of this on Flickr... Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 02:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom VartanM 00:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 13:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
While listed on a Flickr page with a a licence, it never went through flickrreview. The image is unlikely to have originated with this user, see this search: http://images.google.com/images?q=sandy+allen&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=3 which this shows that this is cropped image that was taken in the 70s and not something that Zach Tirrell can distribute via Flickr under cc-by-sa-2.0. --SVTCobra (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Nom assumes that the Flickr account holder does not own copyright to the image. How do we know the uploader does not own copyright? There's nothing in the account to imply he doesn't. Images on the internet may have been obtained from his flickr page, or he may have owned copyright all along, had it up on another website and they were borrowed from there, before he uploaded it to Flickr to share with everyone. I believe we should assume good faith on the part of the Flickr uploader. Also, file uploaded here is a crop of the original from Flickr. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, I asked via FlicrMail and Zach Tirrell told me he did not own the image, nor does he know who does. I can forward it to you if you want. --SVTCobra (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Low-res only at Flickr. And he also went to China to photograph De-Fan Yao?[142] And of course, he also designed and photographed this? Come off it. Flickrwashing. Lupo 10:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the image. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
* 22:49, 22 August 2008 Yann (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Sandy Allen.jpg" (Copyright violation) (restore) * 13:43, 29 January 2008 Arria Belli (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Sandy Allen.jpg" (Copyright violation) (restore)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
TV screenshot, possibly copyrighted logo.) --19 January 2008 User:87.164.96.59 Fixed request -- Deadstar (msg) 12:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete it can be fair used in wiki if they want, but not in commons VartanM 00:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Maxim: Deleted because "In category Unknown as of 22 January 2008; no license/permission/source". using TW
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Better quality on this location. User:FrancoBras 03:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. VartanM 00:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 13:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No license -Nard 16:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Maxim: Deleted because "In category Unknown as of 22 January 2008; no license/permission/source". using TW
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:I-80 (IN).svg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Licensing is dubious -Nard 16:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence within a reasonable period of time that the copyright holder approved the stated licence. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the website from which it was taken is the original source. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image talk page suggests this image is not from a US government source -Nard 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The image has had the "noncommercial use with acknowledgment" statement (incompatible with Commons:Licensing) since it was first uploaded. It has never had a verifiable USGS source URL. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative image? -Nard 16:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to be going out of its way not to infringe on the Olympic logo -- it doesn't have a single ring, much less five rings... AnonMoos 17:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep — copyright paranoia, much? The only thing in common in the colors. And, anyway, even the Olympic flag is in the public domain. --Boricuæddie 17:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This nomination raises the same issues as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:OlympicsWP logo.png, and the two should have been consolidated. AnonMoos 22:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative image? -Nard 16:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:OlympicsWP logo.svg, which raises the same issues (and with which this nomination should have been consolidated).
Kept —LX (talk, contribs) 11:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image description mentions fair use. I am dubious of the current tagging for this image. -Nard 15:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Updated image description as requested. Kmowery
Deleted. In contrast to the uploaders claim, the websites states: The information contained within this site, all images, files, source documentation, and text is property of Veronica Ruiz de Velasco © and is not authorized for redistribution or personal use without first receiving written authorization from Veronica Ruiz de Velasco. The fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. Any other use is a violation of the laws of the United States of America.. No Commons-compatible licence. -- Cecil 13:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is protected under crown copyright and is the property of the Queen of Australia and Her Government. Therefore, it cannot be released under CC, GDFL, or PD unless Her Majesty's Government has released the image under one of the three licences mentioned. --Nat 15:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Surely the copyright has expired? -Nard 15:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Iunno...Crown copyrights are often renewed...and seeing that the image is based on an image found on the Australian Governor General's website, and the website and it's content are copyrighted, means that the image is copyrighted. I believe that we treat these images like logos, where even if the image is a self-made copy of the image, the intellectual property and the copyright still belongs to the Queen of Australia and Her Government, and is still protected under crown copyright. Might have to check Australian copyright laws, but to be on the safe side, we should assume that the image is non-free, falls under fair use, and therefore cannot be on Commons. Nat 22:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Ra'ike: Out of project scope: protected under crown copyright and is the property of the Queen of Australia and Her Government. Therefore, it cannot be released under CC, GDFL, or PD unless Her Majesty's Government has released the image
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No reason for this image, without descrption, no connection to other pages, probably stupid joke --14 January 2008 User:Karelj Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I put no source template on it too - no description of any type on image. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No Source. -- Cecil 11:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photo comes from 1940s Mareczko 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Anonymous image +70 years=PD. -Nard 20:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I'm afraid the 1940s were less than 70 years ago. (Also, no source and no reason to assume that a professional studio shot of nobility would be anonymous.) --dave pape 03:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure? -Nard 11:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Typically one of the thousands official state pictures distributed by the royal court in the public domain. The source would indeed be welcome. --Foroa 07:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment How are pictures of the Belgian royal court automatically public domain? Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Lilian married Leopold III in 1941. This photo comes from 1940s, not 1930s. --Mareczko 10:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted, no proof of public domain and actually not really likely because of the age. --Cecil 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyrighted Press/media image mislabeled on Flickr, Copyright by World Economic Forum swiss-image.ch/Photo by E.T. Studhalter. swiss-image.ch appears to be a Getty / AP / UPI type organization. E.T. Studhalter appears to be a professional press photographer and the Flickr page states No resale, no archive. It appears that the Flickr uploader has mistakenly marked it as CC. Dual Freq 06:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 07:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The Flickr uploader is the copyright holder. The picture was taken at the World Economic Forum, it says in the image description that the copyright is held by the WEF and it appears in the WEF's official Flickr photostream. They seem to have recently changed the license on almost all their photos to CC-BY-SA, having previously been all rights reserved. I can only assume that swiss-image.ch (the Getty / AP / UPI type organization) are contracted by the WEF to provide photography from their events, but it clearly states that the WEF holds the copyright and it was they who set the license restrictions on Flickr. Gr1st 09:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've sent them an e-mail. Somehow, I fear they didn't mean CC-BY-SA-2.0 but rather CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0. I've explained the problem and asked them to clarify. Lupo 11:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep : as you don't seem to know, those pictures where put on Flickr to be uploaded on Commons! The reason is that the Wikimedia foundation president was invited there, and they released some picture for us. You may find authorization here User:Benjism89/WEF or here http://blog.anthere.org/ . Guérin nicolas 09:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. I never received a reply to my e-mail, but they did remove the "no resale, no archive" restriction from the Flickr page. It's now a clear CC-BY-SA-2.0. Lupo 08:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work --KTo288 23:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Rocket000 10:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Because the Classical-Chinese version didn't need this fig. --11 January 2008 User:JeanHavoc Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: User request
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image most likely is a derivative work, taken of a television screen presentation at a concert. The original photographer would also have copyright to the image. Nominated for deletion by uploader. --Oden 19:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- You can tell it hasn't been taken from a television screen at a concert, the quality is too high. 172.213.68.7 23:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- agreed with 172.213.68.7 . Looks like Oden has no knowledge about photography at all. 201.37.249.74 06:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Orphan, adding now Jaranda wat's sup 21:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - doubtful source. Looking at the full flickr set [143], there are several regular-attendee type photos with EXIF data and high resolution, and then a few pro shots like this with no EXIF data and low (web) resolution. --dave pape 03:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Davepape VartanM 00:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
before making a decision about this picture, why doesn't someone contact urgh at flickr and ask him directly if he actually took this picture himself...go to the source for the truth instead of just guessing ....just a suggestion danwex--Danwex 06:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)--Danwex 06:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)--Danwex 06:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've left a message on the flickr page, asking for clarification. It does appear to be pretty high quality; I would venture it's probably live, but it's possible with high-tech screens to get a good image anyway. Patstuart (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I cannot see any reason why this photo should be deleted. That this is a TV screenshot seems most unlikely, given the other photos this user uploaded to flickr, from the same concert in Switzerland. The license seems valid enough to me. No need for copyright paranoia here. The difference in quality could, e. g., simply come from the fact that the user edited the photo, zoomed and cropped, hence lost a lot of resolution. Happens to me all the time. --AndreasPraefcke 19:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted If you look through the other images in the set on Flickr you'll note that all the others have been taken on a mobile phone apart from one other which most certainly isn't taken by the uploader. I'd also note that the images show the people being some way back in the crowd not up near the front where you'd have a chance of getting an image like this. It seems obvious based upon these points that it is highly likely a copyright violation. Adambro 19:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
there is an identical picture already uploaded by myself. my wrong! tetraktys 00:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Where? You can tag it with {{duplicate}} if that's the case. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 01:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Closed the request. I have changed the normal deletion request to one for duplicates. As soon as the toolserver works again, the necessary steps for the deletion of duplicates will be taken and then the image removed. -- Cecil 09:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
xxx. 22:52, 14 January 2008 User:Karelj
- Delete Fixing request. Not sure what user was trying to do here when he created the subpage as the original deletion request has a good description: Image without descrption and source, no links to this page, low quaity. I think a "no source" template could do the trick too. Quality not too bad, but no source and no description makes this image unusable. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, no source. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- {{own work}}
Nothing in this category has a valid license ---Nard 17:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep this category, it's in use. Multichill 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nono, I'm asking to delete the category AND the files, none of which have a license. If this is kept I'm going to mark every single file as no license. -Nard 22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC) -Nard 22:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This category seems to have been created in early 2005 to note problem/attention needed original images. {{own work}} is not a copyright tag. I agree any images tagged with this and no copyright tag should be tagged with {{nld}}. After the individual images within the category have been taken care of, I'd agree with depreciating or deleting this tag unless some specific reason why it can remain useful is shown. -- Infrogmation 04:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Has a bot warned the users of the fact they have no license? There's some nice pictures in there, and it'd be a shame to see them all go... Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 07:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, bot warnings to uploaders yet I presume the bot has mistaken "own work" for a copyright tag, hence no bot notice? I think a bot warning the uploaders would be a good idea. -- Infrogmation 08:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Withdrawn. The files will need to get manually sorted out, and the tag is already deprecated. This request really won't solve it. -Nard 00:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept-ish, nomination withdrawn. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
We're gonna need some kind of better sourcing on a picture from the bottom of the ocean than this -Nard 20:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I added further information on the source for all three pictures. I took them during a dive at the wreck. Is it OK now? - Waterproof947 22:20, 21 January 2008 (GMT)
- Keep I don't see a problem now. -- Infrogmation 03:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept, problem resolved. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
After a discussion with the uploader, it was established that several images he uploaded were not his, and were copied from various websites were they were copyrighted:
- File:FeuStPol.jpg
- File:Berck62.jpg
- File:Balisage-Ildut.jpg
- File:Trezienphare.jpg
- File:394796386 6fce38ff81 o.jpg
- File:Carantec29.jpg
- File:Forest3.jpg
- File:LaVieille.jpg
- File:Roscoff29.jpg
- File:VER.jpg
- File:Sept-Iles01.jpg
- File:Guillemotroil.jpg
- File:Sterne pierregarin.jpg
- File:Stiff29.jpg
- File:Heve76.jpg
- File:PharePortel.jpg
- File:Rosedo0011.jpg
- File:Batzphare.jpg
- File:Porspoder.gif
- File:Blason grendelbruch.jpg
- File:BlasonMolliens.gif
- File:BlasonCoutances.png
- File:Boves.gif
- File:Pontdemetz.gif
- File:Clipsas4.jpg (fair use logo)
And these files are clearly derivative works:
- File:Signalétique.jpg
- File:IroiseZone.jpg (reads "photo of a map" as source)
Jul 21:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Images deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 16:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Marked as {{disputed}}, although I am not sure. -Nard 16:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Withdrawn looks good to me. -Nard 15:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative -Nard 17:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 06:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the reason of the request for deletion. An error?
--Pantoine 18:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is the thing you took a picture of and the packaging might still be under copyright. Stating just how old they are and what country they are from may allow us to see for sure. Under the rules at Commons:Derivative works something you take a picture of must not itself be copyrighted. Also, it troubles me that the image has a "fair use rationale" and was originally tagged as fair use when uploaded. -Nard 19:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe, the "fair use" is not adequate : I can change it. But what is the copyright difference beetween this and this Image:Hanomag L28.jpg?
--Pantoine 20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe, the "fair use" is not adequate : I can change it. But what is the copyright difference beetween this and this Image:Hanomag L28.jpg?
- The problem is the thing you took a picture of and the packaging might still be under copyright. Stating just how old they are and what country they are from may allow us to see for sure. Under the rules at Commons:Derivative works something you take a picture of must not itself be copyrighted. Also, it troubles me that the image has a "fair use rationale" and was originally tagged as fair use when uploaded. -Nard 19:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio of design printed on packaging MichaelMaggs 16:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Incompatible licensing. GPL + GFDL sources do not mean GFDL and creative commons on final product. GPL might be one way compatible with GFDL but I am not sure. Please note one of the source images, Image:Copyright-problem.svg itself has licensing incompatibility problems. -Nard 15:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
NOTE FROM AUTHOR: I give you permission to change license to whatever it needs to be, (I will agree to that license) > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 16:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There may be license compatibility issues (like everything else on Commons) but it pretty obvious the authors of this want it to be free. The CC part can be Rugby's addition to it, but it does have to remain GPL (not either or). A simple change of templates is all that's needed, not deletion. Rocket000 02:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Changed the CC license to GPL Badseed talk 11:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Incompatible licensing. GPL source + GFDL source Image:Tournesol.png does not equal dual licensed GFDL and Creative Commons finished product. GPL is possibly one-way compatible with GFDL, so perhaps it can stay without the Creative Commons dual license -Nard 15:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
NOTE FROM AUTHOR: I give you permission to change license to whatever it needs to be, (I will agree to that license) > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 16:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Changed the incompatible CC to GPLBadseed talk 11:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
marked as fair use -Nard 17:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The resolution isn't really interesting anyway! BTW, just to laugh a little, read the description: "photo of me" -> we have found the first cat to manage to make his photographic self-portrait! May we keep it? ;-) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The original uploader on en.wp appears to be the owner of the website it comes from. "Fair use" just seems to be the uploader's way of saying "you can use this". I've invited the uploader here to comment (breath not being held). Also, changed the license tag to {{Attribution}} since, from the text of the description, this is what the author seemed to have intended. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 08:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derived from copyrighted source, fair use claimed -Nard 17:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- The original image contained a photograph of the alleged hand of God goal (which is why it there's the fair use stuff), I removed that and the present image is available under a free licence, as far as I can tell. I can undelete the original photo on en.wiki if you want to see what I'm wittering on about. Nick 19:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
What are you wittering on about? Nice clear photo though.
- The present image is a hand-drawn illustration. There is no photo involved. Oppose deletion. 70.145.96.22 16:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Claims fair use. --ShakataGaNai Talk 23:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, uploader's won work. Not a derivative of something not free. --Kjetil_r 10:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept, this has gone on long enough. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I made an error in this image and it will need to be fixed! --18 January 2008 User:Saikano Fixed request -- Deadstar (msg) 15:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- You know, since this is a Wiki technically, you can overwrite it with a new version once you fix it. Vipersnake151 19:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fix the image. Actually, fix the whole page. What does "My Concent Only" mean? Rocket000 03:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Please delete this image and ban this user. He is w:User:Saikano and he is only here to cause trouble. Besides, the image is obvious copyvio. Ashibaka 19:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, not obvious enough for me. Maybe somebody else? The corrected version is up for speedy deletion: Image:I'll kill your family.jpg. →Яocket°°° 12:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I guess it's suppose to be Kohaku (Tsukihime). →Яocket°°° 12:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Original deltd as copyvio Badseed talk 07:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
These two images are Fake. They do not represent the coat of arms of the municipality of "Barra de Santa Rosa". The real one is Brasão Barra de Santa Rosa-PB.jpg.
- Brasao Barra de Santa Rosa.jpg
- Brasao barra de santa rosa.PNG Geovani.s (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 21:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dupilcate under Image:Interstate 359 (Alabama).svg (mandatory) --16 January 2008 User:Freewayguy
- Keep Not a reason for deletion. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. as superseded raster Badseed talk 07:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image is of relatively low quality. There is a higher quality .svg file of the image in the same category. Baclough 21:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep image in use. -Nard 22:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. in use/superseded rasterBadseed talk 07:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation: The image shows the original lego set 8143. See [144] --92.227.183.156 11:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Mr. 92.227 raises an issue here. I'm in agreement with the reasoning, and if it is correct, this is a good opportunity to clarify Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Licensing on this count, since both of these pages only seem to discuss toy copyright in the context of copyrighted characters, not to something like this... Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The lego tiles can be used to build any number of designs. -Nard 16:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- The lego bricks from this set can be used to build any number of designs, and it would be no problem if someone builds an own creation with the bricks and takes pictures of it and loads them up, but this special design was created by an employee of the LEGO Company and is therefore copyrighted. --84.61.42.250 20:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
marked as fair use -Nard 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, also bad sourcing, source listed as "Wikipedia English" without link; no history of any image under same name on en:Wikpedia. -- Infrogmation 04:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The source is probably en:Image:San Bruno map.png (it is quite suspect, and png→jpg conversion didn’t help either, but…) --Mormegil 22:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative -Nard 17:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Infrogmation 04:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Any opposition to me shooping the photo to replace the picture on screen with something else? Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 08:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative image -Nard 17:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Looks to me like an original image which includes multiple trademarked bottles. (Or is there some image of a series of bottles and glasses which I'm not familiar with which this is derivative of?) Might a "with trademark" notice be sufficent, or is this inherently a copyright problem? -- Infrogmation 03:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Add a "with trademark" notice. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Everyday objects, tagging "trademarked" is enough. --GeorgHH • talk 22:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. TM is not enough. This shows multiple copyright artworks. MichaelMaggs 17:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
outside project scope -Nard 18:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No proof of model permission to publish here. Durova 02:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment When I read such things I always wonder: "how can we get a proof of the model permission?" --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If we can't then we can't use it. Gustav VH 12:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well that doesn't answer my question: when we have a photo of someone, how can we prove we have theur permission? I mean, we can't have a video of everyone saying "well it's me on the picture and I agree"! So I repeat my question: how can we prove such things? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- IMHO, it just needs to be plausible. We can't require hard proof, sometimes we just have to take people's word for things, or nearly every image of humans would be deleted. Rocket000 05:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's what I meant. So the appreciation of permissions can be subjective sometimes, which is quite a weakness for Commons. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- IMHO, it just needs to be plausible. We can't require hard proof, sometimes we just have to take people's word for things, or nearly every image of humans would be deleted. Rocket000 05:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well that doesn't answer my question: when we have a photo of someone, how can we prove we have theur permission? I mean, we can't have a video of everyone saying "well it's me on the picture and I agree"! So I repeat my question: how can we prove such things? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment There are likely more images that this applies to from this user Special:Contributions/Gaynewyorker and their alternative account Special:Contributions/Figure4. Gustav VH 12:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure why this is outside of scope. It doesn't look like porn to me and these topics are addressed in other projects. Don't know about permission thing. Rocket000 05:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- This has a recognizable face in profile, indoors. Under these conditions model permission is necessary. Durova 05:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. MichaelMaggs 17:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
improper source -Nard 20:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Illegally taken photo on a not-open-to-the-public TV show set, depicting possibly copyrighted logos.) --19 January 2008 User:87.164.96.59 Fixed request -- Deadstar (msg) 12:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Whether the photo was taken legally or not is not our problem (breakin' the law! breakin' the LAWWW!); this would not stop anyone from redistributing the photo. No comment about the copyrighted logo thing, or whether there's some copyright on this element of the TV set... Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep no violation. The Flickr photos have been up over a year (since August 2006). If anybody actually cared they could have gone after the guy who allegedly "illegally took photos". Instead someone comes over to troll Wiki since it's so easy to edit. -Nard 15:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No violation. I believe this is a still from the actual broadcast, which is a public broadcast, making it legal to distribute.
Kept. giggy (:O) 05:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Citizendium Creation rate main.png --23 December 2007 User:TakuyaMurata Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Badseed talk 18:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
marked as fair use -Nard 17:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's not marked at fair use. The dutch text does mention fair use as the reason to create the image. The image at the en wikipedia is fair use so Robert Prummel created one himself so it could be used at the nl wikipedia. Multichill 22:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
marked as fair use -Nard 17:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Read original upload log, this photo is not freely licensed -Nard 17:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence that the author of this photo on the book cover died more than 70 years ago. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of copyrighted work (although I doubt the Bible is actually copyrighted) -Nard 17:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Depends on who made the translation. Afaik translations have a copyright of their own. --Herbert Ortner 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think we can say it's copyrighted. God's trademark? ;-) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Specific translations of the Bible are copyrighted, it's only the original Greek/Hebrew texts (and to appease any KJV-Onlyists watching, I'll say the original English texts as well ;)) that are not. There might be an argument to be made for such a short excerpt not being copyrightable, but I wouldn't agree with it (and neither would the uploader, it seems, since he called it "fair use"). Even if this case could be made, the Bible translation industry can be really assy about even tiny amounts of their work being used. Deleting this might save us a whole load of legal hassle in the long run. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 09:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I am the original uploader. The text was already on Wikipedia ([145]) when I recorded the sound file. Since the file's intended use was as a significant (but arbitrary) example of the Milanese dialect, and not related to the Bible, I'm sure some other text without copyright issues can be employed as a replacement. LjL 16:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, as per me; even though it's bad form for me to close a DR I've commented on, this has gone on long enough. Translations of the Bible are copyrighted, and so this is a derivative work. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
outside project scope -Nard 18:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No identifiable faces. Durova 02:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Can be useful. I don't think we have other "ass kissing" picture! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This photo is used only to vandalism. --Mago® 04:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Econt 15:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The author (Gaynewyorker) has requested that all his images be deleted before, and quite understandably so. Given the somewhat compromising nature of this photograph, I think it's only fair that we delete this one too. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is no user with the given name. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- User replied on his talk page that he meant the ru.wiki user :P -Nard 15:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete CIS(former USSR) republics have restrictive (non-commercial only) freedom of panorama hence these image is violating copyright. VartanM 00:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image replaced for image:Escudo de Montealegre del Castillo.jpg --23:00, 28 October 2007 User:Albaceteño Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept; images are not identical. --O (谈 • висчвын) 20:45, 13 June 2008 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image replaced for image:Escudo de Villalgordo de Júcar.jpg -- 28 October 2007 User:Albaceteño Fixed request -- Deadstar (msg) 16:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept; images are not identical. --O (谈 • висчвын) 20:43, 13 June 2008 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
map not accurate --13 April 2007 User:F3rn4nd0
- Comment Fixed request. This subpage was deleted in December, but the template was not removed from the image? Was there a decision ever made on it? -- Deadstar (msg) 15:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Durch Image:Karte Gemeinde Schlatt (TG) 2007.png ersetzt --13 January 2008 User:Tschubby Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. CD for Universal replace - then deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 01:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image replaced for image:Escudo de Casas-Ibáñez.jpg --28 October 2007 User:Albaceteño Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. CD for Universal replace - then deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 02:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image replaced for image:Escudo de La Roda.jpg --28 October 2007 User:Albaceteño Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 01:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-ineligible -Nard 16:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I note that the uploader simply tagged it as {{PD}} back in 2005, and another user changed the tag to "PD-ineligible". I agree current tag is bogus, but image may be PD for other reasons; was previously uploaded to en:Wikipedia in 2004. -- Infrogmation 05:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. "Taken with full permission from Electricity around the world." = No permission ShakataGaNai Talk 01:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image replaced for image:Escudo de Molinicos.jpg --29 October 2007 User:Albaceteño Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 01:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author. Conversion png to svg failed. Old Moonraker 16:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
US government is not the original source of this image. -Nard 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 01:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Marked with {{disputed}} because also published in a pdf -Nard 17:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please delete it. See (german) discussion. --Wdwd 15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 01:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fair use claimed -Nard 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. " Author : Friend "? ShakataGaNai Talk 01:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
original upload log shows this is fair use -Nard 17:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No Source & Originally claimed as Fair use. ShakataGaNai Talk 01:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
marked as fair use -Nard 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- But also marked as GFDL. // Liftarn
- Keep GFDL = OK --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept Fair use comment deleted. All OK now MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
marked as fair use -Nard 17:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, no clear evidence that any permission of free license was ever granted; Flickr photo source is copyrighted all rights reserved. -- Infrogmation 06:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep just a request of attribution. Maybe a message at the OTRS to confirm that? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Permission to "use" the image is not the same as a free license, sorry. -Nard 11:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Fair use "permission to use" has somehow been converted into a GFDL licence that was never granted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
marked as fair use -Nard 17:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep It has been released into the Public Domain by it's author, any other permission is therefore irrelevant. Does anyone doubt the authorship or the license? Is there any reason to doubt these? The note "fair use" just seems a belt and braces addon by an editor uncertain of the Wikipedia's rules. --Simonxag 21:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. PD appears OK. Image description amended to remove mention of fair useMichaelMaggs (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uralsk is already excisting --18 January 2008 User:Frokor
- Comment Fixed request. Not sure I understand this request: Is "Uralsk" a different name for "Oral, Kazakhstan"? Would we not be better off having a redirect? -- Deadstar (msg) 12:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it is. But I'd go for a {{Category redirect}} just in case... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Done as suggested above. Hope it's right. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I wrote the rationale for this image on en.wiki, back when I was first treading the waters of copyright law on Wikimedia projects. I am not sure it is free enough for Commons. -Nard 17:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment An original photo of an automobile free licenced by the photographer-- that part seems fine. Is the custom paint job visible on the van a copyrighted work that the photo is violating? If so, image doesn't belong on Commons; move the image back to en:Wikipedia. If not, remove the "fair use" argument from the image description on Commons. -- Infrogmation 04:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- This may be of some use [146]. Commons has speedy deleted this image before as a copyvio, but the great Jimbo himself once called it a free image. Discuss. -Nard 11:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not free, especially as this van appears to be available for commercial use under licence by the copyright owners. May be OK as fair use on WP, but not here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Misleading if not completely incorrect map, the image which superseded this one was deleted and so should this be --Gustav VH 17:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No source.--Ahonc (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
marked as fair use -Nard 17:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 02:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The image was uploaded on en:Wikipedia tagged "GFDL-self". Uploader also added their name and the phrase "fair use". Looking at the user's other uploads on en I think this was an original user photo GFDL licenced; with the phrase "fair use" added as a newbie mistake on one of their first uploads. I will ask for a confirmation/clarification at en:User talk:Authenticmaya, however as I see only one edit by that user in the last two months I'm not sure how active they are at present. -- Infrogmation 04:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Can't keep unless the uploader can confirm it was a mistake. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Rp11
[edit]- File:Reverso 2 Bs.F.JPG
- File:2 Bs.F.JPG
- File:Reverso 5 Bs.F.JPG
- File:5 Bs.F.JPG
- File:Reverso 10 Bs.F.JPG
- File:10 Bs.F.JPG
- File:Reverso 20 Bs.F.JPG
- File:20 Bs.F.JPG
- File:Reverso 50 Bs.F.JPG
- File:50 Bs.F.JPG
- File:Reverso 100 Bs.F.JPG
- File:100 Bs.F.JPG
"material del gobierno de Venezuela para su difusion" is not a free license and certainly not GFDL. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Will someone translate that for English speakers plox? Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Material from the government of Venezuela for diffusion (ie publication)". Just because something was given out as a press kit or specimen doesn't make it free. OTH we have loads of bills from other countries where the copyright hasn't technically expired. -Nard 15:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Why should the government have released these under GFDL? MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
January 22
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
„dieses Bild stellt aber eine URV dar, de es lediglich eine fototgrafische Abblidung eines nur in innenräumen ausgestellten Bildes ist. --Aineias © 22:16, 21. Jan. 2008 (CET)“ (here: it's a copyvio beacuse it's a photo of a picture which is only exposed indoors Ireas talk•de•en 06:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
'Speedy deleted because of derivative work/copyvio. -- Cecil 06:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A History of Theatrical Art was printed in 1903 in London[147]. This image may very well still be under copyright in Europe -Nard 04:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I think this image was already old and in public domain when it was reprinted in that 1903 work. -- Infrogmation 05:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep seems almost certain that the work is much older, and was reprinted in the 1903 because it was public domain. Sherurcij 05:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep even if it was first published in A History of Theatrical Art, the author of the book (Karl Mantzius) died in 1921, so it went out of copyright quite a while ago. I'll update the description accordingly. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 07:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 18:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no proof given that the author has released this image under this license, nor that the uploader is the author of the image --141.151.184.107 05:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete source website says it's copyrighted. © 2004-2006 SkateToday.com -- Deadstar (msg) 10:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 18:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong file name --User:Fabi 12:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted {{duplicate|Image:Fata Corbet.jpg}} -- Deadstar (msg) 09:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no subject, no info, low quality --30 December 2007 User:Szilas
- Delete Fixed request. Image is out of scope as it doesn't show anything in focus. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 18:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
identified people; unused; useless --19:55, 21 December 2007 User:Kaganer
- Delete Personal image, not used. Out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
If this photo was given away by the Venezolanian Gov. than this is purely a press license. In addition the license tag contradicts this statement. ALE! ¿…? 13:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I nominate further images for the same reason, they all (including the first listed image) was uploaded by Don Trejo (talk • contribs):
- Comment It excist another open deletion request for this: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Jaime Lusinchi.jpg --GeorgHH • talk 16:01, 22 January 2008 (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.
Obviously not a 2nd century image, uploaded under false pretenses, most likely copyrighted Andrew c 15:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Google books/web/blog search turns up nothing on "Domenici San Pietra" either. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 15:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted; false information and likely copyright violation; uploader previously uploaded less cropped version of same image where it was clear it was from a modern book cover. -- Infrogmation 05:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ZIP-file, renamed to PDF --Motopark 15:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Blatant copyright violation; this contains copyrighted anime artwork. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Non-admin close, Rama speedied it. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This painting is a derivative work of a famous copyrightes photo of Bob Marley. ALE! ¿…? 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete derivative work. Durova 21:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- you're right. i uploaded it but i saw - it is'nt free. sorry --Baran Ivo 21:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ZIP-file renamed to PDF --Motopark 15:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mikrobiologie.pdf. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Non-admin close, Rama speedied it. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
empty page --Broadbeer 22:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Result is Speedy Keep: free image of the person found, page no longer empty. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Some more realism, please. Image:Heath Ledger.jpg is a copyvio from Photo by Kevin Mazur, 2007-11-13. ©Kevin Mazur/WireImage.com. Photo ID 15134415. See also Commons:Problematic sources#Celebrity shots. The image is tagged as {{copyvio}} now. Lupo 12:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deletion request reopened. Lupo 12:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't particularly appreciate the "more realism" comment; the image wasn't tagged as a copyvio when I closed this. As it is, I don't see why we need a deletion request for the page; it's empty, we should just delete it... EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete only image is an obvious copyvio. We can recreate this later if we do find some free images. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Right now more used as tribute page since it is empty. -- Cecil 19:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's still there, and the reqeust was made becaus I'm not an sysop on Commons. --Broadbeer 21:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was recreated after my deletion, because some people once again uploaded pictures. But it turned out that all of them are copyvios. Haven't deleted the site again because most uploaders put the new pictures there and so all those copyvios are much easier to find. Just a look every few minutes and delete picture. -- Cecil 22:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Clever devil ;) --Broadbeer 22:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was recreated after my deletion, because some people once again uploaded pictures. But it turned out that all of them are copyvios. Haven't deleted the site again because most uploaders put the new pictures there and so all those copyvios are much easier to find. Just a look every few minutes and delete picture. -- Cecil 22:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I uploaded the wrong photo. I don't have a license to use it yet. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 23:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted; mistaken upload, swift uploader request. -- Infrogmation 08:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Much as I hate to do this (I'm sure you all know me as an inclusionist who bends over backward to find reasons to keep images) this has to go. Contains many unfree logos -Nard 03:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Trim off the bottom 32 pixels, then... AnonMoos 07:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Please just go on and speedy delete it. Gurch has looked at it and fixed the bug in his program and that's all it was intended for, him to see the bug. Thanks. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 08:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, no longer needed, uploader does not object. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not belief that the uploader is the author of this image. ALE! ¿…? 09:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio, Last-Modified header of this predates upload here by nearly five years (!). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not belive its self made. It is same uploader user name as in Russian copyvio article w:ru:Billy_Wingrove. --ajvol 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete sauce says "All rights reserved", looks like a publicity shot, no permission asserted. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as simple copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not really pd-self. -Nard 15:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Sure the commercial UEFA has allowed to license this picture PD? Source? --80.238.133.41 23:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio, appears on this page with a Last-Modified header predating the upload of this picture by over a year. Chances are it existed before then, too. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 08:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as per pre-admin me. Simple copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Resolution makes me dubious it's own work. Suspect screencap or promotional shot. Megapixie 23:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, actually speedy-delete pending on this. Patrícia msg 23:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedied as per Patrícia. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
there is nothing specific to see --21 January 2008 User:Frank C. Müller Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- well thanks for dropping by, I want to use the photo in my user_page...I hope that's a genuine concern...hmmm? my contribs--Nothing is free in this world 15:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep good point, good contributor, cute picture, might as well keep it. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Early close and keep, personal picture from a very good contributor. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicate of Image:Oceanic.Stripe.Magnetic.Anomalies.Scheme.gif Pieter Kuiper 15:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and for simple duplicates, please use {{duplicate}} next time. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 19:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
worse duplicate of Image:Steinbruchmuseum Königshain.jpg --User:Alma 09:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Fixed request. Images are identical, but other version is "sharpened". -- Deadstar (msg) 15:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate (I can't tell the difference). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
worse duplicate of Image:Steinbruchrestloch Königshain.jpg --Alma 09:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Fixed request. Images are identical, but other version is "sharpened". -- Deadstar (msg) 15:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment They look the same to me. Might as well nuke one of them. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Collard: Duplicated file: Image:Steinbruchmuseum Königshain.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looking at the upload history of this user I just do not believe that he took this photo personally. ALE! ¿…? 21:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete this and all other uploads of this user. Given the number of redlinks in his upload log, and the number of pictures thereon which were lifted from other websites (without any permission stated), AGF time is over. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 09:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 18:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no reason to think author died >70 years ago - same problem as other uploads by Haabet Calliopejen 02:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the work is not anonymous as the description suggests, it's credited to "H.E. Deutsch", an American photographer who was active in Paris in the 1930s. I can't find anything about when he died, but that would only have had to be about four years after this photo was taken for this to still be copyrighted. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 08:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- There are something wrong on commons. A newspaper will without hesitations use similar photos.haabet 08:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
swearword, swearword, swearword. Commons are stupid. :-(haabet 19:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reviewed the same day it was uploaded. All rights reserved -Nard 03:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Dur, it was reviewed a year later. :P -Nard 03:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Since we don't know whether this was ever valid (the Intarweb Archive has no copy) we may as well delete it. We can always find another picture like this. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 07:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. as flickr inc __ ABF __ ϑ 15:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Exist already onthis place, bigger and better. FrancoBras 09:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Fixed request. Nominated image very blurry and better alternatives available. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete but not that fast. It's still used. Rocket000 10:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Will be Deleted. I told the delinker toreplace it. It will be deleted soon. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
seems to be copyrighted to majorplm.com – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete likely not copyrighted to that website, but with the life + 70 rule the photographer would have had to die a couple of years before the photo was taken for this to be PD. Copyright violation either way. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All rights reserved. 1 December 2007 User:G.dallorto Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete wrong kind of Creative Commons license on Flickr. Durova 21:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio - 70y pma not asured when taken 1920 h-stt !? 17:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 22:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Comes from clipart web site [148] with no indication of original source or reason for photo being PD. dave pape 19:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unconfirmed permission only for Wikipedia use. GeorgHH • talk 18:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 14:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
old photo. 10 January 2008 User:Suguru@Musashi
- Comment Deletion fix. User has also uploaded Image:Shimakaze model.jpg, which is a crop of this image, perhaps that's what is meant by "old photo"? -- Deadstar (msg) 10:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- So sorry, the photo was uploaded by me, because I think this photo call Shimakaze is not good, so I want to delete it. Thank.--Suguru@Musashi 11:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as redundant. For the record, Shimazake.jpg has a higher-resolution version in the history. — Omegatron 22:30, 9 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, this photo is most probably a copyvio. ALE! ¿…? 13:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Omegatron 22:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation. Serbia Football Assoiciation ist no governmental organisation. --User:89.49.68.243 15:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Omegatron 22:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Same file as Image:MORGAGNI.gif McLeod 15:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Deleted the other file as the duplicate (the one nominated for deletion is the one in use).Nilfanion 12:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Triplication. User:FrancoBras 20:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Fixed request. Where are the other two gif images? I suggest we keep and close this request if answer is not forthcoming. User has been nominating non-duplicates before. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept No triplication found. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Primary source/original author is missing, thus not possible to determine the copyright status nor that the first publishing was in Poland. Another reason: without knowing the author the associated date it may be wrong,too. Denniss 15:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Every info is given, author is unknown. {{PD-Polish}} is obvious. Ist das die Autorsfrage, oder die Frage den Dokument-Photo - Zeichen von Lutwaffekriegsverbrecher in Polen in 1939 in Commons zerstoren ? ( Is this a question of authorship or question of deleting from commons document photo of Luftwaffe war crime in Poland in 1939 for any reason ?) See "Die Zeit" 07.2003 Best regards: Andros64 17:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Who is the author? How are you able to verify the date of creation without even knowing the creator? How are you able to verify the first publication was in Poland? There's not really enough known for a valid PD-Polish license. --Denniss 23:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Author is anonymous one ( till today for almost 70 years haven't disclosed his identity) - maybe he was one of ca 6.000.000 victims of World War II in Poland (Jewish and Polish).
Such way photo was made by unknown author, and first published in Poland. According to Berne Covention Art. 5. [149] the place of first publishing resolves the question of law, which should be in effect towards the photo. It is not a matter of nationality or citizenship of an unknown author. The question is resolved by the place of publication ( Poland). The rest is described in template in detail.
See also: Image talk:The Bochnia massacre German-occupied Poland 1939.jpg with its final conlusions.
See also Image talk: Forced labor, workers captured by german police (Poland 1941).jpg with its final conclusions (according to international law - particulary the Berne Covention).
Best regards: Andros64 11:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Poznaniak1975 16:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I`ve just checked in delivered sources, there`s no original autorship for sure - sources don`t mention who personally is an author. I suppose that this photo was made by one of Wieluń inhabitants, who probably died during second world war in Poland. There are dozens of similar examples on wikipedia commons, see this for instance: [150] Image:Warsaw Uprising - Royal Palace.jpg Image:Warsaw Uprising - Polish Bank.jpg. All in all, it is impossible to establish autorship, so this license is valid. Picture was broadly published in polish newspaper after 1945, historical books, and so on - without clear copyright notice (as anonymous work). Regards. Spetsedisa 14:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Sources seem tho be there now.--Jarekt 01:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is practically the same image: Image:Image Image:Blason comte fr Nevers.png, no links o this page -- 25 November 2007 User:Karelj Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Blason ville fr Nevers.png
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Poor quality image. Fonts changed when I uploaded the map. --10 December 2007 User:Té y kriptonita
- Comment Fixed request. Map looks fine to me. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Looks fine here too. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The fonts do have issues. The MediaWiki generated-png differs somewhat from the image I see when Firefox generates the image itself from the upload. However, when I open the image in Inkscape it matches the MW thumb, so the bug is apparently in FFs rendering.--Nilfanion 21:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There is no replacement for the image, we can't just start deleting image who may not look fine when there is no alternative for them! The Ogre 13:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
|
I do not belive in 'self-made' __ ABF __ ϑ 15:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly a scanned image. Deletes unless proper source is given. --Dodo 11:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 21:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not PD? see en:Image:Texas state seal.png --Shizhao 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Copyright information on the commons page looks valid. --fryed-peach 07:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Withdraw my vote. --fryed-peach 09:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Work of the Texas state government not the US Federal government, therefore not PD-USGov.--Nilfanion 12:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
|
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The USHMM no longer claims that the image is in the public domain. It now only says "Copyright: USHMM". Kam Solusar 19:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
So, why did you open this deletion request? Doesn't that just mean that the copyright tagging should be changed...just change it accordingly and leave the image. - Zarbon 21:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure now - but if the USHMM ever released it under a PD license, surely we don't have to change anything? Released=released? -- Deadstar (msg) 09:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Correct. But the difficulty is in knowing whether this is the case. First, the image was incorrectly tagged right from the start, which raises concerns all by itself. Secondly, unless someone finds a copy of the original page in the Internet Archive or whatever (and to Zarbon: this is why you should always note the precise page on a site that an image came from, it greatly increases the chances that we will be able to find out whether a license was ever valid), we have no way of proving that the "release" ever happened. Furthermore, it's unlikely that the USHMM ever held the copyright on these photos in order to release it. Obviously there wouldn't have been a Holocaust memorial museum in 1933, and the USHMM (as with pretty much every other site on the Internet) don't seem to be as stringent about sourcing and copyrights as we are. Failing any evidence that they released it PD, and that they were ever assigned the copyright in the first place, I say Delete unless we can claim this as an anonymous work (therefore publication + 70 years). Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 11:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- From what I remember, many WW2 images on the USHMM website were stated to be PD but deletion request discussions showed that those claims were unfounded or not verifiable. They later changed the PD-status of the images to "Copyright: USHMM", but in many cases there's still no information as to why they think they own the copyrights. --Kam Solusar 05:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
DeleteThey haven't changed all of their images to Copyright: USHMM, some are still PD (e.g. [151]). What I think happened is that they got told of for claiming things were PD without any proof so now they are limiting that claim to US gov images and images where they might have been given the rights. /Lokal_Profil 18:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. For the umpteenth time. Per my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Baldurvonschirach.jpg. Lupo 16:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The previous debate was closed with the closer also participating in the discussion. I'm relisting this to gauge more consensus. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:04, 22 January 2008 (GMT)
- I confirme my opinion: Keep at least because it's a work by artist Peter Klashorst so we have to keep it for that. For those who think we have enough of his works, I'd answer that it would mean we have to make a choice to delete some of his works and keep other works, which would be a non-neutral choice, i.e. contrary to the rules of Wikimedia. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Just a note: Usually we keep renominations on the same page. But this way works too. (Oh, and no reason to delete. The last one wasn't a valid closure.) Rocket000 08:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As per Commons:Deletion requests/Inappropriate cartoons. Since this is a notable artist, it is not our task to decide which images other wikis want to use. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep image is perfectly fine and yes, too hot. -Nard 23:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
replace --15 January 2008 User:Aeusnd
- Delete User replaced image with Image:Miguel 1980.jpg, both of which are likely copyvios. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment also see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Miguel 1981.jpg which is likely about a similar image. User commented there that "he had no permission to use". -- Deadstar (msg) 08:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Unlikely that either was "self-made", user is untrustworthy. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no work of the work of the United States Federal Government, done after 1935 by a German photographer --Polarlys 18:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- delete from commons but it okay to use on en.wiki Madmax32 18:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 20:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Second nomination
[edit]Surely not "a work of the United States Federal Government ". Iinformation about the author is missing. No reason why it should be in the public domain. Kam Solusar 19:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 21:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete, recreation of an image already deleted. Also recommend a serious warning to User:Araneus, who uploaded it both before and after its second deletion. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Redeleted for the 3rd time. -- Infrogmation 08:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please will somebody delete this thing. I uploaded it by mistake. The original website where I got it does not allow commercial re-use or alterations, hence invalid for Wikipedia --Rcbutcher 07:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep no need to delete this. The Crown copyright in this work has expired. It doesn't matter what license the site claims to grant, since they don't have the copyright over it. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 08:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by MichaelMaggs: Talk page of image deleted per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:QF2.95inchMountainGunDiagramPalmerstonFortsSociety.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I made a mistake on the title: this flag is not that of Rio Crespo but of Vale do Paraíso. I am sorry for the mistake. FrancoBras 19:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Badseed talk 00:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"L’Apocalypse en français" was published in Paris in 1900[152]. This image may very well still be under copyright in Europe unless the artist is known.. -Nard 04:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep seems almost certain that the work is from one of the Manuscripts that your link clearly says dates from the 12-14th centuries. The fact a book with a similar title was published in the 1900s most certainly does not indicate that this image is from that book. Sherurcij 05:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Mechanical reproductions of material that was already public domain over 100 years ago are still public domain. -- Infrogmation 05:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I being the photographer of this image wants to delete from this site. 19 January 2008 User:202.133.69.119
- Comment Fixed request. Nothing seems to be wrong with this image, Keep. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Also uploaded larger version from enwikiBadseed talk 08:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A photo older than 70 years is not automatically PD. We need 70 years after the death of the its author. ALE! ¿…? 13:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No author information Badseed talk 07:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Same case. This photo is older than 70 years but that is not enough for PD. ALE! ¿…? 13:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No author information Badseed talk 07:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
localizador con imager callejeros y lugares --21 January 2008 User:80.102.135.103 Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I made the picture. No valid reason to delete it. Poppy 22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is no FOP for statues in the US. ALE! ¿…? 09:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 12:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is no FOP for statues in the USA. ALE! ¿…? 09:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 12:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It is a public road panel, at the entry of the site.
Lucyin 17:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Nuw Beach Ganada --20 January 2008 user:216.211.52.174
- Comment Fixed request. Not sure if the reason given actually means anything? -- Deadstar (msg) 15:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
extreme low quality, no info --7 January 2008 User:Szilas
- Comment Fixed request. Blurry image of a cannon. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 12:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The date of death of the aritst ("Câmpineanu") of this painting is not stated. So it might be that it is still protected by copyright law. ALE! ¿…? 09:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is the Romanian law - in Art. 7 it was stated that the rights for photografs stand for 10 years only from the date of the creation of the photo` this is true for photoes that were created before the year of the law, 1956. Thank you! Arie Inbar 19:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- P. S. Hashmonea was a newspaper and "Câmpineanu 15" was the adress of the newspaper. Arie Inbar 20:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that when Romania joined the EU it had to retroactively impose the life+70 laws of the EU. 84.108.245.222 23:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The law can't be imposed retroactively. Any work that was released into the public domain, cannot be returned to copyrighted status. Arie Inbar 17:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, unfortunately that is possible. --ALE! ¿…? 09:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- That seems highly unlikely, and in fact contradicts the way laws are carried out. If that would be so, someone who used public domain photos (for instance) in a book, would suddenly be guilty of a civil offense.
- Such a claim requires evidence, both for the general claim (that it can be done), and for the specific claim (what Romania did or didn't do). Okedem 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, unfortunately that is possible. --ALE! ¿…? 09:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- The law can't be imposed retroactively. Any work that was released into the public domain, cannot be returned to copyrighted status. Arie Inbar 17:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that when Romania joined the EU it had to retroactively impose the life+70 laws of the EU. 84.108.245.222 23:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- P. S. Hashmonea was a newspaper and "Câmpineanu 15" was the adress of the newspaper. Arie Inbar 20:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
xxx. 15 January 2008 User:Karelj
- Comment Fixed request. Not sure what user was trying to do when creating the subpage as he did give a reason on the image: Very low quality image, not sharp at all, lot of very similar images of this bird exists. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Remover, it is not useful to have such bad images of birds, it is impossible to spot the characteristics for identification, there are already good images in Category:Parus caeruleus, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom. Used only on one user page. MichaelMaggs 09:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No FOP in former USSR republics. -Nard 03:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think we can say there's a problem of copyright for that. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per TwoWings. --Kober 06:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Due to lack of FOP in photographed location ShakataGaNai Talk 05:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Exists alreready on this place, bigger and better. User:FrancoBras 09:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Different formats, superseded images are not deleted. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The new image was more representative (most flags don't have "rounded edges"). Did a CommonsDelinker replace before delete. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Exists in this place: bigger and better quality. User:FrancoBras 19:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Fixed request. Different formats, images not the same. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Both gif's, nom is smaller and unreadable. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
old version of the maccabean revolt map, I'm author --15 December 2007 User:Faigl.ladislav Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
useless; ordinary appearance --21 December 2007 User:Kaganer Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. "Ordinary" is not a reason to delete. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I think this goes way beyond the possibilities of {{PD-textlogo}}. But the current license is not applicable anyway. ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- As I [[User: Fjodor12] the press officer of RTL interactive, I am authorized to upload the company logo, but perhaps I made a mistake by defining the wrong license? Which should I prefer? —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Fjodor12 (talk • contribs)
- Comment That depends on what restrictions on using the image that RTL interactive wish to place on reuse of the image. We can help you pick an appropriate license if you like. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 15:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. I am keeping this and tagging it NPD instead. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Não irei mais utilizar esta imagem. --11 December 2007 User:King-Stately Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Author requested, not used. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
better version was already uploaded as AreaFlotacion01.svg --19 December 2007 user:Claudio Elias
- Delete Fixed request. Better version is Image:AreaFlotacion01.svg. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep unless the second one is fixed, shows text outside of the document's boundaries, which is bad. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. The "new" version has text truncation issues. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
traslated. 12 January 2008 User:Fran González Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC) It can be deleted, because it is no longer necessary. It has been replaced by another better image.
Thank you.
Fer31416 20:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not used. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
нет необходимости в этом изображении --21 December 2007 User:Илья Карташев Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not used, superseded by PNG ShakataGaNai Talk 05:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Can't find it via the search on the NARA website, but I doubt that this photo is a work of the United States Federal Government. Who was the author of the image? Kam Solusar 17:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. I can't fine it on NARA either. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
and Image:Russian victories.jpg.
No freedom of panorama in Georgia. Monument was definitely created after WW II and it's main subject of photos. --EugeneZelenko 14:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- So, what is the reson for the reqwest to delete? Geagea 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- No freedom of panorama in Georgia. --EugeneZelenko 16:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I regret that I am unable to verify the source, which I thought was NASA. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- See also the discussion at en:User talk:Jeff_G./Archives/2007/December#Image:AuroraBorealisFromSpace.JPG. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have also tried to find a NASA source for this image, searching all the databases etc. I too can not with certainty say that the image originated from NASA. If it is from NASA, then most likely it was on their shuttle main newspage, which is often not properly archived and thus has a tendency to be totally useless as a source :( TheDJ 20:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete due to not having a reliably verifiable source, thus unknown copyright and content. The things which look wrong in the image (aurora over the Amazon during a Shuttle flight under the clouds when the Sun was in the wrong position in the sky) would make it a historic image if its origin from a Shuttle could be confirmed. Make this one go away. -- SEWilco 03:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- The apparent NASA comment that "aurora ... in astronaut photographs are green in color, not bright blue" (see link above) seems curious, since I can immediately find several other images of blue (or at least bluish) aurora from space in Category:Polar aurora, including this one as well as this one actually showing the shuttle in the foreground (which looks very similar to this one; I'm not sure if they're different versions of the same image or just taken at the same time and place). Are these also fakes, or is aurora color from space variable after all? —Ilmari Karonen 04:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- That very much depends on how the image was processed actually. The stars that in the background worry me most. In my opinion, with the clarity of the earth that is visible (clearly daylight), there should not even be any stars visible. So much reflected sunlight from the Earth would cause a short shutter time in which the stars simply are not visible. Only high exposure durations should show any stars. And if a photo like this does show stars, they are usually much more varying in size. In my opinion, this image is a photoshop. Perhaps still one by NASA, but I doubt it. It looks like someone set out to make a cool desktop picture for himself. Those two images you identified are not the same btw. Image:Aurora1 sts39.jpg is a low res scan from the late 90s. These were very basic, and almost no processing at ALL occurred on these. What came out the scanner was pretty much taken for granted. It is image STS039-342-026. Image:Aurora-SpaceShuttle-EO.jpg was processed by the Earth Observatory desk based on the original photograph. In this image the Shuttles thrusters are not firing. It is an image that was take just seconds later and is identified as STS039-342-028. They are VERY close, but not the same. TheDJ 22:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. Please also see this discussion at the reference desk on Wikipedia. Thanks. AstroImager001 22:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- That discussion was archived to w:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 April 28#Aurora_borealis_from_space.3F. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Compelling evidence that this is not what it seems, and that it is not a NASA image. On that basis, the NASA PD tag is wrong, and nobody has established what the source of this image is. Unknown copyright + unknown source = delete. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work (photo) of a copyrighted work (drawing). ALE! ¿…? 13:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, photo (recently made by me) of a drawing the artist made for me, of my son, in 1970. Pvt pauline 09:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Sorry, this needs permission from the artist. The fact that the drwaing was done for you, and that it shows your son, does not mean that you own the copyright in it. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work (photo) of a copyrighted work (drawing). ALE! ¿…? 13:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- work is not copyrighted, given to me by artist in 1970 Pvt pauline 09:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Needs a licence from the artist. Copyright does not pass with physical ownership of a painting. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A palace and a castle are two different things, if anything two separate categories should exist, Category:Palaces in Paris and Category:Castles in Paris. Gryffindor 10:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC) --Gryffindor 10:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's not empty though. - Rocket000 23:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
January 23
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Note - Image:Konstantin_Pats1939.jpg is nominated for deletion for broadly similar reasons. Nick
Pictures younger than 70 years are protected by copyright. Raul6 09:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- This document is not a legislation (act, decree, regulation, statute, instruction, or directive). --Raul6 09:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The following comments existed on the page prior to the deletion discussion starting, they appear to be relevant to the discussion. Nick
- Keep Disagree with the Deletion request. the image is a government publication, published by an institute of the Estonian government in 1939 and represents the Commander in chief of Estonian Army.Termer 07:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Works of governmental institutions a subject to copyright in Estonia. It's not like USA. --Raul6 20:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Pictures created/published before 12 December 1992 in Estonia are not protected by copyright according to the younger than 70 years rule! Please see a commentary at juridica.ee by Heiki Pisuke, Professor of Institute of Law, concerning the retroactivity of authors and related rights: The 1992 text of the Copyright Act did not provide a direct answer to the question of whether works created before the entry into force of the Act (12 December 1992) are also protected under copyright. The 1999 amendments make it clear: (§88) that such works are protected under copyright within the whole term of copyright which, as a rule, is the life of the author plus 50 years after his or her death. -related rights are protected during the entire term of protection (as a rule, for fifty years). --Termer 11:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note FYI: I've notified the nominator [153] that the procedure for deletion is not completed since the image has not being added onto the log. --Termer 07:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am confused. The copyright act mentions 70 years, but this professor mentions 50 years. Does he mean that before 1992 the rule was 50 years pma? -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- That seems is the case that retroactively they can only apply the 50 years rule according to the Bern convention. That seems also is in sync with neighboring Finland where it has been made clear in the law itself Template:PD-Finland50.--Termer 20:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- That doesn't make sense to me. {{PD-Finland50}} has got nothing to do with retroactivity or the Berne Convention. It is about so-called "simple photographs", i.e., photos that are not deemed to be "works". For Finnish photos that are works, life+70 applies. (In fact, such Finnish "simple photos" may well be copyrighted in other countries to life+70, if they're treated as "works" there. But that's another discussion...) Estonian copyright law does not have the concept of "simple photographs".
- Pisuke's paper dates to 1999. I would think that the 1992 law had a term of life+50, and that in 1999, when that paper was written, Estonia still had a term of life+50. In 2004, Estonia joined the EU. To do so, it had to extend its copyright term to life+70, so the extension must have happened between 1999 and 2004. Estonia has also implemented EU directive 93/98/EEC (see the most recent Estonian copyright law (amendments up to 2006), at the very end). This directive made the extension to life+70 also apply to works on which the previous 50-year term had already expired, if the works were still copyrighted in any other EU country. Since other EU countries have had a term of life+70 since the mid-1990s, and Estonia had joined the Berne Convention in 1994[154], this Estonian photograph was subject to a life+70 regime in the other EU countries, and thus it is subject to life+70 today in Estonia. Lupo 22:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The crucial question is therefore who was "Parikas" (stated as the author)? When did he die? Lupo 22:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Was it Georg Johann Parikas or Peeter Parikas? Some info is here (in Estonian). I can't read this language, but my guess is that Georg Johann lived Oct. 30, 1880 - Oct. 22, 1958, and Peeter lived April 16, 1889 - July 6, 1972. If that's right, the case is moot: the photo is copyrighted. Lupo 22:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete I have to admit that Lupo has brought forward some valid points here. The commentary by the professor above appears to be outdated indeed since Estonia had joined the EU in 2004, and therefore the authors rights that include economical rights meaning copyright in this case life+70 according to the general EU rules should apply. Also, the photo seems has been taken by the Parikas brothers who owned a shop together at the time. Considering this as a collective work and that the last brother died in 1972...the conclusion, this has been my mistake, the image is not free, authors rights including copyright are still valid. Therefore please delete the image from commons. Thanks!--Termer 05:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
PS. I've added the image to the deletion log.--Termer 05:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Soy el autor y quiero eliminar esta informacion. Kogoyin 13:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Please consider using {{speedy|}} next time. --Christian NurtschTM 14:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/guntherlove/153185713/ says all rights reserved --Motopark 15:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Obviously copyrighted. --Christian NurtschTM 17:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
zip-file, renamed to PDF --Motopark 15:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. file(1) reports that it's a zip file. Might be corrupt; unzip refuses to extract it. Also, the nominator has caught out two other Zip file uploads and there's no reason to distrust him. Good catch. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Non-admin close, speedied by Majorly. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is not free use - it is a screencap from McFly's video Sorry's Not Good Enough -Mattbuck 12:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Tagged with {{copyvio}}. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination Durova 12:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rocket000: copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Logo is non-free Ahonc (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation 07:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No proof of license -Nard 03:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 07:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Ken Marschall is still alive and with a website as far as I can tell. He definitely did not die 70 years ago, anyway, since he has a lot of credits to his name on IMDB. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 07:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedied as per pre-admin me. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(Inscription is black, not green. Source: BBC and Parliament of Iraq.) --Patrick 08:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Apart from that, the new flag should be at Image:Flag of Iraq.svg and the old one moved to Image:Flag of Iraq (2004–2008).svg... —Nightstallion (?) 09:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Actually, a very dark green (0b480d), not black, according to the images on both those sites. I have corrected the SVG to match. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 09:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Collard, thanks for your help on fixing the color. Nightstallion is right on the naming. Hoshie 09:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could someone do that, then, please? :) —Nightstallion (?) 09:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- NOT YET!!! (Full explanation coming in a few minutes. There is a VERY good reason not to; I'll write it out after I finish breakfast, which I just made. Wanted to get this one in before anyone did anything.) Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 09:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, as I was saying. :) First, since the flag is only temporary and likely to change some time in the future, this image should be left where it is. This gives a way for projects which use this flag to refer to the current version of the flag in a non-time-dependent way (i.e. "This is the flag that was adopted in 2008..."). Secondly, since "Flag of X" pictures should always refer to the most current version of a flag, overwrite Image:Flag of Iraq.svg with the new one. Move the old one as Hoshie has suggested. After doing that, we should also have a note on Image:Flag of Iraq.svg that anyone wanting to refer to the 2008 version of the flag in a non-time-dependent way should link to Image:Flag of Iraq 2008.svg instead. Gimme a few minutes and I'll take care of this. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 10:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, delivered as per above. The old version of the flag is at Image:Flag of Iraq 2004-2008.svg. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 10:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could someone do that, then, please? :) —Nightstallion (?) 09:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept, issue resolved. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
replaced by Image:Flag of Chaco province in Argentina 2007.jpg --Fernandopascullo 10:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep superseded images are tagged, not deleted. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 13:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Tagged and Kept as per me and Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
IMHO it is very doubtful that this image was taken by the uploader. ALE! ¿…? 13:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete From [155]: "27 Apr 1994: Ronald Koeman of Barcelona in action during the European Cup Semi-Final match against Porto played in the Nou Camp Stadium in Barcelona, Spain. The match finished in a 3-0 win for Barcelona. Mandatory Credit: Shaun Botterill /Allsport (#1204981)" Carl Lindberg 08:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
IMHO it is very doubtful that this image was actually taken by the uploader. ALE! ¿…? 13:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The image was uploaded at en-WP as en:Image:JohannCruijff.jpg on July 6, 2006 as a "fair use" image without source. It was deleted as "invalid fair use" on June 3, 2007. It was then re-uploaded from vi:Hình:JohannCruijff.jpg on June 7, 2007, and again deleted on June 14, 2007 for not having had a license tag. Original source is sport.ard.de: web site on the soccer WM 2006 of a German TV station. The image shows Johan Cruiff at the WM 1974. I'ts clearly a copyrighted press image. Lupo 10:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Speedyed as copyvio. User blocked. __ ABF __ ϑ 20:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fair use from http://mondvor.narod.ru/OPobeda.html sk 16:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Image is crop version http://mondvor.narod.ru/OPobedaDosk.jpg, digital signature agree --sk 16:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, straightforward copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hier der Grund. kaputt? --29 December 2007 User:Origamiemensch Fixed request. Due to hardware, I can't check whether it is broken or not. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete file appears to have no content other than a very, very quiet "ee" sound. Not usable for anything. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 09:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as corrupt file. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is a previously uploaded reproduction of the same painting with higher resolution: Image:Grand Duke's bride by Repin.jpg --J.M.Domingo 03:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 07:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - other image much clearer. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The sign dont exists. The real sign have the white border, not the black one. --ŠJů 05:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. It exists ever since you made it. All I see is a blue square, but whatever, you're the uploader and it's not used so request granted. Rocket000 03:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Commons:Project scope? Looks like blatant advertising. -- Cecil 23:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete For same reason ALTON .ıl 01:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Image description pages are no place for spammy Wikipedia articles. Rocket000 03:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Once again Commons:Project scope. -- Cecil 23:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope / Spam. Rocket000 03:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Off-topic: why does your userpage User:Terker redirect to User:Termer? There is no account for User:Termer! Lupo 20:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
yes Raul6 17:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The redirect, User:Termer that's my username also in Wiki and I just tried to rename my account at one point accordingly to keep it the same but then it didn't work or something and I ended up using the redirect somehow...If possible and anybody has any admin tools, or knows how to rename my userpage-name-account, would be nice if I could have the same username on both commons and wiki. But then again it doesn't matter really. The redirect is a bit messy I agree and in case you have any suggestions what should be done about it, please let me know. --Terker 03:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest you request a rename at Commons:Changing_username. Please crosslink to show you control the other account on the other wiki. No comment on the image itself by me should be construed from this. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip ++Lar: t/c! I'm going to proceed with this right away. --Terker 21:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Pictures created/published before 12 December 1992 in Estonia are not protected by copyright according to the younger than 70 years rule! Please see a commentary at juridica.ee by Heiki Pisuke, Professor of Institute of Law, concerning the retroactivity of authors and related rights: The 1992 text of the Copyright Act did not provide a direct answer to the question of whether works created before the entry into force of the Act (12 December 1992) are also protected under copyright. The 1999 amendments make it clear: (§88) that such works are protected under copyright within the whole term of copyright which, as a rule, is the life of the author plus 50 years after his or her death. -related rights are protected during the entire term of protection (as a rule, for fifty years).--Termer 09:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note FYI: the procedure for listing the image for deletion is not completed by the nominator.--Termer 09:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- We don't always stand on bureaucracy, we try to do the right thing. Why not help out and do whatever is needful to get it listed properly if you don't mind, so we get more discussion? I do tend to agree with your reasoning though. ++Lar: t/c 11:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Lar, I've let the deletion nominator know [156] that he has not completed the deletion procedure and what the situation is according to the Estonian copyright law with the retroactive rights as spelled out by the Professor of Institute of Law. Sorry but that's the best I can do as somehow I just don't have it in me, listing images for deletion by myself that I've uploaded because it's free and not copyrighted to the best of my knowledge. --Termer 17:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete The commentary by the professor above appears to be outdated since Estonia had joined the EU in 2004, and therefore the authors rights that include economical rights meaning copyright in this case life+70 according to the general EU rules should apply. This has been my mistake, the image is not free, authors rights including copyright are still valid. Therefore please delete the image from commons. Thanks!--Termer 05:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
PS. the image has been added to the deletion log.--Termer 05:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Termer and my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Johan Laidoner1939.jpg. Lupo 13:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 13:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
empty --Shakko 13:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 12:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Is this PD? -Nard 02:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly doubt that the Government of Venezuela releases their currency under GFDL as the uploader claims. Delete unless public domain status is shown and some more probable tag put on image. -- Infrogmation 07:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 13:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request: It is not a category, but a page for itself; also, the name should be Hugo Gunckel or Hugo Gunckel Lüer --Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 16:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. We already have Hugo Gunckel. Mormegil 22:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images by Optimus07
[edit]After I commented on the use of a rather peculiar range of cameras for supposedly self-made photographs, Optimus07 (talk • contribs) acknowledged that he or she has uploaded several images with claims of being the copyright holder in spite of the photographs having been taken by other people. More than a week later, the user has not identified exactly which images were taken by others or provided any permission information. Since then, the user has also been caught uploading copyright violations from Marcus Grönholm's official website and others. Messages about this were simply blanked.
Group 1: According to the user, the authorship claims are true for photos taken in Argentina, except for those of the service park. I'm guessing that means these:
Group 2:I'm unsure about the location of these (and hence whether they fall under the claim that photos from Argentina are correctly attributed):
|
Group 3: These ones depict the Argentinian service park and were taken by someone else, according to the uploader:
- Image:Parque de Servicio en 2004.jpg and the visually duplicate but differently sized Image:Service park arg 2004n.JPG (Nikon D100)
- Image:Parque de servicio argentina 07.JPG (Sony DSC-S600)
Group 4: These ones were taken outside Argentina and were taken by someone else, according to the uploader:
|
|
It seems deletion is in order at least for groups 3 and 4 as identified above, but I'm not comfortable with the unknown status of group 2 given the uploaders record, and I would really like to see a clearer assertion even for group 1 if they are to be kept.
—LX (talk, contribs) 21:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete them all. AGF time is over, since we have no reason to trust the uploader on anything. Also, thank you for an excellent nomination, LX. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 22:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the lot. Anyone who deliberately mis-represents copyright should be blocked without further notice. Megapixie 03:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all. Uploader's history makes the author and source information of these images very untrustworthy. Prolog 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I had to uploaded some images in this place because I was doing a job with other persons. If you want to delete all the photos is okay but I can tell you that Loeb shakedown.JPG; Box Subaru.JPG; Interior Subaru.jpg; Ford- Boxes1.jpg; Parque de servicio argentina 07.JPG; was taken by me. Sorry for all the problems --- Optimus07
Deleted exept indicated as self-made. --Panther 13:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
|
This should finish the discussion once and for all. Sent an e-mail to VI asking: Hi Acording to the page http://vector-images.com/about.php under the heading "Copyright & disclaimer" it says that: "Raster preview images in GIF or PNG format of Vector-Images.com can be freely used on other web sites or any media for any purposes with quote to Vector-Images.com (link to www.vector-images.com) only. " I was just wondering what is meant by "freely used". Does this mean that if I trace the raster preview images into vector format I'm allowed to sell it? The reply that I got was: Thank you for your e-mail and interest in our services. We do not allow to resell our images in any way. All the cliparts on our web server are copyrighted. We do not provide the rights to revectorize our images. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. -- Best regards, Yuri Vector-Images.com support@vector-images.com So with "use freely" VI does not allow commercial use and limits derivative use hence not making this license free enough for Commons. /Lokal_Profil 22:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC) To clarify, this means this discussion is no longer about whether to delete this template and all images tagged with it. It is about the best way to proceed with this. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC) |
Paragraph 1.1.1 in their term of use states: "For the purpose of this Agreement, "Licensed Material" shall mean any illustration, visual representation or other product protected by copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property rights, which is delivered in any format to Licensee by Licensor under the terms of this Agreement.", thus what states on the about page isn't really true. →AzaToth 22:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete this and all images tagged with it. "Vector versions are not permitted" (as the tag says) is an unacceptable restriction. Two other unacceptable restrictions from the linked page:
- "Licensee may not sell, license or distribute its work in such a way that Licensee's customer can extract or access the Licensed Material as a stand-alone file."
- "You may modify and publish all images as you wish in any personal, commercial or professional project for decoration or illustration purposes even if you resell your work. You can not in any way make the images available for download or distribution, or give permission to download or save the images from your project as clipart or graphics."
- Not good enough for Commons. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 23:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- There has been deletion debates about this template before; each time there was, a Russian user has manage to come up with a solution by talking to the owners of the website. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I've never felt comfortable with the notion that we should be trusting a third party for our copyright decisions, rather than directly addressing the copyright holders for clarifications on their licenses. This situation is murky at best; did VI create all of them? Hard to know. But, I found this diff asserting VI stole images to be quite troubling indeed. I don't think we should necessarily delete these images, as there are a huge number of them, but perhaps we should make a special case for these; delete this template, put the images in a special category, and wait six months then delete any that have not been resolved as to their copyright status. Whatever trust I had in VI is now shattered. Further, their license agreement is more restrictive than we accept. In particular they do NOT want their images to be placed on "any other type of project that would encourage visitors to download or save images." Commons actively ENCOURAGES visitors to download, save, use, etc. images. This just doesn't work. We are talking about a lot of images, but we should have the courage to move forward, away from this highly problematic source. --Durin 00:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- DeleteAfter looking at the terms page and looking at the points Durin made, he makes a good suggestion. Yes, some of the images at the website are under a public domain license due to Russian law. Many of the images that might need deletion will occur from non CIS countries. We don't need to do this quickly, but I can understand the frustration that Durin expresses that dealing with this website is a hassle, especially with out ever increasing policies on "what is considered free" for Wikimedia. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment What is "considered free" on Commons is not "ever increasing". The restrictions given above would have been unacceptable right from the start. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 09:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I know their terms have been changing too, but what I tried to get at is almost each deletion debate with regards to this template in the past, there has been at least some change in what kind of images we accept on the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I have trouble believeing that VI wouldn't mind if I download a raster image from them, trace it into vector format and then sell it on my own competing webpage. If they explicitly say that thats acceptable then fine but I'm guessing that non of the questions to them has been that direct. As a sidecomment, yes they might not own the rights to all of their images but the same applies to every other wrongfully licensed user created derive work on Commons. Just like then we have to look at the image and ask ourselves does this license apply for this specific instance. /Lokal_Profil 01:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You're right, they would mind; the terms explicitly say that "[y]ou can not in any way make the images available for download or distribution". Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 09:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep From the first sentence of vector-images terms of use "When you purchase vector image from...". Template is about bitmap images. --EugeneZelenko 15:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- That might be a valid point; purchase vs. use of preview images. It's unclear from the terms exactly whether the terms explicitly apply to only purchase items or everything on the site, as the terms.php file is linked from the copyright statement at the bottom of the page. That aside, I'm still quite troubled by the evidence that VI has been stealing images. Allowing a third party that we know to be stealing images to be making decisions on copyright status of something is fraught with trouble. --Durin 18:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's true that this template relies on the statement: "Raster preview images in GIF or PNG format of Vector-Images.com can be freely used on other web sites or any media for any purposes with quote to Vector-Images.com (link to www.vector-images.com) only. Please read also our Terms of use." So parts of the Terms of Use might not apply. Still however I repeat that I think VI would mind I download a raster image from them, trace it into vector format and then sold it on my own competing webpage. And this is one of the freedoms that we require from images on Commons. /Lokal_Profil 19:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Preview images are under acceptable license. Bought images are not. -Nard 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- So you are saying VI wouldn't mind if I converted their preview image to vector format and started selling it? Lokal Profil 23:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at the correspondence on the template talk page, and the fact that the ToS refers to "licensed material" which one has bought, I would say yes. It says "any use". -Nard 00:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Look at paragraph 1.1.1 in the Term of use, I read it as the bitmap versions apply as well. →AzaToth 00:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at the correspondence on the template talk page, and the fact that the ToS refers to "licensed material" which one has bought, I would say yes. It says "any use". -Nard 00:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- So you are saying VI wouldn't mind if I converted their preview image to vector format and started selling it? Lokal Profil 23:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I can't trust them to be honest about where they got the images after they put my image up for sale without attribution. If they made all the images themselves it would be fine, but it turns out that they don't. Ipankonin 09:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Nard. Достали, ей-богу. --Panther 10:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Keep, I think. The terms linked to here are only for the vector images which are downloaded (or anything else which becomes available after a user has explicitly agreed to the license, as 1.1.1 states); obviously we can't use those but that is not what the template is for. They may have a problem with others tracing one of the bitmap images, but they don't say that -- they say "any use", at least currently. These terms apply only to purchased vector images, or any other material which comes on purchased CDs. The making available of wikipedia material is troubling, but didn't they take it down once notified? If they get their material from uploaders, they are in the same situation as Commons, having to assume good faith unless shown otherwise. If they did not take it down, or if they themselves took it from Commons knowing it was a copyright violation, that would be much worse. Carl Lindberg 18:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Keep, we use bitmap, not vector images. --jed 23:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like somebody who's voting to keep to explain why it's okay for us to delegate copyright decisions to a company that has stolen images from Wikipedia and passed them off as their own. Ipankonin 08:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- There are near 3000 images of Russian municipal insignia, uploaded by me. They are not stolen from Wikipedia. Maybe you should discuss individual images, not the template or company? --Panther 10:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's entirely appropriate to discuss the company. If the company has a record of stealing work from Wikimedia contributors (or anyone else) and claiming it as their own, then that's a damned good reason to mistrust any images that come from that site. That their license terms are confusing AND the tag explicitly forbids making vector versions of their raster images, which is a completely unacceptable restriction makes it worse. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- In same way as users of Commons content delegate copyright decisions on Commons community. What is the difference? Are number of errors in Commons (false licenses, derivative works, freedom of panorama violations, images without author info claimed to be in PD as anonymous work) significantly less then in case of Vector-Images? --EugeneZelenko 16:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- There are near 3000 images of Russian municipal insignia, uploaded by me. They are not stolen from Wikipedia. Maybe you should discuss individual images, not the template or company? --Panther 10:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's certainly appropriate to discuss, if it's a common occurrence. I'm not going to vote to delete over one mistake though; I'm usually more interested in how they handled the mistake. It sounds like they get (contract for?) artwork from many people around the globe. I assume they have to trust those people to deliver original artwork, legally derived... it is inevitable though that mistakes may be made from time to time. If one of those people was trying to get paid for your work, certainly that's not very cool, but I'm not sure you can blame vector-images management directly. It's also quite possible that that person mistakenly thought it was a PD license, made some tweaks to it, then called it his own. That's a bit more innocent, and happens all the time from people unfamiliar with copyright law. Commons itself is probably far worse in those types of mistakes, so it seems a little like the pot calling the kettle black to condemn all of vector-images over single mistakes. All Commons can do is fix any such situations as we become aware of them, and it sounds like that is what vector-images did in your case. In looking over some of their stuff, most of the items I've looked at seem original to me... their versions of U.S. Government symbols in general seem to be noticeably different than artwork available either here or on U.S. Government websites. For example, I have not found a vector version of the reverse of the Great Seal anywhere, but they have one. I'd hope that is original, as it has a mistake on the "Annuit Cœptis" inscription.
- As for the license, it's pretty clear that it only is for the small-scale bitmap preview images, and the terms of use is for the vector and large-scale-bitmap versions which you pay for. The talk page indicates that using the small bitmap images to create our own vector versions is allowed; that was specifically asked before. It sounds like they are only concerned with making sure that someone does not download a vector version from their site then upload that (or a derived work) here, and the tag needs to make that explicit -- probably it could be worded better.
- For an example of Commons licensing issues... there is this image, recently uploaded by Ipankonin. It was his own work combined with elements taken from four other SVGs, as it notes. Two of those SVGs are PD, but one is CC-BY-SA and the other is dual-licensed CC-BY-SA and GFDL. However, the final result was also multilicensed as CC-BY-SA and GFDL, which could be a problem. While the issue is being worked on, currently the two licenses are incompatible -- you can not relicense GFDL into CC-BY-SA, and going the other way is uncertain at best. So, saying that someone else's CC-BY-SA work can be used under the terms of the GFDL can be construed as a copyright violation (it can be CC-BY-SA in this case, but not both). Furthermore, the "Author" section does not credit the original authors, which it should to comply with CC-BY-SA, as they own part of the copyright on the derived work. Of course, it gets better... the phrygian cap was the only element taken from this image, which is the one dual-licensed. That in turn was a simple extraction from this flag image, which is marked as PD -- so the user probably had no right to add those licenses in the first place, as all of the creative artwork was from the flag SVG. Even better, the phrygian cap on the flag image itself was changed by that same user from its original look (which may have been more appropriate, as it is more consistent with the look of the rest of the image) to the one from this image, without even noting the source and author (and at this point, who knows if that was the original place). At least that last original is PD, but it is still a good idea to note authorship of sources, as moral rights often exist even if copyright does not. Carl Lindberg 17:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- The difference would be that I did attribute the original authors by linking to their images. Maybe a better explanation of the copyright is to say that the elements that came from the other images go under their licenses, and all original work is dual-licensed. That is what I was implying by linking to the other images. As far as I know there is not a template on Commons that adequately explains that sort of situation, and including all of the license templates on the page would be really cumbersome. Ipankonin 00:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you did link the sources, so most people can figure out the authorship -- more than many folks do. However, the author's names themselves are not listed in the "Author" section on your image page, which is a very basic requirement of CC-BY and CC-BY-SA -- they need to be named on the page. Furthermore, through no fault of your own, you did not name or link to the author of the phrygian cap (since the image you pulled it from took it from somewhere else without any attribution at all). The cumulative result is that you have an image claimed as your own, with your own license stating you are the only copyright holder, without crediting any other authors, even the one who does (I think) hold a portion of the copyright. It's impossible to say whether there were multiple similar stages of your image on its way to vector-image's website, or if they knowingly stole it directly (which is obviously worse).
- As for the license, you really can't have a partial license -- that is why there is no tag ;-) The only license acceptable for your Senate seal image is CC-BY-SA, since that is the license of one of the components (the fasces) and your image counts as a derivative work. I suppose you could add a note saying that your portions can also be licensed GFDL, which may well aid future derivative works, but that image as a whole cannot be licensed that way I don't think. Due to the incompatibilities, you cannot combine GFDL-licensed and CC-BY-SA-licensed components into the same derivative work unfortunately (I have seen some deleted under that reasoning), since both licenses require you to use its same license for any derivative works. It sounds like people are working to resolve the incompatibilities in future versions of the licenses, but right now they are technically incompatible I believe. Carl Lindberg 00:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Very curious. I'll keep that in mind, and thank you for pointing it out to me. I've said before that copyright ignorance is a bigger problem on Wikipedia than copyright paranoia, and it looks like I've been guilty of it. Ipankonin 11:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The difference would be that I did attribute the original authors by linking to their images. Maybe a better explanation of the copyright is to say that the elements that came from the other images go under their licenses, and all original work is dual-licensed. That is what I was implying by linking to the other images. As far as I know there is not a template on Commons that adequately explains that sort of situation, and including all of the license templates on the page would be really cumbersome. Ipankonin 00:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- This should finish the discussion once and for all. Sent an e-mail to VI asking:
- Hi
- Acording to the page http://vector-images.com/about.php under the heading "Copyright & disclaimer" it says that:
- "Raster preview images in GIF or PNG format of Vector-Images.com can be freely used on other web sites or any media for any purposes with quote to Vector-Images.com (link to www.vector-images.com) only. "
- I was just wondering what is meant by "freely used". Does this mean that if I trace the raster preview images into vector format I'm allowed to sell it?
- The reply that I got was:
- Thank you for your e-mail and interest in our services.
- We do not allow to resell our images in any way. All the cliparts on our web server are copyrighted. We do not provide the rights to revectorize our images.
- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
- So with "use freely" VI does not allow commercial use and limits derivative use hence not making this license free enough for Commons. Delete /Lokal_Profil 22:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Modify then Delete template only I say at first, edit the template to require a new one be put up (such as the english wikipedia "Non-free image" template), and then delete it after a few months, once the changeover has been complete. Don't delete the images, as some may be quite valid, and simply have an improper tag, where another one may be more suitable/appropriate. RingtailedFox 02:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Stop any new uploads. Add tips about possible other suitable licenses (such as for russian CoAs). Set a definite end date by which time all images still tagged get deleted. Without the end date the images are just going to be forgotten and nothing new will happen. BEfore this end date images can be deleted via deletion requests and similar. Also remember that many images are derived from VI images so before deleting an image we must check "what links here" and then mark any derivatives for deletion (or if it's a minor part of an image ask the creator to replace it with a free image instead). /Lokal_Profil 03:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nonsense. If this came from Vector-Images.com then they're not freely reusable and need to be deleted. Why on earth should we give images that came from this site more of a chance than we do the other copyvios that come along? Is Commons here to give them free advertising or what? Also bear in mind that if an image is (say) a Russian CoA, then while the CoA itself may not be copyrighted, a particular expression of it might be. I'm not familiar with Russian copyright law on this count (in Britain, the image would be copyrightable even if the CoA itself was PD), and really, I don't care enough to find out. Nevertheless, if you want to go through them, go through them now. I'm not waiting for several months before deleting them. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- The different with the russian ones is that VIs versions are often identical to the official ones (hence giving them no new copyright), same thing might apply for other places where the official CoAs are by law free. Also the difference between this and other copyvios is that this one affects 4000-5000 images which has for several years been free. There might be other free alternatives currently on Commons but if we just delete all in one go then non will be replaced with free ones. Also deleting all in one go means that we'll miss all derivative images which need to be tagged/author informed. Don't worry you don't have to go through them since this is a wiki and you don't have to do anything. Also you don't have to wait several months to delete them, you can let someone else do it when the time runs out. /Lokal_Profil 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Does this mean that you're volunteering to go through them? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- And BTW, "I'm not waiting several months" means "I think any images with this license tag are likely to be shot on sight". Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- The different with the russian ones is that VIs versions are often identical to the official ones (hence giving them no new copyright), same thing might apply for other places where the official CoAs are by law free. Also the difference between this and other copyvios is that this one affects 4000-5000 images which has for several years been free. There might be other free alternatives currently on Commons but if we just delete all in one go then non will be replaced with free ones. Also deleting all in one go means that we'll miss all derivative images which need to be tagged/author informed. Don't worry you don't have to go through them since this is a wiki and you don't have to do anything. Also you don't have to wait several months to delete them, you can let someone else do it when the time runs out. /Lokal_Profil 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nonsense. If this came from Vector-Images.com then they're not freely reusable and need to be deleted. Why on earth should we give images that came from this site more of a chance than we do the other copyvios that come along? Is Commons here to give them free advertising or what? Also bear in mind that if an image is (say) a Russian CoA, then while the CoA itself may not be copyrighted, a particular expression of it might be. I'm not familiar with Russian copyright law on this count (in Britain, the image would be copyrightable even if the CoA itself was PD), and really, I don't care enough to find out. Nevertheless, if you want to go through them, go through them now. I'm not waiting for several months before deleting them. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Stop any new uploads. Add tips about possible other suitable licenses (such as for russian CoAs). Set a definite end date by which time all images still tagged get deleted. Without the end date the images are just going to be forgotten and nothing new will happen. BEfore this end date images can be deleted via deletion requests and similar. Also remember that many images are derived from VI images so before deleting an image we must check "what links here" and then mark any derivatives for deletion (or if it's a minor part of an image ask the creator to replace it with a free image instead). /Lokal_Profil 03:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Modify then Delete template only I say at first, edit the template to require a new one be put up (such as the english wikipedia "Non-free image" template), and then delete it after a few months, once the changeover has been complete. Don't delete the images, as some may be quite valid, and simply have an improper tag, where another one may be more suitable/appropriate. RingtailedFox 02:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep — per N and Eugene. --Boricuæddie 22:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Eh, The voting is pretty much irrlevant at this point, the question is how we should proceed in the removal of the images. →AzaToth 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see how that makes the vote irrelevant. With my keep, I say that we should not remove the images, as stated by N and Eugene. --Boricuæddie 23:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- The voting is irrelevant because we now have proof that the template is not consistent with Commons requirements. Before this there was voting/arguing about how to interpret the existing information. /Lokal_Profil 23:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Where is the proof. I have not read the entire discussion, but I have read most of it, and I fail to understand how previews violate the terms of use set by the website. --Boricuæddie 23:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well if you haven't read it all that might explain it. Anyhow the last e-mail (the proof) has now been placed at the top of this page. /Lokal_Profil 01:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Where is the proof. I have not read the entire discussion, but I have read most of it, and I fail to understand how previews violate the terms of use set by the website. --Boricuæddie 23:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- The voting is irrelevant because we now have proof that the template is not consistent with Commons requirements. Before this there was voting/arguing about how to interpret the existing information. /Lokal_Profil 23:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see how that makes the vote irrelevant. With my keep, I say that we should not remove the images, as stated by N and Eugene. --Boricuæddie 23:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Eh, The voting is pretty much irrlevant at this point, the question is how we should proceed in the removal of the images. →AzaToth 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- If the above is (and remains) their answer, then certainly at the very least we can not allow any new images using the tag. Reading the talk page though, the very same question was asked just this past May, and apparently got a very different answer (which was a follow-up to an earlier response that looked more like the one you got). So, I'm not sure if they have just changed your mind, or if there was something misunderstood last time, or if there is someone not familiar with the past communication (and maybe just giving a stock answer). Also the tag is specific to coats of arms and flag images from their site, not all preview images -- not sure if that makes a difference.
- The template has been discussed several times from the looks of it, and kept following clarifying statements from them. In good faith afterwards, many images were uploaded, and we should not be in any kind of a rush to delete those. Their status is uncertain to be sure, but it can easily argued that they were used by permission before, so this would constitute a change in terms which we cannot use going forward. It may be a good idea to correspond again, including the past emails and contact addresses, to clarify the situation. It may be better to ask in Russian as well, so there is nothing lost in communication. This is far from a normal copyvio situation though, so I would not treat it like one. Carl Lindberg 04:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- There isn't going to be a rush for deletion. The only exception is for new images from this site. We need to figure out how many images we have from this site, stop new uploads, then sort things out. While I trust Eugene and the other emailers who sent messages before, I have no clear idea of what was said, mostly because the emails are in Russian. If it needs to be clarified about the preview images, then I will send another email and see what happens. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Now with the toolserver being down now, most of these deletions will need to be done by hand or wait to see if our delinker bots will still work. I personally deleted 2 or 3 images from this bunch, mostly for false sourcing (image claimed to be from VI, but the images differ by many factors). Also keep in mind that some of the images from VI have SVG replacements on en.wikipedia, but they are not on here yet. One example is the reverse of the Oregon flag. I did a vector version of the flag, just too lazy to put it on the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- There isn't going to be a rush for deletion. The only exception is for new images from this site. We need to figure out how many images we have from this site, stop new uploads, then sort things out. While I trust Eugene and the other emailers who sent messages before, I have no clear idea of what was said, mostly because the emails are in Russian. If it needs to be clarified about the preview images, then I will send another email and see what happens. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry, but when explicitly asked about supposedly free raster preview images (not about for sale images) VI has explicitly said "We do not allow to resell our images in any way. All the cliparts on our web server are copyrighted. We do not provide the rights to revectorize our images." That is, Non Commercial and Non Derivative. So... what's the purpose of this discussion? I mean, if the licensing conditions were compatible before, existing images may be kept (but foreseeing tor replace them ASAP) but new ones cannot be accepted. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 10:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This message (in Russian) was received by me from vector-images in May 2007. (Now it was forwarded to OTRS).
- The key words here are (written by Yuri Rosich, Vector-Images.com Marketing manager):
- "никаких ограничений на использование растровых файлов превью мы вообще не накладываем кроме требования указания на источник."
- which means:
- "We do not limit any use of our preview images except the right source indication"
- and
- "Все изложенное выше является официальной позицией представляемой мной компании и может быть цитируемо и публикуемо без изъятий"
- which means:
- "this is the official position of the company represented by me, and may be cited and published without any reduction"
- --Panther 13:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Enough of them. The "whether to delete" discussion is over. If they can't even decide among themselves what the license terms of their images are then why should we bother? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 15:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Who told the discussion is over? Did you do it? I cited the official position of the company. Whose the text from this "notice"? What is his name? Let ask Mr. Rosich, but not the opinion of the unknown person. --Panther 17:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- First, Panther, thanks for sending it to OTRS and reading my message and second, I sent an email addressed to Yuri specifically. The email is at User:Zscout370/viemail. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The reason I sent the new e-mail (sent to support@vector-images.com and answered by Yuri) was so that I could ask the question bluntly using the most extreme case of a free license (as required by Commons). /Lokal_Profil 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I also sent it to the same address you sent it to Lokal, and I addressed it to specifically to Yuri. I also included examples of derivative works that I did, so we can show what we mean by derivative works. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- But did you ask about selling (commercial use) vectorisations (derivative works) of their images. I asked about this since it was the thing that they were most likely to object to. After all why would they want to allow anyone to set up a competing website selling "their" vector images. /Lokal_Profil 21:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The first two sentences of the second paragraph mentioned about the commercial uses of the images, such as our CD and DVD versions the Germans are cranking out. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if this was made clear by other context, but I don't see in your email that you specify that we are talking only about the low-scale bitmap preview images. If I was in business selling images, my assumption would be that "your images" would refer to the ones being sold :-) Also, the tag currently specifies coat of arms and flag images only, not all preview images -- not sure if that distinction is important to them either (it may be; I assume the tag says it that way for a reason). Carl Lindberg 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Don't know if you are reffereing to my e-mail or Zscout370's. If your reffering to mine then "Raster preview images" is quite clear and the page "http://vector-images.com/about.php under the heading "Copyright & disclaimer" is exactly the one we use in the template as a motivation for why the images were allowed. /Lokal_Profil 00:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was referring to Zscout370's. My main concern with yours is perhaps it was a stock answer to a misunderstood question... "raster" may be lost in translation to a Russian reader. Given the history behind this template, it seems like a good idea to at least try to get a reply from a more authoritative person from there. Of course if we keep pestering them every few months when it's listed for deletion again, they may just give up and say "no" ;-) Carl Lindberg 01:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Don't know if you are reffereing to my e-mail or Zscout370's. If your reffering to mine then "Raster preview images" is quite clear and the page "http://vector-images.com/about.php under the heading "Copyright & disclaimer" is exactly the one we use in the template as a motivation for why the images were allowed. /Lokal_Profil 00:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if this was made clear by other context, but I don't see in your email that you specify that we are talking only about the low-scale bitmap preview images. If I was in business selling images, my assumption would be that "your images" would refer to the ones being sold :-) Also, the tag currently specifies coat of arms and flag images only, not all preview images -- not sure if that distinction is important to them either (it may be; I assume the tag says it that way for a reason). Carl Lindberg 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The first two sentences of the second paragraph mentioned about the commercial uses of the images, such as our CD and DVD versions the Germans are cranking out. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- But did you ask about selling (commercial use) vectorisations (derivative works) of their images. I asked about this since it was the thing that they were most likely to object to. After all why would they want to allow anyone to set up a competing website selling "their" vector images. /Lokal_Profil 21:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I also sent it to the same address you sent it to Lokal, and I addressed it to specifically to Yuri. I also included examples of derivative works that I did, so we can show what we mean by derivative works. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The reason I sent the new e-mail (sent to support@vector-images.com and answered by Yuri) was so that I could ask the question bluntly using the most extreme case of a free license (as required by Commons). /Lokal_Profil 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- First, Panther, thanks for sending it to OTRS and reading my message and second, I sent an email addressed to Yuri specifically. The email is at User:Zscout370/viemail. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Who told the discussion is over? Did you do it? I cited the official position of the company. Whose the text from this "notice"? What is his name? Let ask Mr. Rosich, but not the opinion of the unknown person. --Panther 17:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
We have more images from them other than flags and coat of arms. I have seen medal images from them appear on the website. I have seen logos and emblems of military forces and ministries of the Russian Government. So it is more than just the flags and coat of arms. Plus, I showed them raster images as the examples, so they know what I am speaking of. I haven't got anything tonight, so I will see what happens. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete You are all missing the point, whether or not they drew the images themselves they do not own the copyright to the images, despite what they may claim. This is a common problem with copyright, people think "I took the time to draw this therefore I own the copyright", however the copyrights are actually help by the people (or a governmental organ) of the country that created the insignia in the first official document containing it. It can get pretty annoying here on the commons sometimes, there is no accurate way of labelling national insignia, so people use PD-Self, or other weird licenses like this one. There is no way a website holds the copyright to half the national insignia in the world, especially as most were created years before the internet even existed. What you are not understanding here is that if I take a PD image such as the flag of the USA, redraw it, and upload it to a website I own, I don't magically acquire the copyright to it! And if the image was not PD to start with then redrawing it myself is copyright infringement. So this license is entirely bogus, as are all the other flags, and coats of arms uploaded as GFDL, or PD-Self. Just stick your heads back in the sand and move along, or else tag all flags and insignia on the commons for deletion. The phrase I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses: is simply not true, a commons user has never owned the rights to national insignia, and never will, they are copyrighted by the governments or in the public domain, but definitely not copyrighted by some random website, or commons user. So my advice, is to just go on ignoring the problem, and pretending all is good, just label everything GFDL, or PD-Self like we always do. Jackaranga 20:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that the above isn't always true. Anyone who draws a Coat of arms based soly on the blasoning (i.e. not just redrawing the official interpretation) will be the copyright holder of that image. Now as far as the blasoning since a good blasoning describes the Coat of arms in very general terms (i.e. "a castle" not "the Windsor castle") graphical interpretations of it are generally considered be original works. /Lokal_Profil 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, this is not necessarily true. Usually, a blazon leaves a lot of room for artistic interpretation, and each individual emblazon or rendition may very easily have enough original artwork to qualify for copyright. This does not prevent any other artist from making their own interpretation, which would be an entirely separate work (and neither of them would be a derivative work of the textual description; each would be an original work). For example, both this image and this image are both independent emblazons of the reverse of the U.S. Great Seal; they both qualify as being the seal but artistically they are not derivative of each other in any way, so the each artist held copyright on their version (which has lapsed for both of them... and technically, the first one may have been a derivative of an 1850s version). If a version does not add enough original expression to qualify for copyright, then it would carry the same license as the original, which in many cases is PD due to how long some versions have existed. If that is the case for any of these, then tag with PD-old, instead of or in addition to the vector-images tag. If the design is very simple, then PD-ineligible may apply as well. It is common courtesy to identify the source though even in these cases. If they were generated from a vector-images owned vector version, then it seems reasonable to credit them in any case. Carl Lindberg 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Definitly agree. The images that we do save should still credit VI. /Lokal_Profil 00:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Dubious, since we know VI has stolen images in the past. --Durin 18:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I feel it very strong words for single case. Do you have court decision on this matter? If not please keep such opinions inside. --EugeneZelenko 16:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Dubious, since we know VI has stolen images in the past. --Durin 18:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Definitly agree. The images that we do save should still credit VI. /Lokal_Profil 00:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Re-upload images to the projects as fair-use. VI's license is very similar to the UK government's Crown copyright. Any images that can't be re-licensed can be freely uploaded to those projects that accept less-than-free images (I think we can assume good faith most of the time as to their ownership as long as there's no evidence to the contrary). The projects that don't use fair-use are still screwed, but it's better than every project being screwed. Ipankonin 06:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually these images don't qualify for fair use on most projects for the simple reason that there are free alternatives available. Since coats of arms can always be created freely from the blasoning there, by default, always exists free alternatives. /Lokal_Profil 15:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
A suggestion: Alot of these images have been superseded by free SVGs. The problem could be reduced (As far as the number of disputed images) by aggressively migrating all other projects to these SVGs and then deleting the VI-rasters. Wont completely solve the problem, but will reduce the apparent inflation. 68.39.174.238 16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- If we create a list of which VI images have alternatives then CommonsDelinker can fix it, even raster -> vector if it's a one of thing. I've already created such a list for the Swedish VI coat of arms. /Lokal_Profil 17:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Found 220 VI images which are tagged with vector version available or superseded. They can be found here
- Keep. Keep per Panther, vector images are copyrighted, but bitmap no. --sk 21:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please read the above e-mail clearly stating that they are copyrighted. /Lokal_Profil 20:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete to tricky to be clearly free (copying+ $$+ modifying) Greudin 22:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep! Many flags and coats of arms are PD, for example, Russia. Vector-Images no has any copyrights for those pics! --Pauk 23:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Those images should be marked as PD for whichever other reason, the other ones need to go. Also note that only the officially produced CoAs of Russia are PD. If I draw my own interpretation (that is one that looks different from the official one) then I can still copyright it. However most (all?) of VI.com's russian CoAs are based on the official ones exactly for the reason that these re PD. /Lokal_Profil 20:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The articles of the Portuguese Wikipedia about countries without his respective coats of arms are not funny any! Therefore, I give my positive vote so that the template keeps on existing forever. --Deyvid Setti 20:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- We already were told by the website we cannot use their images on the Commons, so no matter how many people from that Wikipedia comes by, the template is still gone. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Nard.--SkyDrinker 07:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Since Nard's comment a new e-mail clarifying the situation has been recieved. You can read it at the top of this page. /Lokal_Profil 12:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept.Vector-Images could not forbid revectorization of their free Bitmaps. Most of the COAs are PD-old or PD-ineligible. It's only forbidden to sell V-I's original Vector Images. That don't mean that's the same with repainted vector versions. The preview images in PNG, GIF or JPG are still free, so the can stay at commons. ChristianBier 13:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Re-opened
[edit]And re-opened. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- If they're PD-old or PD-ineligible then we should delete this template and relicense those. I like how people project onto VI's license what they want it to say instead of what it actually says, and the fact is it's too restrictive and/or ambiguous. That's the reason we're sending emails, but we get contradictory answers. I hope this gets sorted out. Ipankonin 08:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I start retagging the COAs of Belarus, Russia and Estonia with the correct Licences with the help of my AWB. But we have to speak about the others. What should we do? Search for Alternatives? Redraw as SVG? Want to here your Ideas and maybe we could coordinate the work here together. ChristianBier 01:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Many have SVG alternatives already here or on other projects. Once we get toolserv back up and running, this job will be a ton easier. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I start retagging the COAs of Belarus, Russia and Estonia with the correct Licences with the help of my AWB. But we have to speak about the others. What should we do? Search for Alternatives? Redraw as SVG? Want to here your Ideas and maybe we could coordinate the work here together. ChristianBier 01:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please pay attention to Russian municipal symbols, containing "proposed" in their's names. They are not PD-RU-exempt and must be locally reuploaded under fair use conditions. --Panther 08:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Only flag, coat of arms are exempted by {{PD-BY-exempt}}. So cities and regions COAs and flags status are still unknown. Book about Belarusian heraldry (С.Я. Рассадзін. А.М. Міхальчанка. Гербы і сцягі гарадоў і раёнаў Беларусі, ISBN 985-01-0530-5) claims official cities COAs are copyrighted by one of state organizations. Most COAs and flags are redesigned in modern times so such claims have merit. --EugeneZelenko 15:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also not that only offical coat of arms are covered by PD-RU etc. If VI have made their own interpretations of the blasoning then they do own the copyright of the image, even if it is russian. Same thing goes for PD-old claims, new interpreations give new copyright. /Lokal_Profil 22:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not in Russia, Belarus or Estonia for example (also in Germany too). When the law does forbid own copyright on COAs,no one can get copyright on self-made COAs based on blasoning etc. Please read the laws (in the most of the cases the paragraphs are mentioned in the license-tag). ChristianBier 00:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- {{PD-RU-exempt}} mentiones only state symbols and flags which I would interpret to mean official state symbols and flags. {{PD-Coa-Germany}} mentions official works like coats of arms limiting the copyright of official interpretations only. I expect that the wording is similar for Estonia, Belarus and other countries. I don't actually believe the states could make other peoples non-derivtive works public domain, at least not if outside their own country. That is if I'm in the US and I draw an image which I name CoA of Russia (but which doesn't look like the official one) then Russian law wouldn't apply to the image. If I on the other hand draw an image based on the official one then Russian law comes into play since my image is a derivative of a official russian image. Anyhow own interpretations would have to be own interpretations of the blasoning not interpretations of the official coat of arms, which (since the official coat of arms is PD) wouldn't be very usefull to us. And the above comment was more a general warning to not blindly assume that all VI CoAs for specific countries are by default PD (although most of them will in fact be derivatives). /Lokal_Profil 11:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not in Russia, Belarus or Estonia for example (also in Germany too). When the law does forbid own copyright on COAs,no one can get copyright on self-made COAs based on blasoning etc. Please read the laws (in the most of the cases the paragraphs are mentioned in the license-tag). ChristianBier 00:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also not that only offical coat of arms are covered by PD-RU etc. If VI have made their own interpretations of the blasoning then they do own the copyright of the image, even if it is russian. Same thing goes for PD-old claims, new interpreations give new copyright. /Lokal_Profil 22:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Only flag, coat of arms are exempted by {{PD-BY-exempt}}. So cities and regions COAs and flags status are still unknown. Book about Belarusian heraldry (С.Я. Рассадзін. А.М. Міхальчанка. Гербы і сцягі гарадоў і раёнаў Беларусі, ISBN 985-01-0530-5) claims official cities COAs are copyrighted by one of state organizations. Most COAs and flags are redesigned in modern times so such claims have merit. --EugeneZelenko 15:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposal for the most appropriate solution
[edit]Dear friends. I'm not the Commons-administrator. But I suggest I could give the most appropriate solution for our problem. I don't say - this is result. I say - this is the most appropriate solution for present. Alex Spade 12:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
First. The template
[edit]The template must be kept, but redesigned. The first variant of such redesign was offered on Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Vector-Images.com#Third proposed new template content. It took into account the possible freedom of exclusive VI.com images (via {{Attribution}} as default). The my variant was supported, but wasn't applied. Now VI.com says, that their exclusive drawnings are not free (in definition of FCW). Therefore, I have proposed the Fourth proposed new template content - {{Vector-Images.com/proposal (2nd)}} - this is variant - we can enchance it, but template is very necessary.
Unknown status - {{Vector-Images.com}}
Total unfree status - {{Vector-Images.com|copyvio}}
Free status - for examples {{Vector-Images.com|PD-RU-exempt}}, {{Vector-Images.com|PD-ineligible}}, {{Vector-Images.com|PD-old}}
Second. Vectorization
[edit]- Could we use vector version of official COA and flags (real official, without distortions) from VI.com? The VI.com deprecates such action. It is possible, that they couldn't - it's possible that in ru-law vectorization is trivial action, which doen's create new and independent copyright. But such promblem is still unarbitrated, so I suugest, we cann't risk and there is no special necessity to use exactly vector versions, exactly from VI.com. And previous discussions support such POV - don't use the vector images from VI.com
- Could we create own vector version? I suggest - we could - VI.com cann't prohibited sush action. If image is trivial - its vectorization is also trivial and cann't be copyrigted. If image is untrivial - its vecorization is also untrivial and can be copyrigted, but our vecorizations in most cases could be different from VI.com in SVG-code.
Third. Copyright status
[edit]There are five primary types of images on VI.com.
- Non-heraldic arts. Clear situation. VI.com always depractes to use them and we never have been using them.
- Proposal heraldic arts, for example Image:Coat of Arms of Zelenograd-Silino (municipality in Moscow) proposal.png. Early we were using them, but now VI.com says, that they are not free in definition of FCW.
- Could VI.com deprecate to use them? Yes, because these images are proposal - they aren't PD-exempt.
- And what we must do with them? I suggest - we must check, can such images fall under other PD tags: PD-old, PD-Russia or other. If they cann't - unfortunately we must delete them - we have no chance to leave them on Commons.
- This is not very large problem fot Wikipedia-evolution. These images are proposals, they are not official ones - their concernment is smaller than concernment of official ones.
- Green Heraldic arts (а) based on official ones, (b) primordially fall under PD-exempt, PD-ineligible, PD-old, PD-Russia, PD-USGov, PD-GermanGov and etc., (c) without distortions - for example Image:Russia coa.svg (don't put attention, that this image is vector one, think that it is raster one). Clear situation - we can tag sush images as {{Vector-Images.com|respective tag}} or even just {{respective tag}}, but I recommend first variant. Any work of VI.com artists is trivial for such raster images.
- Yellow Heraldic arts (а) based on official ones, (b) primordially fall under PD-exempt, PD-ineligible, PD-old, PD-Russia, PD-USGov, PD-GermanGov and etc., (c) with distortions - for example variant form VI.com vs. official one. Not so clear situation - I recommend to tag sush images as {{Vector-Images.com|respective tag}}. Work of VI.com artists can be copyrighted for such raster images. I suggest, such work cann't be copyrighted - it's too unoriginal and uncreative, the Russian Supreme Court and Supereme Arbitral Court repeatedly say that, only original and creative work can be copyrighted. But this is my POV - I offer to keep these images on commons for present, and to rediscuss them later.
- Red Heraldic arts (а) based on official ones, (b) don't fall under PD-exempt, PD-ineligible, PD-old, PD-Russia, PD-USGov, PD-GermanGov and etc. - i.e. primordially copyrighted, (c) with/without disortions (this point is unimpotant). For example en:Image:Coat of arms of Canada.svg (don't put attention, that this image is not from VI.com, think that it is from VI.com and raster one). Unfortunately we must delete them - they are not originally free - the works of VI.com is just der.works from unfree works.
- Yes, all official flags and COAs are uncopyrighted in Russia, even if they are copyrighted in country of origin. Yes, VI.com can freely make vector version of them. But for Commons - these work are still primordially unfree.
- And this is real problem fot Wikipedia-evolution.
Alex Spade 12:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can't we just vectorize some of the PD Russian flags, like those used by the military? I honestly feel that if we can vectorize them, we should, so we can reduce our total use of their images over all. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Template kept, but remade as obsolete without first parameter {{{1}}}. Alex Spade 11:59, March 15, 2008 (UTC)
- I know it's been open for awhile but please wait until an admin closes this. It's not a clear cut issue and you're too involved to close it anyway. Also, this isn't the place to discuss the details of new templates (a link to the template's talk page is all you need - our DR pages are big enough already). - Rocket000 05:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- This page is 53 kilobytes long. This is not problem of this page - this common problem of WikiCommons del.req. page, which included other subpages. Don't shift general problem of WikiCommons organization to particular case. Alex Spade 10:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's what I was talking about. This page is transcluded. - Rocket000 20:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is there anything specific that we are waiting for which means the discussion can't be closed? /Lokal_Profil 16:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would have liked to hear others' input (like those admins that closed/reopened/protected this), but I guess this doesn't need to remain open. The discussion has moved to a more suitable place: Template talk:Vector-Images.com. I admit I was acting more for the sake of formality and closure than any real issues. Will a non-admin please close this? :) - Rocket000 20:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- This page is 53 kilobytes long. This is not problem of this page - this common problem of WikiCommons del.req. page, which included other subpages. Don't shift general problem of WikiCommons organization to particular case. Alex Spade 10:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The main purpose of Wikipedia and Wikicommons discussion is looking-for reasoned consensus. I suggest we have found it - Section Third. Copyright status is summary with some my additional comments/explanations. Since Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Vector-Images.com nothing was chaned except that VI.com have clearly deprecated to use its own independent works. The situation with this template is complex. If smb still want to discuss the template, he must to choose which point of possible freedom does he want to discuss #3 (Green Heraldic arts) or #4 (Yellow Heraldic arts) - the other ways (#1,#2 and #5) is closed by VI.com or/and laws of respecive countries. Because, I suggest, that User:Lokal Profil and User:Rocket000 aren't objecting to found consensus, I have asked User:Collard for any additional commnets. I think, we can close this discussion after his final comment - the other problems of this template are subject of other discussions. Alex Spade 08:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I just wanted to make sure everyone was happy. :) - Rocket000 10:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept but semi-obsoleted as per the Alex solution but obsolete without the parameter. And now for the clean-up.. :\ Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The file name was wrong. The picture has been downloaded again with the correct name "Roccacasale.jpg" 63.69.85.221 09:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see any image with the filename you gave. Either way, use {{badname}} in future rather than bringing it here. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 09:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Duplicate of Image:Roccacasale.jpg, but nominated image has a higher resolution. Please re-upload the higher res version under the correct name. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. as badname, uploaded the larger version to correct name Badseed talk 07:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bad image, artistically speaking. Being the author of this image, I ask you to delete it. Thank you. 81.67.86.128 18:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep looks okay to me. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 22:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so , she is an nice older women . I was a great fan from EMMA PEEL !!!
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request: I uploaded the file and wish to change it to a smaller sized version (The current one is very large)Shomroni 21:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep we like having the highest resolution version possible. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 09:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of copyrighted, non-free works. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep very low-res, you can't even recognize the ads. -Nard 22:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Low resolution is an argument for invocation of fair use provisions only. The sole purpose of this image is to showcase the ads, which are copyrighted. A reproduction of a non-free work doesn't become free just by being scaled down. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Depends if you can't recognize it any more. I looked at this and you can still read them. -Nard 23:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 12:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The main subject and apparent purpose of the image appears to be to display a copyrighted, non-free work of graphic design. Thus, this is an unauthorised derivative work. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ponder, does UK FOP apply to a mobile work? -Nard 23:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 12:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Is this picture within Commons:Scope? Whom does it show? Is it some relevant person? Is it a personal image of an user? In that case is it needed (because right now it is not in use)? -- Cecil 22:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to be a personal image of the user (see his profile claiming he's a classical musician) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- The user does not use it. If even he himself doesn't need it, why keeping it? It also appears that the only account he has is here at Commons and that he used this account only for the upload of two personal pictures and creating his profile. And there is another thing, those pictures can't be made by himself. This is not the kind of picture you make with the self-timer. -- Cecil 07:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not used (ever) on users profile. So going with out of scope. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
January 24
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I can't see any encyclopedic use + advertisment. Igno2 05:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Spam -- Infrogmation 07:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
its derivative work, isnt it? __ ABF __ ϑ 12:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyvio Speedy please. Megapixie 13:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted speedily as copyvio. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Flickr file quite possibly a copyvio. Source states that author is Steve Granitz/WireImage.com and "license this image... contact WireImage". Given user's profile, his name appears to Josete Cabezuelo from Spain, not Steve Granitz from wireimage. Patstuart 05:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a violation. Mr. Granitz is one of the top celebrity photographers in North America, he would not let someone random upload his image under a free license, without an OTRS documentation. -- Zanimum 17:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious {{copyvio}} from http://www.wireimage.com/SearchResults.aspx?igi=274674&s=ashley%20olsen&sfld=C&vwmd=e. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Internet explorer is not a free software, but I wonder if this image worth cropping... Yuval Y § Chat § 21:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted after checking - it's a pure copyvio... Yuval Y § Chat § 21:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope GeorgHH • talk 12:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete uploader's only contribution, also, WTF. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- DeleteThe description is somebody's name. Mightn't this image be recognizable to this person's friends? If so it is a photographic insult aimed at a private person and completely against our principles on personality rights. --Simonxag 19:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(Myself error - renamed in 2 copy: correct name is "Monte Ferone") --ord idelan 15:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and use {{duplicate}} or {{badname}} next time. :) Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 19:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unable to verify source — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Fixed source, it is indeed public domain. Licensing updated to reflect this. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 19:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy kept as per non-admin me, problem is resolved. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of photo by unknown author, unlikely to be free (see [157] and [158]) dave pape 15:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note that another processed version of the same image, by the same uploader, was previously deleted as {{derivative}} (see deleted edits); listing here this time to make the problem clearer. --dave pape 15:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete straightforward shoop (and therefore, derivative work) of this. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 19:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Simonxag 01:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as obvious derivative work. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cesare2a.jpg 203.59.59.21 20:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep An image on wikipedia cannot supersede an image on commons. Upload it here first... --User:G.dallorto 21:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Incorrect filename (replaced with Image:TransLink-line-head-left--bot.png) Seo75 03:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader's request. (unused) Rocket000 04:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am unsure whether this logo really qualifies for {{PD-textlogo}}. For me it quite more than pure text. ALE! ¿…? 08:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like a screenshot to me even. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete derivative. -Nard 00:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Definitely not {{PD-textlogo}}. Rocket000 04:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not sure whether taken by Flickr user. Part of this image is the cover of one of her CDs. See Google Images. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete very unlikely that the Flickr user is the photographer. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 17:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, per nominator. If it were kept, it would need to be renamed. Superm401 - Talk 20:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Very very very unlikely that this was taken by the Flickr user. Rocket000 04:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong name of church, it should be Malolos Cathedral not Barasoain Church. Chicodj 16:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and rename -- Deadstar (msg) 15:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Already tagged with {{rename}}. COM:DEL is for images to be deleted, not renamed. Please reupload under a more appropriate name and tag this as {{badname}}. Rocket000 04:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Its what the source says. --BritandBeyonce 10:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
does this person have the right to put out a photo of a young child naked with face compleatly showing, even if it is his own child? Children rights? It might end up in wrong contexts, like child porn. Take it away for the childs security! 216.144.126.215 06:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you mentally ill (paranoia) or under influence of drugs? 84.56.59.14 07:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can we please try to be kind and considerate to other users when discussing such material on Commons. Thanks. Nick 11:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep All you humans look the same to me anyway. Understand the nominator's concern, but I don't think it's warranted in this case. Megapixie 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Whoah, hivemind (see below). Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 13:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can we please try to be kind and considerate to other users when discussing such material on Commons. Thanks. Nick 11:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment For the child's security? It's not like anyone's gonna see this picture and think "hey, I'm going to track it down!"; even if they did it's not like they'd be able to tell it apart from the other millions of babies in the world (they all look the same to me). This is not exactly child porn anyway. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 13:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If that is considered child porn I don't understand anything! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
|
"Show me a sane man and |
- Keep No decent reason given. Delete this really stupid request now as it steals our time. This is for 216.144.126.215:
- Delete what do we need it for? Pibwl 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well it's our unique photo of a baby walking on all fours! [159] --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. --Panther 13:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Low quality picture without description --23 January 2008User:Karelj
Delete per nom --Simonxag 19:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's not in use and it's not really a good quality, because it doesn't show anything from the rest of the body, so it's detached out from it's context. Ra'ike Diskussion 09:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep usable image. --Simonxag 19:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Out of project scope. -Nard 23:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader claims to be copyright owner, but does not specify authorship, and does not give a more precise date than "after 1950" Pieter Kuiper 16:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's published under self-GFDL. What's the problem? Why the rush to delete it? Is there any real reason you want it deleted? — EliasAlucard 16:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- If EliasAlucard made this picture himself, he should write this in the author-field. It should also be easy for him to give a more precise date for this picture. /Pieter Kuiper 17:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
A new version, a close-up taken today, has been uploaded here, with a proper license. /Pieter Kuiper 21:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted in favour of the new image. giggy (:O) 07:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Re-hosted better version -- 23 January 2008 User:Sherurcij
- Delete Fixed request. Screenshot of text - not sure it's in scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not in our scope? What about all those thousands of scanned pages from books? Rocket000 04:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Uploader says delete, this was a flawed version, I uploaded an improved version. Delete this one :) Sherurcij 02:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. giggy (:O) 07:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Low quality picture without description --23 January 2008 User:Karelj
- Keep Have seen worse. Is image of Bruges (Belgium) at night. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. giggy (:O) 07:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A derivate work (a photo of a display) Commander Keane 14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 05:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 17:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please correct the map. The whole South Balcan area (Greece, Bulgaria, Servia, Albania) is wrong. --User:G.dallorto 21:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not reason for deletion. -Nard 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The fact that a map is wrong is a way good reason for deletion. Unless it is corrected, as per my request. Unless N. thinks Wikipedia is the dustbin for all wrong maps around. --User:G.dallorto 20:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No, N is right—no reason for deletion. This isn't Wikipedia. Here, we see them as simply images and images can't be right or wrong. We just host images. (And how else can you illustrate an article on incorrect maps?) Rocket000 04:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, a more helpful comment: You may want to make a request here for someone with the skills to fix it for you. Rocket000 04:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 17:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No author given, thus GFDL violated Head 18:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted no source. -- Cecil 15:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi. Please delete Image:Human_fetus_-_40_weeks_-_B&W.jpg. This is a duplicate of another image. The other image is Image:40_weeks_pregnant.jpg, and the other image should not be deleted even though it has a tag placed by OsamaK. (UPDATE: As discussed below, the other image has been converted from black and white to color in the middle of this discussion, and I have converted back to black and white pending the outcome of this discussion.)
I explained this to OsamaK here. OsamaK replied here. Further discussion of this matter can be found here at Wikipedia.Ferrylodge 15:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete duplicates of eachother. Per user is fine. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per my message. Ferrylodge took an image that I edited and uploaded it over the original. We need to revert the original back to the color version, and keep my black and white edit. On top of that Image:40 weeks pregnant.jpg should be renamed to make clear that the subject is a human fetus, not the image of a pregnant whale or anything else. Finally, if this image is deleted, it needs to be made clear that I get credit for editing the image. The upload log of FL uploading my edit over the original was highly deceptive. -Andrew c 17:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Andrew c, I see that you have decided to unilaterally rearrange all of these images, in the middle of this discussion.[160] I hope you do it right, including editing all the articles where they are linked, deleting the appropriate images, undeleting the appropriate images, moving descriptive material from one file to another, et cetera, et cetera. You might have actually tried to wait until this discussion had reached a conclusion, before unilaterally shuffling over a dozen Wikimedia images, and messing with the respective Wikipedia articles. Seems like that would have been the polite thing to do.
- I was trying to accomplish basically the same results, but in the simplest possible manner, and instead you accuse me of being "deceptive." Please bear in mind that you asked me to use B&W images instead of color images in various Wikipedia articles, and therefore I uploaded B&W images over the color ones (after consulting with the image donor about the B&W images that I created). You then complained that the B&W images needed to be desaturated, so I obligingly uploaded all of your desaturated versions. Then you complained that the color versions ought to still remain completely available at Wikimedia Commons rather than buried in an image history, even though you did not want them used in any Wikipedia articles, and so I uploaded the color versions to new Wikiemedia Commons files.
- I do not understand why you are making accusations and taking unilateral action here. Try AGF, please.Ferrylodge 17:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I do not have the time to respond in detail now. I think this is a simple misunderstanding that can easily be cleared up. I suggest that you watch your tone, and check your history. I never once asked you to use B&W images on wikipedia, and I never said B&W images need to be desaturated (desaturated simply means to make B&W). I'll reply in more detail when I get the time. Please be patient. I'm sure we can work this out.-Andrew c 17:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- You said that the images needed to be "re-desaturated."[161] Also, another user said that you wanted to remove the color images, but evidently she was mistaken.[162] In any event, the consensus at the Fetus article was to replace the color images with black and white images (you did not object).Ferrylodge 18:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This image ought to be deleted. It is inappropriate to have the same image three times on Wikimedia.This one is in color. This one was in black and white until Andrew c changed it to color in the middle of this discussion (I have reverted to black and white with full attribution to Andrew c for re-desaturating it). And this one is the black and white image currently under discussion, which should be deleted.
- Also, please note that two other images were properly deleted by User:Siebrand under almost the exact same circumstances, namely: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Human_fetus_-_10_weeks_-_B%26W.jpg&action=edit and http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Human_fetus_-_20_weeks_-_B%26W.jpg&action=edit Ferrylodge 18:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I vote stop being lame. This problem is incredibly simple: There's one image in black and white and one in colour. They need to have their own pages. You don't need to fill a 1280x960 screenful discussing that. Get on with it. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Lewis Collard, you're mistaken. There are two images in black and white (here and there), plus a third image in color (there).Ferrylodge 21:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, there's one in black and white which is duplicated. My comment still stands: work it out. This is not complicated. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree it's not complicated. One of the two black and white images ought to be deleted. That's why I made this deletion request. If the other one is deleted, then that would be deleting the original upload page that preceded all of the others; that other black and white image is linked by multiple Wikipedia articles whereas this one is not, and furthermore no one has suggested deleting that other black and white image.Ferrylodge 23:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize for complicating matters by asking for a rename. But IMO, the original file names are not descriptive enough. My preference is to have the file names "Human fetus - X weeks.jpg" and "Human fetus - X weeks - B&W.jpg" for the color and B&W sets respectively. I have never disputed that we shouldn't get rid of redundant images. If no nobody else sees any merit in having more accurate file names, then be my guest to delete the remaining B&W files. -Andrew c 01:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, there's one in black and white which is duplicated. My comment still stands: work it out. This is not complicated. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Lewis Collard, you're mistaken. There are two images in black and white (here and there), plus a third image in color (there).Ferrylodge 21:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can't we just delete this redundant image, and then discuss renaming the remaining B&W image? If we delete the other B&W image, we'd be deleting the page where this image was originally uploaded to Wikimedia.Ferrylodge 01:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- And by deleting these images, you are deleting the page where the B&W edit was originally uploaded, and where I propose the new names to go. Anyway, images are different from wikipedia pages in that you can't simply move or rename them. You have to re-upload the old file at the new name, so deleting the original page isn't really an issue. The reason why we shouldn't delete this page is because if the rename proposal goes through, this page would simply have to be re-created (or undeleted). Make sense? I apologize if my explanation is confusing ;p-Andrew c 03:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I'm being dense here, but you have asked that the other B&W image be renamed "Image:Human fetus - 40 weeks.jpg". That is a different name from the present B&W image, so it does not make sense to me that anything would have to be re-created or undeleted. Andrew c, I ask you again: do you still think that the file history at the other B&W image is "highly deceptive"? It specifically acknowledges your re-desaturation work. And finally, can't we please delete this duplicate, and get on with things? We could then have a discussion elsewhere about whether or not to rename the other B&W image, and what the consequences of renaming would be, and we could leave these kind "Deletion Requests" aficionados in peace. :) Thanks.Ferrylodge 04:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I asked for the color versions to be renamed. Remember, I reverted back to the color version before I placed the rename tag on the images. You are the one who reverted back to the black and white images. How about this. I reupload the black and white images that I created at the more specific username so we have a full set. Then I'll go through all the links and replace the old "Image:X weeks pregnant.jpg" with "Image:Human fetus - x weeks - B&W.jpg". Once that is complete, we can revert the "Image:X weeks pregnant.jpg" back to the color versions and leave the rename request as is. Finally, we can mark the "Image:ColorX weeks pregnant.jpg" for speedy deletion as duplicate. Yeah it's complicated, but it makes sense to me and I'll do all the leg work, and the result will be one set of color images and one set of B&W images at more specific file names. It seems like a win win situation.-Andrew c 05:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Andrew c, in your original comment here, you said that an upload log was "highly deceptive." You seem to be going out of your way to not answer my question about whether you still think so. The upload log now specifically credits you with re-desaturating the images. Would you please kindly tell me if you still consider the upload logs to be "highly deceptive." I've asked you at your talk page,[163] and I've asked you here, but you have not acknowledged this question. I never had any intention of being deceptive in any way, and you know that I thanked you when you re-desaturated the images.[164]
- I still do not understand why you have any objection to deleting this black and white image. Maybe it has something to do with what you called the "highly deceptive" upload log. Or maybe it has something to do with this thread that you have started at the Village Pump. In any event, there are already two other image files for this image, including one black and white, and one color. Therefore, one image file is going to have to be deleted, and I do not understand why it cannot be this one.
- Despite my objections, a consensus was reached at the Fetus article to use a black and white image rather than a color image as the primary image that will be displayed in that article, and I agreed to accept that consensus. Therefore, I feel that the primary black and white image should be located with the primary and original upload log. Can we please delete this image, and then take up renaming separately? Frankly I do not understand the urgency of renaming, or why that matter has to be mixed up with deleting a duplicate. If you look at the gallery of fetus images, you'll see that very few have names specifying that they are human, since that is the obvious implication if no other species is identified in the file name. Your rename request therefore strikes me as being more trouble than it's worth, since it would require rewriting links in multiple articles, and going through that process four times (since we have images at 6, 10, 20, and 40 weeks). As one user put it, file names should be descriptive, but it's not important because no one will see the file names when they read a Wikipedia article. But like I said, can't we mercifully just take one thing at a time, delete this duplicate, and deal with the renaming issue separately, please? Ferrylodge 06:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I offered an elegant solution that solves your issues and my issues. I said I'd do all the work. Why are you refusing to go along? The end result will be a product that we are all happy with. Win win, right? -Andrew c 18:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Andrew c, this is a deletion request. I am not refusing to go along, you are. (And as I said, I feel that the primary black and white image should be located with the primary and original upload log.)Ferrylodge 19:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note, you've both just filled another 1280x960 page. Goodness me. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Andrew c, this is a deletion request. I am not refusing to go along, you are. (And as I said, I feel that the primary black and white image should be located with the primary and original upload log.)Ferrylodge 19:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I have changed my mind. Please delete these images completely from the commons. That also included various file revisions across 4 other images. Again, please DO NOT USE MY WORK. I wish for it to be deleted. Sorry things didn't work out better, but you win!-Andrew c 21:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: author's request
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
falsches Bild hochgeladen, wrong picture downloaded--Milgesch 12:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
done --ALE! ¿…? 08:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
falsches Bild hochgeladen, wrong picture downloaded--Milgesch 12:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
done --ALE! ¿…? 08:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The Canon CanoScan LiDE 60. (see flickr description page) is a image scanner. So this isn't a picture but a scan of a picture taken from a book or magazine. So copyvio in my opinion. ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC) ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 23:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Or it could have been taken with a film camera and then scanned in. That's right, folks, photography did exist before the digital era... Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 00:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It is a scan, but there is no evidence that it was taken from a book or a magazine. I see no --Jaqen 00:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like an scanned print. No reason to doubt the Flickr user was the photographer. ~MDD4696 22:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept as per Jaqen and Mdd4696. Incidentally, I own a Canon LiDE as well, and none of my film camera scans are copyvios. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fair use from http://www.fondvsg.ru/ --23 January 2008 User:Kornilov S.
- ©Copyright by Fond "VSG" 2002
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 17:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:K.u.k. Pionier zur Parade.jpg. Image:K.u.k. Pionierfeldwebel.jpg and Image:Trompeter.jpg
[edit]uploaded in PNG now --User:Erwin Lindemann 15:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Fixed request. User has nominated a number of his images saying that there is a PNG version, but that is not a reason for deletion. (see Image:Pionier zur Parade.PNG, Image:Pionierfeldwebel.PNG and Image:Trompeterpng.PNG). I prefer the jpg version. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- User seems to have taken deletion requests off the images? Closing request. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Microcline_variety_Amazonite_Potassium_aluminum_silicate_Klienspitzkoppe_Area,_Nambia_2846.jpg
[edit]It's a picture without any quality and there are enough better pictures of amazonite in the category. Ra'ike Diskussion 20:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep in project scope. With all the copyvios and whatnot, bad pictures of minerals are not high on the radar. -Nard 20:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Better have many different images to identify.--Tomia 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete on this picture is noting to identify because its without any quality (its an eye pain not a picture) --Jom 21:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete If we'd have many images to identify, we'd have images that help us doing so. This one doesn't, it's only a collection of coloured pixels which resemble a stone. --Eva K. tell me about it 21:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wow. The stone enthusiasts are out in force for this one. -Nard 22:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Actually not that bad, even though we have better images at Category:Amazonite. To Nard: see Bilder mit "unsäglicher" Qualität löschen?... Lupo 11:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- KeepNot great, but PD and usable. --Simonxag 21:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Quality means more than "usable". Actually, this image is not really usable. --Bjoern 00:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.77 14:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Microcline_variety_Amazonite_Potassium_aluminum_silicate_Klienspitzkoppe_Area,_Nambia_2846.jpg
[edit]The Image was recent deleted one time by me after the last request because of its quality, wich is much to lousy. There are enough Images this can be replaced with. After a short undeletion discussion it was restored and i dont think this is okay. __ ABF __ ϑ 13:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The quality wasn't that bade. I upload a reworked version of that image. I think this is a better one. ChristianBier 13:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep there was not enough consensus, IMO, to merit deletion the first time round. I don't see much wrong with the image. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 14:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I would say, based on the discussion above, I don't think deleting the image in the first place was ok. In quality issues, follow consensus. Lupo 15:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I can read german, but an anon on wikipedia said... "It seems this image is not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. The publisher released it under special conditions (text in German). --91.33.10.126 (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)" Calliopejen 13:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Calliopejen 13:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Not free! Also all other pics of Praktikant_Kartographie under restricted copyright of kartenwelten.de. I read the terms in german. Not one is PD or Gnu-Fdl or CC. Mass of Advocats hunting users of illegal copys from maps on privat homepages and you have to pay lot of money. Maybe a provocateur. Better delete this account --84.56.255.2 03:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete 138.87.153.41 16:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete I can read German but not a machine tranlation [165] says it isn't a free image and the uploader has uploaded what looks like others from the same site.--Sandahl 00:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Ahonc: In category Unknown - May 2008; no permission
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unclear this is public domain - March 1945 also Image:Spitfire versus Zero.jpg Megapixie 13:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you let me know about this. The image is not public domain but originally uploaded as GFDL by Clive Wawn who is a son of the author of text in image (please see detail in en:User:Wawny). Anyway, I uploaded it with GFDL-tag, so I think it properly unless the right still belongs to 'Wings' magazine. --Tataroko-common 16:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. Image:Spitfire versus Zero.jpg,one of two uploaded images, wan't by his father, which I failed to see. So it is not certain the right belongs to him. But I think there is no problem if the image is treated as like public domain, because perhaps it causes no trouble with the pamphlet's author.--Tataroko-common 19:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Better to OCR the text and upload it to wikisource. The image is definitely a problem. Wings magazine may or may not have obtained the copyright as a work for hire, which means that they would have held the copyright and it will expire 50 or 70 years after the death of the creator - because of this, his heir may or may not have the right to post the materials, depending on the status of the agreement (which I'm guessing is going to be impossible to obtain). Megapixie 22:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK. I understood the reason for deletion and it is convinced that importance of these images is the text within it, not image itself. Now, I won't persist remaining these images at wikimedia-commons. Additionally, I haven't used it within a topic at ja.wikipedia, so I won't be bothered with deletion. Well, If you wish fair use of images on all wikipedia-projects, it is better to inform these problems to original en.wikipedia's topic or uploader at it, in my opinion.--Tataroko-common 09:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Seems consensus is that the photographs in the images are most likely still copyright. Additionally files not used (or local duped) ShakataGaNai Talk 05:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This page is utterly wrong named. You should at least should have a look at the description, before making a picture a POTD, that has been misplaced. Denis Barthel 22:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC) --Denis Barthel 22:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why not move the page? Don't forget this is a wiki. :) Rocket000 06:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- You don't want to have a gallery page for every single plant crossing, believe me. Denis Barthel 08:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I do. But, true, one image isn't enough to justify it. So you're asking for this to be deleted because it's useless or incorrectly named? Or both? Rocket000 11:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- You don't want to have a gallery page for every single plant crossing, believe me. Denis Barthel 08:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Because it is a one plant gallery ShakataGaNai Talk 05:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is NOT a work of the Us Navy or any govermental personnel. It is the property of Northrop Grumman and requires a release for reuse. 214.18.200.97 16:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Says who? Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 19:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- [you@plz you]$ whois 214.18.200.97
- OrgName: DoD Network Information Center
- OrgID: DNIC
- OH SHI- Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 19:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Someone needs to tell the U.S. Navy they're wrong then. They told us it was released. Silly Navy. Rocket000 19:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep US Navy work. -Nard 22:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not really.. (But it's still ok.) Rocket000 23:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- KeepUSNavy has released this photo into public. If it's not a Navy property, the authur should check with the Navy but it's not our responsibility to do so. Since the ship itself belongs to the US government and the photographer is a member of the contractor, personally I don't think he will refuse to release the right if the Navy wants so.--SElefant 02:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Does a simple "(RELEASED)" really mean that the navy aquired the copyrights of the image and released it into the public domain? --Kam Solusar 05:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Per their about page here The purpose of this website is to provide information and news about the United States Navy to the general public. All information on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. The nominator would appear to have the right kind of connections to get the image description ammended to indicate that the image in fact, HASN'T been released. If they modify their website (it may have been released in error after all) then we should delete here. As it stands I would assume that the image has been released by the original photographer to the Navy. Megapixie 07:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- We have photos at work marked "not for release". Released means they are making it public. It doesn't really have to do with the copyright status. -Nard 11:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- My point is, that the websites copyright disclaimer states that everything is public domain unless it states otherwise. In this case it would appear to not say anything about it not being public domain - thus we assume it's public domain. If they've accidentally released someone else's photo as being PD, then I would expect them to correct that before we took any action. Megapixie 12:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- its stated. It says "Photo by Mr. Chris Oxley courtesy Northrop Grumman Ship Building" so it isn't a US Navy photo obviously. Same for Image:George H.W. Bush superstructure lift.jpg, which should also be Deleted --schlendrian •λ• 23:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've emailed their "contact us" link, but I'm not holding my breath. Megapixie 13:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- They responded and have given me a media contact at Northrop Grumman. I'll try and make contact... Megapixie 22:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- you got any answer yet? --schlendrian •λ• 15:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- They responded and have given me a media contact at Northrop Grumman. I'll try and make contact... Megapixie 22:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've emailed their "contact us" link, but I'm not holding my breath. Megapixie 13:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- its stated. It says "Photo by Mr. Chris Oxley courtesy Northrop Grumman Ship Building" so it isn't a US Navy photo obviously. Same for Image:George H.W. Bush superstructure lift.jpg, which should also be
- My point is, that the websites copyright disclaimer states that everything is public domain unless it states otherwise. In this case it would appear to not say anything about it not being public domain - thus we assume it's public domain. If they've accidentally released someone else's photo as being PD, then I would expect them to correct that before we took any action. Megapixie 12:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- We have photos at work marked "not for release". Released means they are making it public. It doesn't really have to do with the copyright status. -Nard 11:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Also Image:George H.W. Bush superstructure lift.jpg Badseed talk 17:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unsourced, probable copyright violation, possible unencyclopedic digital manipulation of historic image Pieter Kuiper 07:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do not take any of the unsubstantiated claims Peter here is stating, seriously. It's in no way, digital manipulation and that is just a disingenuous attack from Peter's side (you shouldn't make such remarks if you have no idea what you're talking about). I'll fix the source and license for this image in a week or so. Don't delete it. — EliasAlucard 15:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see that Alucard has now provided a source, very good. However, he gives as author en:Frederick A. Aprim. This is the author of a book in which the picture appears, but it is highly unlikely that this person made the picture in Jerusalem before 1950. Aprim seems to be too young for that. Alucard removed the delete-template from the image page, without giving proof of a license. /Pieter Kuiper 20:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I emailed the author, this picture is published in his book, he gave me full permission to use both pictures anyway I like on Commons. How far have you intended to take this crusade against these pictures? — EliasAlucard 00:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- This picture was taken no earlier than 1967, after the Six Day War - as seen in the photograph, the original sign was in Arabic and English, and the Hebrew part was added the hebrew above. Daniel Tzvi 02:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- EliasAlucard, will you please find the email granting permission and forward it to OTRS? Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 11:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Aprim mailing OTRS would only be useful if Aprim made this picture, I think (or if he can show that the picture has a very general license). It is not sufficient if Aprim had obtained the photographer's permission for publication in his book.
- Aside from that, the concerns about image manipulation are growing. If the "AS" in "Assyrian" was deleted in 1950 and if the Hebrew was added after 1967, this picture must be a montage. /Pieter Kuiper 13:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I can forward it to OTRS, but I would need instructions since I've never done that. Aprim gave me permission to use the picture. As for the other picture that has been requested for deletion, Image:Mor Marqos Monastery Syrian.jpg it's taken by a friend of mine and he gave me permission to upload it here. By the way, don't believe any outrageous nonsense of the picture being manipulated. This is simply dishonest and in no way true. Anyone living in Israel/Jerusalem can take a look at the sign with his own eyes and verify what's written on the sign. The actual date (1950) may not be entirely accurate, but that is not our concern right now. In any case, this image is scanned from Aprim's book and he gave me permission to do what I want with the image (in his own words), and I have permission from both by William Warda (whose site it is taken from) and Aprim to use the image here because they want it to be shown. — EliasAlucard 22:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Aside from that, the concerns about image manipulation are growing. If the "AS" in "Assyrian" was deleted in 1950 and if the Hebrew was added after 1967, this picture must be a montage. /Pieter Kuiper 13:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Aprim mailing OTRS would only be useful if Aprim made this picture, I think (or if he can show that the picture has a very general license). It is not sufficient if Aprim had obtained the photographer's permission for publication in his book.
- EliasAlucard, will you please find the email granting permission and forward it to OTRS? Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 11:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- This picture was taken no earlier than 1967, after the Six Day War - as seen in the photograph, the original sign was in Arabic and English, and the Hebrew part was added the hebrew above. Daniel Tzvi 02:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I emailed the author, this picture is published in his book, he gave me full permission to use both pictures anyway I like on Commons. How far have you intended to take this crusade against these pictures? — EliasAlucard 00:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see that Alucard has now provided a source, very good. However, he gives as author en:Frederick A. Aprim. This is the author of a book in which the picture appears, but it is highly unlikely that this person made the picture in Jerusalem before 1950. Aprim seems to be too young for that. Alucard removed the delete-template from the image page, without giving proof of a license. /Pieter Kuiper 20:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. I have no interest in the policital disagreements here, but the image has been scanned from a recent book, and hence needs permission from the photographer or other copyight owner (who may or may not be the book's author) to OTRS. If that can be done, we can consider undeletion. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All files by User:Tarjetero
[edit]All photos of Tarjetero (talk • contribs) are suspected copyvios:
All his previous uploads was deleted as copyvios. The flickr author is surely not the copyright holder, the images was uploaded to flickr only one day before the Commons upload, and only this three images was uploaded by this flickr user. I believe that User:Tarjetero and flickr user enp7 the same person and that the flickr account is only created to have an possible free source for uploading copyright violations to Commons. --GeorgHH • talk 14:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please, they delete the images already. I am not going to discuss with incompetent, so that is my decision. --Tarjetero 05:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader marked them as speedy. Rocket000 08:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
January 25
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I would like this deleted by request because anyone who knows the Cyrillic Alphabet can transliterate my last name. Already deleted on English Wikipedia, but needs deletion here. It is available on my archives ([166], [167], [168]) and something I want not displayed publicly (and if anyone is an admin on simple, I want my userpage deleted, if necessary, just restore the last version). -IonasFreeman 02:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Fixed deletion request. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 13:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also, Delete. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 13:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also,
Deleted per user request. (zomg, admin now). Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Even if self-made, it's a derivative work of images like [169]. Patstuart (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 19:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of a copyrighted photo. ALE! ¿…? 15:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, simple copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looking at the upload history of this user, probably a copyvio. I will block the user for three days. ALE! ¿…? 15:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as copyright violation, appears on this site with a Last-Modified header predating the upload of this by several months. Agree with blocking. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Misnamed. Nothing links here. No 'move' available. I have uploaded the image again as 'Coronet Twelve-20 Camera', the correct name. Ukslim 16:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{badname}} next time. :) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not actually CC-BY-2.0, as the Flickr category description reads: "Beautiful national and international girls... ;) It's just a collection of the best pictures I've seen on the Internet, I didn't take any of them (I wish... :P)" and the image includes a tagline for skins.de -- Zanimum 20:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedily deleted. Good catch. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photos from [170] are licensed for non-commercial use. OTRS volunteers have not been able to confirm the permission. Thuresson 11:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to delete this image in 24 hours or so, unless anybody objects. If we receive permission, please get in touch and I'll deal with undeleting the image and adding in the permission details. Nick 11:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted - I've had a rummage about the permissions queues and still can't find permission for this file. If it comes in, please feel free to undelete the file or ask me to do so, I'll be more than happy to oblige. Nick 11:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
If the author of this work is unknown, then PD-old can't apply because you don't when s/he died. howcheng {chat} 22:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- There seems to be a name in the lower right corner, in latin letters. I cannot make out what it says. /Pieter Kuiper 23:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- It says A.C. Lovett. He died 1919[171]. I think this one's legit. -Nard 04:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your research, N, which seems to rescue this portrait. Howcheng, without meaning to I uploaded two versions, as I intended to replace the first (Image:Malik Umar Hayat Khan c. 1901.JPG) with this one, without a border, but as the extension came out in lower case it created a new file. Would you please delete the first version ending .JPG (that is, not this one but the other one)? Regards, Xn4 05:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- It says A.C. Lovett. He died 1919[171]. I think this one's legit. -Nard 04:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. howcheng {chat} 22:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown person, bad file name, no helpful description. GeorgHH • talk 12:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Gepardenforellenfischer 13:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. giggy (:O) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I need to delete this, thx --24 January 2008 User:Rottweiler
- Comment Fixed request. Any particular reason you want it deleted? -- Deadstar (msg) 15:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- It would make some problems with factory that owns testing department for this engine--Rottweiler 14:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. giggy (:O) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The freedom of panorama exception is only valid outside buildings in Germany. So this photo of the sign inside the tower is a derivative of a copyrighte work and therefore a copyvio. ALE! ¿…? 15:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Probably also because it depicts some type of logo. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. giggy (:O) 00:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fair use from http://www.fondvsg.ru/ --23 January 2008 User:Kornilov S. Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Medal Vitte.jpg for whole bunch of others with same reason. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hoax by Roitr. --8 January 2008 User:79.120.69.40 Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- No reason for deletion. The file's in use. →Яocket°°° 08:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Videmus Omnia: : Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Germany's Joseph Goebbels meeting the Italian minister of culture Alessandro Pavolini in 1941. Uploader claims that the photo was created by the United Kingdom government, although the UK was at war with Germany and Italy in 1941. A government representative would likely have been arrested long before getting anywhere near Goebbels and Pavolini. Thuresson 23:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Ok. Delete the picture. It does not pass the EU anonymous law, like some others. --Clockwork Orange 14:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - No. The uploader claims that the photo is part of a UK Collection in the public domain, which it is (just follow the source link and enter MH 20031 for Photograph Number). 88.70.231.126 13 March 2008
- Keep - it fits with policy, keep88.107.110.193 01:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Look on the Imperial War Museum page for the image, it says its use is unrestricted. 88.107.122.156 00:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- A British photographer would be shot if he even came near Goebbels in 1941. Germany and the UK were in war, so the pic must be deleted. --Clockwork Orange 09:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 02:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
studio portraits
[edit]- File:Portrait of Rudolf Walden.jpg
- File:Portrait of Erik Heinrichs.jpg
- File:Adolf Ehnroot young.jpg
- File:John-Allan Hygerth.jpg
- File:Portrait of C.G.E. Mannerheim.jpg
- File:Mannerheim during Winter War.jpg
- File:Karl Fredrik Wilkama.jpg
- File:Portrait of Vilhelm Aleksander Thesleff.jpg
- File:Portrait of Kaarlo Edward Kivekäs.jpg
- File:Potrait of Vilho Nenonen.jpg
- File:Portrait of Lauri Malmberg.jpg
- File:Portrait of Hugo Viktor Österman.jpg
- File:Sihvo.jpg
These photographs are a studio portraits or some other kind of photographic works of art protected by copyright for 70 years post mortem auctoris by Finnish copyright law. Such files cannot be used with the licence tag {{PD-Finland50}}. See Commons:Village_pump#Template:PD-Finland50 --Joonasl 08:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 17:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of User:Alfonso2
[edit]I want User:Alfonso2's images to be deleted.—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Alfonso2 (talk • contribs) (Fixed request. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC))
- Keep And I don't want them to be. Will you offer a reason? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- The reason is because i can't write or modify articles in es.wikipedia.org (the only place i upload images for). For this reason, if i could not use my own images, i want to delete it. --Alfonso 16:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Were you banned or something? Other wikis might want to use your images. This is the purpose of Commons. Rocket000 16:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, i have been censored. I can't put images in es.wikipedia.org, so i put it en commons. Now, i don't want anybody use my images. --Alfonso 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- What about us? We didn't ban you :'( Rocket000 18:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, instead delete, i want to put a license to all my files in commons that were "public domain for use in all world except es.wikipedia.org". It could be? if not, i want to delete them, sorry :-S
- What about us? We didn't ban you :'( Rocket000 18:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, i have been censored. I can't put images in es.wikipedia.org, so i put it en commons. Now, i don't want anybody use my images. --Alfonso 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Were you banned or something? Other wikis might want to use your images. This is the purpose of Commons. Rocket000 16:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
--Alfonso 19:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, you can't do that. Your problem is with es.wikipedia, not with us. Also, Keep again. While we often respect author requests on this matter, we're not here to cater for people throwing their toys from their high chairs. Your problem is with them; don't punish the rest of the world for it. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, you can't do that. Your problem is with es.wikipedia, not with us. Also,
- BTW, I thought they didn't allow local uploads, anyway. Rocket000 18:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, they didn't allow local uploads--Alfonso 19:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Well, you haven't been censored in es.wikipedia. You've been blocked because of your disruptive behaviour. As you've been instructed, you can ask for unblocking (and you haven't). Anyway, image licenses cannot be revoked Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 11:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There's no license given in the file. --84.161.122.85 16:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC) aka w:de:Benutzer:Skyman_gozilla
- Delete no Source given, copyvio --Jodo 16:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ja und? das Ding wurde frei finanziert u.a. durch Spenden, also bleibt das Teil! und nicht gelöscht! 9of10 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is no connection between "financed by donation" and free fro copyright --Jodo 19:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Please wait, so that the uploader has the possibility to add the information of the source. --84.161.103.5 13:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC) aka w:de:Benutzer:Skyman_gozilla
Deleting per nom & Jodo. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image, which was originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed 7 June 2007 by the administrator or trusted user Ranveig, who found that it was currently available on Flickr under the license All rights reserved, which isn't compatible with the Commons. It is unknown whether the license above was ever valid. --Rockfang 08:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Flickr user Shokophoto changed his licensing after the image was uploaded here but before this could be verified. Wikicommons has at least two other photos by Shokophoto, Image:Hook, Morris, Sumner in New Order.jpg and Image:Fatboy Slim in 2004.jpg, who are CC-licensed here but "All rights reserved" at Flickr. Thuresson 06:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- So I'm assuming the next step would be to get the images as CC-licensed on Flickr correct?--Rockfang 21:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's not likely to happen if he had good reason to change the license in the first place. From the evidence, it seems highly likely it was CC, so I would rush to delete. Maybe all we got to do is ask if the image used to be CC. If he's honest, that's all we need. →Яocket°°° 08:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Either way, right now it is not compatible with Commons, so the image should be deleted.--Rockfang 08:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's not likely to happen if he had good reason to change the license in the first place. From the evidence, it seems highly likely it was CC, so I would rush to delete. Maybe all we got to do is ask if the image used to be CC. If he's honest, that's all we need. →Яocket°°° 08:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- So I'm assuming the next step would be to get the images as CC-licensed on Flickr correct?--Rockfang 21:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 12:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Project Scope. Bad Quality, for me seems not to be usable. __ ABF __ ϑ 17:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
por qué será boorada la foto? alguien que me hable, pero en castellano!!!
--Walterkipedia 20:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it is used. And maybe the poor quality was intentional.. Rocket000 18:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
-- la imagen, es de mi propiedad, no tengo una de mejor calidad. muestra a la persona y a ninguna más. no tendría porque ser eliminada. aunque seguiré buscando. --Walterkipedia 16:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. It is actually used on several wikiproject, no other reasons to delete it (quality of this particular file is not inferior compared to other ones).--Trixt 01:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photograph is a studio portrait or some other kind of photographic work of art protected by copyright for 70 years post mortem auctoris by Finnish copyright law. Such file cannot be used with the licence tag {{PD-Finland50}}. Sier's copyright ends on 1st January 2011. --MPorciusCato 08:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment In fact, now I have been reconsidering the nomination I made. This image, made in 1880's, shows the original photo atelier's stamp: "Evelina Stier & Co". Now this can be considered to be a copyright claim by the company Evelina Stier & Co, making this a work published by the company "Evelina Stier & Co", not by the private person "Evelina Stier". The difference is vast. If the company claimed authorship, then the photo falls under {{anonymous-EU}} without any problems, and it has been in PD already in the 1950's according to the present 70 years rule and in 1930's according to the former Finnish 50 years rule. --MPorciusCato 11:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Thinking it through, I am personally convinced that it was a mistake to nominate this photo for deletion. I hope others agree. --MPorciusCato 12:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment I don't agree with MPorciusCatos argument. The stamp can not in any way be considered a copyright claim and even if it were, it would not exclude the fact that the copyright of the work belonged at least originally to the photographer and it was later transferred by some sort of agreement to the company. In either case normal post mortem + 70 year would aply. Other question entirely is that the odds are that the original photographer died more than 70 years ago making this picture public domain. --Joonasl 13:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- The copyright does not require claiming, I concur with you there. However, if you publish a work without author's name, you publish an anonymous work, and the copyright for such work is only 70 years after publication. The question is, whether this is an anonymous work. No name of the photographer was given, only the name of the juridical person responsible. In my opinion, the case is similar to a standard or other work made by an unknown person, published in the name of the organization.
- The relevant Finnish copyright act article is 44§:
- Teokseen, joka on julkistettu tekijän nimeä taikka yleisesti tunnettua salanimeä tai nimimerkkiä ilmoittamatta, on tekijänoikeus voimassa, kunnes 70 vuotta on kulunut siitä vuodesta, jona teos julkistettiin. Jos teos julkaistaan osina, lasketaan tekijänoikeuden voimassaoloaika erikseen kullekin osalle.
- Translation is:
- A work published without author's name or commonly known pseudonym or nom de plume, is covered by copyright until 70 years have passed since the year that the work was published. If the work is published in parts, the copyright term is calculated separately for each part.
- In my opinion, it is clear that this work has been published without the name of the author. If the image had been taken by some employee of Stier's, there would have been exactly same text, so the text does not identify the author, but shows that the work has not been published with a name, thus falling it under 44§. --MPorciusCato 13:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Even though the name of the photographer is a) not stamped on the photograph (it's not done even today in photography studios) and b) not know to us now hundred and so years later does not automatically mean that the picture was originally published anonymously. Absent of proof is not proof of absence, as it were. If you go to the original source of the picture [172] (search for "Nottbeck"; Picture number 341:39:15) the name of the photographer is given as "Stier Evelina". --Joonasl 14:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- thus.. Delete--Joonasl 14:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- thus..
Sama kuva näkyy olevan kyseisellä sivustolla kahtena eri kopiona, kyseisenä jossa ei ilmoiteta mitään kuvaajatietoja ja sitten seepia-sävyisenä eri ajoituksella [173]. Kuvanhan voi korvata vaikka tällä [174] jonka ottajasta ei ole mitään tietoa - tai unohtaa koko juttu seuraavaksi sadaksi vuodeksi.--M62 01:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. if the work was published truly anonymously, we wouldn't know who did it. But we do... so someone remember to file and Undelete request in 2011. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
might be PD but does not look like it was created by the uploader 151.199.60.21 14:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- The uploader doesn't claim own copyright either. It says 1895 in the lower right corner. I did a quick googling[175] and found out it's a US picture made by a Victor for Judge Magazine. // Liftarn
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
alvorada guanambi -- 9 January 2008 User:201.92.158.20 Fixed request. Not sure reason means anything. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. "daybreak Guanambi"?? Not sure what that means, see no valid reason to remove this. ShakataGaNai Talk 04:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON(the source is A.Acocella "l'architettura di pietra") --24 January 2008 User:151.48.38.253 Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Website is here. Also same reason for:
- Image:Particolare muratura.jpg
- Image:Percorsi, muri e spazi di raccoglimento.jpg
- Image:Planimetria.jpg
- Image:Una scalinata.jpg
- Image:Veduta di un corpo dei lociuli.jpg
-- Deadstar (msg) 15:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Saw nothing on the website in terms of copyleft. ShakataGaNai Talk 04:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Although the person that this image depicts is old, this drawing is actually recent and definitely not older than 70 years. --31 December 2007 user:Le Behnam fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep There is no proof that this is latest photo. The source states that it is pre 1863. The person in the image died over 100 years ago.--Executioner 10:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
does not appear to be the work of the flickr user, who below it links to a page about sugar cane transportation that is copyrighted by someone else Calliopejen 17:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This image are flicker users work, please see here. Links are original flicker pages description.--Quatro Valvole 14:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Looks like a bunch of scanned old photographs by the user in question. ShakataGaNai Talk 04:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is clearly a scan from a book/atlas and the website it was taken from does not own copyrights to it. While they license their articles under CC-BY-SA, it does not apply for "borrowed" media like maps & portraits. --Renata3 23:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Derivative works of this map include:
- Image:Expansion-de-la-Russie-blan.png
- Image:Russie 1300 1796.png
- I don't think it would be possible to delete only one. In my opinion either keep all or delete all. Jackaranga 15:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I see no evidence that the nomination content is true. The book must have released rights to the website. Note the phrase All material in this Encyclopedia is protected by the Creative Commons License. Copyleft 1999-2004. It seems pretty inclusive. Jackaranga 15:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image:Expansion-de-la-Russie-blan.png is clearly not a deritive. If you look at the top edge, you will see that on Image:Muscovy-Russia 1300-1796.jpg the edge touches Norway, but on Image:Expansion-de-la-Russie-blan.png it is clearly out to sea as is anyone who calls it a deritive. It has a different projection, so must have been based on another map. Not to mention the many other differences in detail, probably in the hundreds. [[User:Sagredo|<b><font color ="#009933">Sagredo</font></b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sagredo|<font color ="#8FD35D">⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄</font>]]</sup> 01:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if you speak French at all but on the description page, it says it was inspired by Image:Muscovy-Russia 1300-1796.jpg, that's what made me think it may be a derivative. Jackaranga 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. The 2 additional images are most definitely not the same as the original image. Close - but not the same. So per nom, keeping all. ShakataGaNai Talk 04:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
files must be replaced, Dateien müssen neu hochgeladen werden -- 05:45, 12 October 2007 User:Gerhard51 Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- From talkpage:
- Media description is wrong, file does not contain one of Brahms' Hungarian dances. --User:FordPrefect42 13:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Not a reason to delete. Please request that the file be renamed if it is wrong. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
files must be replaced, Dateien müssen neu hochgeladen werden --05:46, 12 October 2007 User:Gerhard51 Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- From talkpage:
- Media description is wrong, the file contains dance No. 5, not No. 6. --FordPrefect42 13:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Not a reason to delete. Please request that the file be renamed if it is wrong. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
January 26
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete Duplicate under Image:I-H2 (HI).svg--SoCal55 00:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant image caused by evolution of naming schemes. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Delete this quickly! Duplicate image is annoying too confusing to people. --SoCal55 00:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- No double-voting please. And it's not like it's going to ruin someone's life if there's a duplicate image...no need to rush. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Hurry, it's ruining my life. Rocket000 05:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Use {{Duplicate}} --Dezidor 11:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted / Redundant --Fanghong 01:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like a personality-rights or copyright violation (obviously a video snapshot) and doesn't have any documentational value. --84.190.206.219 04:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I really think it may have a documentational value but I'm not sure about the copyright nor the personality rights. Again it's really hard to know if it's the uploader even if he would claim it! And the fact that it's a video snapshot doesn't mean anything since any user can upload a snapshot of his own videos. We're going in circle... (not sure it's the correct translation of the French expression I wanted to use!) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete In extreme cases like this, I think we should delete when in doubt. The use of the image is in no relation to the damage it might cause if it's a vio. By the way: Editing the image in order to make the guy unidentifiable would not lower the "documentational value", if there is any. --84.190.192.182 18:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. senseless porn. __ ABF __ ϑ 18:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC) (got there before i did ;) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC))
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not self-made -Nard 04:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-ineligible -Nard 04:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Clear ineligible. ChristianBier 23:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-ineligible -Nard 05:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. ineligible. ChristianBier 23:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-ineligible -Nard 05:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Clear ineligible! ChristianBier 23:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-ineligible -Nard 05:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. it is pd-ineligible ChristianBier 23:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Image:Amino Acids Venn Diagram (de).svg -derivative.
Not pd-ineligible, actually rather complex -Nard 05:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Clear ineligible. Please stop making such nonsense deletion requests. ChristianBier 23:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-ineligible -Nard 05:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. sure it is pd-ineligibleChristianBier 23:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work Patstuart (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-ineligible. I marked as no permission but uploader reverted. -Nard 14:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright Violation ChristianBier 23:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
three dimensional object, copyright has not expired Polarlys 18:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is about as non-artistic a shot as you can imagine. It is a mechanical reproduction. And the "third dimension" is a bit of scroll rolling at the ends, in short not creatively picked. Does not even begin to pass the threshold of originality. -Nard 21:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- “Mechanical reproduction” in the sense of “individual holding camera, adjusting lights to reduce shadows, choosing aperture and other parameters, pulling the object out of its context”? With this argumentantion we can call any related photography “non-artistic”. --Polarlys 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry but sweat of the brow in exact duplications of PD works has been ruled out as a reason to claim copyright on an image in the U.S., even if the person worked for two days on it http://www.studentweb.law.ttu.edu/cochran/cochran/Cases%20&%20Readings/Copyright-UNT/Copy'ability/batlin.htm and this case did involve 3D objects. -Nard 04:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- “Mechanical reproduction” in the sense of “individual holding camera, adjusting lights to reduce shadows, choosing aperture and other parameters, pulling the object out of its context”? With this argumentantion we can call any related photography “non-artistic”. --Polarlys 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is no “exact duplication” since “exact duplication” does not imply the possibility of various perspective with different results. And US case-law doesn’t matter here. --Polarlys 11:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Legally it matters. This isn't an faithful reproduction. (It's 3D, how can a photo be a copy?) And N, if you want to argue based on works passing the "threshold of originality", let's talk about "neighboring rights" or photographer's rights where they get copyright-like status for merely making a faithful reproduction of a 2D work. I don't mean things like lighting, shadows, and perspective, where you can tell one copy from another, I mean as close to the original as you can get. Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me either, but Commons respects these weird laws. Rocket000 00:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I restored the request since „Giggy“ closed it with „kept“ without any comment on the discussed matter. Provide arguments, this is no autocracy. --Polarlys 23:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The result is delete as PD works can be copyrighted if they are not faithful reproductions. For example, a image of Mona Lisa hanging from the Louvre is copyright by its photographer (unless otherwise specified) but a scan of the image is not. See [176]. — DarkFalls talk 00:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
its a fair use image marked as PD and GNU at the same time... Hidro 01:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It's also missing author information. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, source page says, "It is prohibited to copy or distribute a picture, pictures or parts of the portraits which appear in this site, in any form or by any means, including electronic or technical means, without written permission from the Knesset.". Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
its a fair use image marked as PD and GNU at the same time... Hidro 01:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The picture is not over 50 years old, as the license tag suggests, and the source website says "It is prohibited to copy or distribute a picture, pictures or parts of the portraits which appear in this site, in any form or by any means, including electronic or technical means, without written permission from the Knesset." Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copy of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Franciszek_Ksawery_Wettin.jpeg --Mareczko 14:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-ineligible -Nard 23:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Clear ineligible! ChristianBier 10:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Decission given above is not okay, deleted by szczepan. abf /talk to me/ 14:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-ineligible, shows much creative thought -Nard 00:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was self-made for Commons. Why do you want this deleted? Because you feel the author used the wrong template? That's no reason. Rocket000 17:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sometimes when it's obvious I put the "right" tag on something mistagged or notify the uploader. In this case I missed how obvious it was. -Nard 20:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I changed it to PD-self. Is it ok now? Herr Kriss 20:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept, problem resolved. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
out of Scope __ ABF __ ϑ 15:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. The dude has his own article. Rocket000 04:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No longer needed – replaced with simple CSS in the intended template Seo75 19:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader's request. (unused) Rocket000 04:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No longer needed – replaced with simple CSS in the intended template Seo75 19:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader's request. (unused) Rocket000 03:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No longer needed – replaced with simple CSS in the intended template Seo75 19:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader's request. (unused) Rocket000 04:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown person, inappropriate file name, no description. GeorgHH • talk 14:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This looks like a promotional shot (although I can't seem to find it) - It seems to be this guy (or on Portuguese wiki). Other upload by same user, Image:Luciana Fregolente.jpg also looks like a promotional shot/copyvio. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- deleted , uploader already had another copyvio image claimed to be self made. --Tarawneh 04:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not "own work" -Nard 15:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Signed artwork, unlikely that artist is the uploader. Durova 11:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 17:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Agora was installed in 2006--it is likely still subject to copyright. Freedom of panorama in the US does not cover sculptures. JeremyA 17:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No information on the date of creation nor on the author. ALE! ¿…? 19:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. + author + date. antonov14 08:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept Author and date was added by the uploader. --GeorgHH • talk 16:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of Disney copyright. I marked for speedy but someone reverted. -Nard 20:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not someone, but me. Because this Logo isn't copyrightable because of the simple design it's clearly ineligible and so PD. ChristianBier 21:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Actually, the glowing effect and the artistic line do bump it just above the threshold. Sorry. Vipersnake151 21:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nonsense. The glowing effekt is only one mouseclick in photoshop. This effects no treshold on this logo. Christian 22:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I'm not sure I agree with Christian's assessment. It is still a logo, and not welcome on Commons. The Microsoft logo is simply italicized sans serif text with a notch in the O; UCLA's logo is even more simple, but they issue a whole 24-page manual emphasizing the fact that it is a logo and cannot be reproduced as a free image. ALTON .ıl 01:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This shouldn't, but I believe it does, pass the threshold. Bier, remember where are servers are. And anything with Disney we got to be extra careful. →Яocket°°° 04:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No Logos on Commons. abf /talk to me/ 17:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-ineligible -Nard 23:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Inappropriate license. --GeorgHH • talk 16:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Per COM:PDART#Nordic_countries, not known when or by whom this photographical reproducation was created Fred J (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Thuresson 17:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not a "free screenshot" -Nard 17:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep This is user error... he was trying to license it GFDL, and then later multilicense it GFDL and CC (some variant), and accidentally stumbled upon and used the screenshot license. It is separately licensed GFDL in addition to the bogus screenshot tag. Just remove the latter, and maybe ask the user which CC variant he wanted... Carl Lindberg 05:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept Removed the free screenshot tag, so it's GFDL only. --GeorgHH • talk 19:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Mareczko 14:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Mike.lifeguard: Universally replaced by Image:Carl_Christian_Joseph_of_Saxony.jpeg. Reason was "Was in category "Duplicate", exact duplicate"
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No detail on source, this image is very widely used as the main image for the piano article on Wikipedia, but I don't think its validity has ever been evaluated. Even if this image was scanned by the author, as claimed, then would not the copyright still remain with the author/illustrator of the book? In other words, it isn't Megodenas' right to release it to the PD --ALTON .ıl 06:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- What's the alternative picture to put in {{musical-instrument-stub}}? It Is Me Here 18:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps a sax
, but it's not my job to have it replaced in the event of this image's deletion (although I happily will). ALTON .ıl 21:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps a sax
_156.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(463614642).jpg){kind=link}
_logo.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_146.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Plan.jpg){kind=link}
_Ansicht.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Midnight_Light_9.jpg){kind=link}
_Midnight_Light_3.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_logo.JPG){kind=link}
_on_port.jpg){kind=link}
_SCF_Black_Zarak_(Combiner_-_Scattered_Parts_Thru_Series)_(Act_5_-_Chase)_(486074113).jpg){kind=link}
_SCF_Fortress_Maximus_(Combiner_-_Scattered_Parts_Thru_Series)_(Act_3_-_Chase)_(486073817).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(486517856).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
1.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
4)-.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.greenwoodcollege.com/geography/Taylor&Nic/9geography/canada_map.jpg){kind=link}
_156.jpg){kind=link}
_156.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_156.jpg){kind=link}
_156.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(463614642).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(463614642).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(463614642).jpg){kind=link}
_(463614642).jpg){kind=link}
_logo.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_logo.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_logo.JPG){kind=link}
_logo.JPG){kind=link}
![[8]](http://www.geocities.com/abejabogota/capitolio.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](http://www.car.gov.co/images/dinamicas/6_2_2006_3_34_53_PM_Salto_TequendamaG.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](http://www.mininteriorjusticia.gov.co/adminFiles/Santa-Sara.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine:Jaspers01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafika:8_sierpnia_sciana_powazek.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){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&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk:Bandiera_della_Repubblica_Italiana_PMS_20060414.svg&curid=3240957&action=history){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(290626613).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_146.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_146.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
(GDSF_2007).JPG){kind=link}
_146.JPG){kind=link}
_146.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
_Front.jpg){kind=link}
![[36]](http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3246/buddyicons/938173@N22.jpg?1223755933){kind=link}
![[37]](http://www.yabrium-radio.net/bilder/WeblogSmileyCamera.gif){kind=link}
![[42]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=Image:Tatra-t97-small.JPG){kind=link}
_Plan.jpg){kind=link}
_Plan.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Plan.jpg){kind=link}
_Plan.jpg){kind=link}
_Ansicht.jpg){kind=link}
_Ansicht.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Ansicht.jpg){kind=link}
_Ansicht.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[71]](http://www.aetc.randolph.af.mil/se2/torch/back/2004/0405-06/images/F15EN.jpg){kind=link}
![[72]](http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/050617-F-3961R-658.jpg){kind=link}
![[75]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Fish_Heads.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Midnight_Light_9.jpg){kind=link}
_Midnight_Light_9.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Midnight_Light_3.jpg){kind=link}
_Midnight_Light_3.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[76]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Randy.smith.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&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&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_logo.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_logo.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_logo.JPG){kind=link}
_logo.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_on_port.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_on_port.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_on_port.jpg){kind=link}
_on_port.jpg){kind=link}
![[89]](http://metropoliten.kiev.ua/inc/foto.php?name=../photos/stations/vokzalnaya_2_1962.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_SCF_Black_Zarak_(Combiner_-_Scattered_Parts_Thru_Series)_(Act_5_-_Chase)_(486074113).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_SCF_Black_Zarak_(Combiner_-_Scattered_Parts_Thru_Series)_(Act_5_-_Chase)_(486074113).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_SCF_Fortress_Maximus_(Combiner_-_Scattered_Parts_Thru_Series)_(Act_3_-_Chase)_(486073817).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_SCF_Fortress_Maximus_(Combiner_-_Scattered_Parts_Thru_Series)_(Act_3_-_Chase)_(486073817).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-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&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}
_(486517856).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(486517856).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[101]](http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=No_Israel.svg&w=_100000#end){kind=link}
![[103]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_%281825-1905%29_-_The_Difficult_Lesson_%281884%29.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=9308780){kind=link}
![[104]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=626900743#File:Nils_Nisson_Skum.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[107]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Ruadaurora.jpg&diff=next&oldid=9757330){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[135]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:Montage_du_toit_d%27une_yourte.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_MTW.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
1.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
1.jpg){kind=link}
1.jpg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg&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}
.svg){kind=link}
_2007.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[150]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Genera%C5%82_Heinz_Reinefarth_w_czapce_kubance_i_3_pu%C5%82k_Kozak%C3%B3w.jpg?uselang=pl){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_proposal.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[160]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:40_weeks_pregnant.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[163]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrew_c#Image:Human_fetus_-_40_weeks_-_B.26W.jpg){kind=link}
![[169]](http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ej-technologies.com/images/logos/logo_columbia.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.ej-technologies.com/company/customers.html&h=70&w=220&sz=4&hl=en&start=7&um=1&tbnid=gb2J2hUzpjK6ZM:&tbnh=34&tbnw=107&prev=/images?q=columbia+university+logo&ndsp=21&svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X){kind=link}
![[173]](http://siiri.tampere.fi/VALOKUVA/web/ImageContentServlet?uri=http://museosiiri.tampere.fi:8080/VALOKUVA/content/SIR_EXEC/thumbnails/primary/20040906/10944715231670.jpg){kind=link}
![[174]](http://siiri.tampere.fi/VALOKUVA/web/ImageContentServlet?uri=http://museosiiri.tampere.fi:8080/VALOKUVA/content/SIR_EXEC/thumbnails/primary/20060811/11552952009480.jpg){kind=link}
4)-.jpg){kind=link}
4)-.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
4)-.jpg){kind=link}
4)-.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
- Ok with me to Delete it. Delete the newly uploaded version also, for suspicious source. / Fred J (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Very weird. First version was uploaded by user User:Megodenas, marked as a scan. Current version then was uploaded by User:Stonekey, who claims to be the photographer. Very weird. --norro 09:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. giggy (:O) 09:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: in accordance to I giggy's closure, I also deleted Image:Piano new.png, which inherited from this file. Rama 09:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a book cover. Unless it was it was freely licensed by the original copyright holder, a photo probably can't be GFDL'd by the photographer. Recommend move to English Wikipedia as a fair use image. --82.153.128.122 11:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, an example of {{PD-ineligible}}. --Kjetil_r 14:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's a picture taken by me of a book I own on a carpet I own. It is used to illustrate the article Alternative Service Book. I can see the case for not allowing me to give a free licence to this image (my creative input is minimal), but I also understand the previous voters point of view. I would be happy to relicense the image if that would help. — Gareth Hughes 20:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep PD-ineligible. --Rtc 16:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fair use --Shizhao 15:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- tag as {{PD-ineligible}} --ALE! ¿…? 10:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
kept and tagged with {{PD-ineligible}} --ALE! ¿…? 21:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-ineligible -Nard 04:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, an example of {{PD-ineligible}}. --Kjetil_r 22:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- kept as above! Please respect admin decisions. ChristianBier 22:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of User:Alfonso2
[edit]I want User:Alfonso2's images to be deleted.—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Alfonso2 (talk • contribs) (Fixed request. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC))
- Keep And I don't want them to be. Will you offer a reason? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- The reason is because i can't write or modify articles in es.wikipedia.org (the only place i upload images for). For this reason, if i could not use my own images, i want to delete it. --Alfonso 16:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Were you banned or something? Other wikis might want to use your images. This is the purpose of Commons. Rocket000 16:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, i have been censored. I can't put images in es.wikipedia.org, so i put it en commons. Now, i don't want anybody use my images. --Alfonso 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- What about us? We didn't ban you :'( Rocket000 18:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, instead delete, i want to put a license to all my files in commons that were "public domain for use in all world except es.wikipedia.org". It could be? if not, i want to delete them, sorry :-S
- What about us? We didn't ban you :'( Rocket000 18:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, i have been censored. I can't put images in es.wikipedia.org, so i put it en commons. Now, i don't want anybody use my images. --Alfonso 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Were you banned or something? Other wikis might want to use your images. This is the purpose of Commons. Rocket000 16:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
--Alfonso 19:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, you can't do that. Your problem is with es.wikipedia, not with us. Also, Keep again. While we often respect author requests on this matter, we're not here to cater for people throwing their toys from their high chairs. Your problem is with them; don't punish the rest of the world for it. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, you can't do that. Your problem is with es.wikipedia, not with us. Also,
- BTW, I thought they didn't allow local uploads, anyway. Rocket000 18:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, they didn't allow local uploads--Alfonso 19:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Well, you haven't been censored in es.wikipedia. You've been blocked because of your disruptive behaviour. As you've been instructed, you can ask for unblocking (and you haven't). Anyway, image licenses cannot be revoked Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 11:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
uploaded better version (Quartieri verona.png) --Ludus1988 09:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep superseded images are tagged, not deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Per Collard.--Trixt 02:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image appears to be a derivative of a projector shot. Fails Commons:Derivatives Patstuart (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No detail given on source of image, I suspect that this is a promo image lifted from a search --ALTON .ıl 06:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 12:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No detail given on source of image, I suspect that this is a promo image lifted from a search (crop above) --ALTON .ıl 06:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 12:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work of copyrighted sign Calliopejen 01:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Deletion The following is what i wrote on several related images. This is honest opposition, but I did not receive any response on those. Here it is again. If you disagree, please explain.
- This is not copyrighted, it is a historical plaque which is put out there to be read and photographed, it is published into the public domain deliberately.
- It does not have a copyright indication on it. The historical society that put it up wants the information known and expressly does not copyright it.
- Also there are numerous websites which photograph plaques and/or gravestones, consistent with there being no problem with this. One with plaques is a plaques website.
- Consider somewhat different issue of stock market prices. Stock markets may want to copyright and sell the open, high, low, closing prices of their stocks, but it is found that they cannot both publish such information daily in newspapers and claim that it is proprietary. Hence it is public domain if you will collect it from the newspapers (you can copyright a database of collected, verified, modified stock prices however.) Here, we are collecting it from the field observations directly. Doncram 02:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is entirely different from a stock market, because of the idea/expression dichotomy that is central to copyright law. Stock market numbers are facts (ideas) and hence cannot be copyrighted, whereas this sign contains expression which is the essence of what is copyrightable. 140.247.248.171 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless an explicit permission statement from the copyright holder publishing the image under a free licence is forwarded to OTRS. Any work of sufficient originality is protected by copyright by default. There is no need to expressly indicate this. The US does not have freedom of panorama, so displaying a work in public in no way constitutes permission to redistribute the work in modified or unmodified form in a commercial or noncommercial context. Other websites may publish such works under fair use provisions, but this does not apply to Commons. They may also violate copyright laws out of ignorance or knowing that the risks are low. The stock market example is irrelevant, as simple factual data (as opposed to an original writing) is not copyrightable. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Deletion I believe government works (like this plaque) aren't copyrighted. Could this be researched, and a definitive answer one way or the other be found? Before we delete, let's make sure please. -Ebyabe 22:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- The definitive answer is that state government works are copyrighted, unlike federal government works. 140.247.248.171 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete due to scope. This plaque probably is {{PD-ineligible}} since it's only text, but sicne it's only text it's not really a good image anyway. // Liftarn
- PD-ineligible doesn't work like that, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality which this clearly passes. 140.247.248.171 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Although U.S. Federal government works are public domain by default, that doesn't apply to city or county or state government publications. Although my vote is deletion, I'd be willing to suspend closure of this nomination for a reasonable time (1 week?) so the appropriate authorities may be contacted for confirmation. Durova 23:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Deletion per Doncram. --Bedford 05:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hrm. It is easily within scope; the signs themselves are always of interest, especially to see which aspects of the local history are mentioned. There are several websites devoted to cataloguing them [177][178], and the signs are often mentioned in related wikipedia articles, so I definitely disagree with an out-of-scope argument (in fact, this picture is used in a wikipedia article). This is on the edge of copyright paranoia, but the paragraph of text is probably enough to qualify for copyright. If we had pictures of every single historical marker, we would probably find a couple of historical societies which sell books with the contents, and may claim copyright to protect it. Most would not care, and the photo would certainly be fair use in most circumstances, but it is on the edge. In many cases the state does not write the text themselves; they are often authored by individuals or societies which make the proposal, and the state picks which ones to put up. When was this erected? According to a Google book (Minnesota History Along the Highways) here, there was a marker erected in this park in 1954 by the city of St. Paul and others. This sign looks newer, but if it is that one, then it appears it was published without a copyright notice (and thus public domain immediately). Even if it was, it was then likely not renewed. If this is the 1954 marker (or has the same text as that marker), I would keep it. It may be worth it to contact someone and as well; I believe that has worked in the past in some other states. Even confirming the date may help. Carl Lindberg 05:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why doesn't this fall under {{PD-MNGov}}? All Minnesota cities are considered to be "branches" of the state government.--Appraiser 14:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Look at its talk page... that template should not be used. The ruling the template relies on was likely overrruled by a separate decision, unfortunately. Those rulings happened over 10 years ago but the state web pages still claim copyright, which they probably could not if that first ruling were in fact true. Carl Lindberg 15:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Followup: there is mention elsewhere that one participant is seeking Mn Historical Association contact.
Question Under what circumstances can photos of historic sites used in wikipedia include pictures of plaques, in your view. Certainly, a faraway view of a historic house that has a unreadable plaque standing in front of it, must be allowable. What about a closer view showing a partial view of the house, with the plaque readable but taking up less than 25% of the picture? If the readable plaque is just 10% of the picture? What if the use in wikipedia is as part of set of 10 photos, each covering 10% of the site, one being the plaque. Can you not argue that use of a pic of a historic plaque is "fair use" in an article/photo set on the site. The purpose of many would-be plaque photo users in wikipedia is documenting a site, not documenting a plaque per se, so can't the plaque use be considered incidental fair use in the site documentation, under some circumstances? Doncram 21:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it does get interesting, doesn't it? :-) The image could most certainly be used under a fair use provision on the English Wikipedia. On commons though, the images need to be usable in countries which have either a different concept of fair use or none at all, and they need to be available for *any* use, not just in an educational context. Say, for example, someone making a wikibook of all the historical signs in a state or other area, typing in the text they see on the image. Is that OK? Is it then OK for someone to make a hardcopy book of the same, and sell it? Images where the sign is an incidental part of the picture, that should be no problem (if someone thought the text was copyrightable and too readable, we could probably blur it without affecting the main use of the photo). 99.9% of the time, this type of thing was never meant to be copyrighted, but under today's laws it is. If it was put up before March 1, 1989, we could argue it was published without a copyright notice, and therefore public domain and OK. It is frustrating because most any use of the photo would be "fair use" (since it is educational in nature), and taking this line of reasoning to its very limits would probably invalidate a ton of images on commons and cross into copyright paranoia (which this may be as well). Carl Lindberg 02:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would be happy to add them back to English Wikipedia and claim Fair Use, but can I count on support for that stance? I find this paranoia frustrating and a waste of my time, so I won't bother if I don't have reason to think it will succeed. Also, I thought the cutoff date was 1978 rather than 1989. Some of the deleted plaques fell in that window.
- I asked User:Calliopejen why [179] and [180] are acceptable and received highly hypocritical answers, IMO. ("Maybe technically this is fair use but the copyright holder isn't going to complain and I don't think it's worth losing sleep over. In modern life ginormous ads are everywhere" and "The text on the little sign is technically copyrighted but it's ok to have there because it's not the subject of the photo") Whether the owner would complain shouldn't be germane according to her and the small sign describing the lens could be worse, since that author isn't attributed at all. In contrast, the plaque photos clearly give attribution to the organization that erected them. I think a real lawyer would find this topic laughable.--199.64.0.252 14:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd support a transwiki. This is about as clear a case for fair use as we'll ever see. And regarding the side issues, any informational plaques where the wording is not legible wouldn't be a copyright problem, and any plaques from governments that release their publications public domain would be fine also. So the plaques at U.S. national parks could all be hosted here. Offhand I'm not sure which other governments PD their work. Durova 18:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- How is this a clear case for fair use? It's exactly the opposite because it's obvious someone could write this in their own words. We don't paste copyrighted paragraphs or pages from books, we write them in our own words and cite them. 140.247.248.171 00:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is a photo of a historical marker, as it appears on the grounds of the park, showing the essentially official description of the park. How do you propose showing the marker accurately without the text? Displaying the text, as it appears in public, is the intended use for that textual description and is most certainly "fair". If someone was making their own historical marker, then re-using the text would not be fair use, but that is entirely different. This is not being used as a substitute for writing a description. I am in agreement that a lawyer would find this topic mostly ridiculous, but there are some weird interactions with both commons' rules and GFDL compatibility, which cloud the matter. A straight-up photo of copyrighted text is basically no different than the text itself and thus not allowed; a photo showing the text as a small part of the photo while being shown in relation to its wider context is usually just fine, but this photo is very uncomfortably somewhere in the middle without an easily defined line. I have been noticing that in many states historical markers have a date on them since the 1990s; the lack of a date here may indicate that it is older. I'm not sure when the St. Paul markers began to be dated though. As for the 1978/1989 question, items published without a copyright notice before 1978 were public domain immediately, and between 1978 and 1989 the author had five years to register such items to gain protection. If the text of this sign was never registered (extremely likely), and it was put up before 1989, then it should be public domain anyways. No hard proof as of yet though. Carl Lindberg 02:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Actually I quote copyrighted paragraphs all the time, and cite them. We just don't quote entire chapters. Durova 02:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is a photo of a historical marker, as it appears on the grounds of the park, showing the essentially official description of the park. How do you propose showing the marker accurately without the text? Displaying the text, as it appears in public, is the intended use for that textual description and is most certainly "fair". If someone was making their own historical marker, then re-using the text would not be fair use, but that is entirely different. This is not being used as a substitute for writing a description. I am in agreement that a lawyer would find this topic mostly ridiculous, but there are some weird interactions with both commons' rules and GFDL compatibility, which cloud the matter. A straight-up photo of copyrighted text is basically no different than the text itself and thus not allowed; a photo showing the text as a small part of the photo while being shown in relation to its wider context is usually just fine, but this photo is very uncomfortably somewhere in the middle without an easily defined line. I have been noticing that in many states historical markers have a date on them since the 1990s; the lack of a date here may indicate that it is older. I'm not sure when the St. Paul markers began to be dated though. As for the 1978/1989 question, items published without a copyright notice before 1978 were public domain immediately, and between 1978 and 1989 the author had five years to register such items to gain protection. If the text of this sign was never registered (extremely likely), and it was put up before 1989, then it should be public domain anyways. No hard proof as of yet though. Carl Lindberg 02:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- How is this a clear case for fair use? It's exactly the opposite because it's obvious someone could write this in their own words. We don't paste copyrighted paragraphs or pages from books, we write them in our own words and cite them. 140.247.248.171 00:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd support a transwiki. This is about as clear a case for fair use as we'll ever see. And regarding the side issues, any informational plaques where the wording is not legible wouldn't be a copyright problem, and any plaques from governments that release their publications public domain would be fine also. So the plaques at U.S. national parks could all be hosted here. Offhand I'm not sure which other governments PD their work. Durova 18:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
![[179]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Smithwick%27s_billboard_NYC_May_2005_Wikipedia.jpg){kind=link}
![[180]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Priestley_Burning_Lens_Replica.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Qualifies as {{PD-MNGov}}. -Nard 01:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. FOP does not apply in the US to objects of this type. It is quite possible and indeed it is normal for text to be copyright, by the way; copyright does not cover images only. However, {{PD-MNGov}} does seem to apply, and overrides what would normally be a copyright claim. The history of the {{PD-MNGov}} template is complicated but is seems from the template talk page that the legal issues with it have now been ironed out. It was restored in Nov 2007 after having earlier been deleted. MichaelMaggs 16:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not self-made -Nard 04:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 04:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not self-made -Nard 04:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Dodo 14:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question: It's probably not self-made, but how was it determined? --Kimse 02:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 04:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image was uploaded as GFDL before the Wikimedia Foundation decided they weren't releasing the logo under the GFDL. The original license grant is irrevocable. By changing the licensing to non-free the copyright holder is adding restrictions that make this work incompatible with Commons. Please see [[181]], as of July 2004 the main page of Meta showed the logo was GFDL, but then as of May 2005 they copyrighted it[182] -Nard 05:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
![[182]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-logo.png){kind=link}
- Huh? So why isn't this GFDL? Rocket000 04:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- it *is* released under GFDL. The used version of the puzzleball has at this time been released under gfdl, and so this image is an gfdl-licensed image. later changes of the copyright of later versions of the puzzleball does not affect this fact. despite of that the WMF holds the Trademark, but this is completely independent from the status of copyright. -- Sansculotte 22:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Withdrawn. -Nard 20:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- it *is* released under GFDL. The used version of the puzzleball has at this time been released under gfdl, and so this image is an gfdl-licensed image. later changes of the copyright of later versions of the puzzleball does not affect this fact. despite of that the WMF holds the Trademark, but this is completely independent from the status of copyright. -- Sansculotte 22:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright status at PNNL website states that documents may be used for non-commercial, scientific and educational use. Maybe against policy despite being a US federal government document? Papa November 16:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Accept to delete, I just uploaded the full size photo, and haven't checked the website, sorry. Vinhtantran 16:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do not delete PNNL is part of DOE and as a result all of the material they produce is in the public domain. As long as this image was produced by them, as opposed to an external 3rd party and it appears to have been, then it's perfectly OK to use it. If you do not know for sure, do not delete Maury Markowitz 11:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. From the website "Documents provided from this web server are sponsored by a contractor of the U.S. Government under contract DE-AC05-76RL01830. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce these documents, or to allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. These documents may be freely distributed and used for non-commercial, scientific and educational purposes."
- That means the owner is a contractor - not the US Gov. There for they are _NOT_ PD. ShakataGaNai Talk 04:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Incompatible licenses. Combination of GFDL and cc licenses -Nard 17:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- eh? French panorama problems I could believe but eh? -- carol 18:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep IMHO this deletion request is a pedantic waste of time, are there no real problems to deal with on commons any more? ;-). I have sent Richard Bartz an email asking if he will dual license his image under GFDL to satisfy this supposed problem. --Tony Wills 09:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Legal compliance is not a waste of time - it is the purpose of commons. ShakataGaNai Talk 04:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possibly derivative work, and badly sourced image -Nard 15:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep "No it's not!"--Hornetman16 (talk)
- Where did you get this picture, and why can you freely license a copyrighted image? -Nard 00:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia, where a user took this photo. Which makes it free.--Hornetman16 (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Still a copyvio of the WWE coyrighted belt. -Nard 11:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Tell Wikipedia that, their thinking that if a fan takes the photo it's free use.--Hornetman16 (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Plus if you knew anything about WWE, you would know that they don't own copyright to anything WWF anymore due to their lawsuit with World Wide Fund for Nature (which was then World Wildlife Fund).--Hornetman16 (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. It was deleted by someone at some point for deriv. ShakataGaNai Talk 00:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
January 27
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Bulgari-Logo.gif - also for deletion with same rationale.
- copyrighted image of a company, missing source information --miranda 08:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. It's just text. One of the easiest cases of PD-ineligible. Rocket000 17:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-ineligible -Nard 00:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. It is PD-Ineligible! ChristianBier 10:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-ineligible -Nard 00:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No Treshold! Ineligible!ChristianBier 10:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not pd-ineligible -Nard 00:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. it is pd-ineligible! ChristianBier 10:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not pd-ineligible -Nard 00:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-ineligible -Nard 00:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No Treshold! ChristianBier 10:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is not simple enough to be public domain, unless I don't know something about the components. AVRS 13:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:IsraeliInitiative.jpg Yuval Y § Chat § 13:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Superceded by Image:Gz-map2.png Koavf 02:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- The GIF map is the unaltered map from the CIA:
- https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html
- The PNG map is an altered version that removes some of the text from the map.
- Please do not upload altered versions over the GIF map. Image:Gz-map.gif is for the unaltered version of the map.
- Please see also: Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. --Timeshifter 15:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept, superseded images are tagged, not deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I, Janet13, am the photographer, and I licensed this on en.Wikipedia under CCA 2.5; this is NOT Ale flashero's work. I'm fine with the image remaining as long as it is attributed to me both here and at en.wikpedia.org. Sorry if I listed this in the wrong category but I don't have time today to look up all the details. Please contact me if you need proof, etc. I don't know why User:Ale_flashero translated all my notes into Portuguese and then claimed credit for it. Janet13 06:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC) --Janet13 06:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept with corrected license and author information. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A 1933 movie poster. Wellknown contributor Maksim claims that the artist has been dead for 70 years but did not leave any information about who the artist was. Tagged as fair use at en:Image:Kingkongposter.jpg. Thuresson 07:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. The poster was almost certainly a work for hire. For an iconic U.S. film post-1922, we'd need positive evidence of material lapsing into public domain. Durova 11:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:47, 27 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}
Self-made? Hmm. Patstuart (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Air France Flight 4590 shortly after takeoff. Fair use at en:Image:Concordefire01.jpg. Thuresson 10:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 11:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, famous picture of the doomed Concorde. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
See reasoning in deletion discussion immediately above this one. Patstuart (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 11:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
non-com license →AzaToth 10:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 10:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possible copyvio, this picture appears to be a widely available promotional picture. By googling "Anita Yuen" in Google Images, this picture can easily be found, this doesn't definately mean that the uploader of this image is not the original photographer, however he has not produced evidence that he is, and even if he was the original photographer the rights of such images usually belong to the actress, her agents or the company that commissioned the photographs. --KTo288 10:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Doubtful that the original photographer would upload such a low resolution version. Probable copyvio. Durova 11:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Johney (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
From source website: Copyright 2008 soccer-europe.com, not mentioning of free as freedom usage. Also from first glance on site front page - this source site use images from different sources. EugeneZelenko 16:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No reason why this should be PD. The mentioned date (13/09/07) has nothing to do with the photo copyright, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry died 1944, “author: thumbnail”?? Mormegil 16:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted, for the second time, no appropriate source. --Polarlys 18:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of the copyrighted book cover. Mormegil 20:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of a copyrighted book cover. Mormegil 20:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 21:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
uploaded at incorrect name, moved to correct name Image:Cordell Oklahoma Tornado.jpg --Runningonbrains 20:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, please use {{badname}} next time. :) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no license, seems clear copyvio Ikiwaner 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, looks like it to me too. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request -New version in png-PälzerBu 21:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Superseded images are tagged, not deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bad picture; useless for wikipedia. Erik Baas 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality, outside project scope. Durova 11:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: see Commons:Project scope
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Incorrect drawing that differs noticeably from the correct coat of arms. No encyclopaedic value. Rosenzweig 13:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not incorrect. No reason for deletion given. // Liftarn
- The cross and the globe are incorrect, as anyone can see by comparing the image to Image:Eppelheim Wappen.png. --Rosenzweig 20:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Blue orb (check!) with gold details (check!) on red background (check!). What is incorrect? Are you talking about the design? // Liftarn
- Yeah, they're different. The cross has different detail and the gold line through the orb is rounded. This still isn't a reason for deletion. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Blue orb (check!) with gold details (check!) on red background (check!). What is incorrect? Are you talking about the design? // Liftarn
- The cross and the globe are incorrect, as anyone can see by comparing the image to Image:Eppelheim Wappen.png. --Rosenzweig 20:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Liftarn: you write of the blazon. I doubt you actually know the blazon of this particular coat of arms. As a service, I'll write it down for you (in German):
In Rot ein blauer Reichsapfel mit goldenem (gelbem) Beschlag und goldenem (gelbem) Kleeblattkreuz. (taken from: Die Kreis- und Gemeindewappen im Regierungsbezirk Karlsruhe, Stuttgart 1990, ISBN 3-8062-0802-6; page 45; that's an official publication edited by the Baden-Württemberg state archives.)
Loose translation (not using the special words the English language provides for blazons): In red, a blue Globus cruciger with golden fitting and a golden cloverleaf cross. The blazon specifically describes not just any cross, but a Kleeblattkreuz, which translates as a cloverleaf cross. The kind of cross that is present in the original drawing, but not in your drawing.
Further: while the blazon may leave room to some interpretation, please keep in mind that this is an official coat of arms used by a town. That particular COA was designed in 1900, and the town uses it like this, not in any other form. If you upload a file, claiming it is the COA of the town of Eppelheim, it should actually look like the COA of Eppelheim. Your file does not look like it. Also, if you insert the vva template into the original file's description, you claim that there is a vector version of the original file available. But there is not; your file only looks similar.
So: either a) you modify your file that it looks like the original file, b) the file gets deleted, or c) it gets reuploaded under another file name not claiming that this is the COA of Eppelheim, and the vva template is removed. --Rosenzweig 17:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, cloverleaf cross. Missed that one. It is now fixed. Better like that? // Liftarn
- Better, but not quite there yet. You should also fix the lines on the orb. In order for this image to pass as the COA of Eppelheim, they must be straight, not curved like they are at present. Here's the coat of arms as used by the city itself. --Rosenzweig 17:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that is technically needed, but should be quite easy to do. Coat of arms can obviously cause emotions to flow. Image:Lerum vapen.svg made national news[183] after the webmaster for Lerum complained about it, but the national heraldist supported Wikipedia's version. // Liftarn
- Better, but not quite there yet. You should also fix the lines on the orb. In order for this image to pass as the COA of Eppelheim, they must be straight, not curved like they are at present. Here's the coat of arms as used by the city itself. --Rosenzweig 17:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, cloverleaf cross. Missed that one. It is now fixed. Better like that? // Liftarn
- Liftarn: you write of the blazon. I doubt you actually know the blazon of this particular coat of arms. As a service, I'll write it down for you (in German):
- I was about to officially withdraw the deletion request, but Collard was faster. Fine, now the SVG version is ok. It wasn't necessary to make the shield as wide as in the PNG version (should be less wide there, too), but the shield isn't really that important. Thank you for your cooperation. --Rosenzweig 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Fix it then... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed! // Liftarn
Kept, thanks for fixing it Liftarn. :) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not pd-ineligible. Possibly pd for other reasons -Nard 11:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Johney (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- This looks like it came from en-wiki. Can anyone see if there is a deleted version there, and what the license is/was? I would think this would be PD-user; it was originally just marked PD. Clothes are not copyrightable, but pictures of clothes are, so the photo itself still needs a valid tag. It's probably OK but we need to know who the uploader on en:wiki was, and what license they put on it. Carl Lindberg 05:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was simple {PD} when it was uploaded to en:wiki, and it was {PD} in use on Commons three years ago, too. I am not sure authors's name, I just copied the license tag from en:wiki to Commons. By the way, {PD-user-w} tag was created on 26.3.2005, and I've uploaded this photo four days before.
The author was probably User:Dmn, look at this diff (filename Jumper.jpg I have changed to Jumper_sweater.jpg), and on his personal page w:User:Dmn/Images#Jumper.
In my opinion, a guy who puts his sweater on the floor, shots a snap and personally marks it as PD - he consciously quits his copyright. You can change {PD-ineligible} to {CopyrightFreeUse} or whatever, but Keep. For me it is copyright-ineligible, I am afraid somebody plays copyright-game just to play a game. Read "Avoid copyright paranoia" first.
I asked User:Dmn for his own comment here, I hope if somebody see query he will reassure. Julo 12:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)- I agree with that. Could you update it with a link to the original author? I changed the tag to PD-user-en, I agree now that the explanation has been given. -Nard 21:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would like user:Dmn to confirm himself, it would be the best. Just wait few days. I just reconstructed facts three years before. Julo 12:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think an admin can go look at the old, deleted text and find out. The en-wiki version was deleted in July 2006 because it existed on commons. The commons version with the same name was just deleted a couple of weeks ago because it was a duplicate of this one. The last one probably has a more appropriate history log which if it does should have been transferred over here... that could be undeleted or checked by an admin easily to find the correct tag I think. Carl Lindberg 16:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would like user:Dmn to confirm himself, it would be the best. Just wait few days. I just reconstructed facts three years before. Julo 12:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with that. Could you update it with a link to the original author? I changed the tag to PD-user-en, I agree now that the explanation has been given. -Nard 21:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't check en.WP, but I found this in a deleted version on Commons:
Image history from en:Image:Jumper.jpg: (del) (cur) 00:01, 12 December 2004 . . Dmn (Talk) . . 696x506 (218,299 bytes) (del) (rev) 22:09, 11 December 2004 . . Dmn (Talk) . . 696x506 (218,359 bytes) (Picture of my jumper)
It was deleted as a duplicate. In both cases, it was uploaded as PD. The source was later added by a different user who basically confirmed the license. There's no reason to believe it's not free. →Яocket°°° 21:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No indication for PD, given source isn't available. GeorgHH • talk 13:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Clothing style looks 1940s-era, not likely to have lapsed into public domain yet. Durova 22:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The Internet Archive has a copy of the source. It's from the Illustrated London News, 1937. Make of that what you will. I'd lean towards deletion on this, since the ILN group still exist and (presumably) still hold the copyrights on the material. Unless there's good reason to think this was by an anonymous photographer (hence publication + 70 years), or there's some other reason it'll be PD, it's got to go... :\ Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 17:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
because it's a smaller version of another picture already hosted in commmons: Image:OficinaG3wiki.jpg) --Roderico 14:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Scaled down of Image:OficinaG3Wiki.jpg. --GeorgHH • talk 16:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
file name and scope __ ABF __ ϑ 15:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete too low quality to be of use. Durova 22:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Quality was no valid reason for deletion until now. Commons:Project scope says The quality of files should be as high as possible and should only contain the relevant content. It doesn't say low quality is forbidden. --GeorgHH • talk 16:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
and Image:Wrap advertising light rail.jpg.
Derivative work: advertisement is main subject of image EugeneZelenko 17:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 21:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 17:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Marked as a copyvio but uploader reverted. "copied from wwe.com" is not good enough -Nard 00:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Withdraw requested and Keep as this photo is free use on Wikipedia. This one was never marked as copyvio. an I don't know where bulletproof got it. I suggest a withdraw.--Hornetman16 (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- It says "Source:wwe.com". Copyvio. -Nard 11:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I put that to get by it's not actually from wwe.com. So no it's not a copyvio.--Hornetman16 (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Where was it from, then? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Withdraw requested and Keep as this photo is free use on Wikipedia. This one was never marked as copyvio. an I don't know where bulletproof got it. I suggest a withdraw.--Hornetman16 (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why you asking me I'm not the original uploader for the projects...User:3bulletproof16 at the English Wikipedia is. Ask him.--Hornetman16 (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- That would be the one you've been editwarring with over at en.wiki[184]? And even using socks to try to overwrite? And trying to overwrite it with what you admit is a copyvio[185])? Hmm -Nard 05:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't admit it was a copy vio, they deleted the talk page where I fought for it. And that edit war ended months ago.--Hornetman16 (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
![[185]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:LitOldRAWset.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Alison ❤ 22:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.=== Image:Gothic_florin.jpg ===
Not pd-ineligible, photographer not identified -Nard 00:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. This is no Photograph, this is a reproduction. I fixed License. ChristianBier 10:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Previous deletion request closed after only a few hours because this is "just a reproduction". However Wikimedia's lawyer says that pd-art does not apply to coins[186]. -Nard 05:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 17:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All the images from https://www.fotw.info/flags/ have a non-commercial license[187]. I'm making this DR because there's so many. Maybe a bot can take care of it? --Rocket000 10:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Be careful using a bot. For instance, this image has taken FOTW as source of the description, not the FOTW image as is. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 11:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're very right. I guess these will have to be done by human. I'm going to start on 'em tomorrow. Everyone's welcome to help. :) Rocket000 12:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've already started. However, I don't know what to do with claims as the ones in this image, for instance (accessible throuhg [188]). --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 14:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping! I just noticed we had {{FOTWpic}} and it has been in use for awhile now. So maybe we should put that on the heavily used ones and wait a little to delete them. I got busy yesterday, so I'm just starting to look into it but you raise an interesting question. I guess some are ok if the PD claims are true. It just depends if they added enough for it to be eligible for copyright. I'm not an expert in this field so I'll probably just leave those for someone else ;) Another thing, see es:Wikipedia:Autorizaciones/Banderas de Jaume Ollé. We may have permission for some of them (not sure if it's for eswiki only or not). Rocket000 22:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Licensing is OK. Authorization was asked on behalf of both eswiki and dewiki, but properly stating GFDL. Therefore, Ollé's pictures are OK. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 17:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Some deleted. Fortunately, there were not as many as I thought. Images that had PD claims (e.g. {{PD-UA-exempt}}) and images by Jaume Ollé were kept. Images that had more than a couple uses and no obvious replacement were tagged with {{FOTWpic}} and are located in Category:FOTW images. These will soon be deleted also. There may be a few more out there that got overlooked but there's really no need for this DR to remain open. Rocket000 00:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files by User:Normannormal
[edit]Normannormal (talk • contribs)
- Image:Zitarrosa.jpg
- Image:Zitarrosa1.jpg
- Image:Zitarrosa2.jpg
- Image:Zitarrosa3.jpg
- Image:ZitarrosaFirma.gif
No permission, given source says "©2006 Fundación Alfredo Zitarrosa. Todos los derechos reservados". User not activ on Commons. --GeorgHH • talk 13:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
French banknotes are copyrighted (this one is from 1993), keeping a banknote in your “private collection” does not give you rights to copy and publish it. Mormegil 16:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I deleted it, but then restored it pending a translation of the text below. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Tous les droits
[edit]
Ce n'est pas vrai. J'ai tous les droits concernant l'exemplaire numéro X 021315790.
--trisku 16:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted again (thanks Bryan). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All images in Category:Billet drapeau
[edit]All images in Category:Billet drapeau are marked as {{patent}}, which is nonsense. The images do not display patents, they display French banknotes printed during WW2 in USA. There might be some reason they could be PD, but the reason is not stated anywhere, so I have to assume they are, in fact, copyrighted. --Mormegil 16:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Copied from my talk page:
Hello,
I don't understand this request for deletion. This banknotes are scanned by me and they are a work by the United States gouvernement.
But maybe the licence's template is not enough explicit and this template is better {{PD-USGov}}. Sanao 17:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Say it on the deletion request page!
- As I have said: the images are marked plain wrong. If you say they are works of U.S. government (which seems strange to me, but I don’t have any knowledge in this topic, so maybe they are), they could be kept, but the license tags will need to be corrected.
- --Mormegil 17:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have modified the licence.
- On billet drapeau, a very short article exist on english Wikipedia : US occupation franc. Sanao 23:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Can i remove the delete template? Sanao 20:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. License template changed, let’s assume it is correct, now. Mormegil 16:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-ineligible -Nard 00:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom.--Trixt 02:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-ineligible, photographer not specified -Nard 00:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would think these would have been scanned not photographed. Rocket000 05:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Withdrawn with change of template to {{PD-Iraq}}. -Nard 22:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Nomination withdrawn Badseed talk 18:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-ineligible, photographer not specified -Nard 00:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, they really looked scanned to me. Rocket000 05:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Withdrawn with change of template to {{PD-Iraq}}. -Nard 22:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused and superfluous category, because all images can be categorized in Category:Synagogues in Amsterdam. – Ilse@ 21:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, maybe unused but not superfluous, there is more to a culture and a religon than just the physical buildings. I've just made Category:Synagogues in Amsterdam a subcat of Category:Judaism in Amsterdam so its no longer unused. KTo288 23:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've now added Category:Baruch Spinoza and Category:Anne Frank to the category, if anyone can convince me that these two topics can adequately and properly be covered in Category:Synagogues in Amsterdam I'll change my vote to delete. KTo288 11:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- This seems to be an artificial and perhaps desperate attempt to preserve the category. – Ilse@ 22:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've now added Category:Baruch Spinoza and Category:Anne Frank to the category, if anyone can convince me that these two topics can adequately and properly be covered in Category:Synagogues in Amsterdam I'll change my vote to delete. KTo288 11:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep i feel the same like KTo288 --Oren neu dag 15:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep i agree with KTo288 - Vincent Steenberg 16:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-ineligible, source says all rights reserved -Nard 00:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Which source says "All Rights reserved"? Source is "own work"!!! Author published also at Panoramio. But this is not the source. sk Author for put the correct License-Tag in, but don't request deletion. ChristianBier 10:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is virtually certain that this is just mis-tagged... PD-self is probably what was meant. The tag should be fixed, but the EXIF information is there so it is virtually certain that it was self-made. It is probably better to notify the user on their talk page rather than opening a deletion request for something which was likely user error... Carl Lindberg 05:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work EugeneZelenko 17:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know about this one. A pinball light? Aren't the copyright laws a little looser for useful articles? -Nard 05:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The picture on the light is separable... the picture itself has no utilitarian purpose, so it could be copyrightable. Carl Lindberg 05:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 12:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Famousphotoche.jpg The painters permission does not overrule the photographer's rights. Polarlys 00:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but the original photo is in the Public Domain for some years now. This was documented in the page of the photo within Commons. If you restore it, I will be glad to translate the explanatory text into English. --Jgaray 09:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- „Ley sobre Derechos de Autor de Cuba. La foto fue utilizada por primera vez en 1967. Se encuentra en el dominio público por Decreto Ley No. 156 de 28 de septiembre de 1994, modificatorio parcialmente de Ley No. 14 de 28 de diciembre de 1977, Ley de Derecho de Autor (Art 47) que establece que las fotos entran al dominio público 25 años después de su primera utilización. La foto fue publicada en 1967 y entró al dominio público el 1 de enero de 1993.“ --Polarlys 11:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Translation: „Copyright Law of Cuba. The picture was used for the first time in 1967. It is now in the Public Domain according to Executive Order Number 156 (28 September 1994), which is a partial modification of the Law Number 14 (28 December 1977), "Copyright Law". Article 47 states now that photographs enter the Public Domain 25 years after their first use. This photograph was published in 1967, and therefore in the Public Domain since 1 January 1993“
Since I did not write this original paragraph, just in case I took a look at the aforementioned Executive Order Nr. 156. It can be found here. The redaction of the paragraph I just translated could be better, but in essence it is simply right. According to the Cuban Law, photo's enter the PD 25 years after the first use (it can be discussed what "use" is, but I think "publication" is for sure a form of "use").
--Jgaray 14:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- It may well be that the photo is PD in Cuba. But Cuba had also joined the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) on June 18, 1957. The U.S. also was a member of the UCC. In Berne countries that were also UCC members, the photo would be PD only in countries that followed the en:rule of the shorter term for Cuban works. And for the U.S., I think it might depend on whether the photo was originally published with a copyright notice. Cuba has had a bilateral copyright treaty with the U.S. since November 17, 1903 ([189])... I have no idea what that treaty defined or whether it is still in effect. Lupo 14:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The E.O. 156 mentions that it is implemented just to comply with the Universal Copyright Convention you mention. But why does the photo need to comply with U.S. Copyright laws? Is that because the Commons servers are physically located in the U.S? I will appreciate it if you can clarify this. In such case, Commons is full of materials which are considered OK because they are PD in their countries, and might be not OK because they are not PD in the US! Furthermore, in that case, does it matter at all what the status of the works are in other countries than the US? As an example, many countries consider COA images ineligible for Copyright, but this might not be the case in the US. In such case, this images would also be subject of Copyright, no matter what the origin country claims... --Jgaray 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just see here. The rule at the commons is that a work must be freely licensed, or be PD in both the U.S. and the country of origin. Lupo 12:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, that's clear now. But I have been searching the web for more info about the bilateral treaty or any other applicable legislation, to no avail. I don't know what is the status in the US. What's next? --Jgaray 14:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just see here. The rule at the commons is that a work must be freely licensed, or be PD in both the U.S. and the country of origin. Lupo 12:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The E.O. 156 mentions that it is implemented just to comply with the Universal Copyright Convention you mention. But why does the photo need to comply with U.S. Copyright laws? Is that because the Commons servers are physically located in the U.S? I will appreciate it if you can clarify this. In such case, Commons is full of materials which are considered OK because they are PD in their countries, and might be not OK because they are not PD in the US! Furthermore, in that case, does it matter at all what the status of the works are in other countries than the US? As an example, many countries consider COA images ineligible for Copyright, but this might not be the case in the US. In such case, this images would also be subject of Copyright, no matter what the origin country claims... --Jgaray 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Since Cuba signed the Berna Convention, and USA did it as well, all the Cuban pictures that are PD by Cuban law and Berne Convention, are also PD in USA. So, this drawing is with no dubt in public domain. Regards, --Roblespepe 21:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. It looks like the consensus is that the image is PD in Cuba. Probably would also go with the shorter term. Plus this is a derivative work that is fairly different from the original ShakataGaNai Talk 08:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The Superman character is likely still copyrighted Gazebo 06:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- If that is the case that is a trademark issue, not an image copyright issue. // Liftarn
- For more details, please see Commons:Deletion_requests/Cartoons. - Gazebo 05:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. From what I read in the precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Donaldduck-thespiritof43-2.jpg characters are copyright still. So deleted it shall be. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work __ ABF __ ϑ 10:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. As derivative work & Safari interface is copyright to my knowledge. ShakataGaNai Talk 07:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No license, Created/Published 1942 Apr. 11. (see [190]) GeorgHH • talk 13:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Note that direct links won't work, go to the American Memory front page and enter the name of the subject as a search term. This page says they were a gift (presumably to the LoC); I don't know if this makes them public domain or not. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Seems like the estate gave them away to the LOC. Seems safe to assume that the LOC "owns" them now so there for its PD ShakataGaNai Talk 06:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This painting sketch was definitely not done in the 15th century. It appears the first time in the early 20 century, see also the design of the plate and the perspective. No appropriate source provided. Polarlys 18:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep A sketch, not a painting, and described as an early nineteenth century historical reconstruction of an early sixteenth century scene. PD-OLD seems fine. Durova 21:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- The uploader added this comment after my request and I have absolutely no idea, where „1840“ comes from. Please provide a suitable source for this picture with this time specification. --Polarlys 22:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. (again) Seems that PD old is applicable. Since the lack of source seems to be a concern, I have tagged this image with NSD. After 7 days, it is history. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:31, 6 June 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 pd-ineligible -Nard 00:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Also for Image:French voting card 2004.jpg
- Keep It's mainly non-decorative text so I don't think it should be copyrighted. Before I uploaded those I asked on French WP in the Legifer discussions and that's what had been concluded. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The graphics on the top right are definitely eligible for copyright protection. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment I've sent an e-mail to the French Ministry of Interior Affairs in order to know if such a reproduction is accepted and if there are any conditions of use. Therefore I'm waiting for an answer. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep graphics near top-right corner seems rather NOT to be copyrighted Julo 20:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete For sure the graphics are eligible for copyright.--Trixt (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Can be reuploaded/undeleted with OTRS permission of the graphics being free to use. —Giggy 07:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
January 28
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bad svg: contains href to local file. Erik Baas 01:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bad svg: contains href to local file. Erik Baas 19:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 20:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong upload DiOne 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as author/subject request. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:01, 28 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}
Interest encyclopaedic is none. The face of the person is not recognizable. Ludo 09:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Agreed, this should be deleted. Darkoneko 09:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- (wow, that was fast)Darkoneko 09:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rama. Arria Belli | parlami 13:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probably a copyvio (see EXIF data). ALE! ¿…? 15:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I called the people at bayernpress.de. Yes, at the moment it is a copyvio, but I persuaded them at Bayernpress, that we'll get a permisson shortly. Achates 15:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- No Permission, plz Speedy! Achates 15:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the effort. --ALE! ¿…? 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- No Permission, plz Speedy! Achates 15:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This isn't a PDF, it's a RAR. See also Image:BlackHat16.pdf, Image:BlackHat14.pdf, Image:BlackHat18.pdf, Image:BlackHat20.pdf, Image:BlackHat21.pdf, Image:BlackHat25.pdf, and Image:BlackHat19.pdf. --Gmaxwell 17:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. .rar files with Windows virus (just another reason to enable bugzilla:11215) Lugusto • ※ 00:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work EugeneZelenko 15:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Herr Kriss 17:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep don't have art precious--Albedo-ukr 05:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Photo of actress is not an art? Did you ask opinion of author? --EugeneZelenko 16:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, clear case. -- Infrogmation 17:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Redundent upload Bellayet 05:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Redundant because of what? -- Deadstar (msg) 14:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. giggy (:O) 10:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Permission is not clear enough. Are derivative works and commercial use allowed? Kam Solusar 05:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No specific license, conditions unclear. --GeorgHH • talk 16:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Permission (see image talk page) is not clear enough, it only talks about usage in an WP article. It does not mention derivative work and commercial usage. And the depicted person is obviously not the author of the image. Kam Solusar 05:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No specific license, conditions unclear. --GeorgHH • talk 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Watermarked, and thus unfree, and the licensing is undoubtedly bogus -Nard 05:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, and the source is insufficiently identified. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete useless --Simonxag 19:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of famous copyrighted en:Che Guevara (photo) -Nard 05:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as it's probably based on Jim Fitzpatrick's version and that is free[191]. The original work was published in 1967 and since Cuba has a 25 year copyright limit for photos it is free as well. Perhaps Image:Latuff che.gif should be discussed as well? // Liftarn
Kept. per Lifarn's comments. More discussion may be warranted. giggy (:O) 10:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:1056_-_Milano_-_Che_Guevara_-_Centro_Sociale_Leoncavallo_-_Foto_Giovanni_Dall'Orto_11-5-2007.jpg
[edit]
No FOP in Italy, and possibly derivative of copyrighted en:Che Guevara (photo) -Nard 05:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, but I'm not sure it's derivative of that work in particular. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If it is demonstrated this images is a derivate work from a copyrighted image, I shall of course agree with its immediate deletion. However, by simply having a look at the image cited as the purpoted source, everybody can see at first glance there is no drivation, the first one being a frontal shot, whereas this one is a three-quarter image. The fact that both images are images derived from the same model does not imply one image is a derivattive image from the other one.
- BTW I find utterly amusing discussing about copyright issues concerning a "Che Guevara" logo. It's goddam true that capitalism can and wants to make money from absolutely anything, from slavery to child prostitution to terrorism to revolution! I am at the same time admired and horrified! :-) --User:G.dallorto 11:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Marcok 14:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep if this is illegal graffiti; a legally-painted mural would be a different thing. It certainly does not appear to be a derivative work of a certain copyrighted photo. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 15:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- (With that said, I definitely think it's time for a copyright discussion about illegal graffiti. There is precedent here for keeping them, but it'd be better to have clear-cut guidelines on this matter. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 15:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC))
- Keep Different from photo, I guess some people has nothing else to do. --Sailko 07:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete for lack of original source. Not a copy of the Korda/Fitzpatrick image, but still someone created the image, and we don't know who or what the copyright status is. I don't think "illegal graffiti = free" applies, as this looks like it was stencilled rather than drawn freehand with spraypaint; so even if the graffiti itself is illegal, the original stencil image, from which this was created, is probably legal and copyrighted. --dave pape 20:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. giggy (:O) 10:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source is not specific enough, and the referenced site is "Copyright @ 2008 - Prefeitura do Município de Jundiaí - Todos os direitos reservados" — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - the website may be copyrighted, the image can't be. See {{PD-BrazilGov}}. Dantadd✉ 02:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. giggy (:O) 10:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is a reproduction of magazine MEN'S NON NO of Japan. SHUEISHA that is the right company of this magazine has not permitted the use of the image.--Innocent 09:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment What does the OTRS permission say? -- Deadstar (msg) 11:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The image was maded from the originals files, as the profile of the image says. This images was obtained from the photo session. Suzuki.-'~ 14:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Pending OTRS, at which point a respondant will have something to say about it. giggy (:O) 10:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Collage of lot of images likely copyrighted Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 10:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative of Dragon Ball series. --GeorgHH • talk 17:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate (Image:Negro boy near Cincinnati, Ohio (LOC).jpg) Milan.sk 11:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. giggy (:O) 10:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Scanned picture. Should be deleted. --27 January 2008 user:SeppVei Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Logo of a newspaper - user cannot release it into PD. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and tag with {{PD-textlogo}}. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - this image should be recreated as an SVG. Yuval Y § Chat § 15:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Scanned picture. Should be deleted. --27 January 2008 User:SeppVei Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete User cannot release it into PD as he is not copyright holder. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not enough information to determine the PD status. ALE! ¿…? 15:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
More info : The picture was comming from Gallica (Bibliothèque National de France), here : http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b7721463b/f1.item
(recherche "litolff")
Henry Litolff is dead in 1891, see http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Litolff This picture is an unknown caricature when Litolff was about 30 years old... drawn near 1850.
Maybe could you put a Litolff portrait here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Charles_Litolff ? Thanks. Sorry for my poor english. ;) Infofiltrage 19:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The signature makes me think it is by Etienne Carjat, who died in 1906 [192]. That makes the image PD. In France we can invoke Bridgeman, can't we? Keep, then. --rimshottalk 14:19, 5 February 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}
i removed speedy request, because i think its not derative work, because its simple design. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I nominated it for speedy. I nominated a job lot of Transformer images for regular deletion and they all were all deleted in flash, so I nominated the remainder for speedy, I think that this must be one of the last. Although its not immediately obvious what it is, its a toy or part of a toy, and falls foul of the "toys are art criteria". Also although it appears simple its designed to fold from part of a train to being part of a robot, not that simple in my opinion. KTo288 03:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 15:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyrighted logo of Warsaw metro. Not ineligible for copyright. Herr Kriss 01:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --WarX 01:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC) :(:(:(
- Delete Picus viridis RSVP? 13:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Please go to Category:Diagrams of railway symbols and delete everything there, because every image is copyrighted anyhow. I worked a lot to create some of this images (and they are used on many wikipedias) but if you, the commons-lawyers, think it is important to delete it, feel free to do so. I hope you feel better afterwards and that you can sleep well again.
An other possibility would be to add the {{Trademarked}} license, as i did now. But in the end it's your decision... Siegele Roland 13:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Clearly ineligible! ChristianBier 13:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It was kept by ChristianBier but I have reopened discussion. In my opinion it is not ineligible. On the contrary it's copyvio. So... Delete --Szczepan talk 22:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please read Commons:Licensing#Simple_design. When admins knowledge about such important copyright- & licensing issues is bad like yours, i'm sure, it would be good, to de-admin such admins. Admins should know copyright laws and licencing rules of the project. I want to know how you became an admin without knowing the own rules of Commons-Licensing. ChristianBier 23:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Christian, please {{be civil}}, derogating a fellow user, using a argumentum ad hominem, is hardly a way of discussing the issue with the image. I actually agree with Szczepan1990: the image is neither simple typeface nor a simple geometric shape and has certainly elements of originality. If it is not shown that such symbol is PD by any other reason, I also agree to Delete. Patrícia msg 18:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am civil. And sure, my comment was hard, but correct. I am sad about the misknowledge about copyright laws of some of the admins at commons. To identify a cd-cover as a copyright is easy, but for such decisions like this one here, please let some admins decide whether delete or keep, which have the special knowledge in simple designs and copyright laws and respekt their decisions. And when you think my decision is wrong, then first discuss with me, so that I can explain my decision. But reopen and a short comment on my userpage is not the way we should go. If an admin close a deletion request, first discuss with the admin, also If you are an admin too. ChristianBier 22:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- (Ignoring the second ad hominem argument) In my humble, ignorant opinion about copyright, although the logo is itself composed by elements which are separately ineligible for copyright, the composition has elements of originality, as with the placement of the arrow on the letter M. I believe that same argument is used in logos such as the Fedex one (which is fair use on en.wikipedia). But I am indeed not a copyright expert; I still think I have a place as an admin in Commons, but you're welcome to disagree. Patrícia msg 10:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am civil. And sure, my comment was hard, but correct. I am sad about the misknowledge about copyright laws of some of the admins at commons. To identify a cd-cover as a copyright is easy, but for such decisions like this one here, please let some admins decide whether delete or keep, which have the special knowledge in simple designs and copyright laws and respekt their decisions. And when you think my decision is wrong, then first discuss with me, so that I can explain my decision. But reopen and a short comment on my userpage is not the way we should go. If an admin close a deletion request, first discuss with the admin, also If you are an admin too. ChristianBier 22:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Christian, please {{be civil}}, derogating a fellow user, using a argumentum ad hominem, is hardly a way of discussing the issue with the image. I actually agree with Szczepan1990: the image is neither simple typeface nor a simple geometric shape and has certainly elements of originality. If it is not shown that such symbol is PD by any other reason, I also agree to
Delete. The image does not consist "entirely of information that is common property". It does contain original authorship in the shapes, selection and arrangement of its constituent elements, which go beyond standard fonts and simple geometric shapes. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- To finish discussion in this case I would prefer to replace PD-ineligible with PD-Polishsymbol, because it's a company owned and directed by local Government. ChristianBier 14:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- BTW: To put an arrow, an "M" and a circle together does'nt make original authorship to the logo. Where does your knowledge came from? The arrangement of common shapes NEVER can give you original authorship to a symbol. When parts of a logo are free, their composition is free to. When I put 5 public domain pictures with overlays and shadows together, I never can put a GFDL or CC-by-Licence on this work. Maybe I have to engage a lawjer, but I will send the bill for his work to the foundation. Will be very sad, but if the laws were misinterpreted by lot of admins, thats the only way we can go. ChristianBier 14:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I may be wrong, but PD-Polishsymbol doesn't apply to company logos owned by Polish government. Even if it apply then it's not owned by Polish gov, but by Warsaw city (http://www.metro.waw.pl/page.php?id=14 - "Właścicielem spółki jest Miasto Stołeczne Warszawa."). Herr Kriss 16:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Clearly not ineligible. Sorry, Christian, but you are to soft with Logo-Stuff, the rules are harder here than in dewiki. abf /talk to me/ 18:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There's no information why this image should be public domain. Being in the possession of the Naval Historical Center does not automatically make it PD (at least not outside the US). I think that's one of the reasons why {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC}} is no longer a valid license template. Kam Solusar 04:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- This also applies to Image:Bismarck h69721.jpg and Image:Bismarck h69732.jpg. I guess those images were already deleted once under a different file name, see Commons:Deletion requests/Almost everything in the category Battleship Bismarck Category:Battleship Bismarck and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC. There's no information about the author, and they are not old enough to be PD. --Kam Solusar 05:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Since it was a german battleship and it's completion was during world war two, the photograph is fairly certain a german work. (possibly by employee of the Kriegsmarine). And due to the PD-70 rule in Germany, it cannot be in the public domain. -- ChristophT 14:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep If NHC claims they are public domain, and we're publishing it basing on that claim, why are we trying to be "more catholic, than the Pope"? I wonder, if anyone ever claimed copyrights to these photos. Pibwl 20:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
non free logo and product, licensed to Figures Toy Company --Barliner 16:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment {{delete}} was missing at the image page, I just added it. --rimshottalk 14:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, possibly speedy, obvious copyvio. --rimshottalk 14:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - The logo you guys are talking about can't be copyrighted as WWE can no longer make legal use of the acronym "WWF" nor the scratch logo of the WWF due to the lawsuit with World Wide Fund for Nature (who was at the time know as the World Wildlife Fund (also WWF))...Check out Wikipedia's article for more information. As for the comment on it being licensed to Figures Toy Company...they own the lisence to the modified version containing the WWE logo. -- H o r n e t m a n 1 6 21:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC) (edited on 22:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC))
- Comment - Please don't you guys take this the wrong way but maybe you should learn about this history of wrestling stuff before nominating for deletion...Cause you may do it when it's not true like this one.-- H o r n e t m a n 1 6 22:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- They may not own the trademark any longer, but they may still own the copyright. --rimshottalk 23:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- They are not allowed.-- H o r n e t m a n 1 6 00:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- They may not own the trademark any longer, but they may still own the copyright. --rimshottalk 23:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
RESULT: Keep, No Consensus.-- H o r n e t m a n 1 6 04:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Only admins may close deletion requests, unless the case is exceptionally clear. It obviously isn't. --rimshottalk 08:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it is....No one's voted for 10 days it's obvious it's gonna stay at No Consensus.-- H o r n e t m a n 1 6 18:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there is a huge number of deletion requests and only few people working through them. That means that it may take a while for a outcome to be decided. Just be patient. --rimshottalk 18:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can this be closed yet?--ʘ Hornetman16ʘ 18:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- October isn't done yet. What's the hurry? --rimshottalk 18:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can this be closed yet?--ʘ Hornetman16ʘ 18:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there is a huge number of deletion requests and only few people working through them. That means that it may take a while for a outcome to be decided. Just be patient. --rimshottalk 18:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it is....No one's voted for 10 days it's obvious it's gonna stay at No Consensus.-- H o r n e t m a n 1 6 18:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
That's very funny (a sniff of sarcasim)...seriously can it be closed?--ʘ Hornetman16ʘ 18:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - nonfree image, sorry - Alison ❤ 07:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence of ownership - is there a full/high rez version? Ytoyoda 06:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - "~~~'s file" is an insufficient source, no matter who "~~~" is. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- That just means it's self-made. →Яocket°°° 21:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Source = Self made. giggy (:O) 10:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Delete per ALE! giggy (:O) 08:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - no EXIF data. File found on http://www.ladiesgolf2.com/includes/comm_picture.inc.php?aid=134 in the context of http://www.ladiesgolf2.com/ Therefore surely a copyvio. --ALE! ¿…? 08:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I doubt that an webmaster wo take a photo for his company is legitimate to publish the photo on commons under PD. http://www.micronit.com/en/disclaimer.php don't allow commercial use. GeorgHH • talk 12:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Please delete this image, as it is no longer used on Wikipedia and it conflicts with copyrights. Micronit • talk 11 April 2008
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
C'est une erreur d'import. Cyberbiologie 16:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
C'est une erreur d'import. --Cyberbiologie 17:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 13:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Spam 217.68.187.94 17:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. Durova 18:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source info from en.wiki have to be checked. I doubt that the uploader is the copyright holder. GeorgHH • talk 23:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as it was already deleted on en.wiki for having no source. --Svens Welt 11:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted., no source info Badseed talk 00:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The lion in the middle is non free and not made by the author --Notwist 13:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. It's the official logo for the city of Gothenburg, see http://www.goteborg.se/ Notwist 15:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom.Trixt 02:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Obviously not free and not self-made, no source, was originally uploaded under false self-made claim on en-wiki. Future Perfect at Sunrise 15:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Delete it. No problem. You are reason.--Dorieo 04:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom.--Trixt 02:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A photograph depicting a person in 1961 is very unlikely to be a users work, if the author was - according to his German user page - born in 1965. Therefore missing original author and source. --Wo st 01 (2008-01-28 13:13 CEST)
- Delete Full Ack. -- 88.68.113.204
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 18:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author "a friend of Elk Salmon" ? Please check the source at en.wiki GeorgHH • talk 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No proper source. MichaelMaggs 15:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No proof that this image was first published in the US before 1923. Kam Solusar 05:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Original license (first uplaod date) was {{PD-Germany}}. --GeorgHH • talk 16:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- The German text says postcard, photograph by Berl. Illustr. Ges., 1920. That means that it was a work by a company, which makes it eligible for {{Anonymous-EU}}. Therefore, Keep. rimshottalk
keep the picture in, the maybe missing of the publishing in the US isnt a reason to delete that picture in my opinion. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.61.222.202 (talk • contribs)
- Actually the image is hosted here under a claim that it was published in the US which would except it from being bound by German law here. That is what "PD-US" means. If this image wasn't published in the US prior to 1923, then such a claim is obviously void, and German law applies. Valentinian T / C 00:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as Rimshot Tinodela 08:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
First published in Germany 1920. No Author given. sугсго 11:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete There's no proof that the image is PD in Germany. Even if it was published in the US before 1923, there's a good chance that it was still copyrighted in Germany as of 1996, which would have restored the copyrights in the US due to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Pymouss44. Kameraad Pjotr 14:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A photograph depicting a person who died in 1926 is very unlikely to be a users work. Therefore missing original author and source. ChristophT 10:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The entry is corrected to "public domain" - the picture out of any copyright today. The source is family heritage (Photograph belongs since 100 years to our family, we are direct descendants of the person). -- User:Sebastian_Claudius 28 January 2008
- Imho the correct source would be something like: Photograph in my possession or Photograph is part of my personal collection. Just make clear that the photograph is your or your family's property. Anyway, you still have to state the author of this photograph, because the physical ownership of the photograph doesn't give you the rights on it. The copyright still belongs to the photographer. In german law it expires 70 years after the death of the creator. As you can see, it is essential to know the author to verify that the photograph is in the public domain. --ChristophT 10:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC) PS: I just saw that you placed it under GFDL. You can't put an old photograph under GFDL unless you are the author and a public domain work (if it is one) can't be GFDL either. --ChristophT 11:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Removed license, switched to NLD ShakataGaNai Talk 06:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A photograph depicting a person who died in 1926 is very unlikely to be a users work. Therefore missing original author and source. --Wo st 01 (2008-01-28 13:21 CEST) 13:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The entry is corrected to "public domain" - the picture out of any copyright today. The source is family heritage (Photograph belongs since 100 years to our family, we are direct descendants of the person). -- User:Sebastian_Claudius 28 January 2008
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A photograph depicting a person who died in 1926 is very unlikely to be a users work. Therefore missing original author and source. --Wo st 01 (2008-01-28 11:32 CEST) The entry is corrected to "public domain" - the picture out of any copyright today. The source is family heritage (Photograph belongs since 100 years to our family, we are direct descendants of the person). -- User:Sebastian_Claudius 28 January 2008
Kept. swapped to PD-old ShakataGaNai Talk 06:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The chemical structure doesn't show properly. --27 January 2008 User:Mrgreen71 Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can't you try to make a version that works and upload it over the given one? --rimshottalk 14:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A photograph depicting a person around 1930 is very unlikely to be a users work, if the author is - according to his German user page - born in 1965. Therefore missing original author and source. --Wo st 01 (2008-01-28 13:09 CEST)
Kept. It is in use on de.wp, and I think it classifies as pd-old. ShakataGaNai Talk 06:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A photograph depicting a person who died in 1926 is very unlikely to be a users work. Therefore missing original author and source. --Wo st 01 (2008-01-28 13:21 CEST) 13:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The entry is corrected to "public domain" - the picture out of any copyright today. The source is family heritage (Photograph belongs since 100 years to our family, we are direct descendants of the person). -- User:Sebastian_Claudius 28 January 2008
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
uploader uploaded tons of photos at wikipedia and marked them PD (including old newspapers etc). i don't think he claims he took this picture, just that he had it in his archive. Calliopejen 15:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, if it was taken 1930 it's quite hard to beleive he took it. // Liftarn
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 03:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Category with about 37 screenshots of an application (which may or may not be copyrighted), with medical advice about diseases and symptoms in Italian. I think this is out of scope for commons. Please let me know if you want me to list all images in this request. ---- Deadstar (msg) 16:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm practicioner in folk medicine as profession. The remedies are not copyrighted, they are based mostly on oral tradition and I produce and use them individually for my patients. I find there are of common property and a cultural eredity. I choose the graphic form for not let them modify. Greatings and excuse my barbarian English. 8>)_Peter 20:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I asked user what software he used for the screenshots, he said: Part of images are made in OpenDocument .ods NeoOffice GFDL, other parts In FileMaker Pro 6.0Tv3 with an own mask. If there are problems with FileMaker, I can rewrite all in OpenDocument format. Best greatings. 8>)_Peter 19:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC) So that shouldn't necessarily be the issue, yet I still wonder if it is within scope of commons. (And for some reason I think I've seen a request similar to this one before, also about screenshots of medical info? Can anyone else remember?) -- Deadstar (msg) 08:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Screenshots of text are pretty useless. Why not just provide the text? Rocket000 19:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. A bunch of text is definitely out of scope. And I don't see anyone making use of this anyways. ShakataGaNai Talk 03:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Also Image:פוגרום יאשי 1.JPG, Image:פוגרום_יאשי_2.JPG, Image:פוגרום_יאשי_4.jpg, Image:פוגרום_יאשי_5.jpg, Image:Templul evreilor spanioli din Bucureşti.jpg, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hashmonea155.jpg as well.
There's no evidence that the author died 70 years ago and since the pogrom took place ~1940, it's highly unlikely that he did. It might be {{Anonymous-EU}} but that's also doubtful. 84.108.245.222 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment why would it be unlikely that he died 70 years ago? It's pure speculation! I agree it's also speculation to think he might have died before but there's no point thinking there's statisticly more chance that he died after! As for the {{Anonymous-EU}} I guess it doesn't apply since the source is Romanian... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is the Romanian law - in Art. 7 it was stated that the rights for photografs stand for 10 years only from the date of the creation of the photo` this is true for photoes that were created before the year of the law, 1956. Thank you!Arie Inbar 17:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Does it apply to: 1) Romanian photographers? 2) photos of Romanian events? 3) photos first published in a Romanian media? ...... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's a yes on all counts. Mind you, 10 years is the period of copyright for artistic photographs. Non-artistic photographs are only awarded a 5 year copyright period. As the photos were taken in the communist era, this law holds, and they were released into the public domain a very long time ago. Okedem 14:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Okedem convinced me. Gridge 19:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC).
- That's a yes on all counts. Mind you, 10 years is the period of copyright for artistic photographs. Non-artistic photographs are only awarded a 5 year copyright period. As the photos were taken in the communist era, this law holds, and they were released into the public domain a very long time ago. Okedem 14:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Does it apply to: 1) Romanian photographers? 2) photos of Romanian events? 3) photos first published in a Romanian media? ...... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
January 29
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Superfluous because already exists. Page created in error --Davidelit 13:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. (Next time ask for a speedy deletion.) Arria Belli | parlami 14:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The model has denied the right to use this image. according to the law in both her and my (the author) country, i have to remove this image. I'm profoundly sorry for this. Case 21:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am usually against the deletion of penis photos, but in this case the image is IMHO out of the project scope because it does not show any eductional or encyclopedic value. ALE! ¿…? 22:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, not useful. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This subte map is most probably a copyvio of Image:Subtes-2007.svg. ALE! ¿…? 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it is and what is the problem? —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Ale4110 (talk • contribs)
- The problem is that you are not using the original license and that you are claiming authorship. That is a violation of the author's rights. --ALE! ¿…? 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah.. ok so I have to upload it again and change the license right? Sorry I did not know that... Ale4110 12:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC
- There is absolutly no need to upload this iamge again. We have a SVG version which can be perfectly used in the Wiki projects. --ALE! ¿…? 08:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
For the above reasons I have deleted the image. --ALE! ¿…? 08:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I tagged this as missing source information, since there is no explanation of how the uploader came to be the copyright holder of the work (such as through authorship or commissioning a work for hire), but the tag was removed. I'm not very inclined to believe the claim that a user whose only other contribution is a deleted copyvio (a self-licensed DVD cover) is the legitimate copyright holder of a posed photograph of a well-known rock band. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong spelling; uploaded with correct spelling here --Leo Johannes 18:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. You can use {{badname|name of other file}} next time. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I am sorry if I made something wrong this time. I am not used to Wikimedia Commons. Leo Johannes 17:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is hosted on the Los Alamos National Laboratory site, but not a work of the federal government. It is in fact, according to [193] the photo from a Sports Illustrated magazine cover, thus making it a copyvio. howcheng {chat} 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 04:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. VartanM 06:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source [194] states: "Reproduced with permission from The Cricketer International." Their site states "Cricinfo is part of ESPN", and copyrighted. ---- Deadstar (msg) 08:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 00:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No indication why it is PD. GeorgHH • talk 15:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, ich kenne mich da rechtlich nicht gut genug aus, die Quelle erlaubt jedenfalls explizit den Gebrauch des Bildes für WP generell, welche Lizenz da korrekt ist, weiß ich nicht. --Pitichinaccio 10:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Source says For commercial purposes permission of the council as well as the webmaster of this site is always needed.. Deutsch: Da die kommerzielle Nutzung nur mit gesonderter Genehmigung erlaubt ist, muß das Bild gelöscht werden (Dateien auf Commons müssen grundsätzlich kommerzielle Nutzung erlauben.)--GeorgHH • talk 17:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Kapiert. Schade. Danke der Aufklärung … --Pitichinaccio 21:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Source says For commercial purposes permission of the council as well as the webmaster of this site is always needed..
Deleted by Maxim: Deleted because "In category Unknown as of 21 March 2008; no license/permission/source". using TW
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
|
There is no freedom of panorama for statues in the USA. ALE! ¿…? 21:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. BTW, the statue was sculpted by Kwan Wu and was unveiled on August 11, 2001.[195] Lupo 16:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --rimshottalk 14:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 21:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Considering the Flickr user's other Reggie Miller photo, the source for Image:Reggie Miller2.jpg, can be found here, this is most likely copyrighted too. Ytoyoda 14:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looks pretty clear-cut. Why hasn't it been deleted yet? -Seidenstud 00:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
VOA logo
[edit]
VOA logo Not PD. See [196]: "Voice of America" and "voanews.com" are trademarks which may not be used for commercial purposes without express permission.
--Shizhao 03:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 04:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Of course the logo is PD. It's also a trademark, but that's no contradiction and not a reason for deletion. The {{insignia}} tags should be replaced by {{trademarked}}, though. --Tokikake 10:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Replaced those tags. Doodle-doo Ħ 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that it concerns a trademark issue; not a copyright problem. [197] also states that "you may use a thumbnail graphic of the voanews.com logo if you wish to create a link to the voanews.com website on your own page." I wonder if a use of it on Wikipedia applies to commercial purposes. --Green 11:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:VOA Logo.jpg. -Nard 23:31, 29 January 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 painting, so the license is wrong. ALE! ¿…? 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Its not a picture by Lempicka but a poster. The poster containes a reproduction (an altered edition) of the artist's painting and 16 letters of an unknown designer. Who is the author: Tamara Lempicka, the designer of the letters or the designer of the whole poster? Three of them? I guess it's difficult ....
- I'm sure, me, Warburg, is the author of the photography. ;-)
Delete derivate work. Lempicka's works are still copyrighted, helas. --User:G.dallorto 15:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete derivative. --Dodo 07:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work Badseed talk 12:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope. EugeneZelenko 16:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Useless. --GeorgHH • talk 17:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Why not? Isn't it a kind of adult hide-and-seek? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No known use. MichaelMaggs 16:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No freedom of panorama in France, Artist died in 1944. GeorgHH • talk 17:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 18:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A photograph depicting a person who died in 1910 is unlikely to be a users work. Bad source and license. Possibly public domain due to age, but there is no information about the original author. ChristophT 11:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The entry is corrected to "public domain" - the picture out of any copyright today. The source is family heritage (Photograph belongs since 100 years to our family, we are direct descendants of the person). -- User:Sebastian_Claudius 28 January 2008
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No indication that it is PD. GeorgHH • talk 16:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not used. ShakataGaNai Talk 03:02, 6 June 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 print medium, so the license is wrong. ALE! ¿…? 22:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Le uploader (Jean-Pierre Vickoff) est la seule personne sur la photo qui a été prise par un ami et collègue. Si cette précision n'est suffisante merci de me faire savoir ce que vous souhaitez exactement--JPVickoff 20:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but my active vocabulary of French sucks, so I will answer in English: The person taking the photograph has to give us a free license for the photo, not the person shown in the photo. However, a permission sent to Commons:OTRS will be fine too. --ALE! ¿…? 20:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. I'm not exactly sure what this is - but it is far too small to be of any use. ShakataGaNai Talk 02:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
português - imagem protegida por direitos autorais! (English - Image protected for copyright) --Beria 23:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 02:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-ineligible. Uploader removed my no permission tag with the comment "permission=pd-ineligible". Some of you are going to say "but it's self made, so what" well where's the valid license for this file? It is not pd-ineligible so in effect the uploader is refusing to freely license his copyright to it. Please see Commons:Incomplete license -Nard 12:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why is this image not PD-ineligible? --Hoffmeier 04:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- You put effort into it and it shows creative elements. That makes it copyrightable. -Nard 11:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not really, I used a prog to do that. --Hoffmeier 03:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- You put effort into it and it shows creative elements. That makes it copyrightable. -Nard 11:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Your picture is from: Shuman H.A. and Silhavy T., The Art and Design of Genetic Screens: Escherichia Coli, Nature Reviews, 2003, 4, 419-431
- Question: Anonymous here says you got it from a book or something similar. If that isn't the case - what application did you use to create this? --ShakataGaNai Talk 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Certainly not pd-ineligible, deleting per nom. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
January 30
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is no proof that the image is older than 25 years and there is no gint when it was published first. So PD-AR-Photo can not be used and the image has to be deleted. ALE! ¿…? 08:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious copyright fraud. Federico Lussenhoff (born 1974) was clearly more than nine years old in this photograph. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uses google NASA images? GeorgHH • talk 13:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Google maps image. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Violation of copyright, see: http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/07_01/FreddyAduR_468x519.jpg --Belb 00:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Deadstar: Copyright violation: http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/07_01/FreddyAduR_468x519.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm sceptical that this is really "self made" Megapixie 14:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, Last-Modified header on that Geocities site predates the upload here by eight years (!). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
i dont like it 68.122.163.211 23:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Can't see anything wrong with it. Megapixie 02:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Perfectly innocent image.Fairfieldfencer of Wikipedia 18:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and I like it, so nyah nyah and Kept. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photographs of toys are considered to be derivative works, and therefore non-free. Addhoc 18:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can you cite the applicable policy? Rob T Firefly 07:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Have a look at Commons:Licensing#Derivative_works and Commons:Derivative works. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. In that case, as the uploader, I have no objection to deletion. Rob T Firefly 04:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Have a look at Commons:Licensing#Derivative_works and Commons:Derivative works. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as derivative work of Dr. Who props. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
from [198], Not cc-by-sa, is copyrighted. Author Not uploader --Shizhao 07:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 14:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image was taken from fbcm.org. It probably has a copyright. --208.102.178.92 08:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 14:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image was taken from fbcm.org. It probably has a copyright. --208.102.178.92 08:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 14:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Very suspect, it was originally uploaded in Italian Wikipedia by DarkFear, who is a sockpuppet of a banned user, CrazyKlaudia, many images uploaded by that user were deleted due to suspect copyright violation --KingFanel 10:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 14:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Used only by an article on Italian Wikipedia which has been proposed for deletion. Reason: Self-promotion / Autobiography / No notability. See the deletion request: it:Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Alberto Milli --KingFanel 13:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 14:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is not used here on commons and I am not able to check the usage on other projects via checkuse right now. I don't see how this image would help to learn. One might learn that death (and live) can be brutal but I personally think that this image is rather disgusting. --John N. (@ me) 16:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Certainly the results of war can disgust many people, but I have not heard any argument that wars are outside the scope of Commons. Looks to be properly licensed and categorized. Commons in not just for happy images only. -- Infrogmation 17:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore I wonder if it is legal? I believe that if a person is pictured intentionally (like in a portrait) the pictured person has to agree to beeing photographed or to agree to the publishing of the image. Since the here shown person is dead I wonder if that is given. Furthermore I think that death is something one should respect and I don't think it moraly correct to picture dead persons without their agreement (logically given before their dead). I for example don't want to be seen dead and with a wound in my body. -- John N. (@ me) 19:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We are not censored. Personality rights are not at issue here. Should we delete images like Image:Buchenwald_Corpses_60626.jpg ? Megapixie 02:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep War is hell. Exactly why it shouldn't be censored. Bodies are shown in various wikipedia articles on various wars. --Timeshifter 20:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. --Panther 14:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Does a map qualify as art? Is {{PD-Art}} applicable? ALE! ¿…? 16:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I know i should have asked for a third opinion before uploading.I saw this and thought the same would apply.1849 mapas it has similar license.Megistias 17:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- If it turns out to be the wrong license which should license should use?And why does the other map have it?Megistias 20:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Dont these maps represent a different aesthetic in mapmaking? Or is the 1849 map wrongly licensed as well?(Not by me)Megistias 08:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I put pd - old which is the correct one.Megistias 11:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept as PD-old. --Panther 14:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As pointed out on the image talk page, hu:Weöres Sándor lived 1913-1989. It doesn't look like the photo was taken when he was younger than 25, so PD-old would not apply. dave pape 16:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 04:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 14:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
look at ist. --91.49.238.134 21:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No porn to me. Good illustration of masturbation. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with TwoWings argumentation. Rossicev 14:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Also agree with TwoWings --Supermikke 15:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep But,be carefully.For me is the limit. Vicond 19:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep keep it. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.57.164.181 (talk • contribs)
* (same IP as above)
Keep not porn.
- Keep per TwoWings. --Otolemur crassicaudatus 12:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per TwoWings 124.187.218.114 12:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Triggers 18 USC 2257 record keeping requirements. Masturbation falls into the category "explicit sexual conduct" (see 18 USC 2256). Lupo 13:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- even with such a title can we actually be sure she's masturbating? She could only show her genitals with her fingers! ;-) Apart from that hypocricy (on purpose) I don't think we can say we don't have requirements (if I understand that word well) since this woman has lots of pictures of her freely available on Flickr and the amount of pictures is so high that I don't think it was flickr-posted without her agreement. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter whether it was posted on Flickr with or without her agreement. Record keeping is required anyway, regardless of the woman's real or apparent age and regardless of whether she's recognizeable or not. We don't do record keeping in the sense of 18 USC 2257. Therefore, we cannot keep this image. Lupo 10:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Could you explain what you exactly mean by "record keeping"? (limits of my English level apparently...) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- See the 2257 Regulations for what exactly is meant by "record keeping". Also see en:Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act. Lupo 23:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I still don't get it!!! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 23:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- It takes more than three minutes to read the texts at the links I pointed you to. Read them. Lupo 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- P.S.: "Record keeping" is, AFAIK, also required for simulated sex. That would take care of the "hypocrisy" argument ("but it's just faked") presented above. See again 18 USC 2256. Lupo 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK I think I get it. But according to the WP article, On October 23, 2007, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the record keeping requirements were facially invalid because they imposed an overbroad burden on legitimate, constitutionally protected speech. > if I understand that well, we don't risk anything, especially as a "second producer". Also, in the 2257 Regulations, paragraphs c4ii, c4iii and c4iv seem to exclude us if -again!- I understand things well! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I missed that Connection Distributing Co. et al. v. Keisler case... hadn't revisited the page lately. Good, one worry less for the time being.[199] Although Florida is not in the 6th circuit,[200] and they'll surely remedy the overbreadth of this statute. If that remedy is done like suggested here,[201] we might again have to worry about it. Off-topic: c4ii and c4iii do not exempt us because of c2 (reproduction makes one already a secondary producer). Whether c4iv was applicable to us is debatable... Will be interesting to see what comes out of this mess. Lupo 20:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK I think I get it. But according to the WP article, On October 23, 2007, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the record keeping requirements were facially invalid because they imposed an overbroad burden on legitimate, constitutionally protected speech. > if I understand that well, we don't risk anything, especially as a "second producer". Also, in the 2257 Regulations, paragraphs c4ii, c4iii and c4iv seem to exclude us if -again!- I understand things well! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I still don't get it!!! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 23:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- See the 2257 Regulations for what exactly is meant by "record keeping". Also see en:Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act. Lupo 23:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- And what should we do about similar images (more on the male side)? →Яocket°°° 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- If it's "explicitly sexual" (as defined by the statute) material: delete. If it's just nudity: keep if properly licensed. Lupo 23:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- What about drawings or paintings? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 23:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, if properly licensed and not derived from some porn flick or still thereof. Lupo 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- What about drawings or paintings? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 23:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- If it's "explicitly sexual" (as defined by the statute) material: delete. If it's just nudity: keep if properly licensed. Lupo 23:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Could you explain what you exactly mean by "record keeping"? (limits of my English level apparently...) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter whether it was posted on Flickr with or without her agreement. Record keeping is required anyway, regardless of the woman's real or apparent age and regardless of whether she's recognizeable or not. We don't do record keeping in the sense of 18 USC 2257. Therefore, we cannot keep this image. Lupo 10:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- even with such a title can we actually be sure she's masturbating? She could only show her genitals with her fingers! ;-) Apart from that hypocricy (on purpose) I don't think we can say we don't have requirements (if I understand that word well) since this woman has lots of pictures of her freely available on Flickr and the amount of pictures is so high that I don't think it was flickr-posted without her agreement. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is just life —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.61.8.66 (talk • contribs)
- Keep Keep it. This's just like rest of images in Category:Female masturbation. Lothar25 01:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not quite. And some of these images might also fall under 18 USC 2257. Lupo 09:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you said that. The rest of this cat. should be deleted then. Lothar25 06:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not quite. And some of these images might also fall under 18 USC 2257. Lupo 09:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per TwoWings. 192.154.65.5 03:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Keep. Wikipedia is not censored. There is nothing offensive about a natural act of human nature. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Sbw01f (talk • contribs)
- Keep Keep. However, it may be a good idea to crop out a face and extended picture in order to be less distracted and able to focus on the matter being illustrated. Hmwith 19:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well I kind of disagree with that because this picture also shows the sort of "concentration" and feeling of pleasure in her facial expression (mainly her closed eyes), which is also a good illustration. But of course we can have another cropped and more "technical" version as well if you want! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept now. If someone is suspecting a violation of the law mentioned above, let's propose for deletion the entire category or group of it's images. --Panther 15:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- That wouldn't be a good idea since those categories mainly include drawings and paintings, which are not concerned by the law. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(Português - Imagem protegida por direitos autorais! Registrada no INPI, sob Processo Nº 817061410, em nome da AAAPB (Associação Atlética Acadêmica Perreira Bareto). (english - Image protected for copyrights! Registered in the INPI, under Process Nº 817061410, on behalf of AAAPB (Associação Atlética Acadêmica Perreira Bareto)Beria 11:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Nicodemus da AAAPB
[edit]
- Português: O desenho do Nicodemus registrado no INPI é o deseho original, de 1953, e que foi registrado em 1989. A versão postada, desenhada em 1994, apesar da letra "R" no cordão do monóculo, não é registrada, ou protegida.
English: The Nicodemus drawing registered at INPI is the original drawing, made in 1953 and registered in 1989. The one that was posted, is from 1994, and it's not registered or protected (despite the letter "R" at its monocle cord). Agrimberg 17:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree It is the logotype of a private association. --Tonyjeff 17:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete It is protected by copyrights. Tosqueira 02:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No reason this should be ineligible. The uploader also provided no source so it's hard for us to tell. 16:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Lympasik died in 1996. ALE! ¿…? 16:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- This request also applies to Image:PICT1954.JPG. --ALE! ¿…? 16:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Deleted both as still under copyright protection Badseed talk 12:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
What is this? No description, no source, so it's useles. GeorgHH • talk 22:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete outside scope. Durova 03:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep! No deletion! I changed the description, source, bla, bla, bla. Sorry, first time in wiki commons.Tocamela 09:42, 31 January 2008
- You say the image is from El 9 Nou. Spain Newspaper, do you have permission to upload it here? --GeorgHH • talk 10:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Likely copyvio and also SCOPEBadseed talk 12:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicate (very similar) and not used Colin 11:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Duplicate of what? -- Deadstar (msg) 14:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Thanks Colin. Similar enough for me, same structure, other file is larger. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Dupe, unused Badseed talk 18:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
from ur:تصویر:Malik Miraj Khalid.jpg, but Not PD tag in ur wp --Shizhao 07:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 02:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No proof for PD: http://www.wumingfoundation.com/english/biography.html#1 says: Luther Blissett's face was created by Andrea Alberti and Edi Bianco in 1994, by morphing old 1930's and 1940's portraits of WM1's great-uncles. No original author and date given. GeorgHH • talk 13:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 02:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source is a website, unassociated with Malcolm X, that merely "assumes" image is PD. No info on when or where this was first published, to establish if it is PD. Also, lack of real source info makes its accuracy (is it really him) uncertain. dave pape 21:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Source says that "these pictures are assumed to be in the public domain", which is nowhere near good enough. MichaelMaggs 17:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Also near duplicate Image:Malcolm X - mosque2.jpg, and Image:Malcolm X - death.jpg.
http://www.malcolm-x.org/ merely assumes image is PD, but has no original source information to back that up. dave pape 21:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as duplicate. No opinion on alternate image licensing. Durova 04:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all this site has no indication it is maintained by anyone worthy of our trust. no proof of PD = not PD. Calliopejen 10:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Historical fair use. miranda 02:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. As much as I hate to do it, "assumed PD" isn't good enough ShakataGaNai Talk 04:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
If I do remember right, the following reason was not valid: {{PD-because|Ley sobre Derechos de Autor de Cuba. La foto fue utilizada por primera vez en 1966. Se encuentra en el dominio público por Decreto Ley No. 156 de 28 de septiembre de 1994, modificatorio parcialmente de Ley No. 14 de 28 de diciembre de 1977, Ley de Derecho de Autor (Art 47) que establece que las fotos entran al dominio público 25 años después de su primera utilización.}} ALE! ¿…? 16:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- This also applies to Image:Camilo y fidel.jpg. --ALE! ¿…? 08:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Why this reason is not valid ???—Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien 31 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 30 gen 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps {{PD-Cuba}} may be applied.--Trixt (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Does not appear to meet the Template:PD-Cuba criteria. —Giggy 07:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
January 31
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
obviously copyrighted ad Calliopejen 04:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work of copyrighted sign Calliopejen 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyrighted image Calliopejen 04:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed; should be deleted -SCEhardT 06:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 18:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyrighted ad Calliopejen 04:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyrighted ad Calliopejen 04:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's very unlikely that Bel Ami's porn actors (at right: Sebastian Bonnet) visit the uploader's shower, two at a row. This is a copyvio. And I wonder how many other "own works" by this uploader are not his own works. --User:G.dallorto 05:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC) --User:G.dallorto 05:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're kidding right? You really think that is the same as this guy (NSFW)? ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 06:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I checked and you are right. He is not Sebastian Bonnet, he is Marc Vidal, always a Belami model. The second model uses the nom-de-porn "Josh Elliot". Both Belami porn actors. Not at all "I made it myself in my shower, it's my hobby", oh yeah, and my granny can fly. --User:G.dallorto 19:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Trust is a nice thing, so nice that it must be deserved. I have evidence of the uploader cheating: you find another image from this shot here: http://belita.egloos.com/652897 (scroll down a bit to spot it). --User:G.dallorto 19:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I see! But why didn't you mention that in your request. Actually it's "Josh Elliot & Marc Vidal" not "Sebastian Bonnet" so Allstarecho's answer with his link made me think he was right! I withdraw my vk vote right now! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Trust is a nice thing, so nice that it must be deserved. I have evidence of the uploader cheating: you find another image from this shot here: http://belita.egloos.com/652897 (scroll down a bit to spot it). --User:G.dallorto 19:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as per G.dallorto. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Sorry, wrong file format. I transferred the PNG thumbnail instead of the actual SVG. I'm not sure how to speedy on commons (or if there even is a speedy), but the deletion template on the image says it all. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Normally we don't delete images in a different format, but given the filename, I'd be willing to delete this for you, as long as there's no objections from any other users. Nick 11:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Accidental upload, rather than a superseded file. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Olvido en la especificación del tipo de licencia --20:59, 28 January 2008 user:Villacastin Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted no licence. -- Cecil 18:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author and source are not mentioned. The reasons given for the image's alleged PD status are wrong - it only becomes PD 70 years after the death of the author. Kam Solusar 10:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --User:G.dallorto 19:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 01:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I doubt that an official photo of a nazi politician from 1938 can be an "artistic work created by the United Kingdom Government ". Kam Solusar 10:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Photographer: - = unkonwn. Anonymous-EU beacuse it was took 70 years ago si it expired. --Clockwork Orange 13:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Does "-" mean that they tried to find out who the author was, or just that they don't know? In 1938 he was foreign minister of Nazi Germany, so an official photo such as this IMHO wouldn't have been made by some random unknown photographer. --Kam Solusar 15:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- - means that the photographer is unknown. Look at some other pics of nazi's. You'll fin Hoffman as the author on some. So, the ones with the - have a unknown author.--Clockwork Orange 16:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- If it actually is anonymous and from 1938, it should be PD on 1 January 2009, not this year. --dave pape 17:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, no work by the UK Government, without proper source and rationale no anonymous work and even if it was not in the public domain today. Free images of R. exist on Wikimedia Commons, Image:Ribbentrop.jpg for example. --Polarlys 17:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Another Hitler photo by en:Heinrich Hoffmann. Just as all other photos by Hoffmann that have been deleted here in the past, it does not become PD until 2028. Kam Solusar 10:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete This was previously erased from Commons for the same reasons. For more info, also check en:Image:Adolf Hitler cph 3a48970.jpg. --Alex:D 14:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no reason to delete this image, I don't like to delete this image, we need it, thanks--Clix232 00:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 01:53, 14 March 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}
loaded wrong picture, no copyright Lakonie 12:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Next time please use a speedy tag. __ ABF __ ϑ 12:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
it makes no sence - keinen Sinn! 89.217.168.107 17:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Vipersnake151 01:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete (but maybe wait for checkusage to come back first). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 18:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
as shown on the flickr user page, this user has uploaded CD covers as cc-by. The description says "first album photo show" and it is the same picture that appears here. ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 18:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete immediately for copyvio. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyvio. Cowardly Lion 23:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio of cd-cover. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
where does it belong? what does it depict? 84.59.13.160 22:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Its a user created portrait of ja:司馬遼太郎 (zh:司馬遼太郎, en:Ryōtarō Shiba, ru:Сиба Рётаро). Its creator claims "I created this image based on information from trusted sources." I've catted it as belonging to "Writers from Japan" and "Portraits" but I'm thinking of moving it to "Portrait drawings" and put in a rename request. Investigation of the Portraits category reveals several other similar portraits from this creator.KTo288 23:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not official Russian order, so - copyvio sk 22:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Copyvio from there. This is order of “Международный Союз благотворительных Организаций «МИР ДОБРА» («WORLD OF KINDNESS») совместно с Международной Академией Общественных Наук”, not Russian Government --sk 23:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
{{bad name|Category:Lametz}} Anisette08 12:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Your reason does not make a lot of sense. Can you explain why you want the file deleted? -- Deadstar (msg) 12:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept User has taken deletion template off the image. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
better version loaded in category "Lametz" Anisette08 12:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Can you give the name of the "better version"? -- Deadstar (msg) 12:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept User has taken deletion request off the image. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
{{bad name|Category:Lametz}} Anisette08 12:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Your reason does not make a lot of sense. There is no duplicate file in that category. Can you explain why you want the file deleted? -- Deadstar (msg) 12:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept User has taken deletion request off the image. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Completely useless --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I doubt it's "user's girlfriend" etc. as the image seems to be a screenshot of something. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Well the fact that it's a screenshot is not a proof that it's not his grilfriend! There are lots of people who make videos of themselves you know! SO they can make screenshots of their own videos! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted uploader was dreaming. Also too blurry to be useful. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:33, 2 February 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}
what is it for ? also: personality rights warning 84.59.13.160 22:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep No reason to delete that. No argument. And I hate IP's deletion requests! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 23:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The Klashorst-nude-very-young-girl-images quota is filled IMO, and this image is really useless. Jorva 00:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- 1) this would be non neutral to choose which Klashorst's works to keep or to delete (and there's no reason to treat Klashorst differently than any other reknown artist), 2) this picture was one of the first Klashorst work uploaded anyway! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Very beautiful woman and scene, Peter Klashorst is a genius. Plus it does look like Eve. -Nard 01:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment So you've met Eve? :P Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep good. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.57.164.181 (talk • contribs)
- Keep Good work. There is no reason to delete... Electron 11:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per TwoWings -- Infrogmation 02:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept, this has gone on forever and consensus is pretty clear. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is out of project scope. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment It is used on de.wikipedia; are e.g. lolcats or other (rather Wikipedia internal) humorous images also out of project scope? --Überraschungsbilder 23:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Used, and I don't think we should be deleting humour per se. giggy (:O) 08:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Humour is not against the rules. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is in the upload history[202] of Image:Sunset Manitou.jpg. --carol 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
![[202]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/3/3f/20080122191245%21Sunset_Manitou.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Sunset Manitou.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion request include Image:WikiShroom.png and all the derivatives works like, Image:WikiShroom.svg, Image:WikiShroom2.svg, Image:WikiShroom3.svg...
This icon is not an original work, this is a copy of nintendo's copyrighted mushroom, as you can see [203], [204], [205].--81.250.178.70 17:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
![[203]](http://brandsoftheworld.com/brands/0011/4655/brand.gif){kind=link}
![[204]](http://gauntlet.ucalgary.ca/imgcache/200__~gauntlet_eg_eg2_20050915_mushroom.gif){kind=link}
![[205]](http://www.ugo.com/a/top11-videogame-powerups/images/supermushroom.jpg){kind=link}
- Orange/red Image:WikiShroom2.svg ->[206]
- The green one Image:WikiShroom3.svg -> [207]
- Keep It's hardly an "EXACT copy" as you claim.[208] It is much less pixelated than [1] or [2], and the shape of the cap, the relation in size between the cap and stalk, and the size of the spots are all different. [3] is even more different in shape, size ratios, and spots. Also, all the actual Nintendo artwork and merchandise I can find looks much more like [3] (and, to a lesser extent, [1] or [2]) than these images. I also wonder if the idea of a cartoony spotted mushroom with eyes exhibits the necessary level of originality to be copyrighted as a general concept. Anomie 00:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- It does not need to be "exact". The similitudes are pretty obvious as to make it derivative work. The shape is basically the same, the colors, the spot position, the eyes, relation between the head and the face, etc. The real question is whether it is original enough to be copyrighted (and if so, whether Nintendo owns the copyright to these images). -- ReyBrujo 00:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
![[208]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:WikiShroom.png&diff=9743310&oldid=7084378){kind=link}
- Comment This was brought before, although nothing was decided back then. -- ReyBrujo 01:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Though I do like this logo, I have to agree. It's obviously made to look like a Super Mushroom from Mario, which of course is the whole point because it is used to represent WikiProject Nintendo. From what I read here this fits the description of a derivative work. —137.186.165.215 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- comment - I have added the tag for this discussion to Image:WikiShroom2.png, Image:WikiShroom3.png, Image:WikiShroom.svg, Image:WikiShroom2.svg, Image:WikiShroom3.svg to increase visibility of the discussion. —Random832 15:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - From what research I've done on this subject Nintendo claims copyright to Nintendo's software source code, executable code, game visual display, game music, game characters, product packaging, game manuals and labels; hardware chip microcode; artwork and publications. I'm not exactly sure what game visual display refers to but that is what it would fall under if it is copyrighted. 98.200.49.5 03:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC) User:TehSpud on Wikipedia
- Keep It is nowhere near being an exact copy of Nintendo's mushroom. Anyways, just because Nintendo copyrighted a mushroom, does not mean other companies (especially non-profit educators) like Wikipedia cannot create a similar one, low quality, and of different color. Nintendo themselves make Donkey Kong, which was considered to be a copyright violation of Universal's King Kong, though the American justice system said it was not. (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.)--24.6.103.162 00:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is not an exact copy, but this is a copy and it is used on the Nintendo projects and templates (see [209]) because of the likeness with the original Nintendo mushroom. See also the Nintendo star, obviously this is not an original work and this is not just "inspired by" the Nintendo copyrighted characters, but a copy and used as a copy on wikipedia.--Ryan258 17:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Derived from copyrighted material. No permission. --Simonxag 23:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
![[209]](http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=WikiShroom2.svg&w=_100000#end){kind=link}
Keep Just like Anomie said --Oren neu dag 18:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Keep but change. Change the spot positioning and colour to something that Nintendo doesn't use. Play it safe and change it a little. Though it is probably an irrelevant fact, but this image is used in a lot of places on Wikipedia and it would be beneficial to just change this image rather than replace it on every template and wikiproject. -- Tkgd2007 17:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Tkgd2007. This image is simply too widely used. And anyways, even if it is derivative, it can't possibly be a copyright violation because it is a simple mushroom with eyes on it. And it worst comes to worst, we could always change too look only like a mushroom. But whatever happens, this images has to be kept for obvious purposes as described above. --Haha169 01:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete While I do not at all disagree with the mushroom itself, it simply does not coorilate(I think you spell it that way) with all of Nintendo, only Mario. It hardly associates with things like The Legend of Zelda, Donkey Kong, etc., Maybe an "N" or something.
Deleted. It may not be an exact copy, but the concept of a derivative is still there. giggy (:O) 05:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Giggy: per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:WikiShroom.png
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo is a derivative work of coprighted advertisments with photos and drawings. ALE! ¿…? 08:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete derivative --User:G.dallorto 19:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work, phone numbers etcBadseed talk 00:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not believe that this image is selfmade (small size, no EXIF, etc.). ALE! ¿…? 08:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 16:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image exists in the upload history[210] of Image:Sleeping Bear Dunes.jpg. --carol 16:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
![[210]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/80/20080122170111%21Sleeping_Bear_Dunes.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image exists in the file history[211] of Image:Benton Lake Manistee Forest.jpg --carol 16:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
![[211]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/6/60/20080123173811%21Benton_Lake_Manistee_Forest.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image exists in the upload history[212] of the brightened version of the same image called Image:Hanka.jpg. --carol 16:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
![[212]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/6/65/20080122201214%21Hanka.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image exists in the upload history[213] of Image:Boats Glen Arbor.jpg.
![[213]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/c/ca/20080122195523%21Boats_Glen_Arbor.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is in the upload history[214] of Image:Munising Falls 804x603.JPG --carol 17:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
![[214]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/2/27/20080120114901%21Munising_Falls_804x603.JPG){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Original is in upload history[215] of Image:Pictured Rocks Lakeshore Michigan2.jpg. --carol 17:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
![[215]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/5/54/20080120143723%21Pictured_Rocks_Lakeshore_Michigan2.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Original is in the upload history[216] of Image:Pictured Rocks Lakeshore Michigan3.JPG --carol 17:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
![[216]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/3/3e/20080120151441%21Pictured_Rocks_Lakeshore_Michigan3.JPG){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Original is in upload history[217] of Image:Grand Sable Dunes-804×603.JPG. --carol 18:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
![[217]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/7/7e/20080120170602%21Grand_Sable_Dunes-804%C3%97603.JPG){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Very recent building, no FOP in Italy --User:G.dallorto 01:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
non-standardized coat of arms (used as example for a demand of normalized coat of arms) Anisette08 10:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom.--Trixt 23:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not used anywhere, Image:Blason Lametz.svg exists Badseed talk 17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- ↑ de Sousa, Rosa. Peter Klashorst (in Dutch). Retrieved on 2008-05-22.
- ↑ a b van Eijken, Rutger (2003-01-16), “Kunstenaar Klashorst om zijn naakt uit Gambia gezet”, in Toestand[218], volume 21, issue 705, School voor Journalistiek in Utrecht, pages 4
- ↑ van Asbeck, Geert (2000-05-02), “Klashorst wil niet worden vrijgekocht”, in NRC Handelsblad[219]
- ↑ van Asbeck, Geert (2000-05-05), “Klashorst heeft taboe geschonden”, in NRC Handelsblad[220]
- ↑ van Asbeck, Geert (2000-05-12), “Peter Klashorst weet niet waarom hij is opgepakt”, in NRC Handelsblad[221]
- ↑ Bouma, Japke-D. (2000-07-01), “Werkloze met hobby”, in NRC Handelsblad[222]
- ↑ van Asbeck, Geert (2000-05-26), “Senegal onderzoekt omkoping”, in NRC Handelsblad[223]
- ↑ Huygen, Maarten (2000-05-24), “Doe-vakanties”, in NRC Handelsblad[224]