Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/02
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
February 1
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
out of project --Motopark 05:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete no source information. Durova 05:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: Page is out of project scope: content was: 'Image:fogofatuo.jpg {{delete|out of project}}'
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
out of project --Motopark 05:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete no source information. Durova 05:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
'Deleted by ABF: Page is out of project scope: content was: 'Image:violaogarganta.jpg {{delete|out of project}}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The copyright of this photo is reserved by the Orientaldaily. Tksteven 11:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. --rimshottalk 13:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, please tag obvious cases like this with {{copyvio}}.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
undescribed work with an inapp. filename __ ABF __ ϑ 12:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless we need images of a plank of wood? -- Deadstar (msg) 15:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Used in pl:Eukaliptus kamaldulski. Name is clearly short for "Eucalyptus camaldulensis"; description can be added without deleting. --dave pape 15:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, as it's in use. DR is not the place to bring pictures to have their descriptions fixed. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no license / no discription / no value for the project Kolossos 14:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete outside scope. Durova 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 16:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader didn't own copyight, accordingly was in no position to release this image. To clarify, the image is a photoshopped version of a photo taken from inside a BBC building reception area. This isn't a public place, such as a park, so the image is non-free. Addhoc 15:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Changing to neutral. Good arguments. Durova 03:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It is a replica of a public object who's design preceded the inception of Doctor Who, and the BBC does not, and cannot hold or claim copyright over that design. The BBC does hold the trademark over the TARDIS (which is questionable in itself), but that aspect is not considered under non-free guidelines. Original image is here, and the photographer rightfully released the image under CC-BY-SA. — Edokter • Talk • 01:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know that it's copyrightable. If its design is primarily utilitarian (ie, a hammer, television) as opposed to decorative (designer pillow, action figure) then it's not a creative work and not subject to copyright ... regardless of claims otherwise. I have a hard time being convinced that a glorified phone booth is copyrightable. --UserB 02:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with UserB. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This prop from the Dr Who series would normally be copyright protected. However, it is itself copied from an earlier public design of police box and it is doubtful that the copy has sufficient originality to acquire any new copyright. I think this is OK to keep. --MichaelMaggs 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We actually have other images of "props" such as the De Lorean from Back to the Future, and there's an object that has been given some rather unique modifications when compared to the TARDIS. -- Ned Scott 08:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's not doing any harm, if anything, all these Doctor Who-related articles bearing the TARDIS are giving the BBC Publicity.
Kept. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is a derivative work. It is traced directly off a copyrighted image[1] which can be found in the "Ultimate Dinosaur book" by David Lambert, and the original photo is visible underneath. This image might have the same problem too: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Floresiensis.jpg FunkMonk 11:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete on both per nom. Durova 19:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Looks an obvious copyvio. Lycaon 01:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 16:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
very poor quality, unusable, no description, in this way unusable ChristianBier 18:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 19:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Excavator 15:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 16:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Why is it PD? GeorgHH • talk 18:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to have been shot late in the actor's career. No reason to suppose it's PD. Durova 19:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 16:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivitive work (hope I spelled it right) Vipersnake151 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Almost, it's derivative ;) I agree with the nomination, Delete as derivative work. --rimshottalk 12:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 16:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work of copyrighted sign Calliopejen 06:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, looks like a sign in China, from the description? There is freedom of panorama in China, and it looks like a permanent touristic sign of some sort, so I would lean towards Keep. Patrícia msg 15:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept per Patricia. There's freedom of panorama in China. — Dark (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is not Adrien Marie Legendre, this is Louis Legendre. Proove in this book (page 52) : http://books.google.fr/books?id=hoMGAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=iconographie+des+contemporains#PPT52,M1 Please delete this picture or rename it as Louis Legendre. Infofiltrage 21:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment The image you point to doesn't seem to say who it is either? (and regarding the links from wiki to the image: the image is used to illustrate both en:Louis Legendre and en:Adrien-Marie Legendre. They were born the same year.) -- Deadstar (msg) 14:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- The index says that it's Louis [2]. Image should be re-uploaded with proper name, rather than just deleted (as this copy is better than the one in the en:Louis Legendre article). --dave pape 15:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You could find who's who at the end of the same book (bottom left page 210) :
- http://books.google.fr/books?id=hoMGAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=iconographie+des+contemporains#PPT210,M1
- Deleting the image without re-uploading it first under a new name is not an option. Once that is done, this can be deleted as a duplicate, but not before. You can put the {{rename}} template on the image page to indicate the issue though. Carl Lindberg 06:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept and tagged with {{Rename}} as it is definitely Louis Legendre. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unnecessary and pointless category. Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:iL can suffice. --Vipersnake151 00:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, as Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:iL only has 12 items, and doesn't keep count. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per my comment here. There is absolutely no purpose for this. The trivial task of tracking the template's use can be done by Whatlinkshere, like the nom said. (If they're subst'd the cat can be removed anyway.) →Rocket°°° 05:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per Rocket. Patstuart (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted totally pointless; WhatLinksHere is in the software for a reason. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unnecessary, no longer needed PreciousRoi 22:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see theres no need for any of the ILMap-doton-*.PNG files anymore, someone with more experience/knowhow than me could do a mass RfD on them. PreciousRoi 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Why? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No valid reason given. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
February 2
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Appears to be composed of derivative works, not copyright free. Patstuart (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work of the picture seen here. --rimshottalk 12:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Harry Potter fan art, see Commons:Deletion requests/Harry Potter Fan art --Trixt 04:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom., derivative work. --rimshottalk 12:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
image is posted also in this forum: http://razonyfuerza.mforos.com/549911/2756079-infanteria-de-marina-armada-de-chile/, I dont believe, that it is self-made, probably a copyright violation Martin H. (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
+Image Image:Desembarco 888.jpg, same low resolution, very probably not own wor of the uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio. Yann (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture is a duplicate of Image:Inkscape logo 2.svg (both saved as SVG) Kaneiderdaniel 16:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's not the same! (although it might be unnecessary anyway...)--Speck-Made 11:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not really the same. Both can be used. Let's keep the choice for Wikimedia users. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, not duplicate, both might be useful. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fails COM:L - no commecial usage Patstuart (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete — {{noncommercial}} --Boricuæddie 23:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Double, wrong name, sorry (own work), thanks Kuerschner 20:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. You could speedy this, I believe. Durova 23:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I would if I knew what it was a duplicate of... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- The right version:
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Lanpher_Furs_Title_of_a_Fur_Fashion_Catalog.jpg
(the file which shall be delated has a wrong description). Thanks from Germany.--Kuerschner 09:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- The right version:
Deleted as dupe. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
driveby uploader also claimed to have taken several too-good-to-be-true images at WP, at least one of which is a confirmed copyvio: Image:Golden globes 2005 megan mullally.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cicero17&oldid=132739110 Calliopejen 22:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment just to confirm en:Image:Golden globes 2005 megan mullally.jpg was a copyvio ? Megapixie 00:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is a derivative work. It is traced directly off a copyrighted image[3], and the original photo is visible underneath. Lycaon 01:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 01:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 16:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is likely a copyright violation. Multiple users here (last two comments in that section) report seeing this image on the printed insert with a pack of condoms. Lyrl 04:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 19:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep You can find the original images in *vectorial* Corel Draw 3.0 format here : http://preservatif.maisonx.com/condom.zip. These images have been made in 1997. User:Béa 01:13, 9 February 2008.
Deleted. Made in 1997 means nothing. abf /talk to me/ 16:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not believe we can conclusively state that the author died before 1938 Patstuart (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 20:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted – There's no evidence that the author died before 1938. — Dark (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploaded Twice Msa07 18:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I think the nominator (and uploader) is referring to the fact that they uploaded the same file twice under the same filename, which isn't a problem. --Tom (talk - email) 00:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, but it's missing a licence, so unless one is added, it will be deleted after seven days. Also, please give images better names. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No freedom of panorama in Belarus. Monument was created in 2000s. EugeneZelenko 16:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --rimshottalk 12:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. —Dark (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
PD under Greek law as it depicts a public building? is this true!!!!! a link is given to some chem. department in some uni. Tarawneh 04:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I had found that photo in Greek Wikipedia. There it was written, that it was public for depicting a public building. In Greece as in several European countries the division between church and state is not so perfect, that a church were a Christian clubhouse.--Ulamm 12:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can you explain to me please the exact relation between the division between church and state and the copyrights law in Greece. And why would a public building photo be Public Domain? I have been in EU for about6 years now, never heard or seen any such thing, I can't even comprehend the idea you are trying to send. --Tarawneh 22:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- As have I told, I have found the photo in Greek wikipedia, with these specifications. Why should we doubt, that Greek laws are like that. If the photo is or has been possible in Greek wikipedia, under these conditions, it ought to be accepted in the Commons as well.
- I'm not one of those people, who are afraid of Islam. But I am not sure about the question, if your deletion request for copyright or for islamism.--Ulamm 09:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Support The nomination is right. If the uploader doesn't claim the image is self-made, it's a replaceable non-free one lacking source information. As for the thing about allegedly free public buildings, the uploader may be thinking of "freedom of panorama" - but that only means the building is free to take photographs of, it doesn't mean any photograph made of it automatically becomes free. It still belongs to the photographer. Future Perfect at Sunrise 09:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- To withdraw the photo from the commons would now withdraw it from Greek wikipedia, too, from where I've transferred it.--Ulamm 09:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Hello. It's not about "freedom of panorama". I think Ulamm uploaded the image in good faith based on an article of the greek copyright law that states: (Article 26:) Χρήση εικόνων με έργα σε δημόσιους χώρους
Επιτρέπεται, χωρίς την άδεια του δημιουργού και χωρίς αμοιβή, η περιστασιακή αναπαραγωγή και διάδοση με μέσα μαζικής επικοινωνίας εικόνων με έργα αρχιτεκτονικής, εικαστικών τεχνών, φωτογραφίας ή εφαρμοσμένων τεχνών, που βρίσκονται μονίμως σε δημόσιο χώρο.[4]
Transl.: Use of images depicting works in public spaces
It is allowed, without permission from the creator and without royalties, to occasionally reproduce and transmit through the mass media images of works of architecture, arts, photography or applied arts, which are permanently placed in a public place.
Everything would be fine if it wasn't for that occasionally which messes things up (there are several similar problems and dubious points throughout the greek copyright law). Note also that the law only allows reproduction and transmission, not free use of these images (e.g. modification). So, to be on the safe side, we should use only self-created images for greek buildings. Now, I have some recent photos of this, but as the metropolitan is undergoing a "facelift" for the past couple of years, the temple looks more like a construction site (i.e. scaffolds, construction materials...). We'll have to wait some time, or find someone who has an older photo, in case this gets deleted - Badseed 10:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: For all I can see, that paragraph is in fact the Greek version of "freedom of panorama". I'd be hugely surprised if "του δημιουργού" ('of the creator') was intended to refer to the creator of the photograph, rather than of the original public artwork. But the wording of the sentence is pretty ambiguous in that respect, I have to admit. Future Perfect at Sunrise 13:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Things are not clear. Most of the people get the idea that it's about the pictures/photos (reproduce etcetera), th writing is really dubious, and there are no court cases which would help us figure. However, it might well concern the works themselves. In which case, I wouldn't call it much of a "freedom"... Proper and official clarifying of the "dark corners" of the greek copyright law is one of the things we hope to do if and when we form a chapter- Badseed 02:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- No comment :) --Tarawneh 23:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This file has no appropriate license. -Nard 23:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: Deleted because "Was in Category:Unknown as of 16 March 2008; still missing essential information". using TW
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
and Image:Rudana-Ind Master.jpg
Derivative work EugeneZelenko 16:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I can't agree with you. The museal pictures are so small and dificult to recognize that in fact the main theme of the photos is a behaviour of the people who admire works in an museum... Electron 11:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Card design is copyrighted to Wizards of the Coast, Inc. This image must not be under GFDL and is against the Commons License Policy, see COM:DW Zirland 19:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Maybe it would be enough to delete the blue mana symbol which is surely copyrighted. I am not sure whether the card design itself is protected by law. --Egg 19:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I got some new information. Copyrighted properties include: Mana symbols, tap symbol (not used here), fonts, card border design, card images (Jimbo's photo is of course free). It seems impossible to make any minor edits to the image such that the copyright wouldn't be violated. What a pity... Even if the userpages were treated as fan websites, the permission is not generally granted, see [5]. --Egg 20:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I've uploaded a replacement image for Wikiproject and the like usage in the public domain at Image:Magic the gathering pentagon.png; nobody owns the rights to a colorful pentagon. This image will scale better anyway than the old one, whose text was illegible often. SnowFire 22:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- If Jimbo, the creator of wikimedia, has it on his userpage, it's ok. --123Pie 15:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Does he? Where? I can't find it... --KingFanel 06:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: the image is used in a "featured book" on Italian-language Wikibooks, it:b:Magic. The text in the book explicitly refers to that picture to describe a card, I wonder if there is a good replacement without copyright problems... --KingFanel 06:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per COM:DW – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as derivative work. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 16:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
No info supporting that the image is PD-old. The image source is [6] where it is stated that the CoA was addopted in 1912 but it says notihing about who drew this version of the image and when it was drawn. Lokal_Profil 17:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleting per nom. There's an SVG anyway, so no big deal. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
reduntant image Highshines 19:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Redundant to.... ? Megapixie 23:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
KeepThe nomination doesn't even say which image it is redundant to, and this image is still in use. Jackaranga 06:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. If you believe the image you uploaded is a copyright violation as you have stated with other images, please feel free to state your case in another deletion request, but please explain why it is a copyright violation. Patstuart (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no source info. copyrighted image 142.103.203.137 16:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- image description page (with source!) restored. If the picture is copyrighted otherwise and PD-China is not applicable, please state why. --Svencb 17:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete I have restored the page again. However the person blanking it this time is the uploader. I suggest we take the license as invalid. --Simonxag 14:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per Simonxag abf /talk to me/ 19:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Almerebus.png
February 3
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
probably copyright infringement 88.84.21.192 00:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I'm not sure about copyright, but appears to be indoors. No model release. Durova 03:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Picture is of Lara Gut. It's also at [7]. -- User:Docu
Deleted. Last-Modified header of the link Docu gave predates the upload here by several months. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no copyright Walserio 04:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Obviously scanned from a printed illustration, probably copyrighted. Durova 18:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Georges Remi died in 1983. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Obviously not PD-USGov. --Geopgeop 11:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 18:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Blinking red and blue images. Continue to watch it for health damage.Tail furry 15:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. Durova 18:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
AHHHHHHH MY EYES!!!. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I, the uploader from Flickr, realized now that the picture was taken from Clarin (see "Description"), an Argentinean newspaper, so it's copyrighted. --Roblespepe 18:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 18:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
double with Handbuch Hanicke 78.jpg Kuerschner 19:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see an image with the second filename you gave. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, you are right. :-( But know, with the correct name. Thank you.--Kuerschner 06:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, also use {{badname}} next time. :) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Abus d'emblème de la Croix-Rouge Moumine 20:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep irrelevant, a cross in a circle is not eligible for copyright (and the Red Cross logo doesn't look anything like this). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We have a page of Red Cross emblems at International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement already. Those images that require notice of the special status of these symbols (such as Brassard neutralite.gif) use the {{IHL Symbol}} template to bring attention to the fact. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep abusive DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image has to much originality to be ineligible for copyright possibly PD for other reasons though. Lokal_Profil 02:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- With this I specifically mean the Coat of Arms, therefore Image:Coat of arms of Nicaragua.svg is also included in this request. /Lokal_Profil 02:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment So that means we can't have the real flag of Nicaragua on Commons?! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Only if it is under a free License, the rules apply just like for every other image on Commons. /Lokal_Profil 21:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- National flags are copyrighted? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- AFAIK representations of flags are copyrightable as original works. Should be discussions linked to this on Template:PD-Flag (now obsolete). /Lokal_Profil 22:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- National flags are copyrighted? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Only if it is under a free License, the rules apply just like for every other image on Commons. /Lokal_Profil 21:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The articles from Wikipedias of all languages about Nicaragua without his respective flag are not funny any. Therefore, I give my positive and conservative vote so that the image of the flag keeps on existing forever. It is a symbol of public domain, established by the Nicaraguan law. --Deyvid Setti 17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I know the National Constitution declares the flag to be a national symbol, but is there a copyright law I can look at for this country? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, it's from OpenClipArt and OCA released it under PD. —Nightstallion (?) 12:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nightstallion. yes your version comes from OpenClipArt and there is no problem with that version. VZB83's version on the other hand does not come from FOTW and the presidential homepage. Unless the current version is found to be PD for a good reason I vote revert to Nightstallion upload and tag with {{PD-OpenClipArt}}. /Lokal_Profil 13:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I reverted to Nightstallion's upload. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nightstallion. yes your version comes from OpenClipArt and there is no problem with that version. VZB83's version on the other hand does not come from FOTW and the presidential homepage. Unless the current version is found to be PD for a good reason I vote revert to Nightstallion upload and tag with {{PD-OpenClipArt}}. /Lokal_Profil 13:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - this would create a dangerous precedent because it would mean we would have to delete 90% of all flags that are here on commons with pd-ineligible tag. --Avala 18:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry but keep this copyvio because we have many other copyvios is not a convincing motivaion. /Lokal_Profil 22:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is not a copyvio. It is truly ineligible for copyright. You can not claim copyright on national symbols as they are defined by law (laws are not copyrighted) and therefore there is no space for creativity and original work. --Avala 16:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly national symbols like Coat of Arms are (usually) defined by their blasoning leaving lots of space for creativity. Secondly even in a case where there is no space for creativity the original artist (this might be the a government) still owns the copyright. Actually you can just compare the two versions of the flag to se how differently the CoA can be interpreted. /Lokal_Profil 16:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Many countries have laws which define any material produced by state bodies (in this case the government) ineligible for copyright. I am not sure what is the case with Nicaraguan law because no one around here seems to be in possession of their law on this matter. Until we are sure that they have no law about this we can't delete the image presuming that the law does not exist. --Avala 20:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I asked #wikipedia-es for the law at least once when this discussion started, I found none or they sent me none. [8] Could at least give us a government sanctioned image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Many countries have laws which define any material produced by state bodies (in this case the government) ineligible for copyright. I am not sure what is the case with Nicaraguan law because no one around here seems to be in possession of their law on this matter. Until we are sure that they have no law about this we can't delete the image presuming that the law does not exist. --Avala 20:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly national symbols like Coat of Arms are (usually) defined by their blasoning leaving lots of space for creativity. Secondly even in a case where there is no space for creativity the original artist (this might be the a government) still owns the copyright. Actually you can just compare the two versions of the flag to se how differently the CoA can be interpreted. /Lokal_Profil 16:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- According to Article 16 of the Copyright Law, national symbols are protected under copyright. Only laws and court decisions and their official translations are public domain automatically. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Both images should be fine, since it appears FOTW was only used for reference. (They don't have vectors.) They do not own the design of the flag obviously, so others can recreate it. I'm all for deleting the second revision anyway since the SVG's buggy (it doesn't show correctly for me). So I guess the question is: Is any image of the flag of Nicaragua allowed? →Rocket°°° 08:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Pretty much, the problem is that one of the reference sites used for the drawing of the image is the target of a deletion debate. All I had to do was revert to the last version and delete that diff. Well, it should be solved now. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I went ahead and deleted the old revision. Should this stay open or are we all satisfied? IMO, if there's issue with the flag itself, someplace like Commons talk:Licensing or the village pump would be more appropriate as that affects any image with the flag in it. →Rocket°°° 09:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. As per Rocket, more generic discussion belongs somewhere else, and it seems we're all happy with these particular images, hence both kept. giggy (:O) 11:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source and license don't agree. Looks like a copyvio and is also used here Lokal_Profil 03:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Source and license don't agree how? Also, this is irrelevant because the Last-Modified header post-dates the upload here by nearly a year. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. I'm also confused as to how they disagree... giggy (:O) 11:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No information about author or publication date. Not necessarily PD-Old. Gestumblindi 05:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Mary Anderson was an American stage actress who lived from 1859-1940. This photograph was taken during her youth, so it's safe to say it's pre-1923 and valid PD-US. I've changed the license tag. Should be fine now. Durova 18:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep agree with Durova. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. giggy (:O) 11:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
February 4
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I uploaded this picture again erroneously. It was already uploades here in better quality Image:Geisha Kyoto Gion.jpg Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 01:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as requested. Nice shirt, btw. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I accidentally uploaded this instead of its corresponding SVG version, which has now been uploaded here. This PNG was generated from that SVG, so it is easy to recreate. I don't think it is used in an article. Not sure this qualifies for badname, but I think PNGs generated from SVGs are often deleted (as opposed to source PNGs). Carl Lindberg 08:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 12:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
my image, duplicate --Ante Perkovic 11:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, speedyable. Durova 12:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Doubt claim of own work... See also all other contributions of User:Marie1981. Megapixie 13:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted this and all of the uploader's uploads. All copyfraud. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probably copyvio on Flickr. Small size. Lacks EXIF. Looks like official portrait. EugeneZelenko 16:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 01:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Old Stock.xchng image (uploaded March 2005) without permission. See Commons:Stock.xchng images. GeorgHH • talk 21:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Stahlkocher (talk • contribs). --Boricuæddie 21:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The stated permission is for material on ec.europa.eu only. The image is from some other website. See also the discussion at the village pump. Lupo 09:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete As I said at the village pump I agree to delete it immediately and we'll restore it if I receive a positive mail from the EU Commission. Apart from that I know I didn't find this picture on the EC site but it's labelled EC so I thought it might be (or have been) somewhere in the EC site as well. Anyway I asked them about that too so I'll see what they'll answer (if they answer). Thanks for your comprehension. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. See TwoWings' comment if you wish to have the image restored. giggy (:O) 11:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Why No copyright required.? What's about the original? GeorgHH • talk 09:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 12:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. giggy (:O) 11:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not ineligible for copyright, no permission by the author.Code·is·poetry 15:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. abf /talk to me/ 15:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep only simple design (geometric shapes and normal typo}}, so ineligible! ChristianBier 15:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not a trace of creativity. Samulili 15:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. giggy (:O) 11:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is factually incorrect since it lists Australia as an Island, there's a better map in the w:Island country article (this refers to Image:Island_nations.png) which should be used instead (tagged {{delete}} with this rationale on enwiki description page by w:User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason) —Random832 15:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It shows that geography is not that simple nor neutral. Believe me I study geography and some of my teachers at University would include Australia as an island country, other wouldn't because they'd consider it's a continent. I personally think it's both! Anyway both maps are useful because they show different POV... and since Wikimedia wants to be neutral it should show both opinions. BUT this file should be modified because I don't inderstand why UK, Ireland, Indonesia and Papua-New-Guinea are not red on this map!!! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Presumably UK, Ireland, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea are not denoted as island states on this map, as the map-maker doesn't consider states that have a land border with a neighbouring state as fitting their definition of an island state? Man vyi 16:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- This would makes sense indeed. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've added a description to explain the purpose of that map. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Presumably UK, Ireland, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea are not denoted as island states on this map, as the map-maker doesn't consider states that have a land border with a neighbouring state as fitting their definition of an island state? Man vyi 16:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If you do enough research you will realise there is NO consensus on what is a continent or an island. Kransky 11:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. When people can't agree, it's best to give them options. Further discussion of it's accuracy can take place on the image's talk page. →Rocket°°° 19:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Questionable claim of authorship from a low edit count en author. Megapixie 13:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Agree with nom. Not certain on ownership, better safe than sorry IMO. giggy (:O) 11:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I'm usually hesitant with images like these because the claim can be true, but it's still on en.WP, so delete before others pick it (right now there's only one use). →Rocket°°° 19:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 15:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
and Image:HK Chater Garden Sarah Geronimo In Motion Concert 1.JPG, Image:HK Chater Garden Sarah Geronimo In Motion Concert 2.JPG, Image:HK Auction at Ritz-Carlton Hotel Hong Kong Poster.JPG,
Derivative work. Not permanently installed as required by Commons:Freedom of panorama#Hong Kong, EugeneZelenko 16:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. --rimshottalk 12:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 15:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bad quality. Out of focus. EugeneZelenko 16:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As long we have no better file of this object. --GeorgHH • talk 21:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for stupid question, but is this building have any importance and in any way different form thousands of similar ones? --EugeneZelenko 16:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per GeorgHH. I'd be willing to change this if a better file exists. Durova 01:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, extremely bad quality, no notable building. --Polarlys 15:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture is just 70 years old with no known author, so not PD old schlendrian •λ• 19:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Wrong license, for PD-old the author must be given. --GeorgHH • talk 21:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 15:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm really doubtful that the uploader is the author.
IMPORTANT: that DR also concerns his other uploads for the copyright problem and only another one for the porn problems. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I must agree. It looks like it's a copyrighted image from a porn site, but I'll see what the uploader has to say. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete indoors, no model release. Durova 01:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment from BestSummers All Of The Uploads were shot by me on my cameras. And the 3 model have given me permission to release my images. I have added this description underneath all my images: This(These) Model(s) has(have) given me permission to freely use this image as I wish. This includes uploading it to the internet. Hereby I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. --BestSummers
If you want to prove that it's really your camera, you should upload a picture of something completely different taken by the same camera so we may be able to check it's the same camera (with metadata). We'd delete that picture after if it's useless. If you don't do that we might think you're lying. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)it seels that metadata are not available on the files you uploaded so this won't work! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)- Yes it will, it's very usually very easy to tell if a photo came from the same camera... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok then it's your turn BestSummers! Prove your good faith! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Here's the problem: if we trust unconfirmed assurances about model consent in this regard, then sooner or later an angry ex-husband is going to lie. It makes no sense to run that risk; people who want to upload graphic sexual photographs should either frame the shots so the models are unidentifiable or file with OTRS. Surely a willing model would sign a release. Durova 20:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If BestSummers is the author of the photos, and the model is willing than it should be no problem for him to take second picture of the model holding a copy of a release. Work out a form of words for BestSummers to write onto a piece of paper for the model to hold.KTo288 00:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Here's the problem: if we trust unconfirmed assurances about model consent in this regard, then sooner or later an angry ex-husband is going to lie. It makes no sense to run that risk; people who want to upload graphic sexual photographs should either frame the shots so the models are unidentifiable or file with OTRS. Surely a willing model would sign a release. Durova 20:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok then it's your turn BestSummers! Prove your good faith! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it will, it's very usually very easy to tell if a photo came from the same camera... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Regardless of the camera, do we really need another one of these? giggy (:O) 08:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well we don't have any other photo of fellatio actually so I guess we do. But I don't know if we can keep such a picture! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Porn_again giggy (:O) 08:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I redirected the other DR you created because in that one I said it also concerned other images by the uploader. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Licensing is questionable given indentifiability & lack of meta data (the other uploads of this user being the same) --Herby talk thyme 14:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- delete I think we should require whatsoever "hard proof" for correct licencing of such intimate pictures. The very promise of a new account isn't enough. Somehow it's possible to proof whether two pictures are from the same (digital) camera. A user at de-WP was able to identify sockpuppets comparing pictures of several accounts. Considering the lack of any metadata i'm very skeptic about these pcitures.--Wiggum 15:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment pornographic of course,but,I asking me how many wikiuser has been copied this image for your own purpose after it has been deleted? and other question is:If the penis has been substituted by a dildo, would this image continue being pornography?thank you. Vicond 15:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- To answer your second question I personally don't consider that picture pornographic. But I would if the dildo was inserted in her vagina or anus. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, no model release (person identifiable), doubtful statement on authorship --Polarlys 15:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE. Dodo 18:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Well even if it isn't of great quality I think it's useful. It's an interesting aspect of weddings. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Sufficient context is apparent from the photo even without a description. Potentially useful. Durova 01:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept per above. Image may be useful. — Dark (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
February 5
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivateive work --Liftarn 10:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --rimshottalk 12:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Boricuæddie 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like a copyvio to me. ALE! ¿…? 13:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No author and source information. --GeorgHH • talk 15:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted - Probable copyright violation, no author, no source, unused image. — Omegatron 22:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Because I have no permission for photographing these dummies in the shop window in germany, I turned the image into black. Please delete. --21:45, 9 December 2007 User:80.131.26.154 Request fixed by Deadstar (msg) 11:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not covered by FOP, and probably artistic enough to be copyrighted: Delete. --rimshottalk 12:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, not covered by FOP --Polarlys 15:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- There is no decide of the Commons-community, to use such a page additional to the categories.
- Its impossible to keep the page up to date. Only a category will be so.
- we have thousands of users. Its impossible to complete the page.
Cäsium137 06:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I see no problem with this page. --GeorgHH • talk 15:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
When a lot of usergroups (of about 10 User) will create such a page, we 'll have hundreds of pages only with sujektive groupings. Such a page has to be either in the user-namespace or, if all Users will be added (what is impossible), in the Commons-Namespace. Surely not in the main (gallery) namespace. We shoudt not start that in the main-namespace Cäsium137 17:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, in one and a half year of it’s existence only seven users discovered this page, there are no links on it. Kind of useless. --Polarlys 15:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Also concerning Image:Six-armed advertising girl.jpg
Nice but unfortunately derivative work. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, FOP does not apply. --rimshottalk 12:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cant be FOP. abf /talk to me/ 18:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is to blurry. Who would want to use this in an article. Adam.J.W.C. 12:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC) --Adam.J.W.C. 12:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Interesting illustration of speed IMO. Beautiful moving light! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Very, very bad quality. Out of focuse, blured, etc.. ALE! ¿…? 13:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- ... but is is in use, so Keep Multichill 23:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Where? (Check usage does not work) --ALE! ¿…? 13:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- nl:Wetenschappelijke promotie (small so you dont really see the bad quality). Multichill 15:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Requested for rename. abf /talk to me/ 18:05, 12 February 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.
Image:IMG_2608.JPG - 2nd request
[edit]Bad quality: out of focus EugeneZelenko 16:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
speedy keep. No new arguments, image still in use --ALE! ¿…? 21:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted: Dupe of Image:Wetenschappelijke promotie.jpg. →Diti the penguin — 00:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not know whether "freedom of panorama" can be applied, because no information on the place nor the author is given. Also it looks like that the sculpture is not permanently installed. The sculpture - a cow - looks quite recent to me. ALE! ¿…? 14:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Used in de:Minfeld, so that's presumably it's location. Uncertain whether it's permanent, however. --dave pape 18:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep I would think it is a permanent (but recent) sculpture. The article de:Minfeld just describes this as "Kunst im öffentlichen Raum", "Art in a public place" --Ogre 15:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not quite shure about FOP, but anyway no license for 7 days. abf /talk to me/ 18:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE. With that quality/size the picture is of no use for the project. -- Cecil 20:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 18:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
NSFW - derivative image Patstuart (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Well, Commons is not censored, but for a derivative work, yeah we can do that. Vipersnake151 16:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 18:15, 12 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.
"owned and scanned" does not mean you own the copyright to the image. --Liftarn 16:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep "Owned and photographed" does not mean you own the copyright to this bag of candy but you claim otherwise. You took the picture so I'm assuming by your standards here, that you own the company and copyright of that candy since you took the picture? Do you own the Saab copyright for this photo you took? You taking those pictures and claiming "yours" is no different than me having scanned this book that I own. I have this 50 year old football program in my collection. I put it on my scanner and scanned it. Yeah, I do own the copyright to my scan. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 16:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Allstarecho, it would have been better to address the issue. To start with, the image you uploaded was not a photograph of a three-dimensional object, but a scan of a cover illustration. There are actually some possibilities for keeping the image (such as perhaps {{PD-US-not-renewed}} etc., depending on the circumstances), but the tagging you put on image description page Image:1958 Sugar Bowl program Ole Miss vs Texas.JPG was still wrong... AnonMoos 17:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then why didn't you replace the copyright with PD-US-not-renewed instead of just removing the copyright altogether? I mean, come on here. Photo or scan, what's the difference? Either way, the program would be depicted in graphic format. You're saying it's ok if I took a picture of it but not if I scanned it on my scanner? ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 18:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Because PD-US-not-renewed could only apply if several conditions were to be met, and I don't know that these have in fact been met -- and in any case, the burden is always on you to correctly tag what you have uploaded. If you actually have access to a physical copy of the program (instead of just copying a photograph from E-bay or whatever), then why not start by looking to see if there's an explicit copyright statement anywhere on the program. AnonMoos 19:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then why didn't you replace the copyright with PD-US-not-renewed instead of just removing the copyright altogether? I mean, come on here. Photo or scan, what's the difference? Either way, the program would be depicted in graphic format. You're saying it's ok if I took a picture of it but not if I scanned it on my scanner? ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 18:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Allstarecho, it would have been better to address the issue. To start with, the image you uploaded was not a photograph of a three-dimensional object, but a scan of a cover illustration. There are actually some possibilities for keeping the image (such as perhaps {{PD-US-not-renewed}} etc., depending on the circumstances), but the tagging you put on image description page Image:1958 Sugar Bowl program Ole Miss vs Texas.JPG was still wrong... AnonMoos 17:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Multiple points:
- Material in the public_domain: for works first published before 1978: until 95 years after the first publication (Copyright would expire in 2053).
- Derivative
- Berne Convention copyright is granted automatically without requirement for periodic renewal. While there are requirements for minimal creative efforts, the program cover is nowhere near failing them.
- Sorry. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Derivative image of a copyright work. — Dark (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All files by User:Jorju
[edit]All photos of Jorju (talk • contribs) are suspected copyvios: All without source information, all have the same date 27 de julio, but some are from the 30's to 50's (Image:Olimpicos36.jpg) and some are newer (Image:Jair Iglesias.jpg). Most images are of small size and low quality. --GeorgHH • talk 15:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Most look like they are scans from a paper etc. Copyvio. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Campolo.jpg; Image:Omar Alberto Zegarra Tejada.gif; Image:Jair Iglesias.jpg; Image:Segundo titina castillo.JPG; Image:Sbacachi.jpg; Image:Sportboys51.jpg; Image:Ascenso.jpg; Image:Prisco Alcalde y 'Titina' Castillo en Berlín.jpg; Image:Acta fundacion.jpg; Image:Camiseta Sport Boys.jpg; Image:Valeriano Cachito.jpg; Image:Juvrosa.jpg (only a list to make the gadged working) abf /talk to me/ 18:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 18:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
February 6
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image was tagged by Flickr uploader as cc-by-sa-2.0, but is a press agency photo copyright Theo Wargo/WireImage (see [10], [11]). --Muchness 10:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Speedy deletion. Clear copyvio. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
zip-file renamed pdf, includes pdf that can't open --Motopark 15:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- and Commons is not a file storage service for an unknown purpose. I say speedy Delete -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 16:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Lupo ~Kylu (u|t) 06:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
possible copyvio. the user has uploaded a lot of (c) images from flickr and other webs -- -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 10:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete The links provided do not allow to veryfy the license. Anna 12:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am not sure if this can be considered a derivative work ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 08:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hard to say indeed! I think FOP might apply since the purpose of the illustration is to show the job not the posters (as shown by the title) so I'd say Keep --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work. Or blank/replace posters with free images. --EugeneZelenko 15:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- If one is able to do a quality work it's a very good idea. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- New version uploaded, but I am not very good at this. -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 18:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes that could be better but for now it's enough to keep it. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- New version uploaded, but I am not very good at this. -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 18:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- If one is able to do a quality work it's a very good idea. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Mmmm, the purpose was to illustrate es:Cloverfield, so I suppose in that case it would be derivative work?-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 16:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Keep - Mixup, the pixelized version kept, the otherone not. abf /talk to me/ 13:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
and other images originated from http://www.3dscience.com (see Category:Human anatomy). Other projects (including English Wikipedia) are also affected.
Missing permission from 3dscience.com. Boilerplate on website: All rights reserved. EugeneZelenko 16:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete the 3D Science Free Clip Art terms of usage [12] reads: You cannot use these images for commercial print or software applications -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 16:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 13:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE. Dodo 18:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree. Could be a user image but it's not used. Samulili 19:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 13:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
a higher quality .png image has been uploaded under the same name. And-Rew 21:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image:ManchesterBuildingsHeight.png? Is different picture. Multichill 00:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Images are different. --GeorgHH • talk 08:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept – Image isn't redundant. — Dark (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no evidence that this image has been released under a free license 151.199.60.21 13:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio: http://www.abu.nb.ca/ --> All Rights Reserved
Deleted. Shizhao 14:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Project Scope [13] abf /talk to me/ 14:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This may be used in a user template on profiles. No reason to delete it. No Israel was a different case since it may be understood as a message of hate. Not this one (although I'm not anti-porn) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- But that was deleted because "its not an official Work", which this one isn't either. The targeted entity (either porn or Israel) shouldn't enter the equation if we're trying to be neutral here. →Rocket°°° 19:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're misunderstanding what neutrality means. It also implies that we respect opinions! If I follow your strict vision of neutrality we may want to delete that kind of picture, which would be IMO stupid because it illustrates a part of our world. This no-porn pic as well. BTW what do you mean by "official work"??? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 01:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Couple of things. First, I put that part, "its not an official Work", in quotes because it was a quote. I was quoting the closing admin of the deletion of No Israel.svg, which happens to be our current nominator. Second, if we have to respect opinions, then that image you just pointed out should be deleted. I'm sure it offends someone somewhere. People always find something to get offended over. Hell, most our images are offensive to someone. You can't win and you'll only lose trying. And lastly, I like playing devil's advocate. I'm completely against censorship. →Rocket°°° 08:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're misunderstanding what neutrality means. It also implies that we respect opinions! If I follow your strict vision of neutrality we may want to delete that kind of picture, which would be IMO stupid because it illustrates a part of our world. This no-porn pic as well. BTW what do you mean by "official work"??? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 01:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- But that was deleted because "its not an official Work", which this one isn't either. The targeted entity (either porn or Israel) shouldn't enter the equation if we're trying to be neutral here. →Rocket°°° 19:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's in use on pl.wikipedia. --GeorgHH • talk 08:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I think it's a copyvio. The uploader says 2005 in the date and the metadata says "copyright 2004". (also cropped version here --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep complex situation but the metadata also says the creation date was 27-5-2005, just 3 days before the given date. If understand the Adobe tutorial, xapRights:Copyrighted (incredibly) means This work is licensed to the public under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/.
- работа means work, so I suposse that the source reads "own work" -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 22:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah I know it's written "own work" but that doesn't mean it's right! And the mention "copyright 2004" in the metadata made ma think there was a problem. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- KeepI understand Dennis. I took some shots theses day and didn't configurate the camera for this and the photos dated to 2004. These things may happen, only lacking of attention.
Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 01:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep'Keep' Valid photo, clear picture, self made.75.118.140.159 06:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Once again, someone makes an accusation of copyvio but provides no meaningful evidence in support. This seems to happen a lot with pictures of nudity.86.145.1.63 11:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- 1) I clearly stated the reason of this DR; 2) this DR is now closed so your "vote" is useless; 3) I am part of these people who clearly support nude pictures (see my history) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Просто в настройках фотоаппарата неправильно установлена была дата. Тот факт что фотоаппарат принадлежит мне и следовательно работа моя, можно убедится просмотрев мою галерею. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Dennis_Myts
- (In adjustments of the camera date has been incorrectly established. That fact that the camera belongs to me and therefore work washing, it is possible will be convinced having seen my gallery.)--Dennis Myts 09:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Kept, well within Commons:Project Scope. Bad faith nomination. Commons is not censored. -- Cat ちぃ？ 23:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this is a porn picture 87.201.184.217 21:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Сто раз уже обсуждалось. --Dennis Myts (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No it's not. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep False and irrelevant. Oven Fresh (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Closed/Kept Never relisted (or it may have been mistakenly archived before closure). Rocket000 (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
porn 87.177.248.194 10:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Closed/Kept Never relisted (or it may have been mistakenly archived before closure). Rocket000 (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Obvious derivative work Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Dodo 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment There's no proof that it's a personal work but it's not an obvious derivative work to me! It's an original re-interpretation of a copyrighted character, a bit like Peter Klashorst's paintings of Tintin or Mickey. Therefore not a derivative work. So the only thing we have to determine is if it's the uploader's friend's personal work. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If thrre's no proof to say this work is copyrighted I'd vote keep for the right of caricature. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I would vote Keep but i don't know enough about policy to vote correctly. Looks like we could keep it though.-- Hornetman16 08:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - image is close enough to be considered a copyright-protected derivative. The two are quite dissimilar. Patstuart (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete it is a derivative work of a copyrighted character, no matter how much artistic work has been added.---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 11:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think caricatures are forbidden, even for copyrighted characters. Or many newspapers and artists are out of law. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- There exists the right to parody, as long as there is no possibility to confuse with the original and is not used as a subterfuge to avoid copyright. That is to say, to illustrate an article about caricatures or a parody of the original series is fine. To illustrate the article about the Simpson character, would be plagiarism. ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Except that it's not being used to illustrate that article. It is simply a parody, which is unequivocally allowed by US law, even if there are similarities between the two (as, with a parody, there must be). Patstuart (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- ... and you could actually illustrate the article about Homer Simpson with that picture as long as you specify it's a caricature and as long as you speak about influences in the article. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Both of you are right
:). But it is very problematic, the problem comes when it is used as a loophole for fair use images: let's just make a deformed version and it becomes parody. It is not, it is fan art.-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 17:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Both of you are right
- There exists the right to parody, as long as there is no possibility to confuse with the original and is not used as a subterfuge to avoid copyright. That is to say, to illustrate an article about caricatures or a parody of the original series is fine. To illustrate the article about the Simpson character, would be plagiarism. ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think caricatures are forbidden, even for copyrighted characters. Or many newspapers and artists are out of law. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. A derivative work of a copyrighted character, no matter how much artistic work has been added MichaelMaggs 06:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unclear copyright status. Source do not provide any specific details about this picture, nor specific date then it was taken, nor author, nor its publishing date. All this info is needed in order to release this image in PD under current license tag. I also would like to note that the 'source' or more exactly blog type 'soure' is Marxist portal 'Left', which fails to meet any reliability criteria. Particularly this became evident by reading its introduction, there media is labeled as apologue army of capitalism , army of political prostitutes , main purpose of this 'portal' is to deny current bourgeoisie’s ideology, which foundation is so called 'democracy' present 'real' history and similar hatred statements.--MX3 11:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This image is made on Lithuania territory, so probably Lithuanian copyrights law shoul be applied (70 years after author death). --EugeneZelenko 15:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am hardly understand why Lithuanian copyrights law should be applied. Tag suggests that it belongs to Soviet government.
- Delete. Whether we use Lithuanian or Russian copyright law, we can't be sure of the copyright status because we don't know who the author was. Calliopejen 02:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, the political associations of this website is no reason to delete the image. The date is obvious and given, while the copyright status if not given (I don't know, I cannot read Lithuanian) probably implies that it was taken by a Red Army official. Bogdan K 19:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- And nobody asking to delete it because of ‘political associations’. May I ask you there did you found “obvious and given” date of picture? I will answer - there is no date then this pic was taken, nor the author is given or even mentioned and no again, nothing implies that image was made by Red Army official, nor that the picture was published before January 1, 1954, nor that author died before that date. Therefore there is absolutely no vital information to determine copyright statues of this image under this tag. Speculations are not the facts.
- The date of when the Red Army entered Kaunas is obvious, and given [by the person who uploaded the image]. This is just another instance of copyright paranoia. Bogdan K 16:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- How the date is given? Even the original "source" dont give any on the picture [14]. So what do you know about author/s of this pic and his/her death. As this info is needed for current tag.
- The date of when the Red Army entered Kaunas is obvious, and given [by the person who uploaded the image]. This is just another instance of copyright paranoia. Bogdan K 16:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- And nobody asking to delete it because of ‘political associations’. May I ask you there did you found “obvious and given” date of picture? I will answer - there is no date then this pic was taken, nor the author is given or even mentioned and no again, nothing implies that image was made by Red Army official, nor that the picture was published before January 1, 1954, nor that author died before that date. Therefore there is absolutely no vital information to determine copyright statues of this image under this tag. Speculations are not the facts.
- Delete. per provided info and presented concerns, MX3 16:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Kelly 23:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per provided nomination and especially dubious copyright status. Scanning books or newspapers does not make photography one's own. --Lokyz 12:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, no proper source. — Albert Krantz 21:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC).
Deleted. No source makes much of this discussion irrelevant. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Eligable for copyright. Possibly PD for other non stated reasons though. Lokal_Profil 14:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The creation of the flag occurred in 1541, but I do not believe the author gave permission for this image to be on. I know the image maker, so I can ask him. Original source is http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/m/mx-mrl_o.gif. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Any update on the situation? Otherwise Delete or retagg with {{FOTW}} ./Lokal_Profil 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, because the tag you mentioned is depreciated. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Any update on the situation? Otherwise
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
February 7
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Superceded by png alternative --GraMicE 18:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Superseded images are not deleted. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, what he said Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope. Commons is not private photoalbum. EugeneZelenko 16:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- What about profiles? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's used on a wiktionary user page. --GeorgHH • talk 20:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nomination and uploaders request. abf /talk to me/ 12:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fair use. From ru:Изображение:Andropov1.jpg. --cpro 06:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Although I am those who uploaded this file to WIKIPEDIA Commons, I agree do to this deletion request.
制作者である私も賛成です。あの、削除依頼人さんの依頼票は？--GooGooDoll2 10:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fair use. Russian Wikipedia image processing only! --Tail furry 14:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fair use. --Marine-Blue [ talk contribs ] 16:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- (Coment)This file was not permitted only to Russian version WIKIPEDIA.--GooGooDoll2 22:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
1954 Japanese film is not in public domain ~ Riana ⁂ 07:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Note: I'm just completing the nom for snek01 (talk • contribs)
- Delete per nom. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Some idiot replaced the oldphoto license with the film license. It is the studio still, not the film, that is in question. WTCA 15:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, licensing fixed. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
1954 Japanese film is not in public domain ~ Riana ⁂ 07:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Note: I'm just completing the nom for snek01 (talk • contribs)
- Delete per nom. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Some idiot replaced the oldphoto license with the film license. It is the studio still, not the film, that is in question. WTCA 15:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, license fixed (or un-broken). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
really bad image/ so not usefull / copyvio-user Kolossos 16:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete We don't really need such blurry thing. Herr Kriss 18:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
appears to be logo. Doodle-doo Ħ 20:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep logos are allowed ({{PD-textlogo}}. {{Trademark}} should be added to the description page. ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, 1) it appears the uploader was also the author of it 2) it's not eligible for copyright anyway. No prejudice to a future DR for COM:SCOPE issues, though. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm the autor of the image --02:03, 5 February 2008 User:Ojota
- That´s not a valid reason for deletion. Chaddy 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Chaddy is right. But being completely out of scope is. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 14:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Proposed renaming to something else. Homophobia is an inherently non-neutral term, and therefore goes against naming conventions. It makes a statement about the demonstrators therein that we should probably not remain as such. --Patstuart (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Some pictures are CLEARLY homophobic so there's no reason to deleted this category. And I don't understand why "homophobia" is a non-neutral term! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The same is true for "antisemitism", yet nobody ever asked for deletion of Category:Antisemitism. Furthermore, if we put "Hate towards homosexual people" instead, some people would argue that theirs is not really "hate", it is just a "strong disapproval", and so on. And if we put "Strong disapproval towards homosexuals" instead, someone would again argue that it is but "Legitimate criticism towards deviant lifestiles". And if we put "legitimate..." ... and so on. However, when you read "kill fags" or "burn fags", we are not dealing with "disapproval", but with hate crimes. therefore let's call "cat" a cat, please. --User:G.dallorto 12:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well said! Bravo (let's call cat a cat > lol) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Interesting subject, with category it is easy to connect images to wikipedia's pages. --Sailko 12:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to http://www.unicpos.org.tt/library/resource.html, the usage of this flag and UN symbols is restricted, as agreed in this resolution: http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/maplib/docs/ares192.pdf. :( Patrícia msg 14:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- This would also include Image:Flag of the United Nations.svg. Somebody tell me I'm wrong :((( Patrícia msg 14:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- And please see this, now I'm really confused. Patrícia msg 14:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused too. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Main question is if it's copyright limitations or limitations similar to those of {{insignia}} /Lokal_Profil 00:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Using the UN flag as some kind of trademark for your own products seems to be prohibited. {{insignia}} will do it. --Matt 16:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The UN is international legal personality (not a political organisation as inferred in the other deletion discussion). Resolution 92[18] does not concern the copyright status, but - as Matt states - its status as insigne. --Dschwen 23:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then, what about the copyright status? On http://www.unicpos.org.tt/library/resource.html:
- Although the UN flag may be freely displayed to demonstrate support for the UN and its work, use of the UN emblem, name or initials for commercial purposes is restricted by General Assembly resolution 92(I), adopted in 1946. In this resolution, the Assembly decided that, to prevent the misuse of the UN seal and emblem, it could not be used without the authorization of the Secretary-General.
- The use seems to be restricted to the existence of an authorization from the Secretary-General of the United Nations. There is no further information about copyright. I did find, however, in this document, right at the end, that there is "permission from the Secretery-General to sell the United nations flag(...)". So... apparently this solves the commercial part? Patrícia msg 19:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neither your quotes nor your links deal with the copyright status of the flag. --Dschwen 20:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I added the insigna template to cover the UN restrictions on not abusing the flag. The license is now set to CC-PD as seen on the sodipodi page where this image was taken. --Matt 18:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Great, I guess that settles it, then :). I'll let another admin close this, though. Patrícia msg 18:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why CC-PD? In my opinion, the flag would be normal PD... Chaddy 21:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. giggy (:O) 23:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not PD. the author is unclear and was published in 1923 in holland Doodle-doo Ħ 20:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I am the uploader. True, I have not seen the original, but this an advertisement. Yes, advertisements have authors too, but they are hardly ever stated. So, I think it is fair to say the author is anonymous. Vincent Steenberg 20:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This Dada Night was organised by Theaterbureau De Haan from The Hague. Most likely this company published this ad, but that still doesn't change it's copyright status. Vincent Steenberg 14:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Possibly pd-ineligible, as it contains only of text in a general typeface. In any case, {{Anonymous-EU}} should apply. --rimshottalk 15:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep cleared up now. Doodle-doo Ħ 21:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
and: Image:HK LegCo Vote 12-02-2007 News Quarry Bay nite a.jpg, Image:Standard New.jpg, Image:HK Quarry Bay The Standard News Ads Poster.jpg, Image:Newspaper and magazines.jpg, Image:Eluniversodiarios.jpg, Image:Jimbo with Taiwan newspaper.JPG, Image:Loljimbo.jpg, Image:KomsomolskayaPravdaRizospastis200509.jpg, Image:Kolag EM.JPG, Image:Arab Newspapers.JPG
Derivative work EugeneZelenko 16:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think we can call that derivative work since we don't clearly see the newspaper but just part of them. But I'm not sure of what I'm stating! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you think that newspaper could be copyrighted only as whole? Why do you think that copyrights can't be applied to individual images or articles? --EugeneZelenko 16:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well I think FOP may apply but as I said I'm not sure (I'm far from being an expert!). Sorry I didn't realize there were other pictures. So I'd say Keep for Image:HKChineseNewspaperDistribution2008Jan.jpg, Image:Newspaper and magazines.jpg, Image:Jimbo with Taiwan newspaper.JPG and Delete for the rest of them that are clear copyvio to me. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- FOP in Hong Kong applied to permanently installed items. Newspapers by nature is not permanent item. See Commons:Freedom of panorama#Hong Kong for details. --EugeneZelenko 16:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well I think FOP may apply but as I said I'm not sure (I'm far from being an expert!). Sorry I didn't realize there were other pictures. So I'd say
- Any explanations? And thank you for other candidates for deletion. --EugeneZelenko 16:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image:HKChineseNewspaperDistribution2008Jan.jpg as it is important to illustrate the scandal and is in low resolution. --Minghong 00:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment That's fair use, which we do not allow here. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete All are obvious derivative works. Please upload to wikipedia with a fair use rationale. -Fredpoons 05:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - There is also a lolcat (I forget where) based on the Jimbo image which should be deleted, if this one is. giggy (:O) 23:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Couldn't we blur the visible copyrighted elements of the neswpaper so that we could keep the picture of Jimbo? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Image:HK Quarry Bay The Standard News Ads Poster.jpg kept - FOP applies.
- Image:Jimbo with Taiwan newspaper.JPG & Image:Loljimbo.jpg kept - copyrighted parts will be blurred momentarily.
- Deleted the rest.
Oh dear. This may be a famous portrait, but unfortunately the original is held by the National gallery in the UK, and under UK law the PD-Art tag cannot be used: see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag for details. It seems the image was first uploaded to the English Wikipedia, where it is probably OK since that site applies US law exclusively. However, on Commons the image has to be free not only in the US but also in the home country as well, and this is not free under UK law. See also Commons:Licensing#Interaction of United States copyright law and foreign copyright law. A pity, but this one will have to go.
- Delete - MichaelMaggs 21:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Until there is UK case law on this issue, there is no reason to guess what they may decide. This is a closeup inframe, which limits the photographer's selections. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Where does this reproduction come from? Where was this reproduction first published? If not in the UK, we may happily ignore UK law. Lupo 09:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure, but the photograph of the original was surely taken in the UK. --MichaelMaggs 18:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- In any case it looks identical to the version at the largest zoom at the NPG :-( (The full picture could be obtained by downloading the 120 tiles from Tile 4-0-0 to Tile 4-9-11 (4 is the zoom level, second number a column index, third number a row index) and stitching them together.) Lupo 19:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete seems it was mistaken to upload this. Majorly (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Does anyone know where the earlier versions came from? Maybe we can keep at least those... Lupo 23:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the works of Shakespeare should be in the public domain. Therefore, don't delete.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.143.243 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleting per nom. Bye bye en FP - bwahahaha! -mattbuck (Talk) 00:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
And/or
OR
Uploader requesting deletion, soon after (not used), My Bad! Duplicate, the first (to keep) found only after adding another category: Category:Anglo-Saxons will show both in top rows. --FrankB 23:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- See also
(1) Image:Britain settlement 600.jpg,page is used by gallery and atlas, etc.
and the third:
(2) Image:Angles, Saxons, Jutes in Britain year 600.jpg...- For what it's worth, I like my title better, and it retains Shephards' Atlas' name within and mentions Shephard. This latter one seems under utilized too, and just links back to itself and a user page about duplicates. The language in the three ought be "Merged", and the best title kept. // FrankB 00:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fabartus, it's unneeded to request for deletion. Two of these three images must be speey deleted per COM:CSD. They're dupes images. You can use
{{dupe|Better name image}}to add them to the dupes log. Their likes can be replaced easily using CommonsDelinker (An admin will do that before deleting). Thanks!--OsamaK 06:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fabartus, it's unneeded to request for deletion. Two of these three images must be speey deleted per COM:CSD. They're dupes images. You can use
Looks like this was taken care of. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
February 8
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio on flickr (link is already gone, btw) The Evil Spartan 08:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete screenshot ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 20:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image looks like a TV screenshot to me. ALE! ¿…? 15:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete And to me too. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, does to me too. Uploader indefinitely blocked; this file has been re-uploaded several times after been deleted and user has a ton of other copyvios as well. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(reason for deletion) --4 February 2008 User:Sambach
- Delete Fixed request. File doesn't open for me. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I requested delete minutes after I uploaded it and saw it's wrong. Please delete. Sambach 21:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as a corrupted image. I took a look at the SVG text and there's no obvious mistake, I'd suggest reuploading. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
cant decide between delete [flickr-inc]; tagging as nsd or delete [copyvio] so im using this as a middleway ;) abf /talk to me/ 20:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The source blog copies the picture from [19]. Not only stealing the picture... also the bandwidth. :( ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 21:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong drawing and copyright violation --04:56, 8 February 2008 User:Tebu.an
- Comment text and simple geometric forms are ineligible for copyright ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 20:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I had fixed it and put reasons for non-free logo. -- Tebu.an 02:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Fair use is not allowed on Commons, please check out Commons:Licensing. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
publicity photo in flickr stream of user who uploads lots of copyvios Calliopejen 00:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete surely a copyvio --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be a copyvio Rastrojo
(D|ES) 19:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as per the above. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is poor quality, and has been superceded by a SVG vector graphic Calvin 1998 01:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Sorry, we can't do that. Superseded images are marked with {{superseded}}, no matter the quality. Vipersnake151 02:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Due to the ongoing discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SanchezColumbia.jpg, at least one of the images used on the poster (Iraqi child) has been identified and Image:SanchezColumbia.jpg appears to be non-free also. At this stage, I dont see any reason to doubt the the license of the photo so I request that people steer clear of that unless they have a very good reason to mention it. The concern is that the inclusion of non-free content on the poster ripples up to make the photograph of the poster also non-free. I am nominating this because a discussion along those lines has already been underway, and I am declining a speedy deletion - I am not sure of how Commons typically handles this freedom of speech issue. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This photograph reproduces three other images, one of which is the confirmed property of Columbia Daily Spectator and another editor has traced a second to the Associated Press. United States has no freedom of panorama. Durova 03:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Delete for reproduction of 2 known copyrighted images within this image. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 03:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the uploader gave a photograph of his own work of art (a replica), and permits the picture "only for Wikipedia", although licensing it in GFDL. --Hautala 12:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete not free enough. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but the he added the GFDL tag, and one can not add restrictions on top of that. (But if he didn't mean to, I don't think it's binding.) →Rocket°°° 01:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. If it says "Wikipedia only" then the chances are that he does not understand what the GFDL means. Precedent is that we should go on the intent of the author, not by the wording of the license. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a common image all over Dubai by RTA to show the status of the Metro project. The copyright is owned by RTA and cannot be "released" as PD-Self. The author does not specify a source for the image. --2 February 2008 User:24.99.223.234 Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 18:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
redundant to Image:M-185 (MISPC).svg and unused --Imzadi1979 03:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Superseded images are not deleted. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- That only applies to png images. --Holderca1 11:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete What good does this GIF image do? --Rschen7754 06:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Inferior, redundant, not useful, not needed, not wanted, no lo quiero. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Superseeded GIF will be deleted after replaced, like in {{BadGIF}} noticed! ChristianBier 17:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bild ist schief, lade gleich neue Version hoch --31 January 2008 User:DKrieger
- Delete User has uploaded straightened version Image:Reichenau Niederzell Innenansicht.JPG. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 13:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It seems highly unlikely that Denice Klarskov cannot spell her own name. --212.242.142.75 05:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Interesting argument :) --|EPO| da: 12:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, average copyvio --Polarlys 14:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
redundant image, bad ID --8 February 2008 User:Trekphiler
- I uploaded the same image with a different ID; this one has the "ttakeoff" mistake. With 2, this is redundant. Trekphiler 12:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Image:F-20 on takeoff.jpg does not exist - what is the name of the file? (And can you mention the duplicate file for your other deletion requests too please.) -- Deadstar (msg) 11:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, it's Image:First F-20 on takoff.jpg. Which is also mis-spelled. Oh well. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unsourced artist --5 February 2008 User:G.dallorto
- Comment If it's a replica of a PD work of art (here Ancient Egypt art) can it be eligible to copyright although there's not really any creativity? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- It could be a slavish copy, or it could be someone's creative work based on ancient art (the coloring in particular could be new, creative work). The vague description and lack of source make it impossible to know. --dave pape 18:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep New copyright does not attach to duplications of two dimensional artwork. Durova 20:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, without proper source, we are unable to determine if this is a replica of an old work in the public domain or a modern artist’s view on Ancient Egypt art. Providing such information is also essential for any encyclopedic usage. --Polarlys 14:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
See Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Female_pubic_hair.jpg Zirland 10:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't need to be here scope. --[[User:|Anon]] 19:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not really any good reason to delete it IMO. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to be an elder pic. Are there any women with pubic hair still around? In 2008 ? Mutter Erde 17:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for delete it... Rastrojo (D|ES) 17:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep very similar in style to a masterpiece ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 21:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of project scope. --Fredpoons 19:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I would rather keep it but crop out the rest of the face so the image fully illustrate the point the vulva is demonstrated in the pic, and keep anonymity of the model (still, the face would be hard to recognize as for now). As well as be more similar to this origin of the world painting. Then, I could use the image on http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulve Thanks. FYI, there is also from the same model: Image:Female nude.jpg And if Kma922 is the same user as Alembic922, this guy is now unblocked on WP. — Morgoth666 18:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete. Good quality image showing female nudity. --Otolemur crassicaudatus 06:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Exactly how is the photo out of project scope? Keep.
- Keep I vote to keep, but then, I'm biased since it's me. Morgoth666, I have uploaded another version Image:Female_Nude_with_Pubic_Hair_2.jpg with face fully cropped out if you would like to use it for your project. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Kma922 (talk • contribs)
- Thank you. I also do not understand why it could be out of the project scope. Morgoth666 14:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. - Rocket000 01:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is not "Martinus van Toulon" but "Vincent van Eijck" Gouwenaar 14:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Is there a correctly named duplicate available? -- Deadstar (msg) 15:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- We could use this to test Commons:MediaMoveBot instead, possibly? ~Kylu (u|t) 05:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Vincent van Eijck.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Texas FM shields 1
[edit]- Image:TexasFM1.png
- Image:TexasFM2.png
- Image:TexasFM3.png
- Image:TexasFM4.png
- Image:TexasFM5.png
- Image:TexasFM6.png
- Image:TexasFM7.png
- Image:TexasFM8.png
- Image:TexasFM9.png
- Image:TexasFM10.png
- Image:TexasFM11.png
- Image:TexasFM13.png
- Image:TexasFM14.png
- Image:TexasFM15.png
- Image:TexasFM16.png
- Image:TexasFM17.png
- Image:TexasFM18.png
- Image:TexasFM19.png
- Image:TexasFM20.png
- Image:TexasFM21.png
- Image:TexasFM22.png
- Image:TexasFM23.png
- Image:TexasFM24.png
- Image:TexasFM25.png
- Image:TexasFM26.png
- Image:TexasFM27.png
- Image:TexasFM28.png
- Image:TexasFM29.png
- Image:TexasFM30.png
- Image:TexasFM31.png
- Image:TexasFM34.png
- Image:TexasFM35.png
- Image:TexasFM36.png
- Image:TexasFM37.png
- Image:TexasFM38.png
- Image:TexasFM39.png
- Image:TexasFM40.png
- Image:TexasFM41.png
- Image:TexasFM43.png
- Image:TexasFM44.png
- Image:TexasFM45.png
- Image:TexasFM46.png
- Image:TexasFM47.png
- Image:TexasFM48.png
- Image:TexasFM49.png
- Image:TexasFM50.png
Redundant, duplicates of Texas FM <number>.svg. There is no reason to keep these files around. --Rschen7754 05:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, no longer needed. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No deletion of superseded files. --GeorgHH • talk 10:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why? --Holderca1 14:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just the way things are done. See COM:DEL/Superseded. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Just the way things are done" doesn't cut it with me. I'll be completely honest, it seems stupid to have two files that are identical in every way but format. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- "It seems stupid" doesn't cut it with me, so there, discussion over. Seriously though, if you have a problem with this policy then go change the policy; otherwise, give a compelling reason to disregard it in this case that wouldn't apply to every single other superseded image. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is stupid to keep images that will never be used again. Furthermore, that is not a policy that you have been citing. Even if it is, it is a stupid policy that is a bunch of bureaucratic crap. --Rschen7754 01:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is a policy (all our superseded tags reflect that). If you want to change the policy, go argue for a change in policy in an appropriate venue (though you will have to have better arguments than "that is a bunch of bureaucratic crap" if you want to be taken seriously). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nah, I have better ways to waste my time; I don't feel a pressing need to argue with policy wonks on a site that embraces useless images and redundant categories. If it wasn't easier to categorize files here, I'd upload them to Wikipedia instead. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. So nah, I have better ways to waste my time; I don't feel a pressing need to argue with argumentative en.wikipedians that stop by the Commons every now and then, who completely disregard the fact that Commons has its own rules and traditions forged by a ton of discussion and consensus and which are not, therefore, to be taken lightly. In short, no u. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is stupid to keep images that will never be used again. Furthermore, that is not a policy that you have been citing. Even if it is, it is a stupid policy that is a bunch of bureaucratic crap. --Rschen7754 01:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- "It seems stupid" doesn't cut it with me, so there, discussion over. Seriously though, if you have a problem with this policy then go change the policy; otherwise, give a compelling reason to disregard it in this case that wouldn't apply to every single other superseded image. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- But they are not used, nor will they be used. If they are seen used in an article, they are replaced on site with the svg version. So the only thing accomplished by having them around is to make our work as editors more difficult. --Holderca1 16:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- See comments above, they're pertinent here. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Give me one good reason why these images should be kept besides "my mommy told me so." --Rschen7754 01:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's a perfectly valid argument; maybe if you had listened to your mother you wouldn't be quite so rude to others. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- SERIOUSLY - why keep all these images? We're trying to make the highest quality lowest resolution files here - keeping these obsolete images just introduces problems when people use them. Give us a reason and Don't point us to a commons page saying deletion of superceded images is not allowed! master sonT - C 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- SERIOUSLY, don't point you to a policy page that has wide community support because the opinion of you and a couple of other people from WikiProject U.S. roads overrides all that. Whatever. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- What? That is an incoherent sentence. --Rschen7754 03:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin)
- What? That is an incoherent sentence. --Rschen7754 03:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- SERIOUSLY, don't point you to a policy page that has wide community support because the opinion of you and a couple of other people from WikiProject U.S. roads overrides all that. Whatever. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Give me one good reason why these images should be kept besides "my mommy told me so." --Rschen7754 01:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- See comments above, they're pertinent here. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Just the way things are done" doesn't cut it with me. I'll be completely honest, it seems stupid to have two files that are identical in every way but format. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just the way things are done. See COM:DEL/Superseded. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why? --Holderca1 14:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, no longer used or needed. --Holderca1 14:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral No real problem IMO. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lpangelrob 17:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Inferior and redundant. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Superseded images are not deleted. Tag them instead. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- And what good does tagging do? The redundant set still exists then, and having two sets of shields around for the same thing can easily confuse editors. Just because a tag says "use the SVG instead" doesn't mean they will. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why? To blindly follow a process? Use common sense please. --Rschen7754 03:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, pretty much: that's just the way things are done, after much discussion of this matter.
(I'm really, really amazed that so many people have turned up here to vote; I wonder why so many people care.)Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)- Never mind to the last bit; this explains that. Hence all the voters. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, pretty much: that's just the way things are done, after much discussion of this matter.
- Delete per nom. Imzadi1979 03:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom master sonT - C 04:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate pngs make me cry IRL Stratosphere 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per policy – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please give a valid reason. --Rschen7754 23:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per policy. Commons is not intended to be solely a repository for Wikimedia content, but a repository of free media. Links from outside, non-Wikimedia sites would be broken if these images are deleted. See Commons talk:Deletion guidelines#Superseded clause. Titoxd(?!?) 06:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for giving an intelligent reason for the keep vote. I disagree with this because the benefit to the rest of the internet would not surpass the disadvantage to Wikimedia sites. --Rschen7754 06:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am still unclear on this. The deletion policy states that superseded images are deleted on a case-by-case basis. If this isn't a good case, what would be? --Holderca1 14:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can't we delete and then redirect to the SVGs if that's an issue? --NE2 01:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and let people choose which format they want to use. SVG and PNG are not identical, and don't have the same level of support. --Itub 08:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- MediaWiki creates PNGs from the SVGs, so I don't understand this argument. --NE2 20:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have started a discussion to change the policy Commons_talk:Deletion_requests/Superseded#This_policy_is_ridiculous here. --Rschen7754 01:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Per COM:DEL/Superseded. As no deletion argument has stated why this policy should be overlooked in this case. giggy (:O) 23:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Summary states Chris Kulawik, photographer. Copyright owned by Matthew Sanchez Considering the history of User:Bluemarine claiming copyright to images he does not own nor photos he took, this statement per himself makes this image unacceptable on Commons without proof. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 03:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Each image is different. This deletion is being requested based on suspicion alone, when it is possible to contact the uploader, and/or the named photographer, to seek clarification. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- The deletion is not being requested based on suspicion. The deletion is being requested based on the summary statement in conjunction with a previous discussion that has proven another image does not belong to the user. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 07:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- You suspect that this image is not free because another image that the user uploaded is not free.
- You have chosen to ignore Durova's request on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SanchezColumbia.jpg to discuss the matter of this image with the user (which is OK; I understand that you don't want to talk with this user, or dont see the utility in doing so), but you have also not collated any background information about this image that would cast serious doubt on the image, nor have you tracked down the photographer and asked him for his input. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Other than Sanchez's own statement in the summary that someone else took the photo?? ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 22:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- The deletion is not being requested based on suspicion. The deletion is being requested based on the summary statement in conjunction with a previous discussion that has proven another image does not belong to the user. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 07:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The photo has been nominated for deletion because of Allstar's delusional state that he/she/it is always correct and his obvious disregard for me. The photo belongs to me, I have permission to use it. How do we proceed to register that permission? [Personal attack removed.] Bluemarine 08:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Uh yeah, you could just explain why you have the copyright on it rather than making lame personal attacks like that, okay? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can you explain the details about this image, such as who is Chris Kulawik, in an email to permissions@wikimedia.org, or to me personally. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- [Comment removed by Allstarecho. Edit conflict.]
- Hey, mellow out. And please stop with the personal attacks. →Rocket°°° 10:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- [Comment removed by Allstarecho. Edit conflict.]
- Keep - with all due respect, this appears to be nothing more than a furtherance of the dispute between Allstar and Bluemarine. And, as I said elsewhere, this needs to stop. Live and let live, people, both of you. As for this image, I see no reason for deletion. Patstuart (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Um, no. The dispute is irrelevant. The image itself needs to be evaluated. It falls short. ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment COPYRIGHT 2008, RADAR MAGAZINE claimed.[21] Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment No, that would be March 30, 2007 when that was published - according to the date at the bottom of the article. Where are you seeing 2008? Regardless, someone should contact Radar Magazine and find out the copyright status of the photo. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Mr. Sanchez gave his camera to his buddy, later he took a pic of Mr. Kulawik with Mrs. Coulter. So, where is the problem? Mutter Erde 21:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Other than Sanchez claiming ownership and copyright to a photo that was published in a magazine a month before Sanchez uploaded it here? ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 23:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I look at the picture, I look at the description, there is no reason to doubt. This pic was made by a guy, who was not familiar with the camera. Mutter Erde 08:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Other than Sanchez claiming ownership and copyright to a photo that was published in a magazine a month before Sanchez uploaded it here? ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 23:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Radar Magazine
[edit]I have emailed several people at Radar Magazine to get their take on the photograph, since it did appear in their interview with Sanchez on March 30, 2007 at the link noted above. When I hear back, I'll follow-up. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 23:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - delete it until such time as copyright is established. Note that we have a defacto policy that once a few images clearly come out as delete based on copyright concerns, and if we also see that a pattern of copyright abuse is established, we delete all the user's contributions, and block the user. I'm seeing that pattern as being likely but am not ready to make the call yet. ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Lar, I am quite sure that many of these deletions are due to good faith errors on the part of Bluemarine. For example, Image:Wall_of_shame.jpg had nothing to do with the freeness of the photo - it was simply that it contained non-free elements. These images are being put under a very high level of scrutiny coupled with unusually high levels of bad faith.[22][23]. Image:Wall_of_shame.jpg has now also been nominated for deletion on en.wp citing Commons policy, so there are good faith errors on all sides as we attempt to stabilise the situation post the en.wp arbcom outcome. See WP:IFD(Wall of shame.jpg). John Vandenberg (chat) 02:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to be a hard case but the good faith I have for Matt Sanchez is zero. The project does not actually need these images, as far as I can see, and if Matt cannot avoid responding without being insulting or worse, we can't work with him, and we shouldn't have to try. No particular person is guaranteed an inexhaustible reservoir of good faith. That said if all of the issues are corrected by Matt to the absolute best of his ability, with no further outbursts, including his admitting where he erred, I'm not averse to starting over with a clean slate. My expectations of that happening are very low but non zero. ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was referring to "a pattern of copyright abuse", and pointing out that I consider Image:Wall_of_shame.jpg and other recently deleted images as complex cases rather than part of a pattern of abuse. I was not referring to user conduct, which I agree has not been good, and I would not assume any good faith there. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to be a hard case but the good faith I have for Matt Sanchez is zero. The project does not actually need these images, as far as I can see, and if Matt cannot avoid responding without being insulting or worse, we can't work with him, and we shouldn't have to try. No particular person is guaranteed an inexhaustible reservoir of good faith. That said if all of the issues are corrected by Matt to the absolute best of his ability, with no further outbursts, including his admitting where he erred, I'm not averse to starting over with a clean slate. My expectations of that happening are very low but non zero. ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Lar, I am quite sure that many of these deletions are due to good faith errors on the part of Bluemarine. For example, Image:Wall_of_shame.jpg had nothing to do with the freeness of the photo - it was simply that it contained non-free elements. These images are being put under a very high level of scrutiny coupled with unusually high levels of bad faith.[22][23]. Image:Wall_of_shame.jpg has now also been nominated for deletion on en.wp citing Commons policy, so there are good faith errors on all sides as we attempt to stabilise the situation post the en.wp arbcom outcome. See WP:IFD(Wall of shame.jpg). John Vandenberg (chat) 02:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - delete per publication in magazine. Aleta 04:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - delete, I found this discussion by following Sanchez's own comments on wikipedia (just to snip meatpuppet accusations in the bud). Per Bluemarine (Sanchez)'s comment here "John Avarsis: This is a publicity shot I pulled from his website". At least Sanchez is being more forthcoming with where some of these photos came from. Benjiboi 18:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- That comment on User:Bluemarine is in regards to Image:Aravosis-John.jpg, which has been deleted. I pointed this out at en:Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 15. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Per 17 USC § 204 (a), transfer of copyright is only effective in writing. Given the level of acrimony here, it would be best if Bluemarine could get Chris Kulawik to sign such a statement (see w:WP:COPYREQ#Declaration of consent for all enquiries), scan it and send it to OTRS. Sorry to make you jump through hoops, but the more eyeballs that are on this, the more important it is that we do things by the book. I'll be happy to restore it once that happens. howcheng {chat} 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
February 9
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There are 2 logos in this image. I doubt the uploader holds the copyright to them both. --Rockfang 02:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. There is a chance, that those logos don't overstep the threshold of originality, but if the uploader claims to have the copyright, it has to be a OTRS ticket. --norro 10:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, also not particularly useful. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Claims source is Flickr, but actually links to an unsourced image on Malaysian Wiki. Ytoyoda 04:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unsufficient or erronous information on image source. --norro 10:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, the uploader (now blocked by LX) had dozens of comparable copyvios in the past, no need to discuss this. (I already deleted it some months ago.) --Polarlys 11:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not a Flickr image as claimed, links to a deleted (?) image on Malaysian Wiki Ytoyoda 04:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unsufficient or erronous information on image source. --norro 10:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, copyvio, like all other uploads by this user. --Polarlys 12:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a recreation of an image deleted from English Wiki: [24] Ytoyoda 04:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be a clear copyvio. --norro 10:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
contiene errores Pguerin 09:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete corrupted file. -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 11:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
contiene errores Pguerin 09:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete corrupted image -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 11:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, fixed. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- The image is too big for the software to create a thumbnail. That could be fixed by uploading a smaller version, but
- an image for just providing text (a recipe) doesn't make sense. --norro 10:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- A solution would be to crop a smaller and relevant zone of the image -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 11:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The image is not intended for illustrating a recipe, but it is intended to show how text on a typewriter is looking! I typed the text myself, almost 30 years ago, and couldn't reproduce it now. You may make a smaller version of jpg if you like. Software limitations should not be a reaseon to delete an image. Elly 10:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I didn't see that because the only usage for now is in an article about soup, not about a typewriter. But I see yur point. Keep --norro 15:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I didn't see that because the only usage for now is in an article about soup, not about a typewriter. But I see yur point.
Kept. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate with misspelled name Kwamikagami 13:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate of Image:Rongorongo P-r Great St Petersburg.jpg. And please use {{bad name}} instead next time. --Moonian 15:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate image with misspelled name Kwamikagami 13:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate of Image:Rongorongo P-v Great St Petersburg.jpg. And please use {{bad name}} instead next time. --Moonian 15:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
speedy deletion (false name) Petar Marjanovic 14:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate of Image:Trisecting of 180 degree.svg. And please use {{bad name}} instead next time. --Moonian 15:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, also what Moonian said. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. 189.145.105.171 17:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to think it's a copyvio. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Why would it be copyrighted? Complete nonsense!--Lamilli 15:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept (with no prejudice to a further nomination for being out of scope). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
1928 is not before 1923. Source page gives no indication that photo is PD. dave pape 17:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I unfortunately have to agree with that DR! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for it, i don't know why i upload it ... Regards 82.251.104.48 21:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Scope abf /talk to me/ 20:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
| “ | However, uploading images of yourself and others in small quantity is allowed as long as they are useful for some Wikimedia project (for example, a Wikipedia article, a Wikinews report, a meta article, a user page). More details on personality rights can be found at Commons:Licensing. | ” |
- Keep I would say this and the one above are both fine. They're used and obviously uploaded for user/project pages. I wouldn't say Nousernamesleft's quote applies, but if he thinks they're pictures of himself, then that's cool. :D →Rocket°°° 01:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, in scope if they're used. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Watermarked, maybe copyrighted. abf /talk to me/ 20:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Or personal image used to advertise services. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 14:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request, This image should remove the Wikipeida logo, Wikipedia does not own the Nintendo Game Boys. The logo should be removed. --Wireless1965 23:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment We may want to replace that WP picture by a blank (or black) picture but DR is not the right thing to do then... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I can't make out the Wikipedia logo itself, only the text. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think that's a good reason to delete it. Has anybody noticed that all browser screenshots in Wikipedia display the Wikipedia page? That doesn't imply that Wikipedia owns it. Hell, I could stick a Nintendo sticker on my PS3 (if I had one), and it wouldn't mean anything.
Kept. The logos are totally unnecessary, however, it's not implying ownership and we usually keep images that happen to have a Wikimedia logo in them, such as screenshots. Feel free to edit them out if you want. →Rocket°°° 07:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I have added dupe tagg to this image. Its uploader uploaded a new version which is the same stily with bigger size for unknown reason. I think we don't need this same version of this file now. OsamaK 21:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, it maybe be the same as Image:Blason famille Noailles.svg, but they are different families that just happen to have the same blazon. It would create confusion in Wikipedia articles if you displayed an image with the filename of a different family. --Pmsyyz 21:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, (same reasons) Jimmy44 07:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, (same reasons) --D2paysac 07:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- So name is the biggest problem? :-). They are still dupes anyway..--OsamaK 09:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment They are exact duplicates. One should be deleted. Something like this shouldn't be named after a family since these problems do arise. I suggest uploading a third neutral family-independent version and delete these two. The question is: Who is the real author? →Rocket°°° 20:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let's check the date, the question is: What's the best name?--OsamaK 11:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you can choose a meaningless name if you like, such as Coat_of_arms_gules_a_bend_or.svg or Blason_1234.svg, but the real question is: How will you describe this file? This is a very classical heraldic figure, and it is probably the coat of arms of dozens of families or cities or provinces or regiments or anything. I just found fourteen of those in no time by a simple request on the Internet. Do you think a description like This is the coat of arms of XXX and YYY and ZZZ and... so on will be clear for any reader? Regards, Bruno 20:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- People shouldn't really be doing their research on Commons—if they're looking for this COA, they should know why, right? Honestly, I would let the Wikipedias take care of that. That's their job :) But yeah, I think it would be clear enough if you wanted to add it. →Rocket°°° 08:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you can choose a meaningless name if you like, such as Coat_of_arms_gules_a_bend_or.svg or Blason_1234.svg, but the real question is: How will you describe this file? This is a very classical heraldic figure, and it is probably the coat of arms of dozens of families or cities or provinces or regiments or anything. I just found fourteen of those in no time by a simple request on the Internet. Do you think a description like This is the coat of arms of XXX and YYY and ZZZ and... so on will be clear for any reader? Regards, Bruno 20:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let's check the date, the question is: What's the best name?--OsamaK 11:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rename both "gules_a_bend_or.svg" is a good idea. Otherwise, if the family name is retaned, both are relevant... 06:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Gules a bend or.svg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I can't believe that these people are hammals (porters), because they seem to be rich men. Hammals in 1909 were very very poor, their clothes were very simple and not as these one. Furthermore, this picture wasn't taken in Amed/Diyarbekir, but in Istanbul. --Bangin@de@ku ¤ ρø$τ 12:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Bangin@de@ku ¤ ρø$τ 12:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see any mention of "hammals" on the image page. If a wikipedia article is using this image and describing them thus, then it's the article that should be corrected.
- However, the image lacks source data. From the title, I'd guess it's from The short cut to India the record of a journey along the route of the Baghdad railway, by David Fraser [27], which was published in England in 1909. It's original use as PD-US on en.wp should be okay, but it may not actually qualify to be kept here on Commons as PD-Old. --dave pape 16:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it would depend on when David Fraser died then (though I'm sure he wasn't the one who actually took the picture or published it first, probably some kind of stock photo). The argument for nomination is rather irrelevant, I might add. FunkMonk 19:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- These men are definitively turks, but they could be "hammals" or other type of worker. FD
- Seems fairly pointless to delete it when the social class of the workers pictured isn't in the caption and it's an excellent example of how hookah was smoked in the early 1900's 71.137.198.179 01:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, i can not English. This Photo is not true and wasnt taken in Amed. Have very desinformations photos hier about Kurds. Please recpect for reality. This is a Typic Turkish Desinformation. See please, [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33].. I can hundred Web adresse. 1909 living any Turks in Diyarbakir and today living only state´s man (police etc.). Please this LIE correction.
- Then it isn't the image, but the text which is wrong. Simple thing to do is to change the text, there is no reason whatsoever to delete the imager itself. FunkMonk 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as unsourced. Patstuart (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Source has been added. FunkMonk 20:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - no cogent argument presented for deletion. Patstuart (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Users with OTRS access: 2008020210003368
The subject of the image, Jay Brannan, claims the photo copyright is owned by himself and does not give permission for its use.
Background (non-Commons information): He disputes the portrayal of him on en:Jay Brannan and would prefer the article be deleted also, however that will be handled on enwp.
I'm not personally comfortable with keeping the image if it is potentially work-for-hire. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete strongly per nomination, contents of OTRS ticket. Regardless of whether his article is deleted on enwp, I still feel this image should be deleted, between the claims of copyright, work-for-hire as well as the subject's known displeasure of it existing. Daniel (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- If I can offer a friendly suggestion, he should change the license of his image on Flickr to something like All Rights Reserved or something like that. I suggest it to prevent this from happening again. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The photograph was uploaded under CCA by Flickr user Jason Anfinsen. If Brannan contests the copyright he can and should file a claim to Yahoo! . Queerudite 04:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- That is a good option. Kylu, I request for you to email me about this issue. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Brannan does not own the copyright to it. It was taken by Jason Anfinsen who attended one of Brannan's performances - Oct 16, 2007; Mercury Lounge, New York City to be exact ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 04:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- So the wishes of the subject of the picture don't concern you at all? ~Kylu (u|t) 05:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not in a situation where he has no ownership of the image, no, his wishes do not concern me. It's not his photo. He does not own the copyright to it. Therefore he has no claim to it nor a claim to decide Commons can't use it anymore. We're bowing down to someone who doesn't own the image. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 16:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete If the subject didn't give his permission to publish, ithas to be deleted. --norro 10:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- No it doesn't since he doesn't own the copyright of the image. This picture was taken by a fan at one of the subject's performances. The fan owns it, not the subject. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 16:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Personality rights; if the subject demands that a photograph of him to be taken down, despite whoever took it, we need to take it down. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- No it doesn't since he doesn't own the copyright of the image. This picture was taken by a fan at one of the subject's performances. The fan owns it, not the subject. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 16:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If the photograph is licensed as CCA on Flickr, it cannot be licensed differently on Wikimedia Commons. Unless the CCA is contested at Flickr, there is no reason for the photograph to be deleted here. Queerudite 16:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image does not appear to be misleading and was taken at a public performance.Geni 22:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I spoke to Geni today and she assured me that all personality rights issues are taken care of. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Does not look to me like a promotional photograph - it's in a flickr stream along with a ton of obviously personal photos, and is licensed similarly, with the same camera metadata. I see no detailed claims on any OTRS ticket invoking a work-for-hire issue. Phil Sandifer 15:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It doesn't seem to violate any of the rules mentioned above. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment As was mentioned above in the nom rationale, Jay Brannan disputes the portrayal of him on en:Jay Brannan and would prefer the article be deleted also. Just an FYI that the article's AfD was closed as Keep. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 10:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - if we don't delete this, we might as well throw {{personality rights}} out the window. In fact, I might well nominate it myself. Patstuart (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Okey how does the wording on that template mean we should delete?Geni 18:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- "The subject of the image, Jay Brannan, claims the photo copyright is owned by himself and does not give permission for its use. Background (non-Commons information): He disputes the portrayal of him on en:Jay Brannan and would prefer the article be deleted also, however that will be handled on enwp." Patstuart (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- And if we bow down to every Tom, Dick and Harry that don't like the article about them on Wikipedia, we might as well throw Wikipedia it self out the window. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 00:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Strong delete. We have a credible (although not verifiable) assertion that this is copyrighted vs a credible (but not verifiable) assertion that is was validly compatible licenced via Flickr. Either the Flickr uploader or the complainant is wrong (lying or mistake) but we have no way of judging between competing claims. However, since we are a free content project we need to err on the side of caution. We err on the sided of not using something we're not completely sure we have a right to use. Thus delete. The fact the complainant is the subject, does not want it used, and possibly owns personality rights simply strengthens the case--Doc glasgow2 02:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- powershot G9 for a work for hire photo? Unlikely. A nice camera but not a DSLR and the difference is noticeable. The upload time to flickr doesn't really give it time to be stolen.Geni 18:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete First, assuming that Mr. Anfinsen owns the copyright, which is a big if since the only evidence is that he uploaded a digital photograph to Flickr, the page is still in violation of the license agreement. The license cited is a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic License. This license requires attribution to the author. At this time there is no such attribution.
- Second, Mr. Brannan does have rights in this situation. California, where the Wikimedia Foundation is located, recognizes a common law right of privacy that includes protection against appropriation of someone’s name or likeness. Wendt v. Host Intern., Inc., 125 F.3d 806, 811 (1997). This includes both commercial and non-commercial purposes. Miller v. Glenn Miller Productions, Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 989 (2006).
- I would recommend, given Mr. Brannan’s preference, and the moral and legal issues involved, that his image be removed. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.174.86.67 (talk • contribs)
- The above is from a en:Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 04:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Which is why I did not edit the actual article. I am simply advocating a position that I would hope will convince those that actually know the policies for editing articles. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.174.86.67 (talk • contribs)
- The above is from a en:Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 04:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think you are very confused. The image is attributed to Jason Anfinsen. Look at the image page again. It's attributed in the same way as virtually every other Flickr image in Commons. Second, you are completely mischaracterizing the nature of personality rights. It protects the individual from having their image used to endorse a commercial or political cause. Both of the case law you cite are about commercial uses. There is no law in California that prevents free content images from being used for educational purposes about the subject. If there were such a law, you would never see a celebrity's image on TV or in print journalism during a scandal. Queerudite 14:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- And another comment: personality rights doesn't belong in Wikimedia Commons discussion anyway. It is merely a repository for free content images. Personality rights involves how the image is used, so if this photograph doesn't belong on Wikipedia that is a separate argument for the Wikipedia article (one which I have provided the counter-argument for above). If, on the other hand, Brannan were able to substantiate his claim of copyright, the photograph should be removed immediately without discussion. Though, as Geni and Allstar have pointed out, it seems unlikely Brannan actually holds the copyright. Queerudite 14:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- First, it is important to note that Mr. Brannan’s right in this case does not involve the photograph (a copyright) but the use of his image (a privacy right). Secondly, there is a legal distinction, albeit subtle, between the right to publicity, which is what you are discussing, and the right to privacy in regards to appropriation. While a right to publicity has to do with commercial interests and is often compared to the rights involved in a trademark, the right to privacy is focused on the effect on the individual involved and is not foreclosed by the use being noncommercial. Restatement 2d of Torts § 652C states: “One who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy.” The Restatement continues that while invasion by advertisement is a common form, the rule is not restricted to commercial appropriation: “It applies also when the defendant makes use of the plaintiff's name or likeness for his own purposes and benefit, even though the use is not a commercial one, and even though the benefit sought to be obtained is not a pecuniary one.” But again, I would argue that regardless of the legal arguments, there is a strong moral argument. Wikipedia generally removes things when the subject wants them removed, which is probably why it has avoided litigation to this point, I don't understand why this image would be different. Jlsimmons 01:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- a)we do no such thing and b) the photo appears to have been taken at a public performance (The G9 is not a superzoom model) and apart from being downscaled appears not to have been edited in any way. The courts would be unlikely to consider use in a wikipedia article to be "appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another" and the images is hardly unique in haveing personality rights issues that could impact third parties. From the POV of commons and the wikimedia projects there are no personality rights issues that could be a problem on project.Geni 01:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The issues here are many, but I think my closing comments will satisfy the concerns of the deleters:
- Copyright in the photograph: I don't see any evidence that this was, in fact, a work-for-hire, which is the only way that Mr. Brannan would be able to claim a copyright over it. There's a couple of minor pieces of evidence against this, too. For one thing, there's the fact that it's still on Flickr, under the original license; if this was some kind of blatant copyright violation one would have thought that Flickr would have taken it down by now. Another is that professionals who are hired for this sort of thing would be unlikely to use a PowerShot G9 to take such a photograph. None of these would count for much in other circumstances, but in lieu of any positive evidence for this being a work-for-hire, they do count for something.
- Personality rights: It seems that some commentators have misunderstood this as meaning "the subject of a photograph has an absolute right to control how it is used, regardless of context". This, however, is not the case; that's why we have a template warning people about personality rights issues, rather than speedying every photograph of an identifiable person. One might draw a loose analogy with the fact that we allow trademarked images here (so long as they are free of copyright); the fact that it could be used in a way which would violate the law, does not mean that we should not host them. Its current use on Wikipedia, for sure, does not infringe on the subject's personality rights. None of this is incompatible with free licensing. It merely forbids certain kinds of misrepresentation, just as trademark law does.
- The subject doesn't like it: Legally, we don't have to care about whether Mr. Brannan approves of it. The photograph was taken at a public gathering, at which many people could reasonably be expected to be taking photographs; as such, we don't need his permission to distribute such an image. We only require permission from the subject for situations in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. I think it's a stretch to say that a concert is one of these situations.
- Regardless of what the law says, the subject wants it deleted: This, in fact, is the strongest argument in favour of deletion. We might often consider deleting things as a courtesy to the subject. But in this case, I think doing so would set a bad precedent. This photograph is not, for example, of such poor quality that it sheds bad light upon the subject. What's more, it's useful to us, something that has to be taken into account all by itself. We can't set the precedent of deleting useful, reasonable-quality material that does not compromise the interests of the subject just because someone doesn't like it (that this is the subject of the photo, doesn't carry much weight in lieu of any legal issues).
So all things considered, I don't see a reason for deletion, and so this has been Kept. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 13:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
February 10
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
picture of a wall named after wife of french president? Wikig | talk to me | 08:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep but rename of course! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept and use {{rename media}}. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Has been almost 2 months since I uploaded, to my knowledge, a correct permission has not been obtained. Will reload if permission is received. R. Baley 17:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete See also en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 December 14#Image:Admrl willis.jpg. Lupo 12:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Delete if no permission is received by OTRS. --GeorgHH • talk 19:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted (hopefully only for now). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Better PNG version exists. --Mozillaman 21:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I doubt that's better. It's just transparent, but it have over 1 MB instead 137 KB. PNG is not really a good format for saving photos. Herr Kriss 00:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I should note background removal was requested. --Mozillaman 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah, i see, but still there is no reason to delete JPG. JPG is smaller. IMHO bg removal should be done by whitening bg, not by making it transparent and saving as PNG. Herr Kriss 19:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I should note background removal was requested. --Mozillaman 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. PNG version is enormous so this still has its place. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence of PD. Needs detailed source. --Superm401 - Talk 05:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It's not the work of the uploader. --GeorgHH • talk 16:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 14:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possibly copyrighted Zirland 09:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work. Probably not free (we can partly see the attributions on the right of the picture) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 14:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence to suggest works of the Malaysian government are in public domain. In fact, the linked document seems to suggest the exact opposite:
- Section 11. Copyright in works of Government, Government organizations and international bodies.
- (1) Copyright shall subsist in every work which is eligible for copyright and which is made by or under the direction or control of the Government and such Government organizations or international bodies as the Minister may by order prescribe.
- (2) Section 10 shall not be taken to confer copyright on works to which this section applies.
- Section 12. Administration of Government copyright.
- Where the copyright in any work is vested in the Government, the Ministry or Department concerned with the copyright shall be responsible for the administration and control of that copyright on behalf of the Government:
- Provided that the Ministry or Department concerned may authorize the Director of National Archives to administer and control that copyright on behalf of the Government. (p. 12)
- Section 23. Duration of copyright in works of Government, Government organizations and international bodies.
- Copyright which subsists in works of the Government, Government organizations and international bodies shall under this Act shall continue to subsist until the expiry of a period of fifty years computed from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work was first published. (p 19)
I'm not an expert on international copyright law, but this suggests works of Malaysian government are subject to copyright and therefore not in public domain, unless they're 50 years old. If that's the case, the template is quite misleading. If I'm wrong, the creator of this template needs to cite the relevant section instead of simply linking to a 44-page PDF. --Ytoyoda 14:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Ytoyoda's quotes from the Copyright law of Malaysia. Lupo 23:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, following the argumentation above --Polarlys 14:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong uploading, gene autry died 1998, this taken 2006 --Motopark 16:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Just an autoportrait with the Autry National Center behind. Useless. (not even a Wikimedia user) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Twowings. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, out of scope Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 10:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is my own work, which I have re-uploaded under a different name Squishy 21:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Which name? Also you can use {{badname}}. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, never mind, found it Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 10:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I doubt that this image is licensed under GFDL. GeorgHH • talk 22:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Then change the license. Cumulus Clouds 23:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This has no source information ("copied from [x] Wikipedia", as I understand the description, is not a valid source unless it's for something self-made) and there's no reason to think it is under any free license at all. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, no proper source, wrong license --Polarlys 14:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown subject, no description, inappropriate file name. So I presume to say it's unencyclopedical. GeorgHH • talk 16:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If license allow and description offered--Albedo-ukr 16:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Commons is not private photo album. FLickr is good enough service for such images. --EugeneZelenko 17:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Licence OK. Easy to add a description (
Done). What a pity for the name!... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC) - Delete - what do we need it for? Pibwl 22:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, COM:SCOPE, not used, we are no private photo album. --Polarlys 15:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
and all files in it:
- Image:Irma Stern Anemones.jpg
- Image:Irma Stern Ballet dancers.jpg
- Image:Irma Stern Nude.jpg
- Image:Irma Stern Portrait of an Indian woman.jpg
Artwork by an artist who died 1966. Also Creator:Irma Stern should be deleted or marked as not usable (I know we have a template for such things, but I can't find it). --GeorgHH • talk 19:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, South African copyright law says death + 50 years. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but am a bit confused by this and just want clarification. According to the act, "Literary, musical or artistic works - copyright exists for the life of the author plus fifty years following death, calculated from the end of the year the author died in or 50 years from the date of first publication, performance in public, offering for sale of records thereof or the broadcasting thereof , whichever is earlier" [35] - would this also mean fifty years since the display of the artwork or fifty years since the first sale of the artwork or only fifty years since the death of the artist. --Cazo3788 08:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. Now I think about it, that grammar is very ambiguous. :\ "Whichever is earlier" could be referring to the publication/death, or it could be referring to whichever expiry date is earlier. I just assumed it was the former. Hm. :\Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- It refers to the date of death/publication. See the Copyright Act of South Africa, section 3(2). The "50 years since publication" applies only to posthumously published works. That's also the only interpretation that makes sense with respect to the Berne Convention, of which South Africa is a member. The Berne Convention requires a minimum copyright term of 50 years p.m.a. Lupo 08:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- K, thanks for clearing up the ambiguity. I'm all for deletion again. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It refers to the date of death/publication. See the Copyright Act of South Africa, section 3(2). The "50 years since publication" applies only to posthumously published works. That's also the only interpretation that makes sense with respect to the Berne Convention, of which South Africa is a member. The Berne Convention requires a minimum copyright term of 50 years p.m.a. Lupo 08:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. Now I think about it, that grammar is very ambiguous. :\ "Whichever is earlier" could be referring to the publication/death, or it could be referring to whichever expiry date is earlier. I just assumed it was the former. Hm. :\Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but am a bit confused by this and just want clarification. According to the act, "Literary, musical or artistic works - copyright exists for the life of the author plus fifty years following death, calculated from the end of the year the author died in or 50 years from the date of first publication, performance in public, offering for sale of records thereof or the broadcasting thereof , whichever is earlier" [35] - would this also mean fifty years since the display of the artwork or fifty years since the first sale of the artwork or only fifty years since the death of the artist. --Cazo3788 08:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, not in the public domain yet. --Polarlys 15:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possible copyright infringement. [36] --FunkMonk 20:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Someone with Spanish please check this on terms of use of that website, to see if {{PD-reason|o autor liberou a reprodução, desde que sejam dados os créditos.}}
is valid. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Even though the web-site may say that content they produce on the site is PD, I doubt it applies to artwork of others hosted on their site. FunkMonk 14:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, no appropriate permission --Polarlys 15:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Better version available in PNG format, without border. (see obsolete tag on image to be deleted) --Mozillaman 19:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, superseded images are not deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but, the gif format image was in the category to have its border removed, it would seem to make sense to convert to png and remove border, then remove the gif in one go.
Kept - per Collard. Patstuart (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
February 11
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
somethin wrong - same subject here:Image:Maria ludovica spain 1745 1792 young.jpg --10 February 2008 User:Franco aq Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not a duplicate. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Two different names for the same woman. User:Franco aq (msg)11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Ah. So the question is whether this is en:Luisa of the Two Sicilies (born in 1773) or en:Maria Louisa of Spain (1745-1792). The images are used on various wikis to illustrate both women.
- Judging from your request I presume you think it's Maria Louisa of Spain & I agree based on the smaller sized duplicate of Maria 1745-1792, which is named Image:Mariaspain1745.JPG as on the source website. (This duplicate should be deleted.)
- The "Due Sicilie" file also exists on Catalan wiki, but although the image source it refers to exists, there is no link from their gallery page to it identifying the person that I could find.
- I don't know what it should be, but fact remains that they are not duplicates. A rename is needed for one of them (once we know who it is). -- Deadstar (msg) 14:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
File:Maria ludovica spain 1745 1792 young.jpg
Wich is the picture with a bad name? That's the question! Bye. Franco aq-talk
Keep The 2 paintings are not simply duplicates, but "copied paintings". We could keep both of them. Akela3 17:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The identity: Until now, I was sure, the displayed person was Louisa of the two SIcilies (Spanish: María Luisa de Borbón, infanta de Espana, Italian: Maria Ludovica di Borbone-Napoli, German: Maria Ludvica von Spanien) (1745-1792), wife of Leopold II, then Grand Duke of Toscana, from 1790 Holy Roman Emperor. After reading this discussion, I reviewed the images en:Image:Maria Luisa of Spain.jpg and de:Bild:1745 M.Luise-3.jpg (none of them loaded to Commons). I have now doubts! It is very possible, that she is "another duchesse consort of Tuscany", Louisa Maria Amelia (1773-1802), wife of Ferdinand III GD of Tuscay. It is possible, that my original source for this image ([37] i.e. [38] was FALSE!. I am searching for some more data. If false, then let's reload under the right name. Akela3 17:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It seems, it is a painting of ELisabeth Vigée Le Brun: [39]. Further on there is Maria Amelia Theresia of Bourbon-Two-Sicilies (1782-1866), but the painting dates 1790, when she was 8 year old, too young, so — despite the name — that is NOT HER, either)! So I think BOTH IMAGES should be reloaded under right name: “Princess Louisa Maria Amelia of Naples” (or of “Bourbon-Two-Sicilies”, 1773-1802)... Akela3 17:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment
So you think the second picture has the right name? Franco aq-talk
- Yes, I think so. Akela3 11:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I have made the BADNAME procedure for Image:Maria ludovica spain 1745 1792 young.jpg (file uploaded again, with correct name Image:Luisa Maria Amelia Teresa di Borbone-Due Sicilie V2.jpg and correct description). I cleared all false reference links from IW-pages. Akela3 16:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not the place to rename images. Please use {{rename}} and a bot will take care of renaming it. Since these are not duplicates, this has been kept. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this is obviously a professional photo, but no source is given. Given this user's other uploads, it's unlikely they hold the copyright. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It looks like the source is here. It also looks really, really similar to this image, credited to David Rogers/Getty Images. And yes, here is the image on Getty's site. Carl Lindberg 17:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as per ^^ those guys. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not PD in source country (England) - author died in 1959. Could possibly be moved to en.wp, where it's used, as PD-US. dave pape 18:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete First published in 1922 in the UK. Move to en-WP and tag there as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Lupo 23:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Feeling extra helpful today, I've uploaded it as en:Image:Terra Nova Expedition route.jpg. --dave pape 17:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 11:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
old version --10 February 2008 User:Simonttx
- Comment Fixed request. Uploader/requester might mean that there is now Image:Cremacatalana no header.jpg which is the same, but without the watermark. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, not identical but uploader of the watermarked version nominated it for deletion, so there's no reason why not. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image has a clear copyright symbol. There is no proof the image falls under the GNU FDL. --Rockfang 04:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, they can't copyright a scan. But you're right, there's no indication that the photo were GFDL or otherwise free. Delete Lupo 14:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, copyvio --Polarlys 15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source named. Image was transferred from English Wikipedia but neither here nor on en.wp is a source link available. 130.83.73.139 23:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The image was uploaded at en-WP on January 4, 2005. It was taken from this site, where the image is credited as a U.S. Navy photo, and where the image was already on display on February 7, 2004. I see no reason to doubt that site's claim that this was a U.S. Navy photo. Lupo 10:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Can`t be public domain. No relevant source. --Pokrajac 20:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is public domain because I downloaded it from "Blic" web site (indicated) on February 5 (the day of the arrest), when it was posted there and signed: "foto: MUP". A day or so later, the photo on the site was replaced with a copyrighted one of better quality, but since MUP (Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs) takes photos of all arrests, it is rational to believe that "foto: MUP" was true and therefore the photo is in PD.
- I guess it's not hard to check this with "Blic" or even with MUP, as they both have web sites. --Matija 20:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. This is not a "law, decree, regulation or official material of a Republic of Serbia state body"; this tag, as I gather, is not an analog to PD-USGov whereby it covers all material ever made by the government of the country in question. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 16:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a derivative of the copyrighted official CoA/Logo of Örebro Municipality. Lokal_Profil 02:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The official version can be seen here here. /Lokal_Profil 02:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. —Giggy 07:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
February 12
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unencyclopedic picture of a person who did not give their consent, grave privacy concerns and per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Visible_Thong_5.jpg --Cumulus Clouds 20:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - No face visible and not enough info to identify person. --Simonxag 22:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's enough of the face for this person to identify themselves, and because of the nature of the image (and the intent of the uploader), Commons should not run the risk of infringing upon their privacy by retaining this image. Cumulus Clouds 23:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Voyeuristic and unflattering image of a non-public figure taken without the person's consent, with enough of the person visible that it could run us into personality rights issues. Given that stuff from Commons ends up pretty much everywhere on the Internet, it's in our best interests, and especially those of the subject, that this is deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unencyclopedic picture of a person who did not give their consent, grave privacy concerns and per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Visible_Thong_5.jpg --Cumulus Clouds 20:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Not identifiable --Simonxag 22:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then it's unencyclopedic, poorly illustrates the concept and would be demeaning to anyone who could recognize themselve in the picture. There's absolutely no need for 7 pictures of this phenomena and there's hardly a need for one. Cumulus Clouds 23:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as per my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Visible Thong 7.jpg. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unencyclopedic picture of a person who did not give their consent, grave privacy concerns and per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Visible_Thong_5.jpg --Cumulus Clouds 20:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 22:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as per my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Visible Thong 7.jpg. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unencyclopedic picture of a person who did not give their consent, grave privacy concerns and per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Visible_Thong_5.jpg --Cumulus Clouds 20:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Not identifiable --Simonxag 22:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- With the information available in this image (partial face, hair, outfit, etc etc), this person and those who know them could easily identify her. We should err on the side of extreme caution here before running the risk of infringing upon this woman's (and the other's) privacy. Cumulus Clouds 23:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I share the privacy concerns. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as per my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Visible Thong 7.jpg. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unencyclopedic picture of a person who did not give their consent, grave privacy concerns and per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Visible_Thong_5.jpg --Cumulus Clouds 20:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Not identifiable --Simonxag 22:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Image isn't encyclopedic, doesn't illustrate the concept and would be demeaning to anyone who could recognize themselves. Commons shouldn't unneccessarily infringe upon that privacy when we can avoid it by deleting these images. Cumulus Clouds 23:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as per my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Visible Thong 7.jpg. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unencyclopedic picture of a person who did not give their consent, grave privacy concerns and per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Visible_Thong_5.jpg --Cumulus Clouds 20:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 22:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as per my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Visible Thong 7.jpg. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is copyrighted --11 February 2008 User:Leonpuro
- Delete Cover of album. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, it is. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a derivative work of Led Zeppelin's album cover, maybe they're not copyrightable though. Don't know. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
was kept before. no new arguments --ALE! ¿…? 22:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a corporate logo which can only be used under a fair use claim --WinHunter (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as ineligible: {{PD-textlogo}} --rimshottalk 13:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep now tagged with {{PD-textlogo}}. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Easily PD-ineligible. →Rocket°°° 06:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Empty category only included another category (or vice versa) named Category:Automobile exhaust and was subcat of Category:Mechanical parts where it does not fit --WikipediaMaster 17:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete but there could be something said for a category:Exhausts or category:Exhaust pipes (note the plural), even as a redirect, as that is very likely what I'd be looking for if I wanted an image of an exhaust. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. as unused. Can always be recreated (as a redirect) if and when a similar category is needed. →Rocket°°° 06:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
geburt sehen 91.17.79.133 06:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep -- Infrogmation 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Doesn't say Wikipedia only, and uploader released it under GFDL. I don't see a problem. -- Infrogmation 23:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Originally Ms. La Vergerray had given me permission for Wikipedia because it was meant to illustrate entries on the English and French encyclopediae. Soon after this she extended it to all publications refering to Wikimedia Commons. The image is used on several websites and it has been published (with her knowledge) on several newspapers in France. She is satisfied with this use. Therefore her permission is not restricted to the use on Wikipedia. Belbernard 09:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Belbernard and Comment: If I interpret the nominator correctly, he takes offence insofar as one can actually see a birth (which in itself is no grounds for deletion). Btw, I think it is a lovely picture. Lectonar 16:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Who says that the autor is 70 years death, if the image the image is from 1934? Kolossos 08:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- All images of the Uploader seems to have the same problem. (If it is a problem.) --Kolossos 20:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Goebbels died 1945. As for the photographer's rights, I don't think he will claim them given historic context. Since what we should be concerned with is the possible legal threat posed to the Foundation, I think this one is a sure miss. The final nail in the coffin is that this photograph may have been obtained by allied forces as loot, which may void any copyright claim the photographer may have had (who most certainly was German, and likely a member of the Party (NSDAP) - the latter being the reason why we won't hear from him). Samsara 14:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It doesn't matter when Goebbels died, it matters when the author of the picture died and that was definitely not Goebbels. Given that the picture was made 1934, that unknown somebody would have had to drop dead latest three years after he made the picture to really put it under this licence. And just because we most probably won't hear anything from the current copyright owner, does not mean that we have to violate the law. -- Cecil 20:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- It may actually have been Goebbels. Hitler at least had an interest in cameras. For instance, he owned and used an early colour cinematographic camera. Goebbels may well have had a similar interest, as propaganda minister. What matters is the legal threat to the Foundation, and it's basically nil. There is not a chance in hell that any German would come forward and claim to be the photographer, and much less of a chance that he could actually prove it. Self-timers, btw, existed at least 30 years prior to this picture being taken.[41] Samsara 18:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting commentary, Samsara. Will someone try to find out who the photographer of this work is? If after reasonable effort we cannot discern who it is, or (best) if we find a plausible authority that says this is an anonymous work, then we can keep it. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I checked the source of this work on the web, and it claims its source as "Various",[42] which isn't helpful. The image may have come from the Holocaust Museum, but the web page indicated as potential source was not reachable [43], and the image search that apparently generates that URL [44] gave me an error saying a config file was missing, which could be the reason why the first link didn't work. Could try sending them an email. Presumably they would know all their own images, and be able to confirm its status. Samsara 20:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting commentary, Samsara. Will someone try to find out who the photographer of this work is? If after reasonable effort we cannot discern who it is, or (best) if we find a plausible authority that says this is an anonymous work, then we can keep it. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It may actually have been Goebbels. Hitler at least had an interest in cameras. For instance, he owned and used an early colour cinematographic camera. Goebbels may well have had a similar interest, as propaganda minister. What matters is the legal threat to the Foundation, and it's basically nil. There is not a chance in hell that any German would come forward and claim to be the photographer, and much less of a chance that he could actually prove it. Self-timers, btw, existed at least 30 years prior to this picture being taken.[41] Samsara 18:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No proof that the author is truly anonymous or dead for more than 70 years. --Kam Solusar 19:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- And how would you "prove" that the author is anonymous? That doesn't make any sense. Samsara 21:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually that kind of pictures when you get them from official sources like governments and so on usually state exactly that. The library of congress always for example writes to each of their pictures if the author is not known or his name. So, just link to a reliable source which states: author anonymous.
- By the way: if really Goebbels made the picture of himself like you suggested then this image has a wrong licence. 1945+70=2015. In that case it gets public domain in 7 years, but not yet. -- Cecil 23:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- official sources like governments and so on usually state exactly that
- Panspermia all over again. How do they figure out that the photographer is anonymous? Hmm?
- The guy who put the pictures up there is one Randall Bytwerk. He can apparently be reached bytw2calvin.edu [Replace the 2 with @]. Samsara 03:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The image is really good, I believe the best in Category:Joseph Goebbels. So we should Keep it. Goebbels surely didn't make this picture himself. But it's also true that we will never know the photograf's name, because there is no photograf's names in the Reichstagung Nürnberg album. I think the uploader wasn't so incorrect when he marked the Author as "unknown". — Dior 02:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC).
- Well done. I had overlooked his column logic. en:Julius Streicher, who edited that volume, was executed at Nuernberg. By the sounds of things, he may have commissioned the portraits, and therefore have held copyright. His two sons, born 1915 and 1918, may both also be dead by now. The bottom line, however, is that from any perspective we will ever be interested in, copyright may have passed to the allied forces. Again, Bytwerk as the biographer of Streicher would be able to say more. Samsara 03:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, no proper source (no author), without an author death before 1938, this file can't be in the PD. --Polarlys 01:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this is a photo the I took, i don't like it anymore --10 February 2008 User:Simonttx
- Keep Well I do. So. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If it is kept, can someone crop it so the watermark is removed? Cumulus Clouds 21:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If it gets kept I will. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Arria Belli | parlami 13:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the file, since it shows the author. IMHO any individual who uploads a portrait by himself to Wikimedia Commons has the right to withdraw this image for individual reasons. --Polarlys 01:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of COM:SCOPE /too dark / useless Kolossos 22:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. →Rocket°°° 06:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, not useful. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work --Cumulus Clouds 21:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I contend that the text on screen is not eligible for copyright, and that the Pikachu plug thingy is a functional item. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. giggy (:O) 09:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyrighted character EugeneZelenko 15:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Eh. I see a car with a paint job, not a character. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep see bevore. *lol* --Fg68at de:Disk 18:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Cool! I don't need to buy the game now. Nintendo's so losing money. No, but seriously, I don't know. It's pushing it. →Rocket°°° 06:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, I'm with Lewis on this one. I don't think this really qualifies as derivative work. If it were just a figurine, maybe, but this is an entire car which isn't even Pikachu-shaped, ears or not. Arria Belli | parlami 13:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. giggy (:O) 09:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Category was almost empty and should better be splitted into different cats like: Spherical roller bearings, Spherical ball bearings, Spherical plain bearings --WikipediaMaster 17:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Wouldn't all those seperate cats then not roll up to "Spherical bearings"? -- Deadstar (msg) 08:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- First devide the roller bearings and ball bearings in subcats, then there is not a lot of content left in that cats. It's more that this cats are not needed at the moment ... in a later stage when there is lots of content, that might make sense. --WikipediaMaster 17:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Can't those specific categories be subcategories of Spherical bearings? And this could be a "working category" to let people more knowledgeful about what kind of bearing is what to actually decide where to subcategorize? I'm truly ignorant about bearings, therefore I ask... Patrícia msg 15:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's correct, but see above! --WikipediaMaster 17:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If the category was almost empty (you've apparently emptied it now), why would you propose subcategories? Subcategories are most necessary when the category is large. Superm401 - Talk 14:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Cat is now being used. MichaelMaggs 06:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Category was nearly empty and should be splitted into different cats like Thrust roller bearings and Thrust ball bearings --WikipediaMaster 17:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Same comments as above for Category:Spherical_bearings --WikipediaMaster 17:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I would disagree - if a cat is near empty, is there really a need for smaller cats? And if there is, a more general cat comes in handy for collecting all these smaller cats. But like Patricia said above - I know nothing about bearings either. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As noted above, if smaller categories were created, they would be subcategories of this, which means this couldn't be deleted. But small categories don't make sense at all if the main category is still very small. Superm401 - Talk 14:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. In use now. MichaelMaggs 06:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
and Image:Gold-colored-Legend-of-Zelda-cartridge.jpg, Image:Zelda oracle of ages gbc cartridge by zeartul.jpg.
Derivative work EugeneZelenko 15:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Game Cartridges: I see a picture of a cartridge for a game. It is a technical product with not copyrighted design (for pictures). On the Carttridge is a sticker with some artistic work. This is onley a sticker. It is not the Main part. Potion is another theme. --Fg68at de:Disk 19:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you want to illustrate articles about game cartridges, please remove copyrighted work. As for now Zelda cartridges images are used in articles about Zelda, so it means that copyrighted work is main subject of images. --EugeneZelenko 15:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Acording to COM:DW, photographs of gaming consoles or other objects of daily use are usually not copyrightable. Jorgebarrios 01:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- How about artwork on gaming consoles and other objects of daily use? For example if you glue CD cover on game console you could make free image of it? --EugeneZelenko 16:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- When you take a Picture of the game console (complete) and there is accidental a CD-cover, it's OK. When you make a cutout, most is then the CD and the game console ist only the background, thats not OK. This picture here is a Zelda Cartridge. You can take it in the article: "A cartridge of the game zelda for xy-console". It looks bad when you write: "A zelda Logo on a Cartridge." --Fg68at de:Disk 06:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- So again. If you want to illustrate everyday object (game console cartridge) - please blank copyrighted part, otherwise copyrighted part is main subject. --EugeneZelenko 16:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- When you take a Picture of the game console (complete) and there is accidental a CD-cover, it's OK. When you make a cutout, most is then the CD and the game console ist only the background, thats not OK. This picture here is a Zelda Cartridge. You can take it in the article: "A cartridge of the game zelda for xy-console". It looks bad when you write: "A zelda Logo on a Cartridge." --Fg68at de:Disk 06:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- How about artwork on gaming consoles and other objects of daily use? For example if you glue CD cover on game console you could make free image of it? --EugeneZelenko 16:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Acording to COM:DW, photographs of gaming consoles or other objects of daily use are usually not copyrightable. Jorgebarrios 01:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- The POTION picture doesn't need to be deleted. To delete it would be to delete all the other images involving a kind of drink. As for the cartridges, blanking the copyright is unnecessary. RedKlonoa 20:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete That's artwork and it's copyrighted and these are derivatives. You can blank the copyrighted parts, but then what's the point? Rocket000 20:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious copyvio of the printed artwork. MichaelMaggs 16:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- To manage problems like that, i create Category:Video game storages. Is any body can check it and show me problematic content ? It sometime not very easy. I next can delete new problematic uploaad like that. Thanks a lot. ~ bayo or talk 17:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Along with all other uploads by User:Sry85. User apparently has many many digital cameras. I suspect copyfraud. Megapixie 13:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Twins (band).jpg Nikon D200 "Self-made"
- Image:Namie Amuro MAA.JPG Nikon D70 "Self-made"
- Image:Kelly Rowland MAA.jpg Canon 20D "Self-made"
- Image:Avril Lavigne In HongKong.JPG Nikon D2X "Self-made"
- Image:SodominBKK.JPG Sony DSC-W1 "Self-made"
- Image:Rain Korean Singer.JPG Fuji FinePix4700 ZOOM "Self-made"
- Image:Leehom2004.JPG Sony DSC-P10 "Self-made"
- Image:50centinBKK.JPG Sony DSC-H1 "Self-made"
- Image:BuaChompoo.JPG Sony DSC-P8 "Self-made"
- Image:The Mall Tha-pra.JPG Sony Ericsson W550i "Self-made"
- Image:Sqweez Animal.JPG Canon EOS 30D "Self-made"
- Image:CentralWorld.JPG Canon Kiss Digital X
- Image:Ing ashita.jpg Canon 40D
- Image:Jet Li.jpg Panasonic DMC-FX3 "Self-made"
I Suggest deleting the lot and blocking both the user and any related IP addresses. Megapixie 14:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact is... I'm working related to media & music business) I have 5 of digital cameras (exclude cellphone) (from my mine, my two brothers & one sister) & my closed friend that willing to share those pics in my PC ,he has 3 cameras (His camera but my shooting)...and my working places have more than 10 cameras that I can used to work (We share cameras , and after shooting I upload pics to my PC)...I didn't steal someone's work...every single pics took by myself and my closed friend that I have correct for more than 4-5 years
and I can describe
- Image:Twins (band).jpg Nikon D200 (my office camera)
- Image:Namie Amuro MAA.JPG Nikon D70 (my office camera)
- Image:Kelly Rowland MAA.jpg Canon 20D "Self-made" (my closed friend camera)
- Image:Avril Lavigne In HongKong.JPG Nikon D2X "Self-made" (my office camera)
- Image:SodominBKK.JPG Sony DSC-W1 "Self-made" (my closed friend camera)
- Image:Rain Korean Singer.JPG Fuji FinePix4700 ZOOM "Self-made" (my camera)
- Image:Leehom2004.JPG Sony DSC-P10 "Self-made" (my office camera)
- Image:50centinBKK.JPG Sony DSC-H1 "Self-made" (my camera)
- Image:BuaChompoo.JPG Sony DSC-P8 "Self-made" (my office camera)
- Image:The Mall Tha-pra.JPG Sony Ericsson W550i (my cellphone)
- Image:Sqweez Animal.JPG Canon EOS 30D "Self-made" (my office camera)
- Image:CentralWorld.JPG Canon Kiss Digital X (my camera)
- Image:Ing ashita.jpg Canon 40D (my camera)
- Image:Jet Li.jpg Panasonic DMC-FX3 "Self-made" (my camera)
you blocked me for nothing...those pics are my work --Sry85 17:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep (maybe speedily, not sure yet). None of these look like copyvios to me; most of them look self-taken and his explanation is entirely plausible. Also, Sry85, chill out, you're not blocked and never were. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I may be wrong. But at the very least the user has to identify who took the photographs in question - I have a little trouble trouble believing that someone who can take this very nice flash photograph Image:Maggie Q MTV Asia Awards 2006.jpg (standing in the press box on the red carpet next to this guy) could a year later take this badly white balanced image Image:SodominBKK.JPG. Megapixie 23:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I can fully believe it: in the first picture he was able to use a flash. I'm guessing that in the second, if he didn't have a flash roughly as powerful as a supernova (and I'm pretty sure that a little compact digital camera does not) there's no way he'd be able to light up the subject well enough. Also that's a P&S camera which is never going to take photos as well as a nice digital SLR used properly. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally using two different cameras within 20 minutes Image:The Veronicas MTV Asia Awards 2006.jpg (20D) Image:Maggie Q MTV Asia Awards 2006.jpg (D200) Image:Twins (band).jpg (D200) at very similar focal lengths. Megapixie 23:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why not? I often carry around more than one camera with me (and I'm not even a pro to justify it). He might have had a different lens on each, for example, to save him time easier to switch between cameras than it is to switch lenses. Or if he was pushed for time and taking a lot of shots he might have thought it easier to take two cameras than waste time switching memory cards. There are plenty of legit reasons and no reason to assume the worst. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
For MTV Asia Awards 2006, there 're 4 press points on that red carpet. and our team have 3 people (me my friend and a professional photographer that we hired). and then We uploaded pics to my laptops... I don't get your comment about "badly white balanced image" and "very similar focal lengths" ...sopme pics are poor ,some are good.... For Sodom I had go to Sodom's gig show (That's not my working day & I'm not the fan of Sodom at all) my closed friend asked me to take the pics with the band..some pics are better than this pic (But the pics have my friend in the pics with the band) It's so hard to take those Sodom's pics ...The place is so tight and noise with 200 people there --Sry85 04:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Okay - but do you own the company that you work for ? The images produced while working with company equipment for the company would count as "work-for-hire", so unless you own the company (or have explicit permission to do so) you can't release the images under the GFDL. Additionally you should explictly identify the photographers (or at least indicate that it's the work of someone else) rather than labelling the images as "Self-made", this is at the very least confusing, and could be construde as plagarism. Megapixie 05:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Okay...All equipments I use for shooting are not own by company ...It's personal cameras from colleague (that we always share).
And for MAA we hire 1 person for shooting for work... and that day was Saturday (It's not my working day ...I'm just shooting for mine..I didn't use for work...just for myself. so ...to make it right I request deleting pics from this camera below
- Image:Marsha MAA 2006.jpg
- Image:Maggie Q MTV Asia Awards 2006.jpg
- Image:Same Same MAA.jpg
- Image:Rivermaya MAA.jpg
- Image:Vicky Zhao MAA.jpg
and I have the others in my own camera/shooting ...and I will realease soon,OK? ...Any Question? --Sry85 07:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sry85, I don't understand why you're requesting those above 5 pics be deleted. Are you saying a friend took those 5 pics? Spellcast 16:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you strict which pics don't take from personal cameras (5 pics above taken from camara I borrowed camera own by company)....I may request deleting....I have the others from my own --Sry85 13:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Even if you don't own the camera, the copyright belongs to you because you snapped the pics. So I don't see why they need to be deleted. Spellcast 14:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you strict which pics don't take from personal cameras (5 pics above taken from camara I borrowed camera own by company)....I may request deleting....I have the others from my own --Sry85 13:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I buy Sry85's explanation. Delete only those he mentions above. Nice pics, by the way, thanks for sharing them Sry85. / Fred J (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept all - I don't think those 5 listed need deleting, unless I'm missing something... – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I missed something :) The 5 are now deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No file name given. This photo is the same as Image:Christine Nesbitt (08-12-2007) - 2.jpg --11 February 2008 User:McSmit
Deleted. You can use {{duplicate|Name of other file}} in these cases. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source unknown. 11 February 2008 User:Createaccount
- Comment Fixed request for all three images. They seem to be photographs of a wall map or atlas. Requester is uploader of images, and he did give a source to start with (Andrees Allgemeiner Handatlas, 5. Auflage (Edition) 1903/1893), so not sure if this means that source given is incorrect. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. I'll go out on a limb and say that he gave the incorrect source (etc.) in uploading. giggy (:O) 09:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
License is not valid, claim of GFDL can not be supported anymore, original picture in de: was deletet by uploader, see Talk of uploader and deletion log.--Mdangers 22:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Laut http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bilderwerkstatt/Archiv_1#Ernst_Gennat werden sie von der Polizei frei zur Verfügung gestellt und sollten als amtliche Werke gelten - damit ist die Lizenz falsch, es müßte wohl PD sein. --217.88.175.104 23:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes that's right, but please write English, so we all can undertstand you. No deletion because PD. --Koernerbroetchen 18:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- delete Wie sollte dieses Bild ein amtliches Werk sein? Why should I write in english? Could you please write in german, so I can understand you. --Steschke 21:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes that's right, but please write English, so we all can undertstand you. No deletion because PD. --Koernerbroetchen 18:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Seems to be old enough to be PD to me, therefore, keep. Kneiphof 12:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Bitte das Hirn einschalten vor dem Schreiben! Перед тем как что-либо написать, Включите пожалуйста мозги! --Steschke 21:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Si la policia alemana publicado este Foto, es un "amtliches Werk". Warum zum Teufel soll man hier englisch schreiben? --87.185.220.66 08:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Man muss hier nicht Englisch schreiben, aber es vereinfacht einiges. --ALE! ¿…? 08:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Si la policia alemana publicado este Foto, es un "amtliches Werk". Warum zum Teufel soll man hier englisch schreiben? --87.185.220.66 08:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Bitte das Hirn einschalten vor dem Schreiben! Перед тем как что-либо написать, Включите пожалуйста мозги! --Steschke 21:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Kept. Old anonymous. Samulili 19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
In speedy category for 7 days after this edit. abf /talk to me/ 12:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Both the original and this retouched version have been deleted at the German Wikipedia because of an unverifiable GFDL claim. See also the original uploader's talk page. Delete Lupo 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, There is no proper source and there is no permission available (from "Police Berlin"). --Polarlys 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC) --Polarlys 01:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Press license on Flickr. ALE! ¿…? 14:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:MINIClubman-rear.jpg - 2nd request
[edit]Press license on Flickr. ALE! ¿…? 13:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image use little logos. More generaly it the question of diagram with logo to identify company i ask. People are interested to upload own diagram like that on Commons. Can they do it without problem.
See also Image:UnternehmenDeutschland.jpg (same image)
A little note : we can see image with little logo on Commons, like Image:TVBoy.jpg, but i think its not the same problem.
Thank for your comment. --~ bayo or talk 18:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ma première idée reste que l'image est composée d'éléments libres créées par l'up-loadeur et des éléments non libres. Les éléments non libres sont petits par rapport au contenu libre mais cela rend-t-il tout le document libre ? Je ne le crois pas deplus où mettre la limite de proportion entre libre et non libre? 10%-90% 50%-50% c'est ingérable. --P@d@w@ne 19:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Il ne devrait avoir aucune images non libres, ceux-ci qualifient comme travail dérivé. Il devrait être 100% librement à être sur le Commons. Cumulus Clouds 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, selon le droit allemand cet image est libre mais pas selon les règles de commons. En cas de suppression, prière de l'uploader sur la de-wp. This image is free according to German law, but I think not according to commons standards. Please move it to German Wikipedia in case of deletion. --Gnom 18:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Il ne devrait avoir aucune images non libres, ceux-ci qualifient comme travail dérivé. Il devrait être 100% librement à être sur le Commons. Cumulus Clouds 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Logos are allowed: Image:Walmart exteriorcropped.jpg, Image:DaimlerChrysler wordmark.svg, Image:Allianz Globus.jpg, Image:Embracing texas-hood.jpg, Image:Siemens AG logo.svg, etc. This image can be kept without any problem.
- The size does not matter. Just in case place the {{Trademark}} tag.-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 22:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not all logos are allowed, only those that are composed of simple text or very basic geometric figures (see template {{PD-ineligible}}. That said, althought the logos are very small, they are an important part of the image; my take is that the image is a derived work and cannot stay under these conditions. Either change the logos to some simple text or Delete.--Patrícia msg 13:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not all logos are allowed, only those that are composed of simple text or very basic geometric figures (see template {{PD-ineligible}}. That said, althought the logos are very small, they are an important part of the image; my take is that the image is a derived work and cannot stay under these conditions. Either change the logos to some simple text or
Deleted, per Patricia. Kameraad Pjotr 17:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
photos taken by User:Talmoryair showing recent artworks inside buildings
[edit]User:Talmoryair has taken a series of photos showing artworks by recent authors inside buildings. So I think FOP does not apply and that the photos are derivative works.
Some examples:
- Image:Gitlin Shelter.JPG
- Image:Several Things4.JPG
- Image:CRONOS.jpg
- and many others
Regards --ALE! ¿…? 08:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
i think that there is a big difference between taking photo as a reproduction and taking pic as a document, witch is under Freedom of panorama. in all the places i took those pic it approved by the employs of this places. Talmoryair 11:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Freedom of panorama only applies in public places, it does not matter whether you had approval of the employees. FOP also only applies to works situated permanently in a public place, which cannot be said for exhibitions in galleries. To take an example, the copyright for Image:Gitlin_Shelter.JPG lies with Michael Gitlin, and it will do so for more than 70 years to come. --rimshottalk 13:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete All images showing recent works situated inside buildings. Images from Category:Tefen Sculpture Garden and similar should be kept for now. --rimshottalk 13:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Patrícia msg 13:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
February 13
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
seems just to be a black screen. COM:SCOPE? abf /talk to me/ 14:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment looks fine in full view, but it could be a copyrighted logo. --rimshottalk 14:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
13 February 2008 User:Szczepan1990 deleted "Image:Adeajpg.jpg" (not needed)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like "wikipedia only" permission. GeorgHH • talk 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, permission-giver said GFDL, so I think that's fine. Calliopejen 02:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep The translation from his email is: "Dear Sir, I authorize using the photographs of the ambassador Víctor Harel which I sent you to upload them to wikipedia under the free license GNU FDL." Shouldn't this be in OTRS too? --Ogre 09:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Per Ogre Rastrojo 
(D|ES) 14:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep The authorization is clear, in spanish. GFDL license. --Lucien leGrey 14:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, permission is fine. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE. Dodo 11:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination --Ogre 14:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. Herr Kriss 02:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 16:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Doesn't seem within Commons' project scope. Currently in violation of licenses for both source images. Not used on any Wikimedia project, according to CheckUser. --Superm401 - Talk 01:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope, copyvio. Durova 03:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Might be valuable to illustrate morphing. Isn't there any way to license a derivative work of two images using different versions of the CC license? Image:Bush133451.jpg doesn't even require share-alike, so it should really be possible to find a valid license. --rimshottalk 15:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- PS: The image might be problematic due to personality rights, of course. --rimshottalk 15:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not a copyright violation; Attribution-licensed work can be absorbed into a BY-SA work. Silly image with borderline scope, but useful to illustrate morphing. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is a copyright violation. It doesn't attribute the author of either source image, it doesn't link to the licneses, and it isn't licensed under cc-by-sa-3.0 (as required by Image:Capuchin Costa Rica.jpg). More importantly, it is not within project scope. It was clearly just made to mock Bush, not to "illustrate morphing". Superm401 - Talk 08:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, incompatible licensing, COM:SCOPE. --Polarlys 02:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work. --Liftarn 12:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unlikely that a NASA employee took this photo of a secret Soviet military space station under construction. [51] says "Because of a mix-up in record keeping, many of the images ... that are not in the public domain may not be credited". dave pape 18:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Add Image:Almaz station cutaway.jpg to this request - same source. --dave pape 18:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image:Almaz station cutaway.jpg, but Delete Image:Almaz_station_assembly.jpg. Whilst it is obvious that the photograph was not produced by NASA, NASA have been known to produce drawings of a number of Soviet stations, for both historical and comparative purposes. Anyone can produce a drawing. I drew this, but that doesn't make me Japanese. We have no evidence that the drawing was not produced by NASA, and they have been known to produce similar drawings, so we should assume good faith. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete both images. Both uploaded on the same day by the same user, one clearly inaccurate and the other dubious. Durova 20:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just wondering: What does the fact, that both images were uploaded by me on the same day, say about the creators of these images? --Bricktop 01:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete both. While Image:Almaz_station_assembly.jpg is clearly a soviet photograph, the drawing could be both NASA and Soviet produced. Since we can not prove the drawing being created by NASA, the public domain status can not be claimed for this image. --Bricktop 01:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong name, correct name : Image:Levaillant Francois 1753-1824.png --13 February 2008 User:Valérie75
- Comment The correctly named image is smaller than the wrongly named one. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Not identical giggy (:O) 09:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
appears to be a poster photographed by the uploader - copyrighted derivative work Calliopejen 13:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I agree -- Deadstar (msg) 11:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. giggy (:O) 09:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I belive the License is nonsense. abf /talk to me/ 15:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you think it is nonsense... I don't know how else I could have explained the license other than the way I did. The photo was taken by The Citadel: The Military College Of South Carolina. It is a public military school, meaning that it is a government organization. They take a photo like this every year, one for each graduating class. Do you have a better suggestion for a license?
Fixxxer28 /talk to me/ 15:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep if Fixxxer28 can find a source link. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Citadel is military school, but as far as I can see it is not part of the United States (federal) military, the way e.g. West Point is. It seems to be a South Carolina state public college - it was founded by the South Carolina legislature, the board is appointed by the SC assembly & governor, its name is "The Military College of South Carolina", etc. As such, its work would not automatically be public domain. Note the "© The Citadel" at the bottom of all their web pages [53]. --dave pape 02:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, per Davepape. --Polarlys 11:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the permission given (based on http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=21,213,0,0,1,0) does not explicitly extend to derivative works Calliopejen 13:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I'd say even commercial reproduction isn't very clear... Patrícia msg 13:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 14:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Subject died in 1899, aged 24. No source, no author, no publication info. We cannot make any claim it were "free" without this info. Lupo 14:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No source to hold PD statement. Patrícia msg 13:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 14:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Unconfirmed permission, only for wikipedia. GeorgHH • talk 21:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm agnostic about deleting here (they said GFDL, so that's good, but does the foundation really have the right to release the photo if the author is unknown?). However, this is PD in the US (1917 photo) so if it is deleted here it should be reuploaded and retained on en.wiki. Calliopejen 02:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- If the author is truly unknown, and assuming the organization did some research to try to determine the author but failed, then {{Anonymous-EU}} may very well apply. Carl Lindberg 17:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. They've released it under GFDL and I believe they understand what this entails. Anonymous-EU can be added if you wish, in any case. —Giggy 07:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Even if it has got no proper source I belive it cat be deleted on the speedy way. abf /talk to me/ 15:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I strongly support keeping this image since it is very likely to be in the public domain, and as for the source it can be revealed later. (my belief is that the image is a vectorization made by Aivazovsky that is based on the FOTW site - but that is only my gut feeling and not something to base anything about it). and as for finding the sourse, i think that the best thing to do is to ask Aivazovsky if he is the one who created the SVG file. Oren neu dag 23:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is not this like a logo of an organization? /Pieter Kuiper 08:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I hope this was some kind of a joke. I belive it cat be deleted on the speedy way - How about using English properly and tell us why? Chaldean 00:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment I believe he meant to say, "Even though it has no proper source, I believe it can't be speedily deleted [so I have brought it to DR.]" Eleland 18:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep for all reasons stated above --Oren neu dag 15:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- BTW when will this debate is going to end? it's visible that this flag should remain, so why does it take that long to end the debate? the admins should close this debate ASAP. --Oren neu dag (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. —Giggy 13:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
loocks like an old newspaper scan, maybe old enough, maybe not. abf /talk to me/ 15:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Same with Image:Oscar quinones2.jpg. abf /talk to me/ 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Image:Oscar_quinones1.jpg looks like a publicity shot. El gran amor de Bécquer is a 1946 Argentinian film (IMDB). Image:Oscar quinones2.jpg is definitely not self-made either. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I received the following message on my talkpage, which might change things:
- I would like to know about this request, because I have all those pictures that are from movies he made about 50 years ago. I am his daughter and own those pictures that are online. Is that forbbiden? I think not in Argentina. --mlqu 20:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure where that leaves us, as presumably she nor her father took the images, although he probably owns rights to the film alright. I will ask if perhaps Template:PD-AR-Movie or Template:PD-AR-Photo applies. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- No progress? —Giggy 07:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. The photos are derivative works from an Argentinian movie. According to Template:PD-AR-Movie, this copyright has expired. Will retag the images. Patrícia msg 13:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
PD-AR-Movie can not be used because the director died not more than 50 years ago. In fact he died in 1988. ALE! ¿…? 22:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Uploaded by daughter of copyright holder. See above deletion request. -Nard the Bard 23:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Well then use a different license. The license currently used can not be used! --ALE! ¿…? 11:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. According to the Spanish Wikipedia, Óscar Quiñones, whose daughter the uploader claims to be, participated in this film as an actor, not as the scriptwriter, producer or director. Thus, it seems unlikely that he ever owned the copyright to this image, such that his daughter could have inherited it. (Note that merely owning a copy of the image does not grant ownership of the copyright.) Meanwhile, the image is also clearly not {{PD-AR-Movie}}. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong license, this image surely is eligible for copyright. GeorgHH • talk 20:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- How can you say such a thing if you don't research to know if really is or not? All sciences has an insignia. Here in Brazil we made one for Tourism. This is a profession that more grows in my country, and we needed it. I myself am a Tourism student. If you research at google images "Turismologo" you're gonna see some websites that uses this insignia to illustrate Turismo (Tourism). This one here is an edited version. The real one you can find even here. Insígnia do Turismo.This version you request for deletion you may find it here Faculdade Vale do Ipojuca. As ineligible image, everyone can edit, and I can use all versions of Turismologo's insignia not mattering who did it.
Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 12:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Mizunoryu, PD-ineligible só se aplica a designs muito, muito simples, como formas geométricas básicas e textos usando um tipo de letra comum. A utilização de logos sob licenças livres só é permitida se existir permissão expressa disso, pois logos desse tipo têm uma componente artística que se encontra sob copyright. Esta outra imagem também não pode estar marcada com PD-ineligible pela mesma razão. Patrícia msg 14:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Português: E por que as insígnias de outras faculdades científicas como Direito e Medicina podem estar aqui e a de Turismo não? Tem coisas aqui no Wikimedia que são muito contraditórias. E isso não é um logo. É uma insígnia, um símbolo que representa a ciência do Turismo.English: Why do other scientific insignias like Law and Medicine can be upload and Tourism not? There are things here at Wikimedia that are too contraditory. This is not a logo. This is an insignia, a symbol that represents Tourism science.Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 01:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- To clear things up, here is a website showing the insignias used in Brazil.IESAM. Wikimedia's administrators seem to care more on delete files than keep them, cause you guys like to delete them and put them for speedy deletion without knowing if there is really something wrong about them. When there's nothing, you guys look for or create something to delete them.Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is not Wikipedia.
- The fact that some image is used almost everywhere does not mean it is free of copyright protection. See e. g. en:International Symbol of Access.
- To be sure this image is public domain, we need to know who created it and why should it be in public domain. (Too simple to be copyrightable? Doubtful. Is it PD because it is a work by a government? Etc.)
- Did you create this specific file? Note that somebody tried to be creative with this image – see e.g. the lens reflex. Even if the original logo is public domain, this image might not be (I am not saying it isn’t, just that you cannot assume automatically that it is).
- --Mormegil 10:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- To clear things up, here is a website showing the insignias used in Brazil.IESAM. Wikimedia's administrators seem to care more on delete files than keep them, cause you guys like to delete them and put them for speedy deletion without knowing if there is really something wrong about them. When there's nothing, you guys look for or create something to delete them.Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I know this isn't Wikipedia. Commons is worse than it. I use more Wikipedia in portuguese that is my native language and Wiki-pt doesn't allow fair-use. So I presume I know very well what is Wikipedia or not.
- Is there any shield used at colleges that are not PD?
- How can you prove that this symbol Image:Estrella_de_Esculapio.png is PD?
- I didn't know somebody could change the owrk from another person and claim the rights for themselef.
- For the hundredth this is a shield created to illustrate the Tourism Couse as well as caduceus or any other symbol like that.
Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 12:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well then don’t talk here about “Wikipedia administrators”.
- I don’t know what you are referring to with “shield used at colleges”. Could you be more specific?
- The Caduceus symbol is too old to be copyrighted. The specific image has been created by the uploader himself, and he does not assert copyright in that work, so I don’t see any problem with that image. (His work would probably not be copyrightable, anyway.)
- If you take a work from somebody else and modify it, i.e. create a new work based on that original (to do that, you need a license from the original author, or the original image must be in PD), you own the rights to the modifications, while the original author still owns the rights to the original image. A good example of such situation is a piece of literary work and its translation. Back to the image: even if the original symbol itself would be PD (e.g. as a work of a government agency), this image might be copyrighted by its creator (who “creatively” added the lens reflex), although I believe this addition is not copyrightable.
- For the hundredth: So what? What does “created to illustrate” mean? Who created the symbol? If the symbol is so universally used and well known, as you say, it shouldn’t be much of a problem to find out its origin.
- --Mormegil 19:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say anything about them.
- Well, how can I say, here in Brazil all college curses has a shield that representes the curse. Medicine uses this Image:Caduceus large.jpg, Nursery this Image:Enfermeiro enf.gif, Telecomunication Engineering Image:Simbolo engenharia.svg, Law Image:Scale of justice.png and so on. This one was made specifically for use in Brazil, where there is course of 3rd degree for Tourism. If you look in it there is a map of Brazil it. You can find this symbol in public domai at Google and in other sites of colleges. This symbol was made by Brazilian Ministry of Tourism and Brazilian Ministry of Education for the free use of teaching.
- I know the Caduceus are PD Old. But it was an example , since it used at college too.
- Yeah, yeah, I know everything you said. This golden symbol was made to value the course. It was taken from a college's web site as you can see here [54] and here [55].
- Well, I think I explained who created and for what purpose, you can find more symbols at public domain [56]. All websites are from college or enterprises of tourism. Summarizing, the symbol was made for brazilian students of tourism.
Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe I have missed something, but I am unable to see where you explained who created the image. You have repeatedly said what the images are, and who use them. Could you please repeat (or point me to the right place) who created the image? --Mormegil (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
As matter of fact I'm starting to think the right license to this image would be Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Brazil License or this one {{PD-BrazilGov}}Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- „I’m starting to think“ is a bit weak, especially if you name two completely different licenses; license is not something you decide, it is what the author decides. The image can be cc-by-2.5-br only if the copyright holder have (explicitly) released it under that exact license. I am starting to think the insignia has been created by ABBTUR, which, I believe (correct me if I’m wrong, please), is not a governmental agency. The logo might be usable free of cost for any use promoting turism (etc.), but not generally as a free work. In that case, it would be simply not enough for Commons. --Mormegil (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I told ya this was made by Brazilian Ministry of Tourism in partnership with Brazilian Ministry of Education. I'm also starting to think you think I'm dumb. Of course I know that! I'm thinking this just because I didn't knew about these licenses and I don't know wich of them is correctly, since they are from brazilian government and for free educational use. ABBTUR is an entity of class without profitable ends set up to represent the professional Graduates in Tourism also identified like Tourismologists. In that case "If" the symbol belonged to it would be free as well, cause it's an entity without profitable ends.
Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your implication “entity without profitable ends” ⇒ “free” is a completely mistaken one. For instance, Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit entity, still, everything it creates is protected by copyright (unless it is too simple to be copyrighted).
- As I have said, “for free educational use” is not enough for Commons (and in any case, “for free educational use” is far from being cc-by-2.5-br). We require “free for any use” (e.g. including commercial uses).
- --Mormegil (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, you are mistaken. Everything here is under GNU Free Documentation License. The name is explicit FREE. There is no free entity that charge for something. This doesn't make sense.
- Actually this is enough for Commons, we have until a category for it Category:CC-BY-2.5-BR. I already made contact with a brazilian administrator to solve this. He'll know what to do here. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to disappoint you, but you are completely and utterly mistaken. There is a substantial distinction between free as in GNU Free and free as in “no charge for something”. And there is absolutely no guarantee that a non-profit entity would have to release everything even only gratis, not to mention libre. To disprove your specific statement about Wikimedia Foundation: see e.g. Template:Copyright by Wikimedia.
- CC-BY-2.5-BR would be enough for Commons, but “for free educational use” is not cc-by-2.5-br. That license requires any use, including e.g. commercial.
- --Mormegil (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The image does contain original authorship, so {{PD-ineligible}} does not apply. No verifiable source provided for over four months to confirm any applicable reason for the image to be in the public domain or under a free license. If the uploader wishes to provide those things instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks, please do so at Commons:Undeletion requests and be sure to read Commons:Licensing first. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unconfirmed permission, no source. GeorgHH • talk 21:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "unconfirmed permission" (how is pasting the permission into the text field here any different from pasting it in your email program and sending it on to OTRS?), but the source did not mention a free license in their response. Can someone whose Spanish is better than mine email the press office again and ask for a license confirmation? Calliopejen 02:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It'd be better to have it in OTRS. But having it on the page does not make the picture merit deletion. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment With "Unconfirmed permission" I'll say that the permission is not verifiable. Also, in my eyes, the permission says nothing about GFDL. --GeorgHH • talk 07:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, the permission does not, but can someone just send a quick email to the address listed and ask for it? My Spanish is horrendous, but obviously this would be the better route than deletion when we have an obvious contact. Calliopejen 16:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The image has effectively been tagged {{No permission since}} for over four months. If someone misses the image, get a proper permission per instructions at Commons:Email templates, send it in per instructions at Commons:OTRS and request undeletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
February 14
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no identifiable subject --Ante Perkovic 08:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Bad image, plenty other images on the same subject available in Category:Tourists in Dubrovnik. Delete --Ante Perkovic 08:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Also for the following images that were nominated seperately (but I have now added to link here):
- Image:Tourists in Dubrovnik-077.jpg
- Image:Tourists in Dubrovnik-0733.jpg
- Image:Tourists in Dubrovnik-0732.jpg
- Image:Tourists in Dubrovnik-073.jpg
- Image:Tourists in Dubrovnik-0723.jpg
- Image:Tourists in Dubrovnik-0726.jpg
- Image:Tourists in Dubrovnik-0728.jpg
- Image:Tourists in Dubrovnik-0713.jpg
- Image:Tourists in Dubrovnik-0711.jpg
- Image:Tourists-2.jpg
- and as far as I'm concerned *all* images in the Category:Tourists in Dubrovnik should be deleted - my problem is that there are a lot of identifiable people in it, that probably wouldn't like to see themselves made into an example of "Tourists". -- Deadstar (msg) 08:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Don't have any problem with these photos!! --Beyond silence 09:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete all images in the Category:Tourists in Dubrovnik. --Roberta F. 09:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete all. F.G. comm 10:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete all images --Suradnik13 10:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I think commons and flickr are not the same (from at least two aspects), on flickr you can put ANY picture, but on commons you should save useful images, and of course user rights are handled differently. I don't have problems when somebody put one (or two) personal pics on commons, but more than that is overkill. So - delete the excess pics. SpeedyGonsales 17:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete all images. Pictures are for private album.--Dtom 19:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Where did all these people come from? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, Commons:Scope, please no close-ups of identifiable non-notable persons without proper reason and their consent. --Polarlys 20:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
NOTE FROM CLOSING ADMIN: This is not being deleted because of the legal threats. It's being deleted because it's a crappy image. See closing comments
i cancelled the license. I wish that this picture will be deleted ASAP --א.שטיימן 19:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Uploaded in June and licensed as GFDL, a non-retractable free license. Lupo 19:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems i wasnt straightforward enough.. I am the copyright holder. Wikimedia Commons has no permission to keep this picture. Every second in which this picture remains here exposes the Wikimedia Foundation to civil prosecution. Delete this picture. There will be no arguments and no negotiations. א.שטיימן 20:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Heh. You were, but it seems I wasn't. The GFDL is a "a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration".[57] Lupo 20:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- You do understand that as of this moment the commons is doing a copyright violation? This picture is not yours and you will delete it. The only question which needs answer is whether it will be by good will or by force. Do not try to force me to bring it in front of the foundation. It is pity that you are even arguing about this. It will cause you no good. People will refuse to give you their pictures. א.שטיימן 21:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- The GFDL is non-revocable. The "Termination" section of the text of the GNU Free Documentation License says, "parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance." We have every right to not delete the image. No court of law can touch us. --Boricuæddie 23:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- You do understand that as of this moment the commons is doing a copyright violation? This picture is not yours and you will delete it. The only question which needs answer is whether it will be by good will or by force. Do not try to force me to bring it in front of the foundation. It is pity that you are even arguing about this. It will cause you no good. People will refuse to give you their pictures. א.שטיימן 21:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep — per my comments above. --Boricuæddie 23:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - the image is replaceable, the uploader isn't being disruptive by nominating for deletion every image he/she uploaded, I don't see why we can't grace him/her with this request. --Iamunknown 00:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that if we delete this one we'd be setting a precedent and we'd give people the (incorrect) idea that they can just upload and delete photos at their discretion. --Boricuæddie 00:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- We don't maintain "precedent", because our policies are not necessarily equitable. Instead, we consider each situation individually and, naturally, some decisions will be similar, while some will not. --Iamunknown 05:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that if we delete this one we'd be setting a precedent and we'd give people the (incorrect) idea that they can just upload and delete photos at their discretion. --Boricuæddie 00:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Not only are the GFDL and all other Commons licenses irrevocable, but the Commons explains its license and copyright issues like no other site. It has been 5 months: had the license been changed soon after it was applied, we would assume that the uploader was correcting a mistake or clarifying their intentions, but not now. Could the uploader please tell us why they want the image removed? We do try to be reasonable and we are open to argument. --Simonxag 00:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep just to make a point. Maybe if you had tried asking us nicely the community might have sympathised. Your frivolous, unfounded legal threats have done nothing but piss us off. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 02:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- :-( Could you be a little more sympathetic here? Not everyone is familiar with polite discourse (and sometimes unpolite discourse or legal threats is due to English-language skills). --Iamunknown 05:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- The answer is simple: Right to vanish. א.שטיימן 06:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- In which case the photo wouldn't be deleted, but rather anonymised and any information about you (including this discussion) would be removed. Is this an urgent situation such as a matter of personal protection? --Simonxag 14:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- There has been some heated argument over the deletion of a not very high quality picture of a not very crucial subject. Retaining good will of contributors to this project should be far more important than retaining images simply on a point of principle. It would perhaps be helpful if User:א.שטיימן explained why he wanted to change or delete the licence (I note he also attempted to change it to cc-by-sa-2.5, perhaps dual licensing with gfdl and cc-by-sa-2.5 would work for him). If there is some confidential reason I'm sure a conversation can be carried on via email. --Tony Wills 02:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I wnated to email you but you are not allowing it in your preferences. א.שטיימן 11:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I would recommend to delete this image because it is of very poor quality and I assume that it can be replaced by a better picture. It is currently referenced in one article only among several other pictures. If we remove this picture, we do it just for this reason or out of courtesy. The original uploader should take a look at section 9 of the GFDL, titled Termination:
- However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
- Hence it is neither justified nor helpful to issue legal threats or stating wrongfully that we are violating his or her copyright.
- --AFBorchert 19:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Gridge, for your replacement. I've just been bold and replaced the to be deleted image by your suggested image in the only one article referencing it. --AFBorchert
- Bold? This is only the Hebrew wiki, not the Persian one ;) (kidding). A.shteiman was wrong when he made these threats. Despite his threats, and not because of them, my vote is Delete, same as FloNight below. Gridge 17:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC).
- Bold? This is only the Hebrew wiki, not the Persian one ;) (kidding). A.shteiman was wrong when he made these threats. Despite his threats, and not because of them, my vote is
- Thank you, Gridge, for your replacement. I've just been bold and replaced the to be deleted image by your suggested image in the only one article referencing it. --AFBorchert
- Delete-- I trust there is a good reason even if he doesn't want to tell it. / Fred J 17:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete 1) This is not a high quality image and it is replaceable. 2) Commons is dependent on folks volunteering their work. Just as it is in our best interest to work with photographers in order to get clear permission to upload their work by assisting them to find the right license and such, it is also in our best interest to honor requests to remove content that they no longer feel is appropriate for Commons to host. I feel the long term net effect will be more images not less. Hopefully, someone has been in contact with him by email to gain a better understanding of the his situation and explain the the ins and outs of the images license. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep you can not revoke a license. Besides, do we know whether this image is already used outside the wikipedia world? Our free images and their license terms should be reliable. Also outside our wiki universe. --ALE! ¿…? 13:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Correct that the license can not be revoked and can be used in the future based on the license...but...if the user no longer feels that Commons hosting the content is best I think we should work with them. From the users comments above, for reasons that are unclear but perhaps related to issues of "personal protection", he does not want to be associated with this image any longer. If this low quality, replaceable image is causing problems, I think we should honor the user's request to delete. The loss to the Project is minimal, and at minimum the act can promote goodwill, and perhaps also prevent serious problems for this user. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please take a look at this guideline which states that a file can be deleted if it has a low image quality/resolution (e.g. out of focus, too small). Hence, we can and should delete this image just because of its poor quality independent from the impossibility of revoking a GDFL license. --AFBorchert 17:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I came across this image and I think it should be deleted. I hope this is the proper way to ask for the deletion. דוקטור ווטסון 10:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - personally because of that more delicious looking one you posted. Compared to that, this is as tasteless as the mystery meat. Vipersnake151 02:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted contrary to my previous vote. This is not to say that legal threats like these are acceptable:
- "The only question which needs answer is whether it will be by good will or by force."
- "Every second in which this picture remains here exposes the Wikimedia Foundation to civil prosecution. Delete this picture. There will be no arguments and no negotiations."
- "Do not try to force me to bring it in front of the foundation."
Sorry, but that's not how this place works (and the language barrier is no excuse here). If you had tried asking us nicely from the start, we would have listened to you and this would not have dragged on for months; indeed, I was quarter-tempted to close this with a Keep just to piss you off and force home the point that licenses are not revokable.
Consensus is what it is, though, and probably right in this case: The picture is crap, not useful, and not worth keeping around given the tasty-looking replacement[s] available. That is why it is being deleted, not because of the uploader's hilarious legal threats. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Definitvly the wrong license and probably a copyvio (see other uploads by the user). ALE! ¿…? 13:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Copyvio, somes from: http://casasinjel.iespana.es/casasinjel/portjatai.htm --ALE! ¿…? 22:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete on that websites it says "©2003 CasaSinjel. All rights reserved."
Closing because it already got Deleted (by someone else). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
press license image ALE! ¿…? 15:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unfree license. --GeorgHH • talk 19:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Besides being trademarked, I disagree with the assessment that it is not copyrighted. Note that the original uploader claimed fair use. --Superm401 - Talk 16:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Trademarks are irrelevant. I see two words in a plain font, which makes it ineligible for copyright. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-textlogo}} and {{trademarked}} should be the correct tags. I see someone has updated with those. Carl Lindberg 05:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- That'd be me. :) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Has the right tags now. Simple text isn't copyrighted. →Rocket°°° 06:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
pciture of a modern toy is a derivative work -- -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 08:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Functional object exception applies. -Nard 19:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, functional work. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The art objects in the photo are surely still copyrighted. ALE! ¿…? 15:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Delete if no permission is send to OTRS. --GeorgHH • talk 21:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like a fake image to me. ALE! ¿…? 15:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry but it is not fake, I got it few years ago, if you do not know Denise Maerker then I don't care... just do not delet it. Tank you. --Argonaut 16:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- It seemm fake to me too. That sky and the pose is unreal and the shadows do not match an outdoor picture. ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 09:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Me too. Definitely a shoop. Which isn't by itself a reason for deletion, but makes you wonder what the original image was (and that neck is way too long). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Clearly a fake, and probably a copyvio of something else. giggy (:O) 01:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Cualquier mediano conocedor de Photoshop se da cuenta que esto es un FAKE mal producido, las nubes detrás, la manera en que las sombras caen sobre el rostro de Denise Maerker respecto a la posicion del cuerpo y la luz original de la imagen. This is a FAKE obviusly, Most to be DELETE MAS2 \****
- Delete This is obviously (and rather crudely) photoshopped, so delete. Lectonar 14:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 08:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope, unused. GeorgHH • talk 19:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 14:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
is a duplicate of Image:Horned Grebe captures and swallows a a large cold-water pipefish in Morro Bay, CA.jpg Samsara 22:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think you meant to say it's a duplicate of Image:Pipefish in mouth.jpg, as the two you mention are the same image :). I suggest to delete Image:Pipefish in mouth.jpg as the other one has a more descriptive name. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Correct. Samsara 01:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{duplicate}} (or {{badname}} if own work/upload) for duplicate images. Arria Belli | parlami 14:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Serbia dosnt have navy --18:32, 13 February 2008 User:Suradnik13
- Comment Fixed request. Serbia used to have a navy though (see(here for an explanation) but not sure if that would be "Navy of Serbia" or "Navy of Yugoslavia" or similar. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Navy of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or Navy of Serbia and Montenegro --194.152.198.100 09:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Empty and apparently would stay empty. - Rocket000 23:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope. ALE! ¿…? 16:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Very likely copyvio of logo for "Trivium" band. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Consensus carried. Deleted. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope. Commons is not private photoalbum EugeneZelenko 16:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- In use at sv:Pontiak Johanzon. (Not reading Swedish, I have no idea if the use is legit.) --dave pape 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Used. However, let's wait a bit. That article looks a little spammy. →Rocket°°° 06:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Se vectorizó una fotografía. La fotografía del ícono fue colocada para evitar violar los derechos de autor. La vectorización de la foto implica violar los derechos de autor ya que se trata de una reproducción hecha por un usuario. 189.145.2.143 02:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio of a logo.-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 09:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. giggy (:O) 09:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Superceded by corrected version: Image:Aquila chrysaetos dis(Aiger).png --Dysmorodrepanis 03:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I see no references saying where the data came for the new version (or the old version for that matter, but then I can only read the English bits :-). Has it expanded its range, or is this a corrected representation of the original data ? In short I see no reason to loose the old version, or the history etc. I would suggest uploading the new version over top of the old version and merging the descriptions. --Tony Wills 06:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Per Tony Wills' reasoning. Patrícia msg 14:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
exact duplicate of:Image:Zygmunt Kazimierz Waza.png --11:40, 13 February 2008 User:Martimar
- Keep Fixed request. Image is not exact duplicate: Format is different, and size is different. jpg: 641 × 800 pixels, file size: 189 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg vs png: 380 × 474 pixels, file size: 489 KB, MIME type: image/png. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. The noise level is quite different too. Patrícia msg 14:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm the author and I've uploaded better Image:Napoli s Ferdinando 1040518_.JPG -- 13 February 2008 User:Lalupa
- Comment better version is cropped version. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The cropping did some good ;). Patrícia msg 14:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Press license. ALE! ¿…? 13:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Given source is a general web page, I cannot find that image. In any case, according to the article on pt.wikipedia where this image is in use, this is Juscelino Kubitschek, speaking about the construction of Brasília, and who began his political career in 1934. I very much doubt that this image was taken as early in his political career as to be possible to have {{PD-Brazil-media}} applied to. Therefore, and with no further information about date and a better source, Delete. Patrícia msg 14:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope. ALE! ¿…? 15:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
i did that picture and want to share with the Trivium fans so i don't understand why it should be deleted!?? —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Krakaos (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14. Feb. 2008 I would not say it's out of scope, it could be used for en:Trivium_(band), however, I'm not sure about the copyright status of the symbols. If we are allowed, then keep. --Ogre 09:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete If it's fanart, I don't think it's in scope. If it incorporates elements of albumcovers/logos etc, it is a derivative work. I'd say delete. -- Deadstar (msg)
deleted, COM:SCOPE, derivative work --Polarlys 23:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope. ALE! ¿…? 15:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
i did that picture and want to share with the Trivium fans so i don't understand why it should be deleted!?? —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Krakaos (talk • contribs) 17:44, 14. Feb. 2008 I would not say it's out of scope, it could be used for en:Trivium_(band), however, I'm not sure about the copyright status of the symbols. If we are allowed, then keep. --Ogre 09:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete If it's fanart, I don't think it's in scope. If it incorporates elements of albumcovers/logos etc, it is a derivative work. I'd say delete. -- Deadstar (msg)
deleted, COM:SCOPE, derivative work --Polarlys 23:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
mistake in name, it has to be Gubernia de Jerson (Jerson's Gubernia), and I uploaded new version with this name: Image:Gubernias de Ucrania Imperio Ruso - Jerson.png. --Shliahov 17:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The two images seem to be different. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- From my talkpage: Image:Gubernia de Nikolaev - Imperio ruso.png is not exactly the same drawing than Image:Gubernias de Ucrania Imperio Ruso - Jerson.png because I changed (previously did) all the serie. But is the same territory!!!! (and, as I said, I did both versions). The second one is best than first, and has not name's mistake. --Shliahov 16:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- -- Deadstar (msg) 09:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know... they don't look the same to me, I'd rather hear third opinions. Patrícia msg 14:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is the same pic, and it is not the same.
- 1.= I did both of them
- 2.= Is a mistake the name "Gubernia de Nikolaev" (Nikolaev´s Gubernia), because as gubernia it not existed.
- 3.= The same period and the same territory is called "Gubernia de Jerson" (Kherson´s gubernia)
- 4.= So wrong information is showed in "Gubernia de Nikolaev".
- 5.= You can check all the serie of ukrainian gubernias in the gallery.
- Is the same pic, and it is not the same.
- I don't know... they don't look the same to me, I'd rather hear third opinions. Patrícia msg 14:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
--Shliahov 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. These are not duplicates; {{Superseded}} maybe. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Previously deleted image reuploaded by bot, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Italia !!! We are the champions !!! (185933459).jpg Cumulus Clouds 04:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted (again). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Press license on Flickr. ALE! ¿…? 14:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:MINIClubman-rear.jpg - 2nd request
[edit]Press license on Flickr. ALE! ¿…? 13:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of User:ShinyFan
[edit]- File:Shiny-sport-shorts-1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Shiny-sport-shorts-4.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Shiny-sport-shorts-5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Shiny-sport-shorts-6.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Shiny-sport-shorts-7.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Shorts_1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Shorts_2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Shorts_8.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- User:ShinyFan has uploaded numerous candid pictures of women in comprimising or embarrassing dress malfunctions. I'm not sure what exactly these images intend to illustrate, but given the user's name and the title of the pictures, I don't actually think I want to know. Each of these represent personality and privacy rights violations since they are all fully identifiable. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds 17:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, comments at this and this apply. Uploader blocked. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Schonach
[edit]Concerns
- Image:Willkommen in Schonach.jpg
- Image:Hans-Peter Pohl.jpg
- Image:Alexander Herr.jpg
- Image:Hansjörg Jäkle.jpg
- Image:Georg Hettich.jpg
Derivative of copyrighted photos. Furthermore, the installation probably was not permanent, and thus "freedom of panorama" does not apply. Lupo 20:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose because the installation is permanent and even illuminated. Therefore the freedom of panorama does apply. -- aka 09:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, while it may have been a permanent installation, FOP in Germany forbids derivative works, ergo it's not free enough for Commons. Also, you'd have a hard time calling those embedded photos "sculptures". Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. Official German maps like this one are copyrighted, no sufficient permission to upload the map here is documented. Rosenzweig 19:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
What about the "Permission from the land surveying office BaWü given AZ: 2851.2-D/5897" (Erlaubnis vom Landesvermessungssamt BaWü erteilt - AZ: 2851.2-D/5897). Has anybody an idea where/if we could check this? --Ogre 09:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hallo. Ich habe die Erlaubnis vom Landesvermessungsamt BaWü erhalten:
"Sie erhalten hiermit auch das Nutzungsrecht zum Download der Karte. Diese dürfen aber nicht den Gesamtumfang von 1024 x 768 Pixel überschreiten. Bitte beachten Sie den Genehmigungsvermerk: Landesvermessungsamt Baden-Württemberg (www.lv-bw.de) vom 20.06.07 AZ: 2851.2-D/5897.
Mit freundlichen Gruessen
S. Weinmann Landesvermessungsamt Baden-Wrttemberg Referat 41 , Frau Weinmann Buechsenstrasse 54 , 70174 Stuttgart Postfach 10 29 62 , 70025 Stuttgart"
Diese Email habe ich an permission@wikimedia.org geschickt. Habe ich etwas falsch gemacht?
Gruß,
- Das reicht nicht. Es muss explizit erlaubt werden, die Karte unter die Lizenz XY zu stellen, und einiges mehr. Siehe Commons:Emailvorlagen#Einverständniserklärung für alle Anfragen. Eine solche Einverständniserklärung muss vom Rechteinhaber an besagte E-Mail-Adresse geschickt werden. Viele Grüße --Rosenzweig 16:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
(In English: permission is not sufficiently explicit and must be sent by the owner of the rights; link to the German version of Commons:Email templates#Declaration of consent for all enquiries)
Deleted. There was a reply from the OTRS volunteer asking for more precise licensing info, which never came. When permission is received, the image can be undeleted. Patrícia msg 14:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
February 15
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The question in this case is whether the current country of Germany is a legal heir of the country of Prussia. Another aspect would be, if the design of the COA is already in the public domain. ALE! ¿…? 16:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think it is irrelevant for this image, but I guess Germany would be the successor nation, since Hitler essentially took it over, though Poland would probably be the successor for a large portion of its territory (maybe Russia too). I'm sure the basic COA is PD but this is a highly artistic version. It is signed by w:Hugo Gerhard Ströhl (see this page for other COAs signed the same way by Ströhl). The article says he was Austrian, and he died in 1919, so it's not a Prussian work to begin with. I'm not sure if Austrian law has the same rules for COAs, but in the end this is PD-Old anyways. So Keep, and upload the much larger version found on the source page (direct image URL [59]). Carl Lindberg 03:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Groot Duits Wapen Jpeg.jpg is another version of the same work, more properly attributed. Carl Lindberg 04:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope, bad file name, unused. GeorgHH • talk 19:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Bad name and unused are not deletion reasons, so that part is irrelevant. I agree with the scope argument though... can't see a use for it. The description also has unsubstantiated, derogatory claims about another person. Carl Lindberg 04:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete looks like somebody used Commons as free hosting of private images. Herr Kriss 02:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, out of scope. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dayan 9th Brigade 1956.jpg
derivative 84.109.90.27 12:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Same as the last voting on the pic ==>> Keep --Oren neu dag (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept See the previous DR.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
nothing identifiable on the picture --Veliki Kategorizator 22:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope Durova 23:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - it's not a holiday album. Pibwl 22:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, the image conveys the distance between the beach at this location to the land in the distance. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
nothing identifiable on the picture --Veliki Kategorizator 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. Durova 23:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, looks like a photo made by mistake. Herr Kriss 02:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted John Vandenberg (chat) 11:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
IT IS NOT NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN FLOWN NOR USED BY ISLAND AUTHORITIES AS THE FLAG OF JOHNSTON ATOLL. THE ONLY FLAG TO FLY AT JOHNSTON ATOLL WAS THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE FLAG OF THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII WHO CLAIMED THE ISLAND IN THE 1850'S ON BEHALF OF KING KAMEHAMEHA. by John Bartlett, Former DoD Liaison and DOE Site Representative at Johnston Atoll. (1982-1993) 209.142.187.21 23:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, this is interesting. The source page is no longer there. However, a page at crwflags.com says it is an unofficial flag. Their page on Navassa Island says the same thing, and that these unofficial flags for Johnston, Navassa, and Palmrya were created to represent the islands at a Pearl Harbor ceremony on December 7, 2001. w: Flag of Navassa Island says the same thing. Image:Flag of Navassa Island (local).svg and Image:Flag of Palmyra Atoll (local).svg are therefore in the same category, but they are more accurately labeled unofficial flags. Keep, since the flag is within scope, but change the description to indicate its unofficial status and perhaps upload under a better name to indicate that as well. Carl Lindberg 05:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. This is not how wikis work. You don't ask for deletion because find something wrong. You click that little edit tab and fix it. Unofficial flags are allowed here and we are free to interpretation. Thank you for pointing out our mistake and feel free to update the description and/or rename it. →Rocket°°° 07:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request: This is almost certainly a promotional image used by HP. BrianReading 23:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 23:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, I agree with the nom; it doesnt look self-made, and there is no exif data. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
redundant, uploaded under wrong name, exact duplicate of Image:Map of Nuevo Leon-Coahuila.PNG --Mixcoatl 00:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Slight difference in the two images - some borders drawn on one, not the other. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Map of Nuevo Leon-Coahuila.PNG is correct, Baja California Sur and Quintana Roo didn't exist yet when Nuevo-León existed. Mixcoatl 18:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete in that case. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Map of Nuevo Leon-Coahuila.PNG is correct, Baja California Sur and Quintana Roo didn't exist yet when Nuevo-León existed. Mixcoatl 18:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 14:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can you delete Image:CtrlAltDel_Series_Logo.png too? MADe 19:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, per above. --Martin H. (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a photograph of a 3-D object. While the photo is obviously old, there is no specification about how old, or who shot it, or where the photo was scanned from --Wuselig 20:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 23:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The image is the same as this. Another image is here. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Another here and here. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Seems to be a private image, unused. GeorgHH • talk 21:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. Durova 23:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 14:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
image screwed up by reflection on the glass --Veliki Kategorizator 22:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - what do we need it for? Pibwl 22:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 14:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Advertisement for an exhibition, not permanently installed, so "freedom of panorama" does not apply. Lupo 12:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 14:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the author:Juan Spitzley Vílchez does not seem to be the same as the uploader but he claims the authorship. -- Anna 20:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 23:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I have found the original of Image:Bacalá del Santo Cristo.jpg, and am inclined to believe that the uploader isnt the photographer. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 14:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
restrictive permission: "This should only be used on en:Allie DiMeco unless otherwise specified." Dodo 21:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep sounds like a personality rights request, and "should" is permissive, ie it doesn't actually prohibit anything. -Nard 21:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Agree to Nard - Add in case of doubt simply {{personality rights}} on it... --FSHL 19:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Agree to Nard - I am the original uploader, and uploaded the image with that request. I then changed it, letting it be used as a free image. The uploader to commons did NOT check the update log and used the old image description. The new description allowed the image to be free and used anywhere. Signed by Tommy (Talk/Contribs) 13:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Kept - terms of use changed by original author. Patstuart 16:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
She is holding onto a pole in revealing clothes....do the math! 24.98.194.185 01:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep that's not a reason for deletion? -- Deadstar (msg) 09:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Does WP:IDONTLIKEIT apply in this? Vipersnake151 12:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This isn't the Victorian era. I wouldn't call that "revealing". Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Image kept. Which revealing clothes? Thuresson 22:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source does not state that all rights have been released to this image, such as commerical use. The sentence stating "For use to print on clothes or something" does not imply the release of all rights. 155.247.166.29 13:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia isnt commercial.. And if u can print it on clothes, u can also print it on a screen.. really.. those pirates on TPB infrigrate soo many copyrights.. i think that they'd laugh if they'd see us debate over such a stupid thing --Yzmo 22:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia isnt commercial" absolutely does not apply here. This is Commons for one. We exist for a lot more than Wikipedia. And all our images must be allow commercial use. I haven't looked into this logo, though. →Rocket°°° 06:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. And stop using analogue rules for a digital medium.—the preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.206.116.54 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 17 February 2008
- Keep, The Piraye Bay displays the kopimi logo, they want people to copy their stuff. --Kjetil_r 03:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral. Can I just say for the record that this discussion completely needles the irony meter? 67.168.67.136 05:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Does to me too. I think Delete, since even if they are habitual copyright violators, that doesn't make it right to violate their copyrights. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Does to me too. I think
- Keep What Kjetil_r said. Dybdal 11:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
1928 composition by Fats Waller. No indication that original music is PD. dave pape 19:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Sadly. According to [63], this is (c) 1929 with renewal, which makes it protected for 95 years from date of publication [64]. Earliest date this will be PD is January 1, 2025. -Nard 13:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 01:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the author:Juan Spitzley Vílchez does not seem to be the same as the uploader but he claims the authorship. -- Anna 20:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 23:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 01:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author died in 2006, see ru:Шульц, Михаил Михайлович. ALE! ¿…? 09:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- We need a credible OTRS release for anything in Category:Mikhail Mikhajlovich Schultz. It appears that the uploader, User:Alexej M., might be a grandson of the artist; see Image:Ac MMSchultz 02.jpg. I'll tell Eugene. If no OTRS release forthcoming, Delete. Lupo 11:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I sent next e-mail on address mentioned on User:Alexej M.
Здравствуйте! На Commons выставили изображения http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:MMSchultzWind.jpg, т.к. автор умер недавно. Если Вы являетесь законным наследником и остальные наследники не имеют ничего против того, чтобы распространять изображения согласно условий свободных лицензий, то не могли бы послать подтверждение в OTRS (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS). Примеры разрешений можно увидеть в http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates. С уважением, Евгений.
- EugeneZelenko 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I received e-mail which confirm that User:Alexej M. is heir:
Здравствуйте, Евгений! Действительно, я являюсь единственным владельцем произведений академика М.М.Шульца, и другие наследники не имеют никаких прав на них (все произведения этого автора, находящиеся в моей собственности завещаны автором мне). Я согласен с условиями, данной лицензии. Едтнственной оговоркой является непременное указание автора. Прскольку я не слишком хорошо пока разобрался в некоторых аспектах размещения в wiki и на wiki commons, был бы Вам очень признателен, если бы взяли в данном случае эту миссию на себя, или указали мне, каким образом делать это в будущем. Признаюсь, что некоторую путаницу могло вызвать наличие у меня в wiki двух псевдонимов: ALexej M. и Serge Lachunov, которое не имеет за зобой никакого предосудительного умысла - это вызвано лишь большим перерывом в моём участии (осень 2006 - начало 2008) - я, грешным делом, предполагал, что первый вообще анулирован, а когда нашёл свою запись с ним, и обнаружил, что он функционирует, решил, что для сохранения права на загруженные изображения его не стоит устранять, и далее, даже забыв об этом, решил картинки загружать под новым псевдонимом (в т. ч. Image:MMSchultzWind.jpg). Одним словом, если этот фактор не противоречит существующим нормам, то я предпочёл бы, включать изображения только под новым псевдонимом (вероятно объединение их в одной галерее ещё больше всё запутает). С уважением и наилучшими пожеланиями Алексей Шульц. Serge Lachinov
Alexej M. 02:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I also asked him to write this to OTRS:
Выбранная Вами лицензия Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike как раз и гарантирует указание авторства. С этим проблем нет. Проблема была в том, чтобы получить подтверждение от Вас, что Вы являетесь законным наследником. Думаю, что стоит написать про Ваши положение наследника и выбранную лицензию по адресу permissions-commons@wikimedia.org и не забыть указать, что Вы пользовались учётными записями ALexej M. и Serge Lachunov. В этом случае к описаниям изображений добавят специальный шаблон со ссылкой на Ваше письмо (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:OTRS). Если будут вопросы - обращайтесь, постараюсь помочь. Спасибо большое за ответ, Евгений.
- Hmm, what does that mean in English? --ALE! ¿…? 08:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Dear friends! About work "Clowns" (L. Schultz) artist - my grand uncle (he had not children - and I have in my permission large part of copys, and part his works and documents, articles(other part in Suisse). In monography (match my copys from this book) - Leff Schultz. 1897—1970. Préface Robert Vrinat. Editions Chantepierre. Aubonne. 1973. Suisse - "Tous droitsde reproduction et d'adaptationreserves pourtous pays, y compris l'USSR" (now - Russia!!!). Academician Mikhail Schultz - my father, all his paintings and drawings - from my personal archive (and his painting "Wind" too (MMSchultzWind.jpg). Again and again I appeal: Please, don't stop my very difficult work (so many documents, it is a lot of thousand, which has genesis and place whole understanding only for me - I have study of life Leff, Gabriel, M.M.Schultzs, all Lachinovs (D.A.Lachinov was great grandfather of M.M.Schultz) many years. I have two alias in wiki: Alexey M. and Serge Lachinov. With hope and with best regards for you Serge Lachinov and Alexej M. 21:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think, the problem is solved now. --Obersachse 16:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion request concerns the page as well as the five photos shown there. These images can be kept only with an explicit release sent to OTRS at the e-mail address permissions-commons
mediawiki.org. Lupo 10:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no longer needed --21:48, 13 February 2008 User:Davilla
- Keep Fixed request. Not a reason for deletion. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The shadows look wrong for anything but an icon, so weak delete. On the other hand, what would be really nice is to have the ability to rotate/flip an image through [[Image: ]] so that it isn't necessary to uploaded versions such as this. Davilla 17:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
No author provided. So why a (not documented) permission in the name of an unknown photographer? Polarlys 13:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Because, as the document officially belongs to the Maison de la Culture Yiddish/Bibliothèque Medem (in which I work, by the way), its president, Gilles Rozier, has entitled me to use the photography by means of Wikpedia-Commons. As he is absolutely delighted by my work - i wrote an article -, there is absolutely NO doubt about the righteousness of its legal use. So please withdraw the deletion request.--TheTexecuter 10:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- So, if there is no doubt, please name the photographer and provide his written permission (Commons:OTRS). Being director of some institution doesn't give you the right to give away other people's work. I won't withdraw this request. --Polarlys 11:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. Patrícia msg 14:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The person shown in the photo is probably not the author of the photo. ALE! ¿…? 15:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The person on the photo is myself and I own the copyright to it, therefore I posted it. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Aliascane (talk • contribs)
- The copyright is owned by the photographer. --ALE! ¿…? 16:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If this is deleted I am going to nominate every Wikipedian user page picture, including my own, for deletion. -Nard 14:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Don't you do that already? j/k :) If you actually do that, don't be surprised if you get blocked. - Rocket000 16:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. There are such things as tripods and timers. AGF. Patrícia msg 14:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The author of the book died in 1943, if the author of the book was also the designer of the book cover, then the cover is stil copyrighted. ALE! ¿…? 16:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Designer of the book cover was Max Wulff (which can be seen on the cover). A writer rarely designs his own book covers. sabisteb 17:29, 15 February 2008 (CET)
- In what year did Max Wulff die? --ALE! ¿…? 19:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good question. He was born in 1871. The Sammlung Manskopf claims he died in 1913, but that seems to be an error (or some other "Max Wulff"). According to [65], "After the end of WWI appeared a new [German] edition of [George Alfred Henty's] The Lion of St. Mark with new illustrations by Max Wulff", and [66] says he made the illustrations for a 1922 German edition of Cooper's Leatherstocking Tales. Nesthäkchens Backfischzeit dates to 1919, and the last of the images shown here (Nesthäkchen und ihre Küken) appeared according to de:Else Ury in 1923 (with cover by Wulff). There's also a 1935 German edition of Marryat's Masterman Ready ("Sigismund Rüstig") with illustrations by Wulff.[67] Lupo 09:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- In what year did Max Wulff die? --ALE! ¿…? 19:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I had a look in several biographical databases: According to Thieme-Becker (1947), Wulff was last mentioned 1913. A lot of books were published after 1913, but we don’t know if the illustrations are based on former works by Wulff. According to the German National Library, the last book with illustrations from Wulff was published in 1944. ([68]). Update: It's not the first edition, the first edition dated on 1922. --Polarlys 17:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Max im Seifenschaum (author: Otto Franz Heinrich, ill.: Max Wulff) was first published 1935 or 1936, and the front cover looks like it was made expressly for this book. So do the Nesthäkchen covers. I find it strange that the death date (even the year) of an apparently popular painter and illustrator of the early 20th century is just "unknown". The only explanation I have for this is that he died somewhen during WWII, and in the chaos his death went unnoticed. But 1913 looks clearly suspect. More likely sometime between 1936 and 1945, but that's just my personal impression. Lupo 17:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I had a look in several biographical databases: According to Thieme-Becker (1947), Wulff was last mentioned 1913. A lot of books were published after 1913, but we don’t know if the illustrations are based on former works by Wulff. According to the German National Library, the last book with illustrations from Wulff was published in 1944. ([68]). Update: It's not the first edition, the first edition dated on 1922. --Polarlys 17:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at the cover, you are most certainly right, since there is an obvious relationship between content of the book and illustration. If there are any proposals for further research in access restricted databases, I'll do my very best. It is getting interesting ;-) --Polarlys 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would have tried Thieme, too, but this looks as if we need more specialized encyclopedias. I'll try to check these days Ries, Hans: Illustration und Illustratoren des Kinder- und Jugendbuchs im deutschsprachigen Raum 1871 - 1914, Wenner-Verlag, Osnabrück 1992; ISBN 3-87898-329-8, and Baumgärtner, Alfred Clemens: Kinder- und Jugend-Literatur: ein Lexikon, Corian-Verlag, Meitingen 1995 (loose sheets, no ISBN, last installment available at my library from Oct 2007). Lupo 08:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at the cover, you are most certainly right, since there is an obvious relationship between content of the book and illustration. If there are any proposals for further research in access restricted databases, I'll do my very best. It is getting interesting ;-) --Polarlys 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Baumgärtner and Clemens is available at my local library, but unfortunately only for purposes of one lecturer (every shipment of loose sheets has its own ISBN by the way). Ries is currently not available („im Geschäftsgang“). Regarding Baumgärtner and Clemens I could write a mail if you are not successful. --Polarlys 19:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not necessary. I looked him up in Baumgärtner, and he's not even mentioned in there. Thieme doesn't have his death date. Saur, Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon, Global Index, Vol 10; Munich & Leipzig, 2000; ISBN 3-598-23920-3 has him in the index (born December 15 1871, last mentioned 1913, but no death year), referenced to Thieme and Ries. Unfortunately, that encyclopedia has only been published up to the letter G so far... Osterwalder, Dictionnaire des illustrateurs 1890-1945, Editions Ides des Calendes, Neuchâtel, Switzerland; ISBN 2-8258-0039-2, has a page on him (most of which is taken up by an illustration of Wulff for the Decamerone), but they don't have any more info. Except that they mention that he illustrated Das goldene Buch der Märchen, Meidinger-Verlag, Berlin 1937, with Wanda Lehre. Ries is in our "Präsenzbestand" (cannot be checked out), but it's located at some institute at the university, not at the main library. I'll check it in the next days, but given the Saur reference, I suspect they also have only that "last mention 1913". The friendly person at the library reference desk really tried to help me when I asked, but was also at a loss where to look further. Lupo 21:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sigismund Rüstig was apparently already published "ca. 1910" with illustrations by Wulff. Search here for "sigismund rüstig wulff" (without the quotes)... a 1922 edition (also with ill. by Wulff) also exists, so it is entirely possible that the 1935 edition I had mentioned above re-used these earlier images. Das goldene Buch der Märchen in 1937 was a reprint ("16.-24. Tsd.") according to the DNB, and it might have re-used older illustrations by Wulff anyway. But Max im Seifenschaum and the Nesthäkchen covers are all long post-1913. Lupo 10:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- And I have asked at the Kinder- und Jugendbuchabteilung der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin whether they knew something more about this Max Wulff. Lupo 10:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not necessary. I looked him up in Baumgärtner, and he's not even mentioned in there. Thieme doesn't have his death date. Saur, Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon, Global Index, Vol 10; Munich & Leipzig, 2000; ISBN 3-598-23920-3 has him in the index (born December 15 1871, last mentioned 1913, but no death year), referenced to Thieme and Ries. Unfortunately, that encyclopedia has only been published up to the letter G so far... Osterwalder, Dictionnaire des illustrateurs 1890-1945, Editions Ides des Calendes, Neuchâtel, Switzerland; ISBN 2-8258-0039-2, has a page on him (most of which is taken up by an illustration of Wulff for the Decamerone), but they don't have any more info. Except that they mention that he illustrated Das goldene Buch der Märchen, Meidinger-Verlag, Berlin 1937, with Wanda Lehre. Ries is in our "Präsenzbestand" (cannot be checked out), but it's located at some institute at the university, not at the main library. I'll check it in the next days, but given the Saur reference, I suspect they also have only that "last mention 1913". The friendly person at the library reference desk really tried to help me when I asked, but was also at a loss where to look further. Lupo 21:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Baumgärtner and Clemens is available at my local library, but unfortunately only for purposes of one lecturer (every shipment of loose sheets has its own ISBN by the way). Ries is currently not available („im Geschäftsgang“). Regarding Baumgärtner and Clemens I could write a mail if you are not successful. --Polarlys 19:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- ←Checked Ries: no new biographical data, but a list of books he illustrated until 1913 (not surprising, since Ries limits himself to pre-WWI data, he may have omitted later data), sourced to Thieme-Becker and Dressler. Dressler is Willy Oskar Dressler, Dresslers Kunsthandbuch, Band II: Bildende Kunst: das Buch der lebenden deutschen Künstler..., 1930. ("book of living German artists...") My library does not have this; Polarlys, could you check whether your library has it, and if so, take a look? Note that the 1930 Kunsthandbuch is a continuation of Dressler's pre-WWI Kunstjahrbuch, last published 1913. So if there are no post-1913 mentions for Wulff in the 1930 Dressler, I'd assume that Dressler got sloppy and just reprinted an old entry. But it might be worth to check it all the same. Lupo 14:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- It’s available and I just ordered it. I don’t know how long it will take, since the library stores it at one of their numerous outposts. --Polarlys 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- According to Dresslers Kunsthandbuch, Band II: Bildende Kunst: das Buch der lebenden deutschen Künstler..., finished december 1929, published in 1930, Max Wulff was still alive at this time. Here the full text: Wulff, Max; M.
[Maler]G.[Griffelkünstler]– Berlin-Lankwitz, Kaiser-Wilhelm-Straße 124a, RvbK[Reichsverband bildender Künstler]. That’s all. --Polarlys 19:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)- Well, at least that is clearly a post-1913 mention. So we may assume that he still lived in 1929. But now it gets difficult. Are the raw data from the census of 1933 (or 1939) available somewhere? Alternatively, the parish registers of Berlin-Lankowitz might have his death year... Or he might have been Jewish, and would appear in some concentration camp lists? Or maybe old phonebooks of Berlin from that area might list him... Lupo 14:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- According to Dresslers Kunsthandbuch, Band II: Bildende Kunst: das Buch der lebenden deutschen Künstler..., finished december 1929, published in 1930, Max Wulff was still alive at this time. Here the full text: Wulff, Max; M.
- I found a forum where an user provides information from Reichstelefonbuch 1942 (I will ask), but for me it is highly unlikely that an old man owned a telephone extension these days. Most telefons were used by restaurants, larger companies and public institutions like courts. As far as I know, some of these consesus data are available at familysearch.org. I looked for Max Wulff, born in 1871 and found MAXIMILIAN CARL WILHELM WULFF, born 15 DEC 1871, christening april 1872 in Berlin. So there is no direct jewish background (of course there were enough other reasons to get imprisoned but regarding Wulff I see no evidence). The Verein für Computergenealogie offers some databases and digitization projects (historical address books, parish registers, …) but I have seen nothing in our interest. --Polarlys 14:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- According to Berliner Adressbuch, he still lived (without phone;-)) in 1943 [69]--ONAR 00:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- And still at the same address. Listed as "Wulff, Maximilian, Kunstmal[er] Lankwitz Kaiser-Wilhelm-Straße 124a." for those who have troubles accessing that site (my adblocker blocked it at first because it starts with "ad"...) Great for our attempts to find out more about him, but bad for this image. Lupo 00:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- According to Berliner Adressbuch, he still lived (without phone;-)) in 1943 [69]--ONAR 00:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Illustrator still alive in 1943. Lupo 00:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- (editing conflict) Thank you (not just for this information, also for a new bookmark)! :-) Considering this, his works are not in the public domain yet. Do you know when – if there was any – the following address book was published? --Polarlys 00:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- The full title is Berliner Adressbuch - unter Benutzung amtlicher Quellen, published by the -Verlag. I suppose the Adressbuch has expired with its publisher at the end of World War II. --ONAR 07:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Amazing investigation, thanks! Deleting per Lupo, illustrator still alive in 1943. We can undelete this in a few years :). Patrícia msg 14:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Music of George Gershwin
[edit]- Image:For Musicscienter1.png (Rhapsody in Blue, 1924)
- Image:Gershwin Klavier Quarten for wikipedia.mid (Piano Concerto in F, 1925)
- Image:Gershwin Klavier Quarten for wikipedia.png (Piano Concerto in F, 1925)
- Image:RhythmChanges.MID (I Got Rhythm, 1930)
- Image:RhythmChanges.png (I Got Rhythm, 1930)
- Image:RiB 303.mid (Rhapsody in Blue, 1924)
- Image:RiB-Romantik.mid (Rhapsody in Blue, 1924)
- Image:RiB-Romantik.png (Rhapsody in Blue, 1924)
- Image:RiB-Saxes.mid (Rhapsody in Blue, 1924)
- Image:RiB-Thema4.mid (Rhapsody in Blue, 1924)
- Image:RiB-Triller.mid (Rhapsody in Blue, 1924)
- Image:RiB-Trumpet-Trombone.png (Rhapsody in Blue, 1924)
- Image:RiB-Trumpet-Trombone2.mid (Rhapsody in Blue, 1924)
- Image:RiB-Violin-Thema.mid (Rhapsody in Blue, 1924)
All are midi files or score excerpts from post-1922 George Gershwin compositions; no reason to believe that these pieces would have been allowed to fall into the public domain. --dave pape 19:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Gershwin died in 1937, that's 71 years ago. Why wouldn't his work fall in the public domain this year? Doesn't the 70 years author death rule apply? Or was there renewal of copyright, and a 95 years rule after publication applies? Patrícia msg 15:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Depending on the answer to your question, we might actually be able to undelete the following files:
- —LX (talk, contribs) 16:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- In the U.S., 70 years after death only applies to works since 1978; for works before that, the older rules, with later extensions, apply [70]. As long as these works were formally registered, and renewed at the appropriate time, they're still copyrighted. Gershwin's music is pretty big business; we shouldn't just assume they weren't registered and renewed unless someone does a thorough check of the records to prove otherwise. They're all listed in ASCAP's licensing database [71]. --dave pape (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, I think that Delete is the way to go, unfortunately. Patrícia msg 09:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- And to further support that: here's the webpage where we can check whether a copyright was renewed or not. And this seems to be indeed the case. Patrícia msg 15:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- That settles it, unfortunately. Deleting. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- And to further support that: here's the webpage where we can check whether a copyright was renewed or not. And this seems to be indeed the case. Patrícia msg 15:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, I think that
- In the U.S., 70 years after death only applies to works since 1978; for works before that, the older rules, with later extensions, apply [70]. As long as these works were formally registered, and renewed at the appropriate time, they're still copyrighted. Gershwin's music is pretty big business; we shouldn't just assume they weren't registered and renewed unless someone does a thorough check of the records to prove otherwise. They're all listed in ASCAP's licensing database [71]. --dave pape (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
February 16
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Misspelling --Akinom 15:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 05:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Feel free to speedy things like this next time. →Rocket°°° 06:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Privacy and personality rights concerns, per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Visible_Thong_7.jpg. Cumulus Clouds 22:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- You can't see her face. You'd have to already know her pretty well to be able to identify her on the basis of this photo... AnonMoos 23:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- We aren't in the business of running that risk, sorry. This picture clearly shows her in a compromising and/or embarrassing wardrobe malfunction and since we don't have her authorization, it's a violation of her privacy and personality rights. Cumulus Clouds 03:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 04:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:ChistyakovP SofVitovNaSvGRM.jpg --Brandmeister 20:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, I think. Image:ChistyakovP SofVitovNaSvGRM.jpg is indeed a nicer version of the same painting, but the two images are very different. I don't think that the (very) red cast to this version (and tighter crop) takes it out of scope. Carl Lindberg 21:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
In this store photograph is forbidden guerreritoboy 02:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No copyright issues here. Unless you're worried about getting sued by them for taking photographs, keep it. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, that is not a valid reason for deletion. Vipersnake151 13:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Photographing may be forbidden, but there's no law that gives them the right to control all photos that were taken there. I mean where else are we suppose to get photos like that? →Rocket°°° 07:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
IMHO the image is out of the project scope. ALE! ¿…? 10:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope Durova 06:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, image is not reusable due to the blinking text overlaying the image, 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.
Copyright infridgment probably. It is a painting from w:David Jagger, as it is also depicted in Image:Bphouse-collection02.jpg. There is no indication on why the picture would be PD (painter died in 1958). -Geraki TLG 11:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 06:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 15:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Low quality illustration that does a poor job of representing what the real act looks like. 76.204.178.237 13:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No worse than a lot of other functional line drawings. Durova 05:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. In use. Please do not request this again. There is no reason to delete. →Rocket°°° 07:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:ChistyakovP SofVitovNaSvGRM.jpg --Brandmeister 20:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, I think. Image:ChistyakovP SofVitovNaSvGRM.jpg is indeed a nicer version of the same painting, but the two images are very different. I don't think that the (very) red cast to this version (and tighter crop) takes it out of scope. Carl Lindberg 21:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Illustration of face of Prophet Mohammed is against the Islamic rules. No true Illustration of Prophet's Mohammed is ever done in the history. 61.1.244.86 12:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- speedy keep. The Islamic artist who created this work more than 700 years ago apparently had a different interpretation of Islamic rules, and it is not the role of Wikimedia Commons to make any judgements as to who has the correct interpretation in matters of religion. Your observation is therefore not relevent to any deletion procedures on Wikimedia Commons, as these are simply based on mechanical and legal concerns, not on matters of religious faith. (Note as well that there is no claim to be a "true Illustration", it is clearly just an artist's depiction of a person used to illustrate an historic point, similar to those that can be found in thousands of artworks done where the exact appearance of a historical figure is not known.) -- Infrogmation 15:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As above --Simonxag 23:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep These issue have been widely discussed in a previous deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315 bew.jpg of a modified version. Perhaps a note on the talk page would help. --Tony Wills 22:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Speedy keep. Encyclopedic picture, historically significant, no copyright problems. Wikipedia and Wikimedia aren't censored, and the deletion request is merely a political statement. Valentinian T / C 21:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request:
- The file has a low image quality.
- The file/page is redundant through a better but not identical one.
- The file/page is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project (e.g. art by unknown artist)
- The quality of files should be as high as possible.
- Specifically, this image is just a user-degraded version of this one, a historical image created under the direction of the famous scholar Rashid al-Din, to which it is otherwise identical. It is certainly not usable on English Wikipedia, and I seriously doubt it would have any value to any Wikimedia project.Proabivouac 02:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Just because an image isn't being used on EN, is no reason to delete it on Commons. Different language projects have different standards for images, and the project scope here at Commons is simply to keep all images in one central repository. As for the image alteration, it's standard practice throughout Islamic art to present Muhammad with his face blanked or veiled. Just take a look at the Muhammad gallery. So it makes sense to me to keep two copies of this image, one unaltered, and one with the face blanked. Then it's up to each Wikimedia project to determine which one best suits their needs. --Elonka 06:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- "As for the image alteration, it's standard practice throughout Islamic art to present Muhammad with his face blanked or veiled."
- That's rather different from crudely painting over the face of an existing image. We wouldn't include a historical image which was veiled until a user painted a face over it. We wouldn't include an image with the face of the Mona Lisa blanked, or one with a moustache drawn onto Botticelli's Venus. By any curational standard, the user alteration manifestly degrades the quality of this image of historical artwork.Proabivouac 06:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- There are hundreds of different Wikimedia projects, with different standards. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a project with a large Islamic readership, to use this image. They can always link to the unaltered image as well. In that respect, I see this altered image as a kind of "spoiler warning," which we use routinely. It's not censorship, it's giving some of our readers a good-faith heads-up that they may be about to see something that they'd find offensive. This altered image serves a good purpose. It doesn't mean we have to use it, but it makes sense to keep it available for any Wikimedia project that does wish to use it. --Elonka 17:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- What kind of Wikipedia project would have a "large Islamic" readership? Keeping this image available infact is encouraging and tolerating censorship in Wikipedia. This is a serious step in the wrong direction. Good faith doesnt mean you have to compromise on policies (WP:NOTCENSORED). Also you're assuming that all muslims dislike images of Muhammad which is not true. You should read this carefully. --Matt57 17:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Matt, English-speakers aren't the center of the world. Large Islamic readership? Gee, how about one of these? . --Elonka 18:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please keep this picture. I did this. It's to show muslims respect; what does a face matter for people who don't believe. Everybody can find the original picture without any problems. If you know you can offend people by showing a drawn face, why should you force a muslim to look at it? LooiNL 18:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Elonka, you're correct that several Wikiprojects exist with (probable) a Muslim majority readership. Were it up to me, I am not certain what I'd do on Turkish, Farsi or Indonesian WPs, but on Arabic the choice would be obvious: don't display the image where it grossly violates community standards (or at least, confine them to one article for the curious.) However, this altered one would also violate those same standards, as well as mocking the curational enterprise, which hiding them does not.Proabivouac
- (shrug) That's their choice -- use the original image, use an altered image, or use no image, that's up to them. The issue we're deciding here isn't whether or not the Arabic Wikipedia (or any 'pedia) should use the image, but simply whether or not it's reasonable to maintain the altered form here at Commons. I think it is, and that the (altered) image is useful to maintain, to give people a choice of which type of image they'd like to use. --Elonka 23:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Matt, English-speakers aren't the center of the world. Large Islamic readership? Gee, how about one of these? . --Elonka 18:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- What kind of Wikipedia project would have a "large Islamic" readership? Keeping this image available infact is encouraging and tolerating censorship in Wikipedia. This is a serious step in the wrong direction. Good faith doesnt mean you have to compromise on policies (WP:NOTCENSORED). Also you're assuming that all muslims dislike images of Muhammad which is not true. You should read this carefully. --Matt57 17:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- There are hundreds of different Wikimedia projects, with different standards. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a project with a large Islamic readership, to use this image. They can always link to the unaltered image as well. In that respect, I see this altered image as a kind of "spoiler warning," which we use routinely. It's not censorship, it's giving some of our readers a good-faith heads-up that they may be about to see something that they'd find offensive. This altered image serves a good purpose. It doesn't mean we have to use it, but it makes sense to keep it available for any Wikimedia project that does wish to use it. --Elonka 17:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This specific alteration of the image is censorship (blanking the face out). According to COM:PS, "the Commons may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Like Wikipedia, the Commons is not censored.". The image cannot be used in Wikipedia and thus does not qualify inclusion for the commons. --Matt57 13:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Are you sure it can't be used in ALL Wikipedias? English is not the only one we serve.
- This is an interesting question. Is it censorship if we still have the "uncensored" version available? I don't know. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would say it is. I could safely say that all Wikipedia have that same policy against censorship, dont they? Its a strong core policy ("Wikipedia is not censored" [72]). Clearly, blanking the face out was an act of censorship. This is why we have been against the exclusion of the original image on the english wikipedia because of WP:CENSOR. Why have an image, the use of which goes against Wikipedia policies? If the use of the image goes against policies, it follows that the image cannot be used on Wikipedia and thus, it should not be on the Commons. Also, this alteration is giving the false impression that the original image had been censored by the artist, which is not true. The reader will be confused as to whether this image really existed, or if its just a blanking through Photoshop. Therefore I believe its unencyclopedic too, unless we make it clear, e.g. with the caption "Face blanked out by digital image tools". --Matt57 15:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- It is not so clear to me that all Wikipedias will or do have the same policies as English Wikipedia. When a new one is started up, they are not, AFAIK, handed a set of core policies that they cannot change. There are only the WMF policies, which don't say anything specifically about this kind of censorship. I'm just saying: don't assume the enwp policies hold universally. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point but I really doubt the Dutch Wikipedia would end up with a policy saying "Wikipedia is censored if some people want it to be." Besides, when they say on the English wikipedia that "Wikipedia is not censored", that doesnt mean only the EN wikipedia. It implies Wikipedia as a whole, the whole set of all the wikipedias in the various languages. For example you can see that WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:NOT#BLOG and WP:CENSORED too - all are application to the different wikipedias, not just the English one. On that page, there's a link to the Wikipedia Community which goes to the meta. And you have the links on the left of that page (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not), which are links to about 30 different languages so yes it looks like this is a policy page that applies to all the Wikipedias (for example Dutch) since its a core policy. --Matt57 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Matt57, that's German. I think you can't read it and you trust that this is a Dutch translation of this. It's not. LooiNL 18:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point but I really doubt the Dutch Wikipedia would end up with a policy saying "Wikipedia is censored if some people want it to be." Besides, when they say on the English wikipedia that "Wikipedia is not censored", that doesnt mean only the EN wikipedia. It implies Wikipedia as a whole, the whole set of all the wikipedias in the various languages. For example you can see that WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:NOT#BLOG and WP:CENSORED too - all are application to the different wikipedias, not just the English one. On that page, there's a link to the Wikipedia Community which goes to the meta. And you have the links on the left of that page (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not), which are links to about 30 different languages so yes it looks like this is a policy page that applies to all the Wikipedias (for example Dutch) since its a core policy. --Matt57 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- It is not so clear to me that all Wikipedias will or do have the same policies as English Wikipedia. When a new one is started up, they are not, AFAIK, handed a set of core policies that they cannot change. There are only the WMF policies, which don't say anything specifically about this kind of censorship. I'm just saying: don't assume the enwp policies hold universally. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would say it is. I could safely say that all Wikipedia have that same policy against censorship, dont they? Its a strong core policy ("Wikipedia is not censored" [72]). Clearly, blanking the face out was an act of censorship. This is why we have been against the exclusion of the original image on the english wikipedia because of WP:CENSOR. Why have an image, the use of which goes against Wikipedia policies? If the use of the image goes against policies, it follows that the image cannot be used on Wikipedia and thus, it should not be on the Commons. Also, this alteration is giving the false impression that the original image had been censored by the artist, which is not true. The reader will be confused as to whether this image really existed, or if its just a blanking through Photoshop. Therefore I believe its unencyclopedic too, unless we make it clear, e.g. with the caption "Face blanked out by digital image tools". --Matt57 15:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Agree to Elonka - Not sufficient reason for deletion – is still in use and as an elementary result of this trivial fact definitively not useless.. --FSHL 19:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Per check usage, it is "still in use" only where its creator has placed it in his userspace and onto one article to which he is the primary contributor.Proabivouac 22:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Even if a Wikimedia project - for example, a Muslim-majority language Wikipedia - decides it is to be censored in this respect, by far the more principled route would be to not show the image at all - and indeed I imagine that this is what will be done. The only two instances I found of its use, besides Elonka's recent placement in Commons galleries, were in the creator's userspace on Dutch Wikipedia and on an article in which, as the primary contributor, had placed it. The chance that Arabic etc. Wikipedias will say, "finally, a picture of Muhammad we can use!" is zero. It is one thing to decide that something violates local community standards and should not be shown - real museums do this all the time; quite another to crudely deface famous works with splotches of digital paint.Proabivouac 19:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Proabivouac, I think you may have some misconception about what galleries are for here on the Commons. The best EN analogy is "category," though we have those too. In any case, I'm not trying to promote the image by adding it to galleries, I'm simply sorting, as I've done with many other images here. All images on Commons are required to either be in a gallery or a category, but the entire categorization scheme on Commons is still in relatively early stages, so there are plenty of gaps that we're trying to fill, and a neverending pool of uncategorized images.[73] If you'll check the history at Black Stone, you'll see that I even created that gallery back in May, and I've been working hard to find every relevant image that needs to be in that gallery.[74] I've been doing the same at the Kaaba gallery,[75] and have also helped out categorizing other Mecca-related images.[76] This work was a natural outgrowth of my work as one of the primary editors at the Black Stone article at EN.[77] -- My goal here is not to promote any particular image, altered or not, but simply to collect all image of the Black Stone or Kaaba that I can find, and get them into the appropriate galleries. When I was doing my main work back in May, I remember seeing the altered image on one sweep, but then "lost" it and I couldn't find it again to add it to the gallery. Then, about a week ago, I saw it again, and I grabbed it quick before it scrolled out of my buffer. :) That's the only reason I've added it to the galleries. I'm sorry if you think I'm doing this out of some need to prolong a dispute from EN -- that is absolutely not my intention here. I didn't create the image, and I'm not trying to "promote" it or whatever you think I'm doing. I just like categorizing things. :) --Elonka 00:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed all that; good work. I also know that you'd mentioned having come across this image some time ago.Proabivouac 01:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This idea to start allowing degraded picture in commons... is one of the worse idea I have never read on this web site. Kelson 21:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It appears that the Farsi Wikipedia has no problem using the image with the face as the lead image in their article on Mohammed... Lupo 07:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Agree, different language Wikipedias appear to be using different standards. This is consistent with the information at w:Depictions of Muhammad. All the more reason that here at Commons we need to provide a variety of images, and then let each Wikimedia project decide for themselves which one works best for them and their particular readership. --Elonka 16:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Making a censored image available is just a step backward. Instead of convincing some people that they should tolerate images, by making a censored conservative image available you're catering to the demands of extremists and fundamentalists and giving them a voice. I've told this to Elonka many times but she fails to understand this. What do we do - wipe out Muhammad's face from all of the 15 or so images of him we have, just to please them? Or do we gently push them to enter the 21st century? We could do this face wiping out for all the other images too people - why just this image? And then would the gallery look encyclopedic? I dont think so. What if another religous group came and said they want Muhammad's clothes to be colored green? Do we make 15 more pictures of him wearing green clothes? --Matt57 11:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Matt, I agree with you that we should discourage these kinds of modications and probably, on balance, delete this image. But this kind of straw-man argumentation is not helpful. "Push them to enter the 21st century"? Please leave this kind of moralistic/paternalistic argument out of it. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you think it should be deleted, then please do a delete vote. It looks unlikely though that this image will be deleted because this is turning out to be a no-consensus. --Matt57 16:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Matt, I agree with you that we should discourage these kinds of modications and probably, on balance, delete this image. But this kind of straw-man argumentation is not helpful. "Push them to enter the 21st century"? Please leave this kind of moralistic/paternalistic argument out of it. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep "Like Wikipedia, the Commons is not censored." So we will refuse to censor this image. We will not permit the POV of Western liberals to dictate what other Wikimedia communities may put on their projects. Yes, the unaltered image is better at showing what the original artwork actually is. However, both images show how people perceive the original artwork. Seektruthfromfacts 13:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- User is possibly a sock puppet (His Excellency or Kirbytime), has no edits here and just registered today at Wikipedia. ([78]). --Matt57 16:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The image is used for educational purposes and its free. When there are multiple versions of an image, local projects are free to decide which to use. In fact, one of the reasons that we have different versions of the same image is because local projects want to use different images. Furthermore, Commons is not being censored when a link is provided to the original, untouched image. Samulili 14:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. → AA (talk • contribs) — 07:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Quality is not visually any worse than the original it was derived from and when used in thumbnail form (as is done on articles) it will be virtually impossible to distinguish the differences between the original and the derivative (bar the changes to the image itself). As has been discussed above, it has plenty of potential uses on other wikis which currently do not include the original due to the offensive nature of it to muslims. The availability of this image may not be readily apparent, though, as I only came across it from a post at WP:AN/I. The image is therefore not redundant. → AA (talk • contribs) — 09:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This discussion has been advertised on the English Wikiproject Islam deletion sorting.[79] Why there and not WP:ART, I'm not certain. Proabivouac 09:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The note above already publishes the fact it's been "advertised" on enWiki. Since the original image is only used on articles tagged with WP:ISLAM, it did not make sense to add it to other projects (including Art, Saudi, etc.) I'm not sure what is implied by this comment but as you know, members of WP:ISLAM are not only muslims. → AA (talk • contribs) — 11:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- My point is that our decisions shouldn't just about or even mainly about the religious sensibilities of contributors to the Commons or to WP, but about how we intend to curate images of historic works of art, a point which seems entirely lost upon some participants to this discussion. What remotely credible museum would display such user-degraded (and crudely) images in its galleries? If we host this kind of material, the joke is on/is us. Let's not play silly buggers with Rashid al-Din.Proabivouac 12:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Whether or not to use these images is a question for local projects. Their utility is apparent as an option for resolving disputes in this area. In particularly, Islamic projects be more likely to wish to employ this option in their articles and it should be made available to them. Also Commons is a general repository of content, I can imagine someone looking for an image that could be used in a country subject to Islamic law finding these useful. No reason to delete - use of these images can be decided on each individual project adequately. WjBscribe 17:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The artwork is probably better in the original without the face blanked out but we allow alternative versions of files hence the 'other versions' header in the upload dialog Madmax32 02:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The idea that we achieve our goal of not being censored by deleting content is bizarre. --AnonEMouse 18:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Providing an additional version of an image which makes it potentially useful for other wikimedia projects is sufficient reason to keep it. The original version is readily available, the only censorship is self-censorship by those who do not wish to see the original. --Tony Wills 23:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I can envision a project by and for very observant Muslims opposed to images of Mohammed's face and of women. They could use this image. In a similar vein, I can envision another project by and for (workers and library patrons in societies influenced by Christian mores) who do not want to be seen browsing NSFW images (I could possibly use this one at work). And a third project by and for very observant Jews who do not want to be tempted by images of women's bare torsos, arms, and legs. Such projects could use a category tree not yet present here, perhaps topped by Category:Objectionable media. Of course, filters that could enable such capabilities on existing projects would be welcome. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Commons already has plenty of depictions of Mohammed, both with and without a visible face. There is absolutely no need to start censoring these images. -- Sakurambo 09:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
kept
reasons:
- Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses: "Publication of derivative work must be allowed" - the original file was altered because the need at some Wikimedia project arrose.
- Commons:Project_scope#Wikimedia Commons is a common central media repository of all Wikimedia projects: "Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons." - This file is used and therefore useful to some Wikimedia projects.
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 map is 6 years old (w:en:East Timor becomes independend in 2002), but tagged as China-pd Public domain-This image is now in the public domain because its term of copyright has expired in China. According to copyright [...] China [...] all non-photographic works enter the public domain fifty years after the death of the creator. --Yuli Klever 12:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 06:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 23:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chinese world map.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.
Reproduction of unknown source, PD-art not applicable. See Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Nordic_countries -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reproduction from a German picture calendar. Keep. Valid in most jurisdictions (including US), the stupid uproar about the "invadility" of PD-Art should not be further considered on commons, lest we lose most of our images of clearly Public Domain paintings. --AndreasPraefcke 09:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. No source, very likely that the country of origin is Denmark. Thuresson 23:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Carl Larsson Lisbeth playing the wicked princess.jpg
February 17
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deletion request: Picture is of female breast. No added visual information on gestational period. The image page on flickr says the image is licensed under nc-sa, which is incompatible with commons' licensing. Mønobi 02:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, note the usage. It's used on 38 pages in 26 projects. Mønobi 02:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Keep
incompatible with Commons licensing, unfortunately.per original license Durova 04:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC) - Keep Flickr user changed license on us. BY-SA is not revokable. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you can demonstrate the change in license I'll change my vote. Durova 06:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- What? You don't trust FlickreviewR? If we can't trust him, we're really screwed. →Rocket°°° 06:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you can demonstrate the change in license I'll change my vote. Durova 06:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There appears to be an authentic confirmation by FlickreviewR, so ruling out the unlikely possibility of a bug, the image was really released under cc-by-sa. Superm401 - Talk 07:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep 26 November 2006 by FlickreviewR, and confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-sa-2.0 --Atamari 10:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, reviewed by FlickreviewR. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Flickr license is cc-by-nc, which is not the license on the image page, and not free. --Superm401 - Talk 07:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 08:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Already deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope. Dubious authorship claims. Privacy issues. EugeneZelenko 16:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Eugene. Lupo 09:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 14:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
might be a copyright infringement Petar Marjanovic 17:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment New uploaded files without any information should be tagged with {{No source since}} / {{No license since}} instead of list them here. --GeorgHH • talk 18:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 14:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
might be a copyright infringement Petar Marjanovic 17:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment New uploaded files without any information should be tagged with {{No source since}} / {{No license since}} instead of list them here. --GeorgHH • talk 18:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 14:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you! XcepticZP 17:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative combination of copyrighted works. The concentric circle element is found on Xbox packaging and identified as a copyrighted logo at [83]. The green "x" might be an original work, but is also derivative of an Xbox logo[84]. ˉanetode╦╩ 20:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. As far as I'm aware, neither concentric circles, nor green x's can be copyrighted. Xenocidic 13:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Licensing#Simple_design says "Commons accepts images of text in a general typeface and of simple geometric shapes, even if it happens to be a trademarked logo." I's say this applies here, so keep. --Ogre 16:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm confused here anetode, first you wanted us to change the "X" because it was the logo. We fixed that, we put in a regular "X", and again you have a problem. We have had the logo up for weeks now, and now you decide to put it up for deletion. Let me point out, that no one has had a problem with the logo, instead has complemented it. Anetode seems to be the only one that has a problem with the logo. --DJS24 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh by the way keep.--DJS24 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I removed my vote, I forgot DJS24 already voted. As you can see in our infos we are related, we both can't vote, so my vote doesn't count. Sorry for the mistake. BW21--Blackwatch21 18:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep! - The project has done everything asked by anetode from what I can see. They changed the logo when first asked and now anetode wants it deleted. As mentioned by DJS no one has had a problem with it, and it's been up for 3 weeks now. --Noah Baurer 21:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I removed my vote, I forgot DJS24 already voted. As you can see in our infos we are related, we both can't vote, so my vote doesn't count. Sorry for the mistake. BW21--Blackwatch21 18:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh by the way keep.--DJS24 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm confused here anetode, first you wanted us to change the "X" because it was the logo. We fixed that, we put in a regular "X", and again you have a problem. We have had the logo up for weeks now, and now you decide to put it up for deletion. Let me point out, that no one has had a problem with the logo, instead has complemented it. Anetode seems to be the only one that has a problem with the logo. --DJS24 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note I originally closed this, but I'm re-opening and re-listing it due to further concerns from Anetode (not that I agree with them). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- What further concerns were they? Xenocidic 21:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- That I closed the DR too early and that he didn't get the chance to comment (and that "the intricate arrangement of green concentric circles does not fall under the category of simple geometric shapes"). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree with re-opening this issue. This is just Anetode continuing to cause problems with a image thats not breaking any guildlines. Anetode has had several days to respond to the issue and has failed to do so. Anetode was editing the entire time is issue was opened. Even with it re-opened has failed to respond. Whatever issues Anetode has, I hope he addresses them quickly. --DJS24 02:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Collard for allowing me this chance to respond. I apologize for taking so long to comment on the issue, real-life obligations have kept me away for a bit and most of my time is spent at en.wiki. To DJS24, I have some experience in dealing with copyright violations at en.wiki. Intellectual property is a sensitive topic and believe me, even potential violations can have real-life legal consequences. Your accusation that I am causing some sort of problem is in bad faith. ˉanetode╦╩ 10:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree with re-opening this issue. This is just Anetode continuing to cause problems with a image thats not breaking any guildlines. Anetode has had several days to respond to the issue and has failed to do so. Anetode was editing the entire time is issue was opened. Even with it re-opened has failed to respond. Whatever issues Anetode has, I hope he addresses them quickly. --DJS24 02:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- That I closed the DR too early and that he didn't get the chance to comment (and that "the intricate arrangement of green concentric circles does not fall under the category of simple geometric shapes"). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Those circles were copyed 'n' pasted from the original logo. The design, random or not, is still a design that I can't say is ineligible. - Rocket000 04:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not going to vote because it would be a conflict of interest, but I just wanted to say that in my opinion, there is nothing in the current image that is copyrightable. You can't copyright a generic "X" or an assortment of circles with varying colors and centers. Thus, the image does not violate copyright laws. As to the "copy-paste", if you prefer, I can take the time to manually replicate the circles and add them to the geometric "x" shape. Personally, I think that is ridiculous because the result will be nearly identical to the current version, but if that what it takes, I will do it. Thingg 22:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, even if you did it by hand, it'll still be the same. I was just pointing out that it wasn't modified and that design I think is copyrightable. - Rocket000 05:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If you look at Commons:Copyright#Simple_design, you'll notice that while trademarks employing simple geometric shapes and common typefaces are not copyrighted, more complex designs, such as the copyrighted artistic works used in the compilation of this unauthorized derivative, do indeed fall under copyright. Microsoft asserts as much in their press materials, and the green arrangement of concentric circles does not fall under the category of simple geometric shapes. The interpretation that this image would fit under the guidelines template:PD-textlogo is, frankly, naive. Microsoft claims copyright to the design and no wiki contributor is in any position to challenge this assertion in the real world. If you'd like to create a free-license derivative work, you need permission from the copyright holder to do so. Thingg, this includes taking the time to replicate these circles, or any similar design, from scratch.
- I'd appreciate some input from editors who have a working knowledge of copyright and bear no vested interest in keeping this image for internal project use or alleging bad faith on my behalf. Thank you, ˉanetode╦╩ 10:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I can see, no one else feels the need to respond to this issue. Anetode's request to re-open this issue was granted and know two weeks later, I'm requesting that it be closed.--DJS24 17:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ahem* Would you like to actually address my claim that this is a derivative work and a violation of copyright? Deletion discussions at the Commons are guided by policy and intellectual property law, not by "keep votes" from single-purpose accounts. ˉanetode╦╩ 20:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- As I can see, no one else feels the need to respond to this issue. Anetode's request to re-open this issue was granted and know two weeks later, I'm requesting that it be closed.--DJS24 17:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted: This is a blatant violation of Microsoft copyrights. Significant elements of the image appear as packaging on xbox 360 products (example). Just because it's circles doesn't make it ineligible for copyright. There's significant design elements and creativity at work. --Durin 15:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyfraud. This site does not own all the photos[85] it claims are cc by sa 2.5 -Nard 22:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Lupo 09:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside project scope. -Nard 22:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. (Also the PDF's listed below.) Lupo 09:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 15:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Spam -Nard 22:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Ad banners are out of our scope. This one is used in fr:Cirpack but shouldn't be. We don't want ads in WP articles. - Rocket000 23:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, jesus. Also would a french speaker go and remove it from the article? Thx. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Question-Nlebihan 14:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Hi, I don't understand why you deleted this picture. It's not a banner because the Cirpack trademark doesn't exist anymore. It was an historical picture of what cirpack was and the spirit of this start-up. I created this picture which is free for use now.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This logotype is not "text in a general typeface". —LX (talk, contribs) 10:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- too simple design. en:threshold of originality not met, imho.-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 10:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I disagree. Clearly an "artistic" work, and as such copyrighted. --Dodo 18:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete， copyvio--Shizhao 03:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted giggy (:O) 03:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Nice image, but out of scope, unused. GeorgHH • talk 17:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I like it. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I like it too, but to tell the truth - this is not really a good reason for keeping the image. --GeorgHH • talk 23:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- You can't imagine anyone ever using this? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not with the 2008 on it... + the filename is a bit "random" (but I know that's not a reason). -- Deadstar (msg) 09:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Nothing that can't be shooped. {{rename}} takes care of the latter. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- lol but how is it useful? I think GeorgHH just wants the name available so he could add to his collection like this one. :) - Rocket000 18:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- To obviate misapprehension: That I found this image when I worked on specialpages to look for images with inappropriate file names is not the reason for deletion. Reason for deletion is that I don't think it is useful, otherwise I had tagged it for renaming. --GeorgHH • talk 21:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, I was kidding. :) - Rocket000 04:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK ;) --GeorgHH • talk 22:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, I was kidding. :) - Rocket000 04:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- To obviate misapprehension: That I found this image when I worked on specialpages to look for images with inappropriate file names is not the reason for deletion. Reason for deletion is that I don't think it is useful, otherwise I had tagged it for renaming. --GeorgHH • talk 21:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- lol but how is it useful? I think GeorgHH just wants the name available so he could add to his collection like this one. :) - Rocket000 18:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- You can't imagine anyone ever using this? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, COM:SCOPE, not used, maybe a copyvio (only contribution on February 4, 2008) --Polarlys 11:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
might be a copyright infringement Petar Marjanovic 18:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
i asked the band whether it's ok to upload the photos. i'm sorry that i didn't add a license immediately! BastiOfBerlin 18:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Can you send an email to OTRS with permission as per COM:OTRS - unfortunately "the band said it was ok" is not enough. Specific info regarding licensing is needed. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- jep, i'm already working on it! --BastiOfBerlin 13:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. -Nard 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
... otrs request is pending, so why this "delete this picture"-comment? i've got the permission of sony bmg! --BastiOfBerlin 11:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Shizhao 14:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a US work, so PD-US cannot apply 88.65.78.22 13:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep and change the license tag: Find/create the tag that would best fit the image. - Vicer 02:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Easier said than done... it's an old Portuguese newspaper. Perhaps the same rationale as in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Jacinta Francisco Lucia Fatima.jpg can be applied? Patrícia msg 20:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept, per Patricia. Kameraad Pjotr 18:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
derivative work Polarlys 17:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Commons policy has generally been to allow coin images. Unless you are implying the coin itself is derivative of a copyrighted work. -Nard 22:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why is the coin itself not protected by copyright? --Polarlys 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what Commons policy that would be. The Commons policy I know is to only accept images in the public domain and copyrighted images under a free license. Whether coins are in the public domain varies depending on jurisdiction. We're missing an entry for Austria on Commons:Currency. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- What I've meant to say is, deletion debates on the subject generally close as no consensus, default to keep. When I said "policy" I should have meant trend. {{PD-AustrianGov}} does seem to say official works are not eligible for copyright protection. The coin also appears to be derivative of public domain photos of the subject. Keep -Nard 20:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- What I've meant to say is, deletion debates on the subject generally close as no consensus, default to keep. When I said "policy" I should have meant trend. {{PD-AustrianGov}} does seem to say official works are not eligible for copyright protection. The coin also appears to be derivative of public domain photos of the subject.
Kept. Tag changed to {{PD-AustrianGov}} MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Media from Category:Panty Line and others
[edit]- File:VPL_Visible_Panty_Line_2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Schwarze_Glanzradlerhose.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:VPL_Visible_Panty_Line_4.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:VPL_Visible_Panty_Line_3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:VPL_Visible_Panty_Line_1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Panty_Line_1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CSD_2006_Cologne_VPL1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CSD_2006_Cologne_VPL2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CSD_2006_Cologne_VPL3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Yaro03.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:3764-3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CSD_2006_Cologne_sexy_6.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CSD_2006_Cologne_sexy_7.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CSD_2006_Cologne_sexy_8.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CSD_2006_Cologne_sexy_9.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CSD_2006_Cologne_BDSM_02.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:59_903.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Cameltoe.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Ct_waikiki.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Cleavage_exp.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Cleavage.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:String_en_position_cambrée.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:G_-_String.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
All are privacy and personality rights to varying degrees, all media in Category:Panty line (with two exceptions) appears to be voyeuristic, clandestine photographs of unwilling participants. Other images from the Christopher Street Day parade also contains women in compromising or embarrassing situations, though I welcome community input on each of these. Other images from Category:Cameltoe are, again, compromising voyeuristic images of unsuspecting women. Last, an administrator should scrutinize the contributions of User:Vplgroup, as their uploads are suspect (name is acronym for Visible Panty Line). Thanks, Cumulus Clouds 20:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep split into smaller nominations if you wish to contest these files. Most of these have no identifiable subject and some have been on Commons since 2004. This mass nomination will never decide the issue. -Nard 21:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can understand the motivations of someone who thinks that visible-panties or visible panty-line images add nothing of real value to Wikimedia Commons -- but on the other hand, it's simply nonsense to claim "privacy and personality rights concerns" over images whose subjects are simply not identifiable from the image (as was the case with the recently deleted Image:CSD 2006 Cologne VPL4.jpg). If you're going to request that unidentifiable images be deleted, please give specific valid reasons for doing so, instead of retreating into nebulous claimed "privacy and personality rights" issues, which in fact do not exist for a number of these images. AnonMoos 23:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, Panty line is a gallery, not a category. Please explain to us how the subject of Image:VPL_Visible_Panty_Line_3.jpg could be identified on the basis of a 20-year-old photograph, or how the subject of Image:Ct waikiki.jpg could be identified from a fragment of a torso? AnonMoos 23:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all the ones which are recent, of people in public places and are of a voyeuristic character. We don't need that crap. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep At least all images from CSD*.jpg (Christopher Street day) and VPL*.jpg. They are all participants of a public political demonstration for more /sexual/political rights of gays and lesbianbs. They are not voyeuristics and they illustrate the demonstration and/or clothing styles. The VPL*.jpg images are really old and no faces are seen. Raymond Disc. 07:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed about 10 of the Christopher Street Day parade pictures for that reason, the ones left are pretty clearly used to portray the subject in a way that they may not necessarily feel comfortable with, being that the images may be freely used and reproduced all over the world. The VPL series are pretty obvious personality rights violations, since the subject probably didn't volunteer to be part of a free exposition on panty lines. The age of the pictures is irrelevant since the subjects are very likely alive and would still be offended if they saw themselves in a picture being used to illustrate panty lines. Cumulus Clouds 19:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I do not agree with you. Especially the people at the parade of Christopher Street Day know very well that they are participants of a public demonstration. Up to 1 million people come to Cologne every year. They choose a very sexy clothing style incl. her panties with the intention to show it public. The images are not offending and can be used freely to illustrate this styling and the CSD.
- The people on Image:Schwarze Glanzradlerhose.JPG, Image:59 903.jpg, Image:Cameltoe.JPG, Image:Ct waikiki.jpg, Image:Cleavage exp.jpg, Image:Cleavage.jpg, Image:String en position cambrée.jpg, Image:VPL Visible Panty Line 2.jpg, Image:VPL Visible Panty Line 4.jpg, Image:VPL Visible Panty Line 3.jpg, Image:VPL Visible Panty Line 1.jpg are not identifiable. Image:Panty Line 1.jpg could be cropped. Raymond Disc. 05:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with keeping the CSD ones. There's also a couple of others in there that shouldn't be deleted because they're obviously self-taken. But I still have issues with the VPL ones; even if there aren't any legal issues related to the identifiability of the person, do we really want a reputation for hosting lots of this sort of thing? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 15:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Keep: it cannot be seriously argued that images in which the subject's face is not visible are problematic due to personality rights. If some of these images are genuine personality rights problems, nominate them alone, rather than mass-nominating images apparently out of pique or prudishness. Eleland 08:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep These images do not have a problem.--Pirat 16:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Lewis Collard. Dorftrottel 13:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep a few of them, specifically: String en position cambrée.jpg, Cleavage.jpg, Cleavage exp.jpg, Ct waikiki.jpg, Cameltoe.JPG, 59 903.jpg - Those don't seem to be clandestine - nor do they even show faces. The rest you can Delete. --ShakataGaNai Talk 02:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Keep argument is flawed
- Keep Abusive mass DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Closed. Applying COM:PEOPLE to delete those where the subject is clearly identifiable, and the photo is either covert or embarrassingly-named on the grounds of unreasonable intrusion: as stated above, these subjects did not volunteer to be part of a free exposition on panty lines. Keeping the rest. One or two of the Cologne parade subjects are identifiable but are not problematic as the photos were taken in public, were not covert, and are neutrally-labelled. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
According to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-TR-Gov, this tag is for 70 years old works. Pahlavi wasn't even born until 1960 so this seems incorrect. Also, this seems to be from en:Image:WithShahRezaPahlavi.jpg which has some strange copyright tagging so say the least. --Ricky81682 (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- The copyright can be terminated earlier for national heritage works. The tagging at en.wiki is a convenience for the local wiki, ie the image is both PD in Turkey and its use in the US is fair use, which is important because the United States has no "rule of the shorter term" for works no longer in copyright in their home country (plus the user seems a bit confused about GFDL). The question is, is this image in fact Turkish national heritage? -Nard 13:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- If the image is copyrighted in the US, even if PD in Turkey, we cannot have it on Commons. Patrícia msg 20:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well if it's PD in home country, and first published before 1989 without compliance with US copyright laws, then it should be PD in the US as well. -Nard 20:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- True. But there's still the question if this is national heritage. There is no clear mention at the source that this is the case. Patrícia msg 09:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well if it's PD in home country, and first published before 1989 without compliance with US copyright laws, then it should be PD in the US as well. -Nard 20:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- If the image is copyrighted in the US, even if PD in Turkey, we cannot have it on Commons. Patrícia msg 20:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. It is not 70 years old and no "National Heritage" information. Plus En.wp copy seems to be making a play for fair use.ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Unlikely that the United States Congress are the copyrightowners of the Coat of arms of Micronesia. Lokal_Profil 23:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Micronesia was administered by the U.S. for a long time before becoming independent; maybe it was a reference to that. It is now claimed that this was self-drawn by a user on pl-wiki. This seems reasonable looking at the image, but can anyone see the original deleted image on pl-wiki to see what license or other info the original upload had? Carl Lindberg 15:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I asked Herr Kriss to have a look. Patrícia msg 09:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- It had only license tag - {{PD-Polishsymbol}}. Of course it's not Polish gov symbol ;) Herr Kriss (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I asked Herr Kriss to have a look. Patrícia msg 09:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. There is no clear cut answer here. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
February 18
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
its the most horrible pomegranate i have ever seen in my life, get a better picture of one!!! 66.65.30.2 10:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Frivolous deletion request. Not a valid or sufficient reason to delete. A speedy close of this discussion would be appropriate (IMHO!) --Tony Wills 11:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the picture. It provides a very detailed view of the fruit.
Preceeding unsigned comment added by 75.13.37.111
- Keep If he can make a better one, let's have that one too! No reason to delete a detailed and good image Vidarlo 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept-- Bryan (talk to me) 13:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
its the most horrible pomegranate i have ever seen in my life, get a better picture of one!!! 66.65.30.2 10:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Frivolous deletion request. Not a valid or sufficient reason to delete. A speedy close of this discussion would be appropriate (IMHO!) --Tony Wills 11:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the picture. It provides a very detailed view of the fruit.
Preceeding unsigned comment added by 75.13.37.111
- Keep If he can make a better one, let's have that one too! No reason to delete a detailed and good image Vidarlo 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept-- Bryan (talk to me) 13:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
IT DISCRIMINATES BETWEEN DIFFERENT RELIGIONS. aLL 3 REKIGION SYMBOLS SHOULD BE DRWAN ON THE SAME LEVEL, RATHER THAN PUTTING ONE SYMBOL AT A HIGHER LEVEL THAN OTHERS. 72.88.139.72 06:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not a reason for deletion. If you do not like it, make another version.---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 10:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't even know we allowed anonymous IP's to make deletion nominations...
- Keep There's no ascertainable evidence that this image was intentionally made to slight or insult any religion. The symbols are arranged in chronological order -- Judaism dates from the B.C. period, Christianity was founded in the 1st century A.D., and Islam dates from the 7th century A.D. AnonMoos 13:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per AnonMoos
Kept, don't be silly. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like a fake image to me. ALE! ¿…? 15:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry but it is not fake, I got it few years ago, if you do not know Denise Maerker then I don't care... just do not delet it. Tank you. --Argonaut 16:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- It seemm fake to me too. That sky and the pose is unreal and the shadows do not match an outdoor picture. ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 09:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Me too. Definitely a shoop. Which isn't by itself a reason for deletion, but makes you wonder what the original image was (and that neck is way too long). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Clearly a fake, and probably a copyvio of something else. giggy (:O) 01:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Cualquier mediano conocedor de Photoshop se da cuenta que esto es un FAKE mal producido, las nubes detrás, la manera en que las sombras caen sobre el rostro de Denise Maerker respecto a la posicion del cuerpo y la luz original de la imagen. This is a FAKE obviusly, Most to be DELETE MAS2 \****
- Delete This is obviously (and rather crudely) photoshopped, so delete. Lectonar 14:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 08:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Replace low resolution image with misspelling with higher resolution image without misspelling --23:31, 17 February 2008 User:CJLippert
- Delete Fixed request. Duplicate higher res image is Image:Kechewaishke.jpg. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 15:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author (Joan Brossa) not dead 70 years ago! And I don't think FOP can apply on this. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As far as I know, according to Spanish Law, statues & monuments in public places in Spain are not protected by copyright. That's the reason I charged this image to depict Joan Brossa's work. Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 11:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- <<(2) Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.>> [88] Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 11:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well I'm sorry I was unaware of that. Are you sure this is permanently located there? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen there for several years; I'd daresay yes, it will remain there for a long time. Farewells, Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 16:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well I'm sorry I was unaware of that. Are you sure this is permanently located there? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Looks pretty permanent to me, so this is okay as far as FoP issues go. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 15:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
godhra 59.95.223.72 15:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Unless there a non-obvious reason why we shouldn't. (I fail to see it) --Ogre 16:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Godhra? Rastrojo (D•ES) 13:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, whatever. I don't see any copyright or scope issues here. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright released to the public domain as long as the author is given clear mention whenever the picture is used. This statement is not compatible with GFDL or cc-by. One may request but not require to be notified 129.215.149.98 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Mention==Attribution. -Nard 17:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept as per N. Also, WTF is going on in that picture? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not ineligible for copyright. Uploader believes that because image is widely used without a credit, it's free - see Image talk:Men Kissing-758945.jpg. That argument may be okay for blogs, but not for archiving on Commons. dave pape 17:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete invalid license. -Nard 18:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I know that if something is in public domain it doesn't mean it's free. I meant that this image has being used for everybody and it has no author. I made contact with all websites I showed and nobody knows who's the author. So it means is PD-elegible.
Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 22:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Just because you don't know who the author is (or if it can't reasonably be found out) doesn't mean we can use it; copyright in anonymous works does not expire in most countries until 70 years after publication. This image is not 70 years old. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 15:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"16th August 2008"? Is this image from the future? -Nard 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion, just an error by the uploader. Take a look on the metadata! --Herbert Ortner 20:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Sorry, just a slip of the pen, this date in the future. Should have been 16th February 2008. I will try to change it immediately.--Piet.Wijker 21:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, no problems here. *smacks N* Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
resign from union 210.56.230.60 00:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Doesn't seem like a legitimate deletion request to me. Carl Lindberg 15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No reason to delete. - Rocket000 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
72 personal images created by user no longer on commons. I think some of those can be used to illustrate Tattoos / temporary tattoos / advertising, but most can be deleted as being out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ralf may have left the commons in a huff, but is this a reason to delete the images? As to "out of scope", I'm not so sure. These images document a public event. Lupo 08:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep in project scope. The majority of the images can be used to illustrate some articels. But the creator of the articel should decide which image he will use (not a commons sysop). If some images seem to be not suitable then request the deletion of that image, but not on every image in this category. --77.133.52.59 17:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept IP's comments are fair enough - I'll see if I feel the need to create a more specific request at some future point in time. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
permission was not obtained to use this image... uploader put up someone else's work and claimed it was covered by a Creative Common's license... the uploader seems to have a history of such abuse. --22:14, 17 February 2008 User:76.114.86.121
- Delete The flickr page given as the source clearly says "All rights reserved" --Ogre 16:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Um, I am the uploader and am probably one of the Commons' most prolific image uploaders as well as an admin on en.wiki. (I'm not sure where the user sees my "history of abuse", considering I don't think a single one of my images has been deleted here by someone else's request.) I used flickr mail to request that the uploader change the photo's licensing, and the uploader replied with a flickr mail statement saying it was cc-by licensed. (I find this technique is more effective than asking them to change the licensing on flickr, which people often forget to do and may be confusing to people unfamiliar with this process.) I forwarded the flickr mail to OTRS, so it should be fixed soon. This is what the OTRS pending tag is for. (Normally OTRS takes a few days to confirm.) If there are any questions, other users can contact the flickr user and he will confirm all this. Calliopejen 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I definitely don't see a "history of abuse" here. Keep up the good work. Also, Keep. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I definitely don't see a "history of abuse" here. Keep up the good work. Also,
- I didn't see the OTRS tag, sorry. In that case, I change my vote to keep --Ogre 09:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, permission now in OTRS. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work and FOP doesn't apply in France for that kind of things. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Seems to be from the Asterix Park near Paris. No FOP. --Simonxag 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it is. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
no FOP in Belgium (I guess that the recently uploaded picture has nothing to do with the previously deleted one, but it has to be deleted, anyway) Teofilo (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio - derevative work
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Redundant image with Image:Kosovo relations.png --Kelvinc 20:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- As the uploader, I support this deletion. The image was useful when I uploaded it, but recent modifications to Image:Kosovo relations.png mean that Image:Kosovo recognition.png should now be deleted. Pruneau 22:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Orlovic (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support, yep. —Nightstallion (?) 17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Are you requesting deletion because it's not up to date? If so, we could simply rename it to reflect the fact that it was accurate on a certain date (i.e. "Kosovo recognition (year here).png"). If not, I'm all for deletion. :) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- No: there's two different images trying to show the same thing, and people had been using and updating one or the other. Just want to unify and simplify things. Kelvinc 08:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted then. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unable to use image on a wikipedia page --16 February 2008 User:Rictusempra17 Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not a reason for deletion. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It's not always about you, Wikipedia! - Rocket000 06:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep She's notable, good picture, no reason to delete. --rimshottalk 15:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. —Dark (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Built less than 100 years old. Mexico grants FOP for Non-commercial purposes only. guerreritoboy 01:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Mexico's FOP is not non-commercial only. It cannot "affect normal commercialization of the work", which is quite different. If a photo is displayed in public, a photo of nothing but that photo is a problem (since the new photo can be used for the essentially same purpose as the original, which may affect the original's commercialization). Carl Lindberg 15:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
we dont have Categories for Genus less than 10 species in Category:Bromeliaceae --BotBln 18:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Who is the royal 'we' ? Looks like a bit of TOL enforcement of their way of doing things, this category was recently created and populated, now depopulated and nominated for deletion. The never ending edit war. --Tony Wills 10:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree completely with Tony Wills. "Less than 10 species", I don't see the logic of it. Eleven species is enough? Give me, please, one good reason! Maarten Sepp 08:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- After the installation of thousands of Genus categories by user:Quadell last year we should use it in the taxonomy navigations without limit. Orchi 18:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not sure this is in scope - for more (other language) examples of the same educational instruction, see (as yet non-existent) Category:Weeks -- Deadstar (msg) 12:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Seems like a useful thing...and it could very well be linked from a local Wikipedia. -Nard 23:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Could be useful for en:wikibooks:Wikijunior for example. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Kingdom of Loathing images
[edit]copvyio - all rights reserved by Asymmetric Publications. Creating a request anyway as these are stickfigures, and as such not sure if they can be copyrighted? On en: wiki, images are uploaded with a fair use rationale.
- Image:Accordion Thief-Male.gif
- Image:Disco Bandit-Female.gif
- Image:Disco Bandit-Male.gif
- Image:Pastamancer-Male.gif
- Image:Sauceror-Male.gif
- Image:Seal Clubber-Female.gif
- Image:Seal Clubber-Male.gif
- Image:Turtle Tamer-Female.gif
- Image:Turtle Tamer-Male.gif
-- -- Deadstar (msg) 12:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Yes, these are covered by copyright; the law does not discriminate on the basis of style. :) - JasonAQuest 14:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 12:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Some images from User:Sonsaz
[edit]- Image:Azuqueca de Henares. San Miguel's Church.jpg
- Image:Abedular de Somosierra.jpg
- Image:Ocejón desde Valverde.jpg
- Image:Busto de Mose Ben Sen Tob.JPG
Suspicious EXIF data, also used in at least one of the already deleted proven copyvios from the same user (Image:Campillo de Ranas.jpg and Image:Pico Ocejon desde Usanos 2006-06-03.JPG). This request is a follow-up from this complaint. I'm not trusting any photo uploads from user Sonsaz (talk • contribs). --Patrícia msg 16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per my comments in the linked discussion. Image:Ocejón desde Valverde.jpg was taken from this image (linked here, taken April 22, 2007). Lupo 08:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sonsaz has left me a message about this deletion request, claiming that he has given some images to other sites but agrees with the deletion if that is going to make things easier. I told him that without proper credits on the sites, it becomes a hard situation to evaluate. Patrícia msg 20:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note that Image:Ocejón desde Valverde.jpg is 564×397px, but the external version is 600×450px, i.e., larger... Lupo 13:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I translate to English my message for witch everybody understands it: All the images raised by me marked as possible violation of copyright I can assure that they are own. The problem is in which some I yielded them to other sites of Internet, reason why I understand could carry problems of rights before these sites. For the right operation of Wikipedia, I acceptance that is eliminated those that can generate this controversy, is to say, the images of Image:Abedular de Somosierra.jpg and Image:Ocejón desde Valverde.jpg, thus like that already they were eliminated. The image Image:Busto de Mose Ben Sen Tob.JPG I did not raise it any other site and is exclusive of Wikimedia Commons by which copyright cannot violate none. I request to them that this image maintains it and clears the warning of erasure, because does not violate any rule of Wikimedia Commons. In whatever to the first image, I usually modify the photographies for one better visualization. If they consider that he is incorrect, to also eliminate it, I will not be against it.--Sonsaz 18:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Qué cada dura... Roba las imágenes de Internet, viola su copyright, las modifica para que parezcan otras, truca las cabeceras EXIF para que parezcan hechas con una cámara digital y encima dice que es porque las cedió... ¿y cómo es que las que aparecen con copyright en Internet son de mayor tamaño con partes que no aparecen en las tuyas?
- I translate to English my message for witch everybody understands it: All the images raised by me marked as possible violation of copyright I can assure that they are own. The problem is in which some I yielded them to other sites of Internet, reason why I understand could carry problems of rights before these sites. For the right operation of Wikipedia, I acceptance that is eliminated those that can generate this controversy, is to say, the images of Image:Abedular de Somosierra.jpg and Image:Ocejón desde Valverde.jpg, thus like that already they were eliminated. The image Image:Busto de Mose Ben Sen Tob.JPG I did not raise it any other site and is exclusive of Wikimedia Commons by which copyright cannot violate none. I request to them that this image maintains it and clears the warning of erasure, because does not violate any rule of Wikimedia Commons. In whatever to the first image, I usually modify the photographies for one better visualization. If they consider that he is incorrect, to also eliminate it, I will not be against it.--Sonsaz 18:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note that Image:Ocejón desde Valverde.jpg is 564×397px, but the external version is 600×450px, i.e., larger... Lupo 13:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sonsaz has left me a message about this deletion request, claiming that he has given some images to other sites but agrees with the deletion if that is going to make things easier. I told him that without proper credits on the sites, it becomes a hard situation to evaluate. Patrícia msg 20:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 12:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no evidence this was published (or taken) before 1923 140.247.243.153 20:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 03:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Seems to be from the same sitting as Imperial War Museum catalogue number Q46094 and Q46095, the entries for which say they were taken in 1918 and the photographer is Harry Chase. Don't know if that helps. Gsl 2.0 06:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- This Harry Chase seems to be one of the strangely elusive kind. Somewhat fuller name is "Harry A. Chase", and apparently he died in 1927 or earlier.[91] The image appears to have been taken in 1919[92] in London.[93] Lupo 11:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you can confirm this is PD in the UK then I'll change to support. Durova 11:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can't confirm anything. The above is all I've found out about this Harry Chase. I don't even know when and where this studio portrait was first published, and I have no confirmation for the 1927 or earlier death date mentioned in that listserv message linked above. Someone check the ODNB, please? Even if it's a long shot... Lupo 11:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, the ODNB won't work. It appears that Chase was American.[94], [95], and several other online mentions. Lupo 11:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Might work if it was originally published in the UK? Durova 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep From the above evidence, it does seem that the photo was taken before 1923. And regardless, there is no current copyright holder, so there would be no one to claim ownership, right? It would simply be an "orphaned" photo... 68.10.32.199 09:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Copyrighted works are not commonly "orphaned"; for the duration of the copyright term someone gets the rights, whether through inheritance, liquidation, probate, etc. -JasonAQuest 14:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Might work if it was originally published in the UK? Durova 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, the ODNB won't work. It appears that Chase was American.[94], [95], and several other online mentions. Lupo 11:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can't confirm anything. The above is all I've found out about this Harry Chase. I don't even know when and where this studio portrait was first published, and I have no confirmation for the 1927 or earlier death date mentioned in that listserv message linked above. Someone check the ODNB, please? Even if it's a long shot... Lupo 11:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you can confirm this is PD in the UK then I'll change to support. Durova 11:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- This Harry Chase seems to be one of the strangely elusive kind. Somewhat fuller name is "Harry A. Chase", and apparently he died in 1927 or earlier.[91] The image appears to have been taken in 1919[92] in London.[93] Lupo 11:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is a section at the T.E. Lawrence Studies site about the 1919 Harry Chase portraits and says that they "were taken in London in 1919 and used to illustrate the lecture and [Lowell] Thomas's subsequent books." It indicates that a number of them were used in Thomas' With Lawrence in Arabia which was published in 1924 in the US (Garden City Publishing, Garden City, New York) but doesn't say anything about the image in question[96] being included. So the photo was taken in 1919 by an American (possibly died c.1927) and possibly first used publicly between 1919 and 1924. There is an entry for With Lawrence in Arabia in the copyright renewal records (searched for "Lowell Thomas") which has "ODAT: 26Sep24" (original date of registration) and "DREG: 23Nov51" (Effective date of registration from application). What does the latter mean? Are photographs used in the book covered by the same copyright renewal? Still no clearer to me on whether it is public domain or not. Gsl 2.0 03:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then to the best of our knowledge, this image was first published in 1924 in the United States and is therefore under copyright. At the present time I stand by my delete vote. A change to keep would require positive evidence of public domain status, not just speculative interpretations that the image might be free. Durova 03:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've got no argument with deleting this photo. Still speculating: from the telstudies.org thread mentioned above there is a post[97] that says "There are at least nineteen postwar Chase photos of Lawrence." and that "The first widespread print appearance of any of these postwar Lawrence photos was in Strand magazine of January 1920." so that would be a good avenue of enquiry. The post also says "Some of these [photos] remain unpublished." Presumably the particular Chase photos used in the Strand article would be PD. Some of Raymond Goslett's photos (eg., IWM Q59314A) might be usable instead seeing as he was a British staff officer so could possibly be {{PD-UKGov}}. Still speculating, of course. Gsl 2.0 04:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- In Britain the copyright on photos is 70 years. (It used to be 50 until a short while ago). I have just come across a reference to Chase, stating that he "died around 50 years before 1977," which makes his death in around 1927. [98] --79.68.186.171 15:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Then to the best of our knowledge, this image was first published in 1924 in the United States and is therefore under copyright. At the present time I stand by my delete vote. A change to keep would require positive evidence of public domain status, not just speculative interpretations that the image might be free. Durova 03:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence at all has been quoted showing when this was first published, and there is no known basis for the tag which claims prior to 1923. For all we know, the first publication may have been on this page in which case UK Publication Right still covers the image for 25 years from publication (the site appears to be based in the UK, as fees are quoted in pounds sterling). The image on this page seems a more promising replacement as publication details are given and this is old enough to be PD in the UK. If the original image is of particular importance I suggest that somebody should contact the Society for TE Lawrence Studies who may well know the provenence of the image that appears on their website. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
February 19
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong title (address is 38 not 36) Wikifrits 16:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 16:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, please use {{badname}} next time! :) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This iamge has no license, but it seems to be Gov' work. However, I do not know what license tag to use. Maybe someone can help to keep this image. ALE! ¿…? 08:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- ...of course it's official US-government work: 4 days after the capitulation in 1945 there did not exist any right for the defeated Germans to publish any newspaper by their own. it was the 12th Division (of Information), and responsible for 'reeducation' etc., who licensed this paper: Army Propaganda Work , so to say... this is also clearly written on top of the newspaper - please have a closer look at it - especially in the upper right corner! p.s.: same as Image:OMGUS.jpg --Ullipurwin 13:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- strong Keep It is a work of the US Army and because of that clearly puplic domain. I habe fixed the license tag and the deletion request could be removed by ALE!. --Jodo 18:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 20:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope. ALE! ¿…? 16:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. Durova 16:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 00:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contradictional license statements (self made and author unknown). ALE! ¿…? 08:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Dodo 13:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: no permission
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like a book cover to me. ALE! ¿…? 09:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete ...or a poster or something that the uploader probably does not own the rights to anyways. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wikipedia only permission. All rights reserved on Flickr, see: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasenz/248213937/sizes/o/ ALE! ¿…? 10:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nomination --Ogre 11:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- The photographer has clearly given his permission as stated below the picture. Taifarious1 06:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that he wrote "I would be glad to give my permissions for this photo to be a part of wikipedia article about Auckland". We need it to be usable outside it too. --Ogre 09:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted. --- <strong><span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:Black">Anonymous Dissident</span></strong><sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">Talk</span></sup> 06:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC) </div>
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No information on the author of the painting given, therefore the copyright status is impossible to define. ALE! ¿…? 10:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- That is the better version of the same old picture of Autor = художник А.Каменнобродский 19 th.century. PD-Old--Messina 20:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
author's name was given (художник А.Каменнобродский), it was very easy to find him in Wikipedia: w:pl:Alfred Kamienobrodzki, watercolor painter, died 1922
- RESTORED
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Flickr original contains restriction "+++No resale, no archive+++ " Not free enough for Commons -Nard 02:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wait. The WEF has uploaded a whole lot of images with that restriction and a CC-BY-SA license. Last time I contacted them about this, they just removed the "no resale, no archive" line. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Maria Bartiromo.jpg. I have written to them again and asked them to clarify this for all their images. Lupo 08:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. They removed the "+++No resale, no archive+++" line from the image description, but clarified the license to CC-BY-NC-SA. The "No resale, no archive" bit is still in the EXIF data. Lupo 08:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The WEF own the copyright. Their web site has a link to the flickr profile the image comes from and it's labelled "Highlighted photos on Flickr", proving that the profile is theirs. The tags on all their flickr photos (I assumed all, I only checked about 20) are Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 License (cc-by-sa-2.0), not cc-by-nc-sa. Their web site also says "Photos. Any published photos from the Forum's activities (summits or meetings) should mention the World Economic Forum". Swiss-image.ch (another site mentioned in the attribution of their photo's) mentions that the WEP are a partner. The EXIF data is set by the camera as it takes the photo. A logical assumption is that they've changed the license on their photos at a later date but just not updated the EXIF data, probably because you can't update the EXIF on flickr (I'm assuming) without deleting and re uploading all the photos. I think it's reasonable to assume that if the copyright holder says you can use the image on the flickr image page as well as in the flickr license tag, that "updated" copyright notice over rides the information in the EXIF. Ha! 15:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- In addition there is this comment mentioned by User:Gr1st on the Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Maria Bartiromo.jpg, take 2 page that says "I have changed the licensing on all our photos to Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons so you can use it on Wikipedia". The comment is written by the World Economic Forum flickr account, which is linked to from their web site. Ha! 19:16, 27 March 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)
- Keep : As it was already said upper in this discussion, I've received a confirmation for that relicensing under CC-BY-SA. And I do have forwarded that exchange to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Although it is such good news that it seems not to be possible, WEF have indeed licensed their pictures on Flickr under a free licence. Benjism89 19:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope. ALE! ¿…? 22:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Potentially it is in scope... -Nard 22:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. Nothing about this image says anything about Teaching or PNHS (whatever that might be), to me it's "girl in tracksuit by swimmingpool", and as such out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, and no sourceMichaelMaggs 16:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like a sacn to me. ALE! ¿…? 16:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously a scan, but looks self-made. All the street names are hand lettered, for instance. Durova 16:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Are Argentinian stamps under the GFDL terms? GeorgHH • talk 21:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- very doubtful, so Delete --ALE! ¿…? 10:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 09:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside commons scope; w:WP:SOAP applies here. Patstuart (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - You may not like the image, but that doesn't mean we should delete it. Nor should be delete it for expressing a point of view. What if someone wants an image to express that point of view on one of the projects? We are not an editorial team for everyone else. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Outside scope, not used anywhere Badseed talk 16:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploaded by checkuser confirmed sockpuppet (en:User:Hayastan) of indef banned User:Artaxiad VartanM 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like an old map, but no author and date of publication is given. ALE! ¿…? 10:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No author, date and permission.Trixt (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
No indication that this (PD-AR-Photo) image was first published more than 25 years ago. ALE! ¿…? 08:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. {{PD-AR-Photo}} is clear: "date and source of any publication prior to 20 year old must be indicated so anyone can check it." No such source has been provided for more than four months. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Author and exact date of photo not known. ALE! ¿…? 08:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep(if i can vote)I am the uploader of this photo, of the Castle of Guimarães, Guimarães, Portugal.
I uploaded it in good faith that it is in PD because:
1ºThe source that is a blog authored by António Amaro das Neves(see bottom of the page of the blog), president of the Sociedade Martins Sarmento, one of the most important cultural institutions in Guimarães, Portugal and author of a Book about the births outside the wedlock in the north of the concelho of Guimarães. resume about the book
2º The author of the Blog doesnt mention the author, so it must be unkown to him.
3º The blog states that the Postcard is around 1910 and that the author (acording to my interpretation) is unkown.
4º In this link (pop up), from Casa de Sarmento, Institution in which Sociedade Martins Sarmento participates, where it says data(date in portuguese) it says c.1910, or in english around 1910, and it doesnt mention the author, so this postcard is in PD since around 1980.
What i state in this points is acording to the true, however i can prove it only with links in portuguese. Tm 09:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, anonymous author, date of publication +70. Kameraad Pjotr 18:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright tag is definitivly wrongly used. But are Tonga stamps in the pD? ALE! ¿…? 09:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- This also applies to: Image:Tonga 1998 50s.jpg --ALE! ¿…? 10:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone seems not to like me. I upload a picture; it is directly questioned. Someone else uploads a picture of the same type and same license; it has been left alone already for along time (see the others from Category:Stamps of Tonga. Tauʻolunga 23:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted (and all the others in the category), unfree for commercial use according to the copyright law[99]. Kameraad Pjotr 18:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Not free enough for Commons, see: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorización_para_insertar_material_del_municipio_de_Guayaquil_con_Copyright ALE! ¿…? 10:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
mhhh... In the first email they agree to the use any material from their websites guayaquil.gov.ec/visitaguayaquil.com under the GFDL, mentioning them as the source. In the second email they put certain conditions which make them unusable here (correct use, no derivative works, no changing of logos, etc.). The third one is the email from the uploader to them. My guess is that they are talking about different sets of images? --Ogre 11:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- They talk about the same images. Following the history of that page, they first produced an authorization too restrictive, and after being contacted again, they accepted the GFDL, provided that the source is mentioned (M.I. Municipalidad de Guayaquil) and they are notified. I am not sure what they mean with that (let they know of every use the pictures could have?). -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 12:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- yes, I get it now. The newest on top, it confused me :-) About being notified everytime the image is used, I don't think this goes against any policy, we just would have to put a small note in the image page. About it being sensible or not... --Ogre 16:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Seems to be OK. But wiki based permission is not OK - so I will tag this with {{Npd}} ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The current permission is invalid: it is not a Brazilin civic symbol defined by law, it is the symbol of an organization. --Tonyjeff 18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why is the Brazilian Ministry of Exterior Affairs not a civic organization? -Nard 22:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is a international organization, it isn't copyrighted by law. [1] Anyway, I think's better we use the same license of Image:Mercosur flag.png, right? Guilherme Paula 23:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Outcome undecided. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
copyvio AVRS 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
19:51, 19 February 2008 PatríciaR (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Rockgaucho1.jpg" (Copyright violation: TV screenshot)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
copyvio AVRS 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
19:51, 19 February 2008 PatríciaR (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Rockgaucho1.jpg" (Copyright violation: TV screenshot)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
February 20
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate of Dyer D Lum.jpg Cast 01:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Duplicate, and in the future, you can use {{duplicate}} instead of taking it to RFD. Vipersnake151 02:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Rocket000 05:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Because there was no State flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The flag that is here depicted is the naval ensign of the Kingdom. Source: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/Flags/yu_shs~e.html Author of that page is a vexillologist, what R-41 clearly is not. If not deleted it should be uploaded under an another name like Naval Ensign of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.svg Thanks! --Imbris 01:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore colours are off, the flag should be blue-white-red with the same colours as Image:Flag_of_FR_Yugoslavia.svg. The same colours were used in the time of Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in the time of Kingdom of Yugoslavia, in the time of Socialist Yugoslavia and in the time of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (to which constituent member were only Montenegro and Serbia). Last state which used exactly the same colours was the State Union Serbia and Montenegro (consisting of the Republic of Montenegro and the Republic of Serbia). About the colours you can see also here [100] -- Imbris 01:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep then fix it (how long would this take? ten minutes?), and put a {{rename}} tag on it. DR != graphics lab. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I would rather have this abomination deleted -- Rainman 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Rather than spend ten minutes fixing it and putting a {{rename}} tag on it? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep DR != graphics lab. Do you delete Wikipedia articles just cause they may be incorrect? Please, we have enough work with copyvios. - Rocket000 05:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. And you know what pisses me off about this?
[you@plz you]$ time inkscape Flag_of_the_Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia_\(state\).svg
inkscape Flag_of_the_Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia_\(state\).svg 71.45s user 1.29s system 28% cpu 4:16.19 total
Repeat after me: DR is not Graphics Lab. DR is not Graphics Lab. 'DR is not the damned Graphics Lab' and we're definitely not here to put {{rename}} tags on things for you. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Higher res image Rongo-rongo script.jpg; nothing links here Kwamikagami 08:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry. I'm not here enough to remember all the templates. That's something that should be in the bot. Kwamikagami 07:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Originally tagged as a derivative work by Davepape. (User talk:Opponent#Image:Vagina Monologues ads at Evergreen State College by dreamsjung.jpg) I don't necessarily think so. It's a moot point.--Opponent 09:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative of copyrighted poster. -Nard 11:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please clarify the reasons. -- Opponent 15:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Opponent 15:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The poster (more precisely: the photo on the poster) is copyrighted and there's no permission of the copyright holder to release it under a free license. --Kam Solusar 15:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- The only purpose of the image is a reproduction of the poster. Unless some evidence is presented that the poster is licensed under CC-BY-SA-2.0, Delete. -- Infrogmation 17:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Clearly a derivative. The poster is what the photo is of. - Rocket000 06:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bad name. Avaible at Image:Flag of the President of Cuba.svg --escondites 17:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment as long as we wait to see which version is more correct since they are not the same. If we can't do that I'd rename as "variant". gren 00:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete for me the two images are identical. --ALE! ¿…? 10:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
tagged with {{bad name}} --ALE! ¿…? 10:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Problems with SVG file. uploaded PNG version Robert Szymacha 20:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted - next time, you can try {{speedy}} and such. Yuval Y § Chat § 21:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It was imported from Wikipedia and not really of any use here. It's pretty much redundant to Template:Category redirect and using it justs makes things messier. And it's ugly. --- Rocket000 22:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --MichaelMaggs 07:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Nominated for speedy deletion as a copyright violation by Electron with the following reason: "The main theme of photo is copyrighted logo. Picture used only on nationals wikis to ilustrate the logo of producent..., e.g. see here."
As the uploader, I disagree, so I'm converting it to a regular deletion discussion. Sweden has freedom of panorama and the sign is permanently mounted on top of a building in Gothenburg, Sweden. The logotype is text in a simple font and probably qualifies for {{PD-textlogo}}. I don't know if the same logotype has been used since the company was founded in 1841, but if it is, it should be {{PD-old}} as well. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete You haven't proveded any evidence (e.g an allowence from the producent) that you have rights to use the logo. The "free panorama law" dosn't allow to use photos with copyrighted logos. It can be small and only in the background. There is in the front and is the main theme and only purpose of this photo is to show this logo. The main use of this photos on wiki is to show haw Hasselblad logo looks like, too. Tranversing you own words: "Please confirm your assumptions with Hasselblad. (...) it is unlikely that they would condone violating (...) and approve a licence (...) without paying royalties. (...) As the uploader, it is your responsibility to provide verifiable evidence that the image is under a free licence. The evidence you have provided so far (...) has failed to convince (...) me (...)" that you have that rigts. Regards Electron 10:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- (For the benefit of other readers, the discussion Electron quotes out of context is Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Image:R2-KT_fan.jpg, where a Flickr uploader had claimed that Star Wars characters were {{cc-by}} licensed.)
- There is no need to request permission from the copyright holder for works in the public domain, because if there is no copyright, there is no copyright holder. As I've already explained, the logotype is {{PD-textlogo}} and probably {{PD-old}} and is displayed such that freedom of panorama applies.
- As for freedom of panorama, I think you're confusing that concept with de minimis. Lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt states that "konstverk får avbildas om de stadigvarande är placerade på eller vid allmän plats utomhus" (works may be depicted if they are permanently placed in or by a public place outdoors, chapter 2, §24). —LX (talk, contribs) 12:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- If I understend you properly it is alow there in Sweden to take a photo of e.g. a big logo of Sony which rooms for e.g 1/3 part of this photo (because e.g. it is permamently placed on a roof of a building) and after that pleced it in article about Sony and write under the photo: "It is logo of Sony"... Strange... I don't think it is true (of corse without Sony permision). I my opinion you can publish such photo only if the logo is taken accidentally, is small and is not the main theme of this photograth. We have similar law here in my country (Poland) and because of that we have no photos with copyrighted logos on Polish wiki... That paragraph of Sweden law is about art works not about logos of company. Of corse you can write the word "Sony" in a stright letter and it is OK. But you haven't provided any evidence that the shape of letters and sign in all on the photo are not reserved by Hasselblad. Regards Electron 14:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- As for freedom of panorama, I think you're confusing that concept with de minimis. Lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt states that "konstverk får avbildas om de stadigvarande är placerade på eller vid allmän plats utomhus" (works may be depicted if they are permanently placed in or by a public place outdoors, chapter 2, §24). —LX (talk, contribs) 12:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Again, you're confusing de minimis and freedom of panorama. The copyright law applies to all copyrightable works and does not make a distinction between works of art and other creative works. But then, I don't believe the logotype is copyrightable anyway.
- The test usually applied by Swedish courts to determine if a work meets the threshold of originality required for protection is whether it is likely that someone else might create a similar work independently. It doesn't seem very unlikely at all that someone would design a rather standard sans serif typeface where the distinguishing feature is that glyphs with strokes along the midline (A, B, E, F, H, R) have those strokes extended across the left stem or leg. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Swedish copyright law, article 24: "Buildings may be reproduced in pictorial form". The copyright law is available in English here (PDF). Thuresson 21:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- BTW: But it is not a builing on the photo but an instalation.
- We can of corse discuse if it is under or beyound "minimis". My point of view is produced above... Electron 09:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- That it's not de minimis (by my own standards anyway) is irrelevant. Buildings (and it is a permanent part of a building; the Hasselblad HQ) and other works permanently displayed in a public place are free to depict in full. De minimis is only relevant to works that are not permanently installed (such as an advertising poster) or not located in a public place (such as magazines in a home) or in jurisdictions that don't have proper freedom of panorama. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per LX. And it's simple text. PD-ineligible by itself. - Rocket000 06:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have made an afford and found Hasselblad www site: www.hasselblad.se. The logo of the company (on the top of the main page) is there very similar (the same shapes of letters and look in general and it can't be an accedent) to that shown on the photo. Of corse that letters are rather simple (I suppose because of this that in general Nordic people like rather a simlicity) but still it is easy recognizable. There is also the statemant: "© Copyright. All images on this site and their copyrights owned by the photographers. Images are not to be reprinted or reused without the express permission of the photographer who took them". So the logo is obviously copyrighted. BTW: I understand that the author have a sentiment to this photograph. It is very good and I like it very much and can only say some words with an congratulation. But it is not the case. The case is the we can't keep photos that brakes the copyright law (without a company permition). Regards ;) Electron 09:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't. It's a rather shoddy shot from afar in low light and with a flimsy tripod, and the result is blurry and doesn't really show the building itself. (I'd spent too much time setting up another shot and the light was fading fast.) I'll probably have another stab at it next time I'm in Gothenburg (which I don't have planned any time soon). I'm more concerned with your attempts to invalidate the principles of freedom of panorama and threshold of originality. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Still, I like the photo :). I say ones more: In my opinion the main purpose to take this photo was no the beaty of free panorama but to show a producent logo. The real problem is: If the administrator of commons is able to say for himselfe: "The hard law but the law. The law is for everybody, not only for others but for me too..." Regards :) Electron 11:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't. It's a rather shoddy shot from afar in low light and with a flimsy tripod, and the result is blurry and doesn't really show the building itself. (I'd spent too much time setting up another shot and the light was fading fast.) I'll probably have another stab at it next time I'm in Gothenburg (which I don't have planned any time soon). I'm more concerned with your attempts to invalidate the principles of freedom of panorama and threshold of originality. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I stated, the general principles are my main concern, and freedom of panorama does indeed apply to photos taken in Sweden regardless of whether it was taken by an administrator, other user or anyone else. It allows photos taken where the main purpose is to illustrate a copyrighted work permanently displayed in a public place. The inclusion of the works do not need to be de minimis, secondary or incidental. I really don't see what's so difficult to grasp about this. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK. If so that I have a good idea: Usually we have a problem to show logos of producents and company without braking copyrights. If you have there in Sweden such law it is a very good posibility to take as meny photos with permamently installed logos as you can make and place it on commons. Of course it would be very nice when logos be as much large as it is possible - the best will be a situation when a logos rooms all size of a photo... So if you have time and possibility you can help wikipedia, please. Regards :) Electron 13:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I stated, the general principles are my main concern, and freedom of panorama does indeed apply to photos taken in Sweden regardless of whether it was taken by an administrator, other user or anyone else. It allows photos taken where the main purpose is to illustrate a copyrighted work permanently displayed in a public place. The inclusion of the works do not need to be de minimis, secondary or incidental. I really don't see what's so difficult to grasp about this. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Even if we grant the premise that a neon sign on a building can be called a work of art, FOP in Sweden is fairly liberal on this count. There's no problem with this image at all. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Absurd misinformation from bot. This is a transwiki of an image I uploaded years ago to en:Wikipedia. I have cleaned up many such mangled image descriptions, but fear I cannot catch them all. I strongly deny the claim that I am the author of this photograph taken long before I was born. The 2002 date is most certainly not the date of the image (and if it were, it would not be PD-US as it is tagged). Images with obviously false information about source, description, author, etc should not be allowed, whether uploaded by individual or bot. Allowing such offensive nonsense to remain would be a smear against any attempt to make Wikimedia Commons a source where image descriptions can be trusted. --Infrogmation 03:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Question: Hmm.. do you know the correct info since you uploaded it originally? Maybe a source? I think the date (correct or not) refers to the photograph, not the original stereopticon card photo (whatever that is) - the photograph of the photograph, which may or may not be {{PD-art}}. - Rocket000 06:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I believe I had such information, but as en:User:Maxim has deleted the previous version on en:Wikipedia, it is not accessible. I have asked Maxim to restore the version on en; or perhaps you could ask Maxim about it yourself. -- Infrogmation 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment That bot is monstrously retarded in the way it handles source information and should be shot into the sun, or at least blocked until it gets its act together. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. Or at very least, all such mechanical transfers should have a notice that every single field in the information template may be wildly mistaken and should not be believed nor the image used until a human has verified and made any needed repairs. -- Infrogmation 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no proof that Adolfo Durán, the original author, has accepted GFDL. --Ecelan 21:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- This "flag" was proposed by Adolfo Durán in 1985 as a symbol for en:La Franja. The proposal was not accepted and the symbol remains, as far as I know, the design of a private person with the usual copyright. See Catalan article --Ecelan 16:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
"Prince George, Duke of Cambridge (1819 – 1904)". No source at english wiki, no information about author or date of creation/publishing. GeorgHH • talk 22:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Author must be dead, and if not the scanner is partly an author, this should not be a problem. Jon Torger (talk 14:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC).
- Delete per nom., no author or date of creation (but the source at en.wiki is en:Image:George 2nd Cambridge.png). The image need {{PD-Art}} (if applicable), not PD-old.--Trixt (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source => no proove of PD. Cecil (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Since when is the Berne Convention itself a reason for an image to fall into the public domain? -Nard 11:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- This may be PD in Cuba, see my newly-created {{PD-Cuba}} (and comment if I've made the template wrong!). Calliopejen 16:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you speak Spanish? The convention decided that an image is pd 25 years after it is first released—the preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.100.10 (talk • contribs)
- I am fluent in Spanish, thanks. International conventions are NEVER, by themselves, a reason for anything without an implementing national legislation or some other enforcement mechanism. -Nard 07:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
February 21
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Obvious copyvio of a professional image, here is the full image with copyright claim: [101] (both images are explicit) --74.138.218.152 18:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Dead link. Though I suspect it's a copyright violation anyway. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zscout370: Copyright violation: the source was lied about
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope. ALE! ¿…? 10:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope Durova 11:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete in use on a userpage on en, but I really don't like it. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep C'mon guys. Everyone's allowed a few personal photos for their userpage. - Rocket000 06:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep if it is used on a user page. But it was not in used when I made the nommination. --ALE! ¿…? 08:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of artwork by a living artist? (french wikipedia article) GeorgHH • talk 23:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is a merchandise figurine and was taken at my home --Richard Bartz 23:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Clearly a derivative work. --MichaelMaggs 07:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Speey deleted as derivative work. guillom 11:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No use since July 2006. User:Queryzo 00:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Same nomination was also added to :
- Image:Map malta.png
- Image:Map marsaxlokk malta.png
- Image:Map rabat gozo.png
- Image:Map rabat malta.png
- Image:Map sliema malta.png
- Image:Map valletta malta.png
- Keep Fixed request. Not a reason for deletion - might be used in the future. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Per Deadstar; no reason to delete these images. Arria Belli | parlami 13:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image of Star Wars costumes making a derivative work. Although the costumes are relatively small in the frame they are clearly the main subject of this photo, and are not incidental. Hence, delete. MichaelMaggs 07:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The photo was taken in Australia that has "free panorama law". That stormtroopers is not the main theme of this picture. The main theme is panorama of the big city. Stormtroopers are rather placed in the background of this photo.
- Besides: the picture was published under a free licence by a member of "501st Legion" belongs to "Official Star Wars Blog". Pay attencion to the word "OFFICIAL", please. If it is an OFFICIAL site it means that Lukas Film know about it and accepted what they do. Follow this: if there is no objection of Lukas Film and they published that photo under a free licence it means that have rigts to do this and Lucas Film acceped this licence indirectly. For example a one of parts of this blog is "The 501st Legion" They have such statement:
- "The 501st Legion is a worldwide Star Wars costuming organization comprised of and operated by Star Wars fans. While it is not sponsored by Lucasfilm Ltd., it is Lucasfilm's preferred Imperial costuming group. Star Wars, its characters, costumes, and all associated items are the intellectual property of Lucasfilm. ©2006 Lucasfilm Ltd. & ™ All rights reserved. Used under authorization".
- So if they published some photos under CC licence and it is "Used under authorization" it means that Lucas Films know about it, it has no objection and they have rights to do this. Regards :) Electron 10:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Just because Lucas authorizes this site generally doesn't mean they're giving up their IP rights to the characters. Freedom of panorama is inapplicable here, because it applies only to permanently installed works of art. Calliopejen 16:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The characters are centered within the shot and are obviously the subject of this photo. As an experiment, I cropped the pic to include them only, getting a 488 x 283 result, still a decently sized pic. --BrokenSphere 17:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 17:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This map is showing Leoncio Prado Province in Huanuco Department (see. identical map: Image:Location of the province Leoncio Prado in Huánuco.png). Lauricocha Province is situated in the south-west of the Department. Please check this online map of Huanuco Province: [103]. 19 February 2008 User:80.140.199.242 Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Uploaded correct version. --ErickAgain 18:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC).
- Comment I don't see the difference between the two versions of the map? ie it is still incorrect? -- Deadstar (msg) 09:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Checked again. Correct version present. Did you clear your browser cache? --ErickAgain --ErickAgain 17:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC).
Kept. Image corrected. Thank you, Eric. Arria Belli | parlami 17:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo is no longer needed. I uploaded photos of my cats to creat a userbox and this one was out. So I don't see any reason to keep it here, in the Commons where there are tons of cats photos, with more quality than this one. -- 21 February 2008 User:Trebaruna
- Keep You can never, ever have enough cat photos. Also, this is quite a good one. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. moar kittehs, moar! Arria Belli | parlami 17:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I requested the deletion for this image because the description of the image contained some errors. I uploaded the map with the right information here: Image:Rumânia văzută de Cezar Bolliac.jpg --Olahus 10:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete I thought myself that it should be 1853 or 1855, but the year was too faded to decide. Next time you should use {{bad name}} or {{duplicate}} templates for this kind of errors. --Alex:D 14:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{duplicate}} (or {{badname}} if own work/upload) for duplicate images. Arria Belli | parlami 17:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I uploaded this file for a Wikipedia article about a person. But it seems it doesn't set the criteria and may disturb others in this pic, please take the appropriate action. Ont 18:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image in use and in project scope. -Nard 04:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as N, but someone shoop that watermark out Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I really don't see the point of this. It looks like a personal rant against another Commons user. guillom 18:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Lets see what Alves says.... -- carol 23:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I say that you are loosing your time, and making us to loose ours, with trivial things. I really don't care if it is deleted or not. -- Alvesgaspar 00:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not much point to keeping this one, but as Alves says there are probably better things we could be using our time discussing ;-) --Tony Wills 08:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep It makes me laugh and a lot of time has passed since then and Alves still isn't so good about that message on the talk page. The screenshot is just here along with a lot of other images. Who said no ranting? -- carol 12:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Outside the scope of the project. Ben Aveling 23:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted Julo 17:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As above. This screenshot is absolutely pointless. It serves as an argument about so-called "vote count errors", but the talk page shows this comes from an error of judgment from the uploader of this screenshot. Besides, this images contributes to a hostile atmosphe as it feeds allegations of censorship. We really don't need such stuff on Commons. guillom 18:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Info: and Comment I agree one possibility is to delete the image. Another one is to modify the description on the image page such it reflects the actual sequence of events. Another angle on the story is that it can be seen as an example of the kinds of misunderstandings, which take place in a multilingual environment, where not all users are native speakers and users with differing "conspiracy" thresholds meet. When I reread the discussion now I smile at the tangential argumentation, and I find it rather amusing. Others may misunderstand it though and may find that it contributes to a hostile atmosphere based on what I see as a simple misunderstanding. -- Slaunger 18:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- From this point of view, I agree another solution is to edit the description. guillom 19:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I spent some time counting votes for this. It is very easy to make mistakes. The screenshot could have been about when I counted votes. -- carol 23:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Is there any point in this image? Someone made a counting error, BFD. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, delete images because of a point that we think is not valid? -- carol 06:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, I understand that a counting error was made. It's the importance of it that I don't see. Read the above as a "very, very weak delete". If you think it's worth keeping then Keep. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, I understand that a counting error was made. It's the importance of it that I don't see. Read the above as a "very, very weak delete". If you think it's worth keeping then
- Oh, delete images because of a point that we think is not valid? -- carol 06:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I think the deletion request comment "this images contributes to a hostile atmosphe as it feeds allegations of censorship" is the nearest thing to a 'hostile' component to the whole saga. To the contrary, I think the whole talk page shows that potentially inflammatory situations can be defused with a little good humour :-). And deleting 'allegations of censorship' is the best way to fuel a feeling of censorship, openness is the cure, not suppression :-). I don't see any advantage to Commons in deleting it. I'm not actually sure the image page needs editing, except adding a note 'to see the talk page for clarification'. This wasn't a simple counting 'error' it was a misinterpretation of the votes, and the talk page discussion helped to clarify the correct procedure. This is a wiki, keeping our history is part of the project, deleting this image and the discussion looses part of the QI project history, and a milestone in the induction of Carol into the Commons community :-) --Tony Wills 09:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Ack Tony. I prefer if a reference to the talk page is made from the image page. -- Slaunger 10:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment To be perfectly honest, I did not really look at the image and the description since the deletion request has been made; instead I started to remember once when I was counting votes that I ignored the fact that the time limit had lapsed so that the vote would go the way I thought it should. The problem with this memory is that I really don't want to dig it out of the archives and it is being mentioned here because I don't think that the miscount in this screenshot was intentional but the one that I am mentioning here and now was (and I was not the only person involved in that one).... Does anyone have enough concern that they might consider digging up dirt that actually exists? -- carol 12:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep if the description is fixed. Ben Aveling 23:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Done A note added to main page directing people to talk page for discussion of why count was actually correct. --Tony Wills 10:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Funny, but still a copy vio Samuell 23:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Photo of copyrighted material. Cowardly Lion 15:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong version, Rainer Z ... 15:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC) --19 February 2008 User:Rainer Zenz
- Comment Is there a right version? -- Deadstar (msg) 09:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Image:Gallium1 640x480.jpg. The higher resolution is not wanted by the photographer. Rainer Z ... 13:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Eh. Why would we keep a lower resolution version? Higher res is much more useful. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Image:Gallium1 640x480.jpg. The higher resolution is not wanted by the photographer. Rainer Z ... 13:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Because the photographer didn’t licence it. I’ve uploaded the highres-version illegally by accident. Rainer Z ... 01:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep delete the other one if you want. - Rocket000 06:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Rocket - delete the smaller one. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. giggy (:O) 10:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
First I thought: Who uploaded a black square? Then I saw, that is is supossingly showing the eclipse. However, I think that this image is not useful for our project here. ALE! ¿…? 10:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- The same goes for the other three images by this uploader showing the eclipse. --ALE! ¿…? 10:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not useful. - Rocket000 02:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, I uploaded a black square :D - Rocket000 02:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - if there are no other lunar eclipse photos it should be kept, although it could be cropped just a tiny bit. For those not familiar with sarcasm, it should be cropped a lot. SayCheeeeeese 04:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The Commons is not a place to upload blatant vacation or private pictures, they should be neutral images. - Gryffindor 22:56, August 12, 2007 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope Durova 11:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Leaning towards Keep, user has other uploads, and "uploading images of yourself and others in small quantity is allowed as long as they are useful for some Wikimedia project (for example, a Wikipedia article, a Wikinews report, a meta article, a user page)." Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- There are tons of better pictures with the mosque as main focus, and not a person, see Category:Exterior of Sultan Ahmed I Mosque. Gryffindor 11:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 14:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
photograph of copyrighted artwork Calliopejen 16:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I do not see why it is a problem for me to upload an image of what could very loosly be considered to be an artwork. Where does it end? Is a building considered to be an artwork too? Because the skull map has now been dismantled, I think that we should do everything we can to keep any free images of it. If the concern is that I had scanned this image from a copyrighted book, then I now state explicitly that I personally took the original photo. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 05:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Is the concern here that we are violating Pol Pot's right to make copies of the skull map? --151.203.202.131 17:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I have not seen any justification for deletion. In the absence of any reason to delete, the image should be kept. Samy Merchi 21:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Closed as kept per above. -- Infrogmation 20:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
wrongly kept at previous deletion nomination. this is clearly a copyrightable artwork. its having been dismantled also does not change that. 63.251.53.131 17:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Do I understand correctly that this was created in Cambodia during the Pol Pot regime? If so, do we have any information on relevent copyright laws for that time and place? Commons:Licensing seems not to have anything on Cambodia. -- Infrogmation 18:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know when it was made. In the last deletion discussion someone said it had been dismantled, but I'm not sure if that is correct. It was on display in the Tuol Sleng museum when I visited last June/July. I would guess that it was made after the fall of the Khmer Rouge, based on its apparent anti-Khmer Rouge message. 63.251.53.131 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- And I just made Template:PD-Cambodia. The current law at least protects works until 50 years after the author's death. 63.251.53.131 22:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- More info from [104]: Skull map was made in 1979. It was disassembled in 2002, but there is a large photographic reproduction of it that remains in the museum (must be what I'm remembering). 63.251.53.131 22:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Much more research: The 2003 copyright law of Cambodia is ambiguous as to whether it is retroactive, and I could not find any commentary one way or the other. I would presume that it is retroactive because the statutory language is broad, and to be on the safe side. This image, however, should be PD in the US, so moving it to en.wiki would be a good solution. The 2003 copyright law was Cambodia's first. (See this book for a statement that Cambodia did not have a copyright law as of 1997; other places online say that the 2003 one was the first.) Because this image was in the public domain in Cambodia as of January 1, 1996, and because it was not marked with a copyright notice, it is in the public domain in the United States.[105] 63.251.53.131 22:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- More info from [104]: Skull map was made in 1979. It was disassembled in 2002, but there is a large photographic reproduction of it that remains in the museum (must be what I'm remembering). 63.251.53.131 22:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- And I just made Template:PD-Cambodia. The current law at least protects works until 50 years after the author's death. 63.251.53.131 22:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know when it was made. In the last deletion discussion someone said it had been dismantled, but I'm not sure if that is correct. It was on display in the Tuol Sleng museum when I visited last June/July. I would guess that it was made after the fall of the Khmer Rouge, based on its apparent anti-Khmer Rouge message. 63.251.53.131 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept as 63.251.53.131. Yann (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
useless / without discription Kolossos 21:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment A red template link in the image description is mostly indication for an typing error by the uploader - it's easy to revise... --GeorgHH • talk 23:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I know, but the image quality is really bad. --Kolossos 00:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- ME GUSTARIA SABER QUE SE ENTIENDE POR BAJA CALIDAD,SI SE REFIEREN TECNICAMENTE EN CUANTO A RESOLUCION DE LAS FOTO O LA INTENCION DE LA MISMA,SI FUESE POR DESEENFOQUE LA INTENCION ES PREMEDITADA Y NO UNA DEFICIENCIA TECNICA PARA TENER EN CUENTA PARA EL BORRADO,DESDE QUE PUNTO SE JUSGAN LAS FOTOS Y CUALES SON LOS PARAMETROS A TENER EN CUENTA MANUEL22 —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Manuel22 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 27. Feb. 2008 --GeorgHH • talk 09:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Low quality, unused, uncategorized, uploader request. -- Infrogmation 20:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
absurd misinformation by bot. -- 20 February 2008 User:Infrogmation
- Keep fix it then Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- YOU fix it then. I've fixed hundreds, at least. Why the hell is this bot allowed to deluge Commons with misinformation about source and authorship ridiculous falsehoods? Repeated uploading of images with false information (by non bots at least) generally seems criteria for deletion of the images and warning if not blocking the uploader. -- Infrogmation 19:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 16:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Reuploaded without so much mangling of source etc. -- Infrogmation 22:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
désaccord sur la présence exigée depuis toujours par l'auteur de sa signature sous les images reproduites.
liens relatant le désaccord sur le bistrot de Commons Commons:Bistro#Mentions de l.27auteur : abusif .3F, sur les pages de l'auteur dans Commons, ici, [106] et sur les pages de l'auteur sur wikipedia, ici [107].
|subpage=Image:Saleen_Oreca_GT_FFSA_2007.jpg -- Picturit 19:56, February 20, 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Guessing at the french here: There is no problem with the license here. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
sorry, but I put this pictures with the others in a mass deletion request the 22/02/08 Picturit 14:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Mike.lifeguard: per Commons:Deletion_requests/all_images_ulpoaded_by_Picturit
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Remove: I, as the creator of this file thinks it is an unneeded and unused file, and since there are other better & versions of this file (for example Bandera de Andalucía.svg) than this file is obsolete and therefore should be deleted. Oren neu dag 10:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's in use on several projects, so evidently some people disagree about unneeded... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- thanks for the vote of confidence, but in comparison to Bandera de Andalucía.svg i think my image is unneeded. Oren neu dag 08:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that's for the projects to decide. I see different images, and even if it weren't in use I'd still suggest keeping it for that reason. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 09:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- thanks for the vote of confidence, but in comparison to Bandera de Andalucía.svg i think my image is unneeded. Oren neu dag 08:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Either because "it's used" or because "superseded images are not deleted". Your pick. - Rocket000 03:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, per Rocket000. Arria Belli | parlami 14:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Arnold Durig exhibition
[edit]Images of an exhibition, very likely not created by uploader. You can view all images nominated in Category:Arnold Durig:
- Image:2008.02.12.A.ArnoldDurigAusstellungSchruns.JPG
- Image:2008.02.12.B.ArnoldDurigAusstellungSchruns.JPG
- Image:2008.02.12.C.ArnoldDurigAusstellungSchruns.JPG
- Image:2008.02.12.D.ArnoldDurigAusstellungSchruns.JPG
- Image:2008.02.12.E.ArnoldDurigAusstellungSchruns.JPG
- Image:2008.02.12.F.ArnoldDurigAusstellungSchruns.JPG
- Image:2008.02.12.G.ArnoldDurigAusstellungSchruns.JPG
- Image:2008.02.12.H.ArnoldDurigAusstellungSchruns.JPG
- Image:2008.02.12.J.ArnoldDurigAusstellungSchruns.JPG
- Image:2008.02.12.K.ArnoldDurigAusstellungSchruns.JPG
-- Deadstar (msg) 10:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete all - copyrighted images. Calliopejen 16:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 18:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Extracted from the third album's graphic art - Uploader has no rights to release this. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 18:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of User:Shani870127
[edit]The images of this user was used for en:Wong_Yee_Leng, this article was speedy deleted, because it was like a personal diary. The images are also out of COM:SCOPE. So this images here can also be deleted. --Kolossos 19:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 14:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All images from User:EUA
[edit]- EUA (talk • contribs) is a sock puppet account of User:Ismeni, User:Daniel Duarte, etc, etc, abusing multiple accounts to upload the same copyvios. I know they're the same because it's always the same user introducing such images on pt.wikipedia. Now he resorted to do Flickr license laundrying and forge Flickerreviews. I have no reason to believe the leftover images are his. --Patrícia msg 21:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 14:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Some images from User:Sonsaz
[edit]- Image:Azuqueca de Henares. San Miguel's Church.jpg
- Image:Abedular de Somosierra.jpg
- Image:Ocejón desde Valverde.jpg
- Image:Busto de Mose Ben Sen Tob.JPG
Suspicious EXIF data, also used in at least one of the already deleted proven copyvios from the same user (Image:Campillo de Ranas.jpg and Image:Pico Ocejon desde Usanos 2006-06-03.JPG). This request is a follow-up from this complaint. I'm not trusting any photo uploads from user Sonsaz (talk • contribs). --Patrícia msg 16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per my comments in the linked discussion. Image:Ocejón desde Valverde.jpg was taken from this image (linked here, taken April 22, 2007). Lupo 08:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sonsaz has left me a message about this deletion request, claiming that he has given some images to other sites but agrees with the deletion if that is going to make things easier. I told him that without proper credits on the sites, it becomes a hard situation to evaluate. Patrícia msg 20:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note that Image:Ocejón desde Valverde.jpg is 564×397px, but the external version is 600×450px, i.e., larger... Lupo 13:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I translate to English my message for witch everybody understands it: All the images raised by me marked as possible violation of copyright I can assure that they are own. The problem is in which some I yielded them to other sites of Internet, reason why I understand could carry problems of rights before these sites. For the right operation of Wikipedia, I acceptance that is eliminated those that can generate this controversy, is to say, the images of Image:Abedular de Somosierra.jpg and Image:Ocejón desde Valverde.jpg, thus like that already they were eliminated. The image Image:Busto de Mose Ben Sen Tob.JPG I did not raise it any other site and is exclusive of Wikimedia Commons by which copyright cannot violate none. I request to them that this image maintains it and clears the warning of erasure, because does not violate any rule of Wikimedia Commons. In whatever to the first image, I usually modify the photographies for one better visualization. If they consider that he is incorrect, to also eliminate it, I will not be against it.--Sonsaz 18:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Qué cada dura... Roba las imágenes de Internet, viola su copyright, las modifica para que parezcan otras, truca las cabeceras EXIF para que parezcan hechas con una cámara digital y encima dice que es porque las cedió... ¿y cómo es que las que aparecen con copyright en Internet son de mayor tamaño con partes que no aparecen en las tuyas?
- I translate to English my message for witch everybody understands it: All the images raised by me marked as possible violation of copyright I can assure that they are own. The problem is in which some I yielded them to other sites of Internet, reason why I understand could carry problems of rights before these sites. For the right operation of Wikipedia, I acceptance that is eliminated those that can generate this controversy, is to say, the images of Image:Abedular de Somosierra.jpg and Image:Ocejón desde Valverde.jpg, thus like that already they were eliminated. The image Image:Busto de Mose Ben Sen Tob.JPG I did not raise it any other site and is exclusive of Wikimedia Commons by which copyright cannot violate none. I request to them that this image maintains it and clears the warning of erasure, because does not violate any rule of Wikimedia Commons. In whatever to the first image, I usually modify the photographies for one better visualization. If they consider that he is incorrect, to also eliminate it, I will not be against it.--Sonsaz 18:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note that Image:Ocejón desde Valverde.jpg is 564×397px, but the external version is 600×450px, i.e., larger... Lupo 13:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sonsaz has left me a message about this deletion request, claiming that he has given some images to other sites but agrees with the deletion if that is going to make things easier. I told him that without proper credits on the sites, it becomes a hard situation to evaluate. Patrícia msg 20:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 12:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
i don't see any CC indication on the source page (only a copyright notice) and the uploader does not appear to be the photographer Calliopejen 23:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 09:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence of CC-BY-SA; derivative work copied from a textbook 213.192.74.14 20:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Source seems to allow free reuse with attribution; retag as attribution required and keep -- Infrogmation 20:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. OECD doesn't allow free use and reproduction: The OECD is pleased to allow reproducing and copying of OECD material in journals, documents, books or electronic media, for personal, non-commercial, commercial, or for classroom use... free of charge and without written permission up to the following limits:...a. for any extract which does not exceed 400 words or for a maximum of 2 tables or graphs; [108] Badseed talk 16:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
speedying as nsd is wrong, imho. it needs discussion. abf /talk to me/ 12:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Same with Image:Magnus Gösta Mittag-Leffler.jpg and Image:Magnus Gösta Mittag-Leffler portrait.jpg. abf /talk to me/ 13:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Both were tagged by me as "no source" since they had no source at that time. Kubin still has no source: Delete unless one is provided. For Mittag-Leffler, 84.185.51.107 has meanwhile provided a source as Acta Mathematica, vol. 50, which would be 1927 (his obituary?). "Cover of one of his papers" is not a source. Keep Mittag-Leffler for the time being, but it'd be great if someone could find a pre-1923 publication of this photo. Lupo 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, but with Image:Magnus Gösta Mittag-Leffler.jpg kept. --O (谈 • висчвын) 22:30, 23 July 2008 (GMT)
Without author, PD-old is not assured.Code·is·poetry 18:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep User's user name indicates they are familial heir. The person is asserting that to the best of their knowledge their ancestor is dead. I'm willing to take that on good faith. -Nard 04:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- The uploader scanned the image from a book, I doubt that he has made some research. Moreover, I don’t understand why it is important if the ancestor is dead. Code·is·poetry 10:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Anonymous is 120 years. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Image of a sign that is most likely not free Samuell 23:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Chinese FOP. -Nard 04:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- The intent behind article 22, clause 10 in Chinese copyright law can't have been to stop pictures like this from being taken and used. If so, you can argue that no pictures of general street scenes can be used unless an accompanying caption lists the names of all the artists who have designed/created all the billboards, corporate logos and other items visible in the picture. Thomas Blomberg 09:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Name of the author is not provided as required by Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#China, People's Republic of. --EugeneZelenko 15:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- This work is anonymous! How many restaurants put the name of the person who made their sign on public display with the sign? -Nard 18:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- At least it could be work for hire, so restaurant name/address as copyrights owner should be provided. --EugeneZelenko 16:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- This work is anonymous! How many restaurants put the name of the person who made their sign on public display with the sign? -Nard 18:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Doesn't meet China FOP & almost in the category of faithful reproduction anyways. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
February 22
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
License does not apply to this photograph. -Nard 05:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete in lieu of any authorship information. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Eh, whatever. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is nearly unbelievable that this user has made an Image of Ratko Mladic in 2008. Moreover, there is a known serbian Photographer working under the name "Art-Zamur" as mentioned in the meta data. Looks like a copyvio.Code·is·poetry 15:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I would even speedy it. abf /talk to me/ 15:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work EugeneZelenko 16:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 19:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Come on, one you did not give me sufficent time to discuss, two it is not a copywrited work, three it was taken public property so it was well within my rights to take such a photo.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like a book cover or something like that. ALE! ¿…? 15:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well its from the brochure of the churches enaguration. The idea is to make sure all catholics in the area recognizes the church and attends it regularly. Also the church is blocked by a bridge right in the front of it, hence making it impossible to take a full frontal photo of it. I assume full responsibility for the photo. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.227.57.37 (talk • contribs)
- Sorry to say, but the image is a copyvio and I will delete it now. --ALE! ¿…? 08:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside project scope. -Nard 05:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep in use on a user page. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Used. - Rocket000 10:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. The orginal image is a 1980s postcard. You can find on the internet both higher resolution and different scans of the same image. Bogdan 13:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 19:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Rocket000 10:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I think the olympic rings can be used under restrictions, but the 2008 logo should be copyrighted I think. ALE! ¿…? 15:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete plain copyvio. --Dodo 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Rocket000 10:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate Eaaumi 00:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Of what? In future, please use {{duplicate|name of other file}} in these cases. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Found the dupe of this one, but not of the previous request. Arria Belli | parlami 18:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
image of unfree item Samuell 03:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I refuse to believe the back of someone's car somehow contradicts the four freedoms. -Nard 04:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep functional item. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Inaccurately made, uneeded personal deletion request. Yegoyan 23:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Made"? What do you mean? The image is in the public domain, and is used on Wikipedia, so why delete it? FunkMonk 16:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep there is no reason to delete this. -Nard 20:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Yegoyan's upload is no longer the current version. What's inaccurate about this? Should it be renamed or something? Rocket000 08:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, the file I uploaded was the same image as before but in better quality. FunkMonk 09:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have the correct version now, that one is wrong. --Yegoyan 16:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's nice. Do we? - Rocket000 15:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have the correct version now, that one is wrong. --Yegoyan 16:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Correct version", "wrong"? What do you mean? FunkMonk 17:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Seems like the version you're referring to is this one: Image:Coon-armenoid-armenians-04.jpg
And it seems like you've simply used the description and copyright tags of the image we're discussing now, which is the only one of the two pictures which is actually in the public domain[109] (other image was published in a book by Carleton Coon in the 60s[110], and is therefore not PD), therefore I request that the other image, not this one, gets deleted. FunkMonk 11:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Those images are nothing alike. I believe the nominator was referring to the description/name being inaccurate. If that's the case, please use {{rename}} and edit the description. There's nothing wrong with the image itself so no reason to delete. - Rocket000 03:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside project scope. -Nard 05:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep in use in a user page on pt.wikipedia Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I just wonder if those stone elements are really self-made. Big difference in quality makes me think that they aren't. Herr Kriss 02:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Per Herr Kriss. The user in question may indeed have created this image for that website, but then again, he may not, and there is no indication that the elements used are also under free licenses. If he has permission to use the image, he must write to permissions-commons
wikimedia.org. Arria Belli | parlami 14:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This and other photos showing this person are out of scope IMHO. ALE! ¿…? 08:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment She seems to be a Brazilian actress, not sure how famous she is though. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep She seems to have appeared in at least two TV shows (pt:Vila Maluca, pt:Jamais Te Esquecerei), which should make her notable enough. --rimshottalk 13:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I could not find the indicated licenses on the source webpage --Uwe W. 13:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'm, the author of this image (and the owner of aviation.ru) state hereby confirm any non-restrictive license for the image. In general, now I use CC:BY-SA, but almost any other would be ok. --jno 13:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. see here: http://www.aviation.ru/jno/ --jno 13:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- P.P.S. I'd not vote for anything - this is up to the community, but I state the image has no copyright issues. --jno 13:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. see here: http://www.aviation.ru/jno/ --jno 13:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio, Flickr attributes it to a blog. -Nard 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep It's the photographer own blog. And if you go to the blog, it will be redirected to that Flickr user.—Sdrtirs 19:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- You can find more information from the photographer through his page on Commons Sérgio Savarese and Portuguese Wikipedia Sérgio Savarese
. —Sdrtirs 01:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_britain_settlement_600_1923.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
._caffeeshop_in_diyarbakir.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_and_Martinus_Veltman_(right)_discussing_Physics_at_CERN.jpg){kind=link}
-2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_(1).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_on_Winnies2007.jpg){kind=link}
_(1).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](http://www.dinosaurus.net/pics/psittacosaurus_skull.gif){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
![[7]](http://www.sf.tv/webtool/data/pics/sportpano/ski_lara_gut_szq.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=9833304#Undelete_Image:No_Israel.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[15]](http://agente_zerozerorita.ilcannocchiale.it/mediamanager/sys.user/30662/vari%20post/Gnomo.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Blow_poster.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/7861/balaargentoyq4.jpg){kind=link}
_britain_settlement_600_1923.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_britain_settlement_600_1923.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_britain_settlement_600_1923.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
_britain_settlement_600_1923.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-3){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}
![[24]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:10_Para_Assault.jpg){kind=link}
._caffeeshop_in_diyarbakir.png){kind=link}
._caffeeshop_in_diyarbakir.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
._caffeeshop_in_diyarbakir.png){kind=link}
![[29]](http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pozitifpc.com/zuzu/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/nargile.jpg&imgrefurl=http://zuzu.pozitifpc.com/tag/hint&h=146&w=253&sz=22&hl=de&start=197&um=1&tbnid=4x5XnNdRUF0yjM:&tbnh=64&tbnw=111&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnargile%26start%3D180%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde%26sa%3DN){kind=link}
![[30]](http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.fottom.com/musteri/Istanbul_Goruntuleri/thumbs/thumbnail_kahvehane.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.fottom.com/fa/comahaltop.php%3Fsayfa_no%3D7%26comalad%3DIstanbul_Goruntuleri%26birsayfa%3D&h=97&w=150&sz=8&hl=de&start=221&um=1&tbnid=DfyOK1sNbki3kM:&tbnh=62&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3Distanbul%2Bkahvehane%26start%3D220%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde%26sa%3DN){kind=link}
![[31]](http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.gazeteistanbul.com/images/haberFoto/sokakta-nargile-i%C3%A7enler-k%C3%BC%C3%A7.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.gazeteistanbul.com/istRes.aspx&h=104&w=147&sz=8&hl=de&start=252&um=1&tbnid=A9CZw0UHkEtOXM:&tbnh=67&tbnw=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3Distanbul%2Bkahvehane%26start%3D240%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde%26sa%3DN){kind=link}
![[32]](http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sarimehmetli.com/istanbul/ist-10-kahvehane_redimensionner.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.sarimehmetli.com/article.php%3Fcat%3Distanbul&h=352&w=540&sz=104&hl=de&start=25&um=1&tbnid=v8zmmDsEZAYHVM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=132&prev=/images%3Fq%3Distanbul%2Bkahvehane%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde%26sa%3DN){kind=link}
![[33]](http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://hakankucuk.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/kahvehane.jpg&imgrefurl=http://hakankucuk.wordpress.com/2007/05/16/19-yy-istanbul-dan-esintilerayasofyabogazicibeyogluturkevlerieyup-sultan-gecidikagithanekizkulesirumeli-hisarisuleymaniye-uskudar-yeni-camii/&h=522&w=800&sz=81&hl=de&start=3&um=1&tbnid=UKZBXP0r06Y-dM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3Distanbul%2Bkahvehane%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde){kind=link}
._caffeeshop_in_diyarbakir.png){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}
![[38]](http://worldroots.com/brigitte/gifs28/mariaspain1745.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_and_Martinus_Veltman_(right)_discussing_Physics_at_CERN.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_and_Martinus_Veltman_(right)_discussing_Physics_at_CERN.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_com_a_capela_de_Nossa_Senhora_da_Piedade.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_2.jpg){kind=link}
-2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
-2.jpg){kind=link}
-2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
-2.jpg&diff=9811322&oldid=7713476){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){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[59]](http://www.ngw.nl/int/dld/images/preussen.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&action=edit&redlink=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}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[76]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Muhammad_at_Kaba.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=5523405){kind=link}
![[80]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Un-flag-square.png){kind=link}
![[81]](http://megaminas.globo.com/mgtv/estilo/img/apresentadores/ThalitaOliveira.jpg){kind=link}
![[84]](http://assets.xbox.com/ja-jp/press/data/sozai/xbox360/logo/logo_XboxLIVE/classicslogo_hr_bl.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){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}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[101]](http://i27.tinypic.com/m79ylh.jpg){kind=link}
![[103]](http://media.peru.info/mapas/huanuco.jpg){kind=link}
_on_Winnies2007.jpg){kind=link}
_on_Winnies2007.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_on_Winnies2007.jpg){kind=link}
_on_Winnies2007.jpg){kind=link}
_(1).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(1).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(1).jpg){kind=link}
_(1).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio, attributed on Flickr to a blog. -Nard 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep It's the photographer own blog. And if you go to the blog, it will be redirected to that Flickr user.—Sdrtirs 19:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- You can find more information from the photographer through his page on Commons Sérgio Savarese and Portuguese Wikipedia Sérgio Savarese . —Sdrtirs 01:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative, watermarked image. -Nard 19:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- keep - What do you mean by "derivative"? Ever heard of Freedom of Panorama? This church is in Germany, and FoP applies. And the frame and name stamp are ugly, but could be removed by the graphic guys easily. --h-stt !? 21:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing that can't be fixed. Derivative of what, exactly? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like a postcard scan. Maybe its just the ugly border and watermark. -Nard 23:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It doesn't look like postcard scan at all. It's just a photo that should be cropped. Herr Kriss 02:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like a postcard scan. Maybe its just the ugly border and watermark. -Nard 23:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate Eaaumi 00:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Of what? In future, please use {{duplicate|name of other file}} in these cases. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- duplicate of Image:George_W._Bush_toasts_Elizabeth_II_2007.jpg. Thanks --Eaaumi 11:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate of Image:George W. Bush toasts Elizabeth II 2007.jpg. --GeorgHH • talk 18:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Conflicting licenses. I doubt the FOP part, because it is not very likely that the text was on something permanently installed in a public place. I don't think it's ineligible because the (handwritten) text as well as the background show original authorship. rimshottalk 11:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry for renominating so quickly, but I think that the original concern (not PD-ineligible) still applies. How can we be sure that FOP applies? It's not like the image being somewhat ineligible and somewhat FOP makes it completely free. --rimshottalk 11:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep ineligible. Code·is·poetry 12:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Any reasoning? It's neither text in a general typeface nor simple geometric shapes. It's not plain handwriting either. --rimshottalk 12:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. FOP does not apply to 2D artwork such as this, even if it were to have been photographed in a public place. Shows sufficient creativity for copyright. MichaelMaggs 06:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image of t-shirt that is most likely not PD Samuell 00:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on the reason it is most likely not PD? Fg2 11:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- The artwork on the sweatshirt is most likely copyrighted, making this a derivative work. --dave pape 17:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work. —Dark (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photograph of a screen (hard to see but its there). Derivative work. -Nard 04:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Goodness me you're fast, N. Three minutes after I restore it after unblocking the uploader.. :P Anyway, this looks like it was taken live in concert, and I'm not sure photographing what amounts to a huge CCTV screen really counts as a copyright violation... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey hey hey, why is this photo going to be deleted??
Glitter1959Glitter1959
- The TV screen image may be copyrighted by a third party. -Nard 04:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I hope not. Screen shots at concerts aren't allowed?
What does the other administrators say about it?
Glitter1959 04:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959
- Don't panic. It's not just admins that get a say in this (since this is glorified CCTV I don't really think copyright should apply, but I'm not clear on any case law in this area). Also, please indent your comments with the appropriate number of asterisks (*) since that makes it easier to follow. :) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Because of the setting up of the video cameras etc. the Commons takes photos of concert screens as derivative works. There's actually no guarantee that this image isn't being recorded on videotape as well as displayed at the show and who do you think has copyright on that? --Simonxag 19:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I really hope the image doesn't get deleted because of what Nard said about it. Its a little silly, actually.
Glitter1959 22:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959
Deleted - Derivate work [111] -- Ra'ike T C 20:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Filmed person permission? EugeneZelenko 16:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image in use, privacy not really important, the dude is obviously posing for the photo. -Nard 18:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Did this dude gave permission to publish photo under free licenses? --EugeneZelenko 16:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- You mean photographer. - Rocket000 03:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, I mean subject. --EugeneZelenko 15:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- The copyright holder is the one who chooses the license, which is most likely the photographer in this case. The subject only has say over how his likeness is used - nothing to do with copyrights, which is what we're concerned with. (Personality rights are more like trademarks than copyrights). - Rocket000 04:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's really pathetic when we get into hairsplitting over whether a man has the right to decide where his face appears. The photographer is not making any money, and will not be at any loss if the picture is removed. Really, if the man in the photo has a problem with his picture being on here, don't get into a controversy over copyright, just take it down. Otherwise you're just being a stupid niggler.98.18.34.174 02:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- The copyright holder is the one who chooses the license, which is most likely the photographer in this case. The subject only has say over how his likeness is used - nothing to do with copyrights, which is what we're concerned with. (Personality rights are more like trademarks than copyrights). - Rocket000 04:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, I mean subject. --EugeneZelenko 15:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- You mean photographer. - Rocket000 03:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Did this dude gave permission to publish photo under free licenses? --EugeneZelenko 16:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Changed my mind. This image doesn't really fit on Commons. Out of scope Delete. -Nard 02:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - A
Deleted. Out of scope. MichaelMaggs 16:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unfree sign Samuell 03:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Aussie FOP. -Nard 04:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep *buys N an atlas...* FOP in the People's Republic of China. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure that this (and the other sign) is "on display in an outdoor public place" (the specific terms in the China FOP section) - the bit of floor, and use of flash, make me think not. --dave pape 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unfree text block Samuell 03:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Aussie FOP. -Nard 04:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep — In what way is this not covered by freedom of panorama? -- Sakurambo 21:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unfree sign Samuell 03:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Simple narrative text in a generic font, plus Canada has FOP. -Nard 04:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
{{subst:All images ulpoaded by Picturit}}
[edit]- File:Peugeot_LMS2007_8a.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Zytek_Barazi_LMS2007.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CorvetteC6_Alphand_LMS2007.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Pescarolo_LMS2007_16a.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Pescarolo_LMS2007_16b.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Saleen_Oreca_GT_FFSA_2007.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Porsche_IMSA_GT_FFSA_2007.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Formule_Renault_FFSA_2007_Dijon.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Toyota_Prost_Andros_2007.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kia_Dayraut_Andros_2007.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kia_Lanctuit_Andros_2007.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:BMW_Pailler_Knapick_Andros_2007.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Toyota_Andros_Panis_2007.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Pirelli_GT.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Michelin.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:ISSR_vimages.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The reason these should all be deleted is : Désaccord sur la présence exigée depuis toujours par l'auteur de sa signature sous les images reproduites.
liens relatant le désaccord sur le bistrot de Commons Commons:Bistro#Mentions de l.27auteur : abusif .3F, sur les pages de l'auteur dans Commons, ici, [112] et sur les pages de l'auteur sur wikipedia, ici [113].. Picturit 16:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe a few words in English please? What's the problem with those? --Herbert Ortner 19:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, excuse me. My english is very bad... I'm the author of this pictures, each time I have ulpoaded one of them, I have writed in the description and in the licence block that I want and ask the users to write under each use of the pictures(under the description) , my signature.. as you can see easely if you open one picture page. I's very important for me, give the pictures for free yes, but I want to see the signatures every time in all pages using this pictures. Until the last week, no problem, each picture in wikipedia pages have the signature writed, but this week, 2 or 3 WP members have decided to delete it. After some discuss (in french, sorry, but you can read them following the links before) we can't find any agreemement, often some others members are agree with me.. the only way for me is to delete my pictures from Commons..
Realy , my english is bad, you can correct it :o) .... thanks. Picturit 20:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Picturit talks about edits like this one. If the photographer's wishes for attribution aren't respected, I suggest that we delete the images. --Kjetil_r 15:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I should point out that these pictures are used in the way that the author requests on other Wikimedia projects. ([114], [115], [116], [117]) I believe deleting the pictures because other users have chosen to ignore this is not a good thing. I cannot read French so I do not know what the arguement is on the French Wikipedia, but if this practice is allowed, what is the rationale that some editors are using for not allowing the signature on the French Wikipedia? If the French Wikipedians want photos without signatures, there are some alternatives on Commons that work just as well on the articles in which Picturit's photos are used. The359 11:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
up please.. :o) —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Picturit (talk • contribs)
- Comment I don't quite understand this deletion request. Picturit requests to be credited. Both the English version of his request (e.g. here) and also the French version at User:Picturit/Credits-fr give examples of how to credit him. He is credited in this way in the normal place where we always credit photographers: on the image description pages.
- I know this is a contentious issue (where to credit photographers). Personally, I think if a photographer insists he be credited in article space, the photos should not be used. Delete Lupo 14:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thanks for your message. Picturit 16:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC) a little UP ? thnks. Picturit 22:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but what can I do now ? Picturit 17:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Lupo. Specifying how credit is given is an unacceptable infringement on the four freedoms. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Error in name -- 21 February 2008 User:GarciaGerry
- Delete Correctly named image at Image:Phenolphthalein3D.png. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Fenolftaleína..png
[edit]
I put the image in deletion because there was an error in the file name. You can delete the image. I uploaded a new one correctly named. --GarciaGerry 14:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please use {{bad name|new name.jpg}}. --ALE! ¿…? 15:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of User:Nidhal
[edit]This user use the false license {PD-Jordan} for images which are definetly not 50 years old or taken before 1979. The user write no discription, no source, no author. The image quality is so high that I believe we have it to do with copyright violation. --Kolossos 13:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --ALE! ¿…? 14:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 19:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- User blocked indefinitely. Arria Belli | parlami 19:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
(source and author http://www.freeones.com/ does not own the copyright, which is not GFDL anyway) moyogo 09:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Site does not own files it claims are cc-by-sa 2.5. Copyfraud. -Nard 18:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Permission of the author and of the persons seen here required Niteshift 07:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete from http://www.usedom-handball.de/index.php?article_id=21 there is no permisson under GFDL. --Vriullop 13:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. I cannot see any licence at the source. MichaelMaggs 06:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unfree product --22 February 2008 User:Samuell
- Pretty much all modern Engrish utterances are copyrighted by default...is this much different than taking a picture of a sign with Engrish on it? -- Beland 12:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 09:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo is copied from Benoit's Assembly site, which is not the US government. The work is copyright protected. This picture is an older picture that has been removed from his official website at http://republican.assembly.ca.gov/members/a64/index.aspx?page=home. But, it is still copyright infringement.
Deleted. Copyvio either ways, no pd-federal government Badseed talk 16:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unapprpriate, doesnt serve any purpose other than self display 77.180.79.12 12:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep May find a use. I don't think getting rid of images because they are "unapprpriate" or offensive is a good idea. --Simonxag 19:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Totally agree that "unapprpriate" or even "inappropriate" is a terrible reason to delete, but I really can't see any potential use here. Maybe, who knows, right? - Rocket000 10:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Commons is not censored. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
it has above note tony esopi 20:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep the note in it is intentional and part of the image's use. -Nard 23:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Pretty much an exact replica of the band's logo. Either not self made, or a derivative...either way we can't keep it. giggy (:O) 23:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment {{PD-textlogo}} or not? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would say it's borderline. But if it is, let's get the real logo. Delete this either way. - Rocket000 17:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that would qualify for PD-textlogo, personally. Plus the bit in the middle...so yeah, I'm with Rocket. giggy (:O) 23:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would say it's borderline. But if it is, let's get the real logo.
It have to be deleted, it's just a copy of a copyright logo. Bertrouf 06:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. {{pd-textlogo}} doesn't apply; this is copyrighted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work of a not permanently installed sculpture. No FOP applicable. ALE! ¿…? 15:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- The license is describe on the web site http://photos-libres.fr under licence CC-BY-SA : copyleft if the author is quoted. That not permanently installed scultpure has been shown during a public event, the web site photos-libres.fr think it is free. Don't we ? Are they wrong ? bertrouf
- Are they wrong?: I am not sure that's why I nominated the picture. --ALE! ¿…? 16:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom.--Trixt (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. —Angr 18:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Image has 5 contradictory license tags. -Nard 19:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Something went wrong there. Looks like the uplader just copied a talk page message with proposed licenses. We'll have to wait for the uploader to choose one. It looks as if PD is the intended license, though. --rimshottalk 14:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, I've just discovered the original image, which is licensed as PD (with author Richardfarbi). I don't know what the uploader intended with all those licenses, but the PD tag on the original image should be enough to make it PD here as well. --rimshottalk 14:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept and correct license added. —Angr 19:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
no indication this is pre-1923 Patstuart (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Insufficient source information (even at en-wiki, where it was originally uploaded) to verify the PD claim. —Angr 19:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No indication this is pre-1923 Patstuart (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. —Angr 19:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
no indication this is pre-1923 Patstuart (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. —Angr 19:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Outside project scope, bogus license. -Nard 19:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Educational and informative material which can be used on projects WayneRay 23:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
- Delete Can't see where this would be useful. Move to Wikisource if they'll take it. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, not used.Ahonc (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
licencing information incomplete and possibly spurious. --meco 23:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment We have permission (ID 2007032510013279) to all photos from skijumping.pl made by Tadeusz Mieczyński or Anna Szczepankiewicz. Anyways i can't find that photo on the site (i tried by Google Images), so i can't say to whom it's credited. Herr Kriss 02:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I know, that all pics fromt that site have permission and that it is OK to have them. But they all lack the OTRS template in the description. I think this should be included. --Jeses 22:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Source was too vague. I couldn't find image anywhere on site. We may have OTRS but we had no proof that image came from where it was claimed. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Outside project scope. -Nard 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- KEEP This is educational and can relate to various articles. It ws a good read WayneRay 18:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
- Delete after moving to Wikisource, if they'll take it. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Outside project scope. -Nard 19:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- KEEP This is an educational book and can be used on wiki projects and pages WayneRay 23:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
- Delete Move to Wikibooks as wiki markup if and only if this can be verified. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Outside project scope. -Nard 19:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- KEEP Molecular models are part of educational pages located on wikipedia and wikimedia, so vote to keep. WayneRay 23:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
- Delete I can't see where this would be useful on Wikimedia projects. Wikisource if they'll take it I guess. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of Scope ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Portrait of Micheál Ó Coileáin.jpg
February 23
[edit]
- Thank you Kgrr 11:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside project scope? -Nard 02:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and Image:01-1-.jpg. Both are likely copyvios too, given author's other contribs. Patstuart (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Appears to be copyvio from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=atomic+wedgie. Man vyi 10:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, (after request for speedy deletion), copyvio --Polarlys 21:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio: http://www.wireimage.com/SearchResults.aspx?igi=23318&s=Elias%20Koteas&sfld=C&vwmd=e — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. --GeorgHH • talk 21:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The user who uploaded it to English Wikipedia habitually violates copyright laws. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyfraud. -Nard 03:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The image you say to be a copyfraud was taken from here with a correct and compatible license which allows commercial use as well. Besides that, it is at least 70 years old and no author is alive to claim rights on such an historical propaganda. Give me one reason why the image should be deleted. I eagerly expect an answer. Thank you in advance. --Gustavo86 04:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC) P.S: Futhermore, it is to be used on an article on wikipedia.
- Just because no author has stepped forward does not make the image PD. Furthermore, Spanish law protects images like this for 90 years, not 70 years. The cc license is a copyfraud, no amount of handwaving at and pointing at Flickr will change this. -Nard 14:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree, this is too old and already openly used to be deleted. WayneRay 11:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
- This is not an anonymous work. In the bottom right, some photographer/artist is mentioned. Hence it's copyrighted until 70 years after the death of that author. So, who was he, and when did he die? Unless he can be identified and shown to have died before 1938: Delete Lupo 20:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The issue is that, besides Lupo's statements, Spanish law states 80 years (not 90) from author's death so that, unless it's a German poster and not a Spanish one (and German law states otherwise) it does not seem it can be kept (furthermore, there is no proper information about author and date so that there's no way to keep it) --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, copyvio, the original author is John Heartfield (Helmut Herzfeld), who died in 1968. His name is mentioned on the bottom. --Polarlys 12:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "self-made". -Nard 14:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - until more precise explanation or URL given. I found a very similar, but not same image from NASA, and it's quite likely theirs, or created with the same program. Patstuart (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
please delete itCharliehiggs7337 02:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dodo 10:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work. -Nard 23:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete derivative, probably copyrighted. Durova 00:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Dodo 10:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Rocket000 10:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source for sun icon. -Nard 00:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Sun is from Argentina flag, which is PD. I bet that this interpretation of sun symbol is from PD image Sol de Mayo-Bandera de Argentina.svg. Herr Kriss 02:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
OK Yes, sorry, i missed that. The Argentina Sun, it's the sun that the user "Her Kriss" says. Sorry!! Please don't quit the image, i will correct the copyright of the image --Sebado 19:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of copyrighted character. - Rocket000 15:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep The main theme of pictute is the end point of civilization (as the title is describing). "After this, nothing… The Black Rock Desert is devoid of visible plants and animals. Not even a rock." Besides the picture was taken in a public place, "copyrighted character"s were taken accicentally, are not the main theme of the pictures and it is a permament instalation ... Electron 10:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Electron. -- Infrogmation 03:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unknown subject, no description, no source, no usage, what is this? Tony Wills 19:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Useless so long as nobody can say what it is. --GeorgHH • talk 21:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted Julo 18:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unfree. Contains Microsoft watermark, page 2 says non-commercial use only. -Nard 03:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- See Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 10#Microsoft restrictions on archive.org DJVU files for relevant prior discussion. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep First, Microsoft has no copyrights on this. They teamed up with archive.org, sponsoring them with money and equipment to get the scanning done. (At least that's how it looks to me.) Part of that deal was apparently that they could include the "digitized by Microsoft" line. UToronto, the owner of that book, also does have no copyrights on it. It was printed by the University of Chicago Press in 1902, and is thus clearly {{PD-1923}}. Otherwise, we'd also have to delete other clearly PD items such as Image:Daily Official Program June 16 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition.djvu. Lupo 15:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. - Rocket000 04:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I by all means wish to assume good faith, but all the other Ashley Tisdale images uploaded by her have been unlicensed copyright violations. This is of good quality, and, short of a better explanation, it simply appears that the uploader placed a tag on the image at random. Patstuart (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No source. -Nard 14:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, as were all the user's other uploads (all copyvios), and user blocked. Arria Belli | parlami 15:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source listed is a private blog, author listed is a Wikipedian. No proof of licensing. -Nard 15:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This sculpture is the prize for winning a Goya award (Spanish Cinema Academy award). See [118] [119]Chabacano 20:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The author is not listed as a Wikipedian, he's listed as a Spanish rock musician! It's one of many highly confused uploads by Bradfield (talk • contribs). Lupo 14:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 15:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
flicker says all rights reserved --Motopark 16:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image was uploaded on 8. Mai 2007 but never flickr-reviewed, so we have no indication that it was under a free license at any time. --GeorgHH • talk 21:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Rocket000 16:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
flicker says all rights reserved --Motopark 16:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I request the deletion of this image because I've uploaded my own image: Image:Iittalan asema.JPG. --junafani 19:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image was uploaded on 8. Mai 2007 but never flickr-reviewed, so we have no indication that it was under a free license at any time. --GeorgHH • talk 21:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Rocket000 16:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
flicker says all rights reserved --Motopark 16:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is it possible to change license tags at flickr after the image has been uploaded to flickr? If the image (at flickr) was cc-by-2.5 licensed on 2007-05-08 (the day it was uploaded to Commons), I think it is OK to publish it on Commons even if the license tags at flickr have been changed afterwards. (But of course, if the image has always been "all rights reserved" then it must be deleted.) --Apalsola t • c 18:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Flickr allows to change the license. Normally on Commons we check flickr images, see Flickr review needed. But the listed files was not checked so we can't keep the files because we have no confirmation about a free license in the past. --GeorgHH • talk 22:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image was uploaded on 8. Mai 2007 but never flickr-reviewed, so we have no indication that it was under a free license at any time. --GeorgHH • talk 22:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Rocket000 16:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
flicker says all rights reserved --Motopark 17:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image was uploaded on 8. Mai 2007 but never flickr-reviewed, so we have no indication that it was under a free license at any time. --GeorgHH • talk 21:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Rocket000 16:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
flicker says all rights reserved --Motopark 17:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image was uploaded on 6. Mai 2007 but never flickr-reviewed, so we have no indication that it was under a free license at any time. --GeorgHH • talk 21:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Rocket000 16:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
flicker says all rights reserved --Motopark 17:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I request the deletion of this image because I've uploaded my own image: Image:Hyvinkään rautatieasema2.JPG. --junafani 19:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Your own image is different. --GeorgHH • talk 21:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image was uploaded on 6. Mai 2007 but never flickr-reviewed, so we have no indication that it was under a free license at any time. --GeorgHH • talk 21:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Rocket000 16:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
license is shurely wrong, but in my oppinion it could be kept as PD-Textlogo, but I would like to get comments about it first. abf /talk to me/ 20:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as pd-ineligible. -Nard 22:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. with {{PD-textlogo}}. - Rocket000 16:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of en:Image:XB1.png which was deleted for not having a copyright tag. Lokal_Profil 21:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 00:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete agreed Doodle-doo Ħ 15:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 15:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of en:Image:XB1.png which was deleted for not having a copyright tag. Lokal_Profil 21:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 00:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 16:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source, derivative work. -Nard 22:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 23:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 16:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside project scope. -Nard 22:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Copyvio? Durova 23:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 16:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ew. -Nard 03:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I see no problem with this image, but {{Personality rights}} should be added. --GeorgHH • talk 15:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment By "Ew" I hope you meant the image is not useful at all, may have personality rights issues, and is potentially out of our scope. :) - Rocket000 15:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - "Ew" is not a valid reason for deletion. // Liftarn
- Delete per my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Blow Job.jpg. Lupo 16:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, no model release (imagine some sort of revenge on Wikimedia Commons …), no age verification. --Polarlys 10:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ew. -Nard 03:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep What means "Ew"? I see no problem with this image, but {{Personality rights}} should be added. --GeorgHH • talk 15:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I really can't see where this would be useful. To illustrate blowjobs? That would be a pretty bad illustration. The subject really is the girl and unless she's notable or this is used on a user page, it really doesn't make sense to keep it. Also, it doesn't look like porn, but the penetration probably classifies it as such legally. - Rocket000 16:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - "Ew" is not a valid reason for deletion. // Liftarn
- Delete - I honestly think we should not be hosting such images without a very clear model release. That release should include at the very least proof that the model is not underage (scan of ID, with her signature), and that the model agrees with the publication of this image under the stated free license (again, scan of written permission, including her signature). And yes, the image does qualify as "explicit sexual content" in the U.S. Lupo 16:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, no model release (imagine some sort of revenge on Wikimedia Commons …), no age verification. --Polarlys 10:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ew. -Nard 03:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Ok, this time by "Ew" you meant "Ew", which is not a reason for deletion. Come on, N. - Rocket000 16:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Invalid deletion rationale. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, insufficient source, just as the insufficient source tag someone else added to it implies. -Nard 22:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Insufficient source? This was self-taken. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
kept, everything okay, work by Samir on en.wikipedia.org. --Polarlys 10:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside project scope. -Nard 14:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - similar stuff by this author has been copyvio, this almost certainly is too. Patstuart (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image:Wedgie.jpg is the one used, anyway. - Rocket000 00:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside project scope. -Nard 14:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. - Rocket000 15:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's used in a wiki article. --GeorgHH • talk 22:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also forgot to say, this is another version of an image by a user with many copyvios, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:01-1-.jpg. -Nard 22:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Low quality shot, probably copyvio'd. --Dodo 10:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, most likely copyvio, see one request above --Polarlys 11:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
flicker says all rights rederved --Motopark 14:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio.--miya 08:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Szczepan talk 01:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative combination of copyrighted works. The concentric circle element is found on Xbox packaging and identified as a copyrighted logo at [120]. The green "x" might be an original work, but is also derivative of an Xbox logo[121]. ˉanetode╦╩ 20:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. As far as I'm aware, neither concentric circles, nor green x's can be copyrighted. Xenocidic 13:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Licensing#Simple_design says "Commons accepts images of text in a general typeface and of simple geometric shapes, even if it happens to be a trademarked logo." I's say this applies here, so keep. --Ogre 16:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm confused here anetode, first you wanted us to change the "X" because it was the logo. We fixed that, we put in a regular "X", and again you have a problem. We have had the logo up for weeks now, and now you decide to put it up for deletion. Let me point out, that no one has had a problem with the logo, instead has complemented it. Anetode seems to be the only one that has a problem with the logo. --DJS24 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh by the way keep.--DJS24 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I removed my vote, I forgot DJS24 already voted. As you can see in our infos we are related, we both can't vote, so my vote doesn't count. Sorry for the mistake. BW21--Blackwatch21 18:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep! - The project has done everything asked by anetode from what I can see. They changed the logo when first asked and now anetode wants it deleted. As mentioned by DJS no one has had a problem with it, and it's been up for 3 weeks now. --Noah Baurer 21:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I removed my vote, I forgot DJS24 already voted. As you can see in our infos we are related, we both can't vote, so my vote doesn't count. Sorry for the mistake. BW21--Blackwatch21 18:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh by the way keep.--DJS24 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm confused here anetode, first you wanted us to change the "X" because it was the logo. We fixed that, we put in a regular "X", and again you have a problem. We have had the logo up for weeks now, and now you decide to put it up for deletion. Let me point out, that no one has had a problem with the logo, instead has complemented it. Anetode seems to be the only one that has a problem with the logo. --DJS24 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note I originally closed this, but I'm re-opening and re-listing it due to further concerns from Anetode (not that I agree with them). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- What further concerns were they? Xenocidic 21:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- That I closed the DR too early and that he didn't get the chance to comment (and that "the intricate arrangement of green concentric circles does not fall under the category of simple geometric shapes"). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree with re-opening this issue. This is just Anetode continuing to cause problems with a image thats not breaking any guildlines. Anetode has had several days to respond to the issue and has failed to do so. Anetode was editing the entire time is issue was opened. Even with it re-opened has failed to respond. Whatever issues Anetode has, I hope he addresses them quickly. --DJS24 02:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Collard for allowing me this chance to respond. I apologize for taking so long to comment on the issue, real-life obligations have kept me away for a bit and most of my time is spent at en.wiki. To DJS24, I have some experience in dealing with copyright violations at en.wiki. Intellectual property is a sensitive topic and believe me, even potential violations can have real-life legal consequences. Your accusation that I am causing some sort of problem is in bad faith. ˉanetode╦╩ 10:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree with re-opening this issue. This is just Anetode continuing to cause problems with a image thats not breaking any guildlines. Anetode has had several days to respond to the issue and has failed to do so. Anetode was editing the entire time is issue was opened. Even with it re-opened has failed to respond. Whatever issues Anetode has, I hope he addresses them quickly. --DJS24 02:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- That I closed the DR too early and that he didn't get the chance to comment (and that "the intricate arrangement of green concentric circles does not fall under the category of simple geometric shapes"). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Those circles were copyed 'n' pasted from the original logo. The design, random or not, is still a design that I can't say is ineligible. - Rocket000 04:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not going to vote because it would be a conflict of interest, but I just wanted to say that in my opinion, there is nothing in the current image that is copyrightable. You can't copyright a generic "X" or an assortment of circles with varying colors and centers. Thus, the image does not violate copyright laws. As to the "copy-paste", if you prefer, I can take the time to manually replicate the circles and add them to the geometric "x" shape. Personally, I think that is ridiculous because the result will be nearly identical to the current version, but if that what it takes, I will do it. Thingg 22:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, even if you did it by hand, it'll still be the same. I was just pointing out that it wasn't modified and that design I think is copyrightable. - Rocket000 05:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If you look at Commons:Copyright#Simple_design, you'll notice that while trademarks employing simple geometric shapes and common typefaces are not copyrighted, more complex designs, such as the copyrighted artistic works used in the compilation of this unauthorized derivative, do indeed fall under copyright. Microsoft asserts as much in their press materials, and the green arrangement of concentric circles does not fall under the category of simple geometric shapes. The interpretation that this image would fit under the guidelines template:PD-textlogo is, frankly, naive. Microsoft claims copyright to the design and no wiki contributor is in any position to challenge this assertion in the real world. If you'd like to create a free-license derivative work, you need permission from the copyright holder to do so. Thingg, this includes taking the time to replicate these circles, or any similar design, from scratch.
- I'd appreciate some input from editors who have a working knowledge of copyright and bear no vested interest in keeping this image for internal project use or alleging bad faith on my behalf. Thank you, ˉanetode╦╩ 10:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I can see, no one else feels the need to respond to this issue. Anetode's request to re-open this issue was granted and know two weeks later, I'm requesting that it be closed.--DJS24 17:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ahem* Would you like to actually address my claim that this is a derivative work and a violation of copyright? Deletion discussions at the Commons are guided by policy and intellectual property law, not by "keep votes" from single-purpose accounts. ˉanetode╦╩ 20:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- As I can see, no one else feels the need to respond to this issue. Anetode's request to re-open this issue was granted and know two weeks later, I'm requesting that it be closed.--DJS24 17:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted: This is a blatant violation of Microsoft copyrights. Significant elements of the image appear as packaging on xbox 360 products (example). Just because it's circles doesn't make it ineligible for copyright. There's significant design elements and creativity at work. --Durin 15:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not permanently installed, not covered by FOP. Derivative work. -Nard 14:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would need you to explain what you just said.--Father Goose 03:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- FOP means freedom of panorama, it allows to take photographs of objects permanently installed in public view (only in some countries). As this rat isn't permanently installed, it is not covered by freedom of panorama. As the photograph is a derivative work of the original work, namely, the rat, it cannot be freely licensed: it may have a suitable license on flickr, but it wasn't the flickr user's right to license it that way. --rimshottalk 09:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, this rat is past a utilitarian object and thus copyrightable, I think. --rimshottalk 09:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 16:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Cartoons
[edit]Per the same argument as in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Donaldduck-thespiritof43-2.jpg, I don't think any of the following images are actually in the public domain. While the copyrights on these movies may have expired, the copyright on the main characters certainly hasn't. Lupo 19:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: Relisting for further discussion. Need a lot more input on this. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- From Category:PD Cartoon - Superman: Image:Fleishersuperman.jpg, Image:Fleishersuperman-big.png, Image:Superman-billiondollarlimited1942.jpg, Image:Superman-fleischer.jpg, and Image:Superman1941.png. The PD claim is based at en:Superman_(1940s_cartoons)#Filmography on a statement here, but they say explicitly "The Superman character had already been introduced in comic books. Because the first appearance was still under copyright, the main characters remained the exclusive property of the rights-owners of those comic books." Hence we can't treat these stills from these movies as PD; uses of these images are subject to the copyrights and trademarks of the rights owners on "Superman".
- The same probably applies to Image:Japoteurs2.JPG - Gazebo 06:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- From Category:PD Cartoon - Bugs Bunny: Image:Bugs, hunter.JPG, Image:Falling hare bugs.jpg, Image:Falling hare.jpg, Image:Falling hare2.jpg, and Image:Fresh Hare.JPG. Warner Bros. holds the copyright on the Bugs Bunny character. (See e.g. [122].)
- From Category:PD Cartoon - Mighty Mouse: Image:Mightymouse-wolfwolf1945.jpg, Image:Superraton.jpg, and the category itself because it contains only these two files. Copyrighted character, see en:Mighty Mouse#Revivals.
- The whole Category:PD Cartoon - Popeye (all files), and the page Popeye. Character copyright is with King Features Syndicate/
Fleischer Studios.
- Image:Betty Boop.jpg and also Image:Bettyboop-poorcinderella1934.jpg. Character copyright is with King Features Syndicate/Fleischer Studios.
- Image:Daffyduck-daffythecommando1943-2.jpg. Character copyright Warner Bros.[123]
- From Category:Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film): Image:Snow white 1937 trailer screenshot (1).jpg, Image:Snow white 1937 trailer screenshot (2).jpg, Image:Snow white 1937 trailer screenshot (3).jpg, Image:Snow white 1937 trailer screenshot (4).jpg, Image:Snow white 1937 trailer screenshot (5).jpg, Image:Snow white 1937 trailer screenshot (6).jpg, Image:Snow white 1937 trailer screenshot (7).jpg, Image:Snow white 1937 trailer screenshot (8).jpg, Image:Walt Disney Snow white 1937 trailer screenshot (12).jpg, and Image:Walt Disney Snow white 1937 trailer screenshot (13).jpg. Character copyright would be Disney's.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Image:Woodywoodpecker-pantrypanic1941.jpg. Character copyright
Warner Bros.Walter Lantz Productions/Universal
Delete After reading the original discussion, it seems that they'll have to go :-( --Simonxag 00:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Sorry, the argument doesn't make sense. If the entire cartoon is in public domain, then the individual frames are too. 192.208.44.100 03:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree it's a bit schizophrenic. With normal films I guess you'd be right, but with cartoons, I think you also have to consider the copyright on the character itself. I don't think one can take stills and claim they were PD—there's a whole bunch of things one cannot do with them, but that one could do with truly PD works. Imagine using Bugs Bunny (for instance, from Image:Falling hare bugs.jpg) in an advertisement without having gotten a license from Warner Bros.... To me, taking a still and publishing that transfers the image to a new medium (still photography instead of movie), and I think the quote given at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Donaldduck-thespiritof43-2.jpg shows that this is problematic. I think we should have very clear evidence that the characters themselves are out of copyright, too, if we want to claim these images were PD. Lupo 08:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- So it really comes down to whether the character "likeness" can be used in non-commercial ways or not, i'm sure there's a clear definition of it somewhere, we shouldn't be guessing here. --66.158.232.118 05:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep "[Personality rights are] the right[s] to charge for (or bar entirely) the commercial exploitation of name, likeness, voice or "personality."" (see Personality Rights) Using these images in a non-commercial manner is 100% legal. --66.158.232.118 19:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Personality rights are, AFAIK, tied to real persons. We're talking about cartoon characters here, they don't have personality rights. Besides, non-commercial-only is not free. Lupo 19:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Assuming the cartoon is, in fact, public domain, we need something more than just your personal opinion that the individual frames are not, somehow, also in the public domain. 192.6.178.101 13:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- See the quote given at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Donaldduck-thespiritof43-2.jpg. We also need a bit more than speculations that they were in the public domain. The character copyright is not PD. Lupo 14:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Assuming the cartoon is, in fact, public domain, we need something more than just your personal opinion that the individual frames are not, somehow, also in the public domain. 192.6.178.101 13:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Personality rights are, AFAIK, tied to real persons. We're talking about cartoon characters here, they don't have personality rights. Besides, non-commercial-only is not free. Lupo 19:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Since this images are useful for the articles.—the preceding unsigned comment was added by David Pro (talk • contribs)
- That is not a useful argument in a deletion discussion. Most of the images on the front page of latimes.com would be useful for Wikipedia or Wikinews articles, but for some reason, we not upload them to the Wikimedia Commons. --Kjetil r 10:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Every person, every logo, every caracters have rights. You can't use my photo for comercial porpuses, you can't use a photo of an American Airlines jet for comercial porpouses. But the images are still in public domain. If the movies are in public domain, his parts are too. Rossicev 14:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- It seems it was a mistake to give an example that involved commercial usage. That was just an example. The point is that the character is still copyrighted. This means you also cannot freely do a derivative work of these stills. Consider (again, as an example) creating a derivative work of Image:Falling hare bugs.jpg by cutting out Bugs from the image. As a derivative of a copyrighted character, this cut-out would not be free! Publishing it would be subject to the consent of the copyright owner on Bugs Bunny, i.e., of Warner Bros. Sorry guys, but these are just not free unless the character copyright also has expired. It's similar to the situation with music: a particular recording may have entered the public domain, and you can thus play it freely anywhere without paying royalties. But unless the underlying score is also PD, you'll need a license for a performance of the musical work. (Note that I said "similar". It's an analogy. I am well aware of the differences between movies and audio recordings. I'm just trying to explain where the problem is.) Lupo 15:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Honestly, I don't know, but this isn't something that should be decided though consensus. Either it's legally fine to have these images or it's not. Personally, I'm not sure all the characters are copyrighted, because wouldn't their copyright have expired when the movies did, since they were copyrighted at the same time? You can't continuously renew copyrights. (However, they may be protected by trademark, which lasts as long as it's being used. I know most of the Disney characters are.) Rocket000 21:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- On second thought, if we don't receive any legal counsel and do have to decide for ourselves, maybe it would be best to delete them. I was just thinking about a recent situation involving superman. Rocket000 21:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- CommentWould it be fare if the images are to be replaced with short animated gifs from those PD cartoons? --Alex:D 00:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- It would be the same situation. The images (or movies) themselves are Public Domain, however, outside of copyright, there may be other issues which prevent them from being used in any way. Rocket000 18:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Using the example: Image:Americanairlines.arp.750pix.jpg. If you cut the AA logo and create derivative works, you are violating the copyright. The image is in public domain, but the logo don't. Will we delete all images with copyrighted components? Rossicev 13:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Now you start mixing copyrights and trademarks. That's not the primary point with these cartoons. Lupo 14:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, some cartoon characters are trademarked too, but that's a seperate issue. In this case, it's not necessarily how you use the works that would be a violation (which would pertain to TM), but simply the distribution of them. They may not be copyrighted, but other copyrights can prevent their free use. Rocket000 18:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, leaving the trademarks... the image Image:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg. Cut off Pikachu, make some adjustments in photoshop and... You can't use it. The image above is an example, other photos can take images from other parts, maybe with a "clean" image of the characters. Rossicev 12:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I would say "keep", for the reason that the orginal frames are PD as well, and because of Rossicev's comment: in EVERY PD-image you can find SOMETHING which is, under SOME law, under copyright. Herodotus 17:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment We could add a comment (maybe in the form of a template), with a warning that the character is still under copyright- which makes derivative works and commercial use problematic.
Herodotus 17:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Based upon hundreds of observed samples of commercial works (public domain videos seen over the last two decades), still images from the public domain film in question, and even derivative images, are allowed when used in reference to the work itself. I've never really heard anything about studios coming after public domain video makers who use stills or derivative drawings based directly upon images in the public domain cartoons they are selling, even when said images are of recognizable characters still owned by large corporations (Elmer Fudd, Superman, Popeye, etc.). In addition, I have never seen a single one of these items credit the original copyright holders or even the holders of the current copyrights or trademarks. As I understand it, you have to copyright each and every distinct usage of a character; if a particular usage falls into the public domain, then that particular item can be used for a number of uses, so long as you are not using the likeness of a trademarked character in a new derivative work which has nothing directly to do with promoting or exhibiting the public domain film in question (because a new derivative work featuring, say, Bugs Bunny, based upon Falling Hare could easily be found to be derivative of another Bugs Bunny cartoon because they all use the same character design. Therefore, you could appear to be infringing Warners' copyright on any number of the other hundreds of Bugs Bunny cartoons. The only context you would be able to use an image of Falling Hare with Bugs' name and likeness without express permission would be some sort of educational/informational project specifically relating to that film or the film series. But that's what we do here). Someone should try and contact an entertainment lawyer before hastily deleting all of these public-domain images, but I really don't think there's an issue here, especially since this is not-for-profit educational use.
I found this link to a copyright advice website:
- c. Literary Characters. To the extent a literary character becomes associated with a particular producer or source, it can be protected under trademark and unfair competition laws -- even if the character is no longer protected by copyright. For example, "Popeye," who made his first appearance in 1929 in a weekly cartoon strip called "The Thimble Theatre," will slip unconscious into the public domain on January 1, 2024. The fact the original "Popeye" character will fall into the public domain, does not preclude King Features from claiming trademark rights in the character, or protecting later strips or non-trivial changes to the original character. However, it is debatable whether they could stop you from copying the public domain strips if you carefully alerted purchasers that you were not doing it with the authority of King Features, and it was a faithful reproduction.
...and this link from an online book:
- "Trademark infringement can only occur when someone's trademark is used without permission as a trademark to help consumers identify the source of goods or services. This can only occur in a commercial context - that is, where a trademark is used in advertising or on a product or merchandise.
Informational or 'editorial' uses of trademarks are always permitted - especially where they are the only way to refer to or discuss a particular product or service. Uses such as these inform, educate, or express opinions or ideas protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and of the press. For example, permission is not required to use the Chevrolet logo in an article describing Chevrolet trucks, even if the article is critical of the company. Similarly, permission is not needed if a Coca-Cola sign appears in a news report or documentary film."
I'm pretty sure that any Wikimedia uses of these works is perfectly fine (as someone suggested above, we may need a tag which prevents people from using some of these to create derivative, non-informational commerical works). --FuriousFreddy99 04:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- That´s nonsense, Freddy. The content of Wikipedia has to be completely free, also for commercial use and not only for educational use. What you mean is fair use, but fair use isn´t allowed in Commons. And don´t mix "copyright law" up with "trademark law". These are completely different laws. Chaddy 02:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- @Herodotus: That also applys to you. "A comment with a warning that the character is still under copyright- which makes derivative works and commercial use problematic" is also fair use and incompatible with pillar no. 3. By the way: Delete because these images are a copyright violation. Chaddy 02:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment About the remark on the Snow White stills: Character copyright would be Disney's.
This is untrue. The characters of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs are public domain, since they are much older than the Disney adaption (like the Grimm-adaptions). I think the debate on the Snow White -stills is another one than on the Fleischer/WB-cartoons. The Snow White-stills feature public domain-characters, they are from a public domain-trailer, but the original work is still under copyright. The Betty Boop, Popeye etc.-stills are from public domain-works, only the characters are trademarked. I propose a separation of these debates. Herodotus 00:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment From what is said in the Wikipedia content guidelines on the public domain with regard to animated movies (cartoons) , a movie cannot be treated as being in the public domain if it contains cartoon characters that are copyrighted. It is very possible that the images constitute copyright infringement (and possibly also trademark infringement.) -- Gazebo 03:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This seems to be a contentious issue since the cartoons from which the images are taken from are in the public domain. I actually question the public domain status of the cartoons themselves. I think the copyright holders of the characters in these cartoons could enforce their copyright on these works if they wanted to and they would have a decent case. Although the cartoons have clerically lapsed into the public domain, it remains that they're derivative work of characters that are still under copyright.
- Legal challenges were made about the film It's a Wonderful Life, since the film can be classified as derivative work of a copyrighted story. As a result, the film is no longer considered public domain. I think the images in question and the cartoons they come from aren't in public domain, so these images should be deleted. Jtalledo 18:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment But in that case, shouldn't any reproduction of the characters also be illegal? I mean, if I go to DisneyWorld and take pictures of Mickey and Minnie (the big costumes) and upload here it would still be illegal, since the Mickey and Minnie-characters are copyright to Disney? Which in turn means that no Wikipedia-pages concerning animated characters can ever be illustrated. Or does the legality of the pictures only come into question if the pictures are animated (screencaps from trailers, movies or posters, etc)? Icea 17:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- ' Keep'. Why did we must delete it? it rights are now falled and it no belong to the DC Comics,so why delete it?
- ' Keep' as per other comments. This is from the trailer, which comes out before the movie. If the movie is PD then anything before that in relation to this movie is PD...why would it not be? DragonFire1024 01:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The characters are still copyrighted even if a derivative falls into the public domain. -Nard 03:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If they can sell DVDs of the Max Fleischer 1940's Superman cartoons for $1.00 at Wal-Mart without any form of license from DC Comics, I really don't see why we can't host screen-grabs of those same cartoons here on Wikimedia Commons. Presumably the companies that publish these DVDs can afford legal advice from actual lawyers. AnonMoos 14:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- We are not Wal-Mart here. This is WikiCommons. We host thousands of free images (and other media). We must keep the copyright. Only because the cartoons get selled in a supermarket, they are not free. Or do you think, the cartoon series "the Simpsons" is free? You can buy a Simpsons DVD at Wal-Mart, too... Chaddy 16:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Dude, you really didn't understanding what I was saying. Cheap DVDs are sold in many places WITHOUT any license from DC Comics because the Max Fleischer cartoons are OUT OF COPYRIGHT in the United States of America (as discussed on the Wikipedia article en:Superman_(1940s_cartoons)). An "official" DC Comics DVD release of these cartoons would almost certainly cost a hell of a lot more than $1. Therefore your comments didn't particularly contribute anything useful to this discussion. 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you... May be, the cartoons are PD in the USA. But in the rest of the world, they are still copyrighted. So they can´t be used on Commons. Chaddy 18:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the general rule for Commons is that images should be "free" both in their country of origin and the United States. Since in this case the U.S. is the country of origin, U.S. law is the all that matters to us here. AnonMoos 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think they're PD. Try selling a derivative work. The character is copyrighted. They're in some limbo state until the character copyright expires. Lupo 20:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- To be specific, Image:Fleishersuperman.jpg is a simple screen grab from a cartoon which is in the public domain in the United States, as evidenced by the fact that super-cheap DVD's of those cartoons are sold above-the-board in many legitimate retail outlets in the United States as of this very moment. If the cartoon itself is in the Public Domain (something which DC Comics / Warner Brothers doesn't seem to have contested), then why isn't the screen grab of the PD cartoon also PD?? AnonMoos 20:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Point made, so what's your response to the points Lupo made here? - Rocket000 21:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- He talks about how the process of "fixing something in a different medium" mysteriously changes something from Public Domain to Copyrighted -- but as far as I can see, the cartoon is made up of still frames shown in consecutive order at a rate of 24 frames per second, so if the whole cartoon is Public Domain, then each of the individual frames which compose it must also be in the Public Domain. AnonMoos 02:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree these frames are PD, but if I make a derivative from them? Can I crop out all these characters and make a collage? - Rocket000 02:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- He talks about how the process of "fixing something in a different medium" mysteriously changes something from Public Domain to Copyrighted -- but as far as I can see, the cartoon is made up of still frames shown in consecutive order at a rate of 24 frames per second, so if the whole cartoon is Public Domain, then each of the individual frames which compose it must also be in the Public Domain. AnonMoos 02:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Point made, so what's your response to the points Lupo made here? - Rocket000 21:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- To be specific, Image:Fleishersuperman.jpg is a simple screen grab from a cartoon which is in the public domain in the United States, as evidenced by the fact that super-cheap DVD's of those cartoons are sold above-the-board in many legitimate retail outlets in the United States as of this very moment. If the cartoon itself is in the Public Domain (something which DC Comics / Warner Brothers doesn't seem to have contested), then why isn't the screen grab of the PD cartoon also PD?? AnonMoos 20:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think they're PD. Try selling a derivative work. The character is copyrighted. They're in some limbo state until the character copyright expires. Lupo 20:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the general rule for Commons is that images should be "free" both in their country of origin and the United States. Since in this case the U.S. is the country of origin, U.S. law is the all that matters to us here. AnonMoos 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Some cheap DVD releases may involve copyrighted works. For instance, the 1954 animated version of Animal Farm was available as a cheap DVD release. (There was also a Animal Farm release that included additional material, but this other release was probably not as cheap.) -- Gazebo 05:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you... May be, the cartoons are PD in the USA. But in the rest of the world, they are still copyrighted. So they can´t be used on Commons. Chaddy 18:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Dude, you really didn't understanding what I was saying. Cheap DVDs are sold in many places WITHOUT any license from DC Comics because the Max Fleischer cartoons are OUT OF COPYRIGHT in the United States of America (as discussed on the Wikipedia article en:Superman_(1940s_cartoons)). An "official" DC Comics DVD release of these cartoons would almost certainly cost a hell of a lot more than $1. Therefore your comments didn't particularly contribute anything useful to this discussion. 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- We are not Wal-Mart here. This is WikiCommons. We host thousands of free images (and other media). We must keep the copyright. Only because the cartoons get selled in a supermarket, they are not free. Or do you think, the cartoon series "the Simpsons" is free? You can buy a Simpsons DVD at Wal-Mart, too... Chaddy 16:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- (reset indent) I don't understand the concept of 'the characters are still in copyright' - copyright pertains to an instance, a publication of a particular item. So some drawings, the original drawings perhaps, of these characters are still copyrighted? The 'characters' are not copyrighted (that doesn't make sense to me, unless there is some special case for characters?). If cartoons are considered derivative works, then I'd expect anyone who owns copyright of the 'original' drawings of the characters to complain - have they ever asserted this, are the cartoons not really PD? The next thing that occurs to me is that cutting frames from the cartoon strip is creating derivative works of the cartoon (the cartoon is one very long image that is usually viewed a little bit at a time (a frame at a time)) - the license status of this derivative work depends on the status of the parent work - fairly straight forward? The only important question is whether the cartoon is actually PD? --Tony Wills 10:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As I understand the argument (Lupo, please correct me if I'm wrong), the suggestion is that each of these images show characters that:
- (a) appeared in some first publication (let's call it A) (eg a book or a film) which still remains in copyright, and
- (b) that these images are stills taken from a later derivative cartoon (let's call it B) on which for some reason (eg copyright owner forgot to renew under US law?) the copyright has expired.
I agree that the expression "copyright in a character" isn't strictly speaking correct, but what is presumably meant here is "copyright in the appearance of a character as it was actually drawn in A".
On that basis, the owner of the copyright in A can eg under Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123,1128 (9th Cir. 1979) prevent others from creating new images which infringe that original copyright, even if those new images are also derivative or partly derivative of one of the PD images in B. It would be OK of course to create a new image which is derivative of B only, but for this type of character it may be in practice be difficult or impossible to make a derivative of B which is not also an infringing derivative of A.
Note that it's perfectly OK to use any B image as it is, without amendment, which is why Wal-Mart's lawyers have no doubt advised that they are free to sell copies of 1940's Superman cartoons for $1.00 without needing a licence from DC Comics. Any company that wanted to sell comics or DVDs that differed in any way from the 1940's PD cartoons would however need a licence.
Now it's clear that this only applies if there is some earlier drawing A which is still in copyright. If the character was first drawn for the cartoon B, with no earlier appearance, then once that cartoon has fallen into the public domain anyone is free to copy it, including making derivative versions.
Not all of the images listed above have the necessary information immediately available, and I think we need to look at the images and characters one by one. For each, we need to find out if we can whether there was some earlier appearance, and if so whether that earliest work is still in copyright. If so, we arguably can't release the cartoon stills (whether PD or not) under the four freedoms, as Lupo suggests. If the earliest work is now copyright-free we then need to look critically at the validity of the PD claim that has been made for the specific cartoon. If both works A and B are PD are we in the clear. Of course, if the cartoon is itself the earliest copyright work, and it is truly PD, then we are OK as well.
It's by no means clear to me that we ought to delete even if it can be shown that there exist other images, A, that are still in copyright. Surely the rule here is that we delete if an image is restricted in use by virtue of its own copyright protection. I would argue there is no consensus, yet, that we should delete an image B on the grounds that modifying it might infringe the copyright of some other image, A. By all means let's tag these images to warn people of the existence of A, and leave it to users to take their own legal advice as to the extent they can modify and re-use B without running into copyright problems with A.
In practice no-one is able to use these images B commercially anyway because of some very strongly-enforced non-copyright constraints such as trademark rights, and passing off/unfair competition rights, so any additional copyright-constraint arising from A may in fact make no practical difference. We may end up deleting large numbers of useful images that are perfectly OK if used unamended on Wikipedia or elsewhere just because there may be copyright constraints based on some other images that we don't host, copyright constraints that in practice make little or no difference to how the images can actually be used.
For those reasons, I would Keep, and tag with an appropriate warning (assuming someone can verify the claim that the cartoons have in fact now fallen into the public domain). --MichaelMaggs 15:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would expect (but then copyright law has nothing to do with expectations ;-) that derivatives consisting of short exerps of a PD film would also be PD (down to single frames?) - no creativity has been added, no new copyright is generated. I now think that problems only arise when re-arranging frames or cutting bits from frames which could truely be said to create derivative works. We have a bit of a precident for the original being free license, but derivatives being problematic: the case of freedom-of-panorama images which contain some element (eg logo in the background) which, if cut out on its own, would be a copyright violation. Perhaps just a standard warning about how derivatives might infringe copyright --Tony Wills 20:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Split up and relist Honestly, while it would be nice to deal with an issue such as this, there are so many images being discussed here and each has their own little nuance on why they are here. I feel like we should focus on each image individually. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Since w:Mike Godwin is a general cousel for the Wikimedia Foundation, it could be useful to ask him what he thinks. / Fred J (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep Here's what Wikipedia's own article on derivative works has to say:
- When a derivative work is copyrighted, 17 U.S.C. § 103(b) dictates that, [t]he copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. Thus, registering a derivative work will not artificially extend the length or scope of protection of the underlying work.
To me, it sound's like Lupo is arguing that, since the characters have appeared in derivative works since the original (now expired) work, the characters are still under copyright. This does not jive with the explanation of derivative works above. Please explain if I misunderstand Lupo's argument. - 75.68.224.236 16:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify the above, let's look at a specific example: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Allegedly, the copyright on Disney's 1937 movie expired because it was not renewed. Assuming this is true, the film is now in the public domain. As for the characters, i.e. the seven dwarfs and Snow White, they (Disney's version of these characters) made their first appearance in this film. So any supposed "copyright on the characters" is the same copyright that the film was protected under. The truth is, there is no separate copyright on the characters. The entire film is a single work with a single copyright protecting it and everything contained in it.
- If the characters appeared in later films, then these new films do not renew or otherwise extend the copyright term of the original film, because the creation of derivative works does not extend the duration of the copyright of the original (as explained above). Once the original film's copyright expires, so too does the copyright on all content within the film, including the characters.
- Of course, the characters might be trademarked, which is an entirely different thing from copyright. And there is no problem with trademarks being displayed in an encyclopedia or other reference material, so this should not affect the ability of these images to be displayed here.
- It seems to me that Lupo's argument is based on either the erroneous assumption that copyrights on derivative works can somehow extend the copyright of original works, or on the erroneous confusion of copyrights and trademarks. Again, if I'm wrong and misunderstand your argument, Lupo, please clarify why you believe that the copyrights on the characters are still in effect if the copyright on the original films (or books, or whatever) that the characters first appeared in has expired. Regards, Moulding 20:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- One more thing: I don't think it is even possible to "copyright a character", in the sense that you could put a copyright on any and all likenesses of a character. The reason is because a copyright can only be obtained on a specific instance of some fixed, tangible work. For instance, you could copyright a drawing of Mickey Mouse standing up. But that copyright would not cover a different drawing of Mickey Mouse where he is sitting in a chair, because these are two distinct works. Now, the second drawing might be considered a derivative of the first if they are similar enough. But this is not the same thing as a copyright on a character. The copyright was on a specific drawing of Mickey Mouse. And the second drawing was a derivative of the first. Using the phrase "copyright on the character" instead of "copyright on the drawing" is a bit misleading. Moulding 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is not true. Characters are copyrighted. It would be illegal for me to write another Harry Potter book, even if I changed the names due to it being a derivative of the character. -Nard 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sure you may be infringing a copyright if you wrote a new book that was too similar to the Harry Potter series, even if you changed the names. But it would need to be similar enough to be considered a derivative of one or more of the existing Harry Potter books. In the end, the copyright you are infringing is not a copyright on Harry (the character) but a copyright on a specific Harry Potter novel. This is precisely the distinction I am trying to point out: it is the book that is copyrighted, not the character. But because the character appears in the book, the copyright on the book also protects the character. Some here are confusing the matter by attempting to claim that the character Harry could somehow be protected by a copyright that is distinct from the copyright on the book. This is simply not the case. Moulding 22:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I find the distinction compelling: if the first harry potter book were out of copyright, and the last harry potter book was not, creating a generally derivative work using harry potter would be in violation because for protection of the copyright holder, the latest parentage for the derivative work has to be assumed (so the latest harry potter book), whereas directly reproducing a part of the first, copyright expired book would necessarily have to be acceptable to protect any kind of fair use from the claim that a newer work under copyright happens to contain the same character. Situations different than that scenario would either imply that fair use was impossible to execute(J.K. Rowlings just wrote about Luna Lovegood in her latest book, so you can only use pages 23 and 19 of the out-of-copyright book now!) or that copyright was impossible to execute (I wrote a fan book with harry potter in it, but it's the old harry potter, so you can't sue me!). 137.238.84.70 06:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sure you may be infringing a copyright if you wrote a new book that was too similar to the Harry Potter series, even if you changed the names. But it would need to be similar enough to be considered a derivative of one or more of the existing Harry Potter books. In the end, the copyright you are infringing is not a copyright on Harry (the character) but a copyright on a specific Harry Potter novel. This is precisely the distinction I am trying to point out: it is the book that is copyrighted, not the character. But because the character appears in the book, the copyright on the book also protects the character. Some here are confusing the matter by attempting to claim that the character Harry could somehow be protected by a copyright that is distinct from the copyright on the book. This is simply not the case. Moulding 22:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is not true. Characters are copyrighted. It would be illegal for me to write another Harry Potter book, even if I changed the names due to it being a derivative of the character. -Nard 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- One more thing: I don't think it is even possible to "copyright a character", in the sense that you could put a copyright on any and all likenesses of a character. The reason is because a copyright can only be obtained on a specific instance of some fixed, tangible work. For instance, you could copyright a drawing of Mickey Mouse standing up. But that copyright would not cover a different drawing of Mickey Mouse where he is sitting in a chair, because these are two distinct works. Now, the second drawing might be considered a derivative of the first if they are similar enough. But this is not the same thing as a copyright on a character. The copyright was on a specific drawing of Mickey Mouse. And the second drawing was a derivative of the first. Using the phrase "copyright on the character" instead of "copyright on the drawing" is a bit misleading. Moulding 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
What about these pictures? [124] [125]. It says they qualify as fair use. What is the difference with the above listed images? Anyway, I think the examples about using Harry Potter to write an alternative novel or make a new film are entirely different from showing a sample of a film character to inform about the film or character, stating who its author or owner is, in an encyclopedic work (which is non-profit BTW).—the preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.241.250.3 (talk • contribs)
![[124]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Donald-duck.gif){kind=link}
![[125]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Donald_duck_debut.PNG){kind=link}
- Every image in Wikipedia must be free for every use and everyone. Also for commercial use. Chaddy 18:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I note at least one of these characaters, Olive Oyl, dates back to the 1910s (originally as a newspaper cartoon character), so the character design would be PD-US as well in addition to whatever relevent copyright of the film cartoon. -- Infrogmation 21:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The films themselves are public domain, thus no copyright is held for these screencaps. (Ibaranoff24 05:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC))
- Keep. By all appearances, in practice, these films are in the public domain. You could not, admittedly, create a Superman cartoon as a derivative work of them, but this is largely because you would be hard-pressed to argue that it is a derivative work only of these cartoons and not of the still-under-copyright comics. You could certainly create a spin-off of any of the villains or non-comics-based characters. As for the individual screencap, the cartoons are freely available as it stands, and the screencaps thus are as well. Phil Sandifer 15:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The law is clear. It's not so simple as declaring that a single work is or isn't copyrighted when it adapts previously existing copyrighted works. It is not disputed that Superman as a character, including his appearance, is copyrighted. Superman was not introduced in the Fleischer cartoons, but previously in DC Comics, and DC properly renewed the copyrights in all of its titles featuring Superman. The character's copyright is therefore not dependent upon the status of the Fleischer cartoons' copyright in any way. The Fleischer cartoons then entered the public domain when their copyright was not renewed. But that means that only the elements that originated in those cartoons—whatever Fleischer studios itself authored—became public domain. As those cartoons contained elements from preexisting, independently copyrighted works (the character of Superman, the character of Lois Lane, etc.), whatever elements Fleischer Studios made use of but did not author could not be released into the public domain by their inaction (the fact that their use was licensed also has no bearing on this issue). Read the Wikipedia article on It's a Wonderful Life to look at it another way. The film is in the public domain. However, the story that it adapted is not. This means that the story's authors have rights over whatever portions of the film derive from that story, but everything else that originated in that film (still images would apply here because a photograph can't copy a non-visual narrative) is public domain. Postdlf 15:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're misframing the issue here - the issue is not the copyright of Superman, but the copyright of this licensed and legally created image of Superman. Which nobody, it seems to me, disputes the freedom of, since the cartoon it came from is widely distributed for free and without license fees. There is a muddied issue of derivative works here - as I said, one probably cannot create a Superman comic and claim it is derived from the Fleischer cartoons, not the comic (If only because such a claim would be laughed at). But the point remains that the cartoon itself is public domain, and is routinely distributed as such. Phil Sandifer 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, the issue is entirely the copyright of Superman. Saying that a work is in the public domain is to say that no one has copyright in it. However, the nature of a derivative work is that it incorporates preexisting elements in which others have copyright. This means that multiple authors may have rights over one single work. The Fleischer Studios cartoon is a derivative of the Superman character and comic book stories. That it was licensed just means that DC gave them permission and couldn't sue them for doing this. Then Fleischer Studios didn't renew their copyrights, and so Fleischer lost their rights over the cartoons. Their rights only encompassed what they authored in those cartoons, not what they made derivative use of. What Fleischer Studios authored is now in the public domain, nothing more. Once again, the cartoons are works of composite authorship—DC's preexisting properties and Fleischer Studios' animation. The loss of Fleischer Studios' rights did not and could not affect DC's rights, which are separate and preexisting. To say the cartoon is in the public domain is only to say that what originated in that cartoon may be freely used. Postdlf 16:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- See also this prior discussion on this very issue at Wikipedia. Postdlf 16:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Superman is actually a different case from the other images by the looks of it. The drawings of superman in comics that are still copyrighted and predate the cartoons may well be sufficient to restrict the use of the cartoon stills. In the other cases, I don't think any copyrighted representations of the characters predate the cartoon appearances that are now PD. The argument for deleting the superman stills is therefore much stronger. WjBscribe 17:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're misframing the issue here - the issue is not the copyright of Superman, but the copyright of this licensed and legally created image of Superman. Which nobody, it seems to me, disputes the freedom of, since the cartoon it came from is widely distributed for free and without license fees. There is a muddied issue of derivative works here - as I said, one probably cannot create a Superman comic and claim it is derived from the Fleischer cartoons, not the comic (If only because such a claim would be laughed at). But the point remains that the cartoon itself is public domain, and is routinely distributed as such. Phil Sandifer 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I think that Russell v. Price and Filmvideo Releasing Corp. v. Hastings have to be read to mean that in US law, the fact that a derivative is now in the public domain does not mean that distribution of the derivative does not continue to be affected by copyright on the original work or concept. In this case, if the characters are still the subject of copyright, these stills could be used in a number of ways quite legitimately - their use on Wikipedias for example would be legally sound. But they probably cannot be modified and commercially re-used. One could not for example crop bugs bunny from an image, add the character into another image and sell it as a poster. That would infringe rights to the bugs bunny character. Given that modification and commercial reuse must be possible for images to be considered "free", I think I have to conclude that these are not. Obviously local projects would be strongly encouraged to keep copies of these stills under appropriate fair use rationales. However, I would like to see more argument to confirm that these characters are indeed still the subject of copyright - how has this legal protection been maintained? Presumably simple appearances in later derivatives still the subject of copyright would not be enough. Could someone clarify the basis for saying these characters are still subject to copyright? I suspect those characters are registered trademarks but Commons hosts many images that are trademarks. I am not sure one can have "copyright" over a character, as opposed to specific representation of a character. WjBscribe 17:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- You can have copyright over a character that is separate and apart from specific works that portray or make use of that character. American copyright case law is consistent on this (I remember in particular a case involving James Bond and an infringing commercial that had a tuxedo-wearing, suave action hero). Otherwise, anyone could make derivative use of any character without licensing. Plus we're dealing with a visual representation of a character here—a graphic image consisting of the character's costume and other appearance. Postdlf 17:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- No James Bond films or books are in the public domain though - and my vague recollection is that the case you refer to is actually about an actor's contract (Pierce Brosnan could not appear in a full tuxedo in "The Thomas Crown Affair" because of his contractual obligations from playing James Bond). If no appearances of a chracter are PD, then any recreation of them (or something similar) violates copyright - its a derivative of a copyrighted work. But it is the appearance of the character - photo, movie etc. that is copyrighted, not the character itself. The character's protection is derived from the fact that its appeances are all copyrighted. If the "first drawing" of one of the characters is still copyrighted, then derivatives of that images are a problem. But copyright on a character could not be created by their continuing to appear in copyrighted derivatives if the original appearances are now PD. But I admit my expertise is limited to European (not US) copyright law - I would like to see something that confirms this idea that US law recognises some sort of separate copyright of a character. At the moment, I think people are confused by the fact that these characters are trademarked and that they have appeared in later drawings that are still copyrighted. WjBscribe 17:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- The James Bond case involved a car commercial, it had nothing to do with contract law; see Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 900 F. Supp. 1287 (C.D. Cal. 1995) ("the Court FINDS as a matter of law that Plaintiffs own the copyright to the James Bond character as expressed and delineated in their 16 films."). And as the case law discussed in that case makes clear, it's not just the visual appearance of graphic characters that can be copyrighted; purely literary characters can be copyrighted too, if they are sufficiently distinct. Whether a portraying work is PD only matters for the fate of that character's copyright if that character originated in that work. Once again, if a particular work enters the public domain, that only means that no one holds copyright to what originated in that work. Postdlf 17:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- But in some of these instances, the drawings now in the PD are the original works. With the superman images I think it ma be right that the comics that predate the cartoons means that all we have is a PD derivative. What I am asking about is the situation where the cartoons that are now PD are the first drawings of the character. Ideas cannot be the subject of copyright by themselves. Lets try a simple hypothetical scenario. I come up with the idea of "Chloe the Kangaroo" and make some drawings of her in black and white. Years later, I make more detailed drawings of her in colour. I fail to renew the copyright on my black and white drawings but the colour ones are still in copyright. "Chloe the Kangaroo" does not exist, only black and white and colour drawings of her. The black and white drawings of her are now PD and I cannot prevent those images being used in derivatives. However if the derivative is colour and closely resembles those drawings, I may have an action for infringing my copyright on the colour images of Chloe. If it were the other way round (b&w still copyright, colour not) then it must be right that the colour images are mere derivatives and their becoming PD does not affect the original copyright. Of course, I may protect my interest in "Chloe" with a trademark but it is copyright under discussion here. Does that make sense, where all we have are drawings, the only copyright there can possibly is in the drawings. WjBscribe 18:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- If in fact the originating works for any of those characters are in the public domain, then yes, the character as portrayed in those works would also be public domain. If the character was further developed or modified in later works that are still copyrighted, then those later changes to the character would not be public domain (you have to conceptually deconstruct the elements of a character to deal with this). So can you actually document that for any of the above characters, the images are not derivatives of prior works that are still copyrighted? Postdlf 18:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- My point is that this was what this discussion here needs to focus on: for each of the images deleted, is there (or is there not) a previous copyrighted representation of the character that may restrict the ability to reuse the derivative that is now in the public domain. A blanket nomination is unhelful - each of the images listed may raise separate issues that need to be investigated. WjBscribe 18:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the issue. But there's no point in splitting any of them off from this discussion absent any proof that there are no prior copyrighted works from which these derive. The burden should be on those asserting that the image is freely usable. Postdlf 18:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- My point is that this was what this discussion here needs to focus on: for each of the images deleted, is there (or is there not) a previous copyrighted representation of the character that may restrict the ability to reuse the derivative that is now in the public domain. A blanket nomination is unhelful - each of the images listed may raise separate issues that need to be investigated. WjBscribe 18:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- If in fact the originating works for any of those characters are in the public domain, then yes, the character as portrayed in those works would also be public domain. If the character was further developed or modified in later works that are still copyrighted, then those later changes to the character would not be public domain (you have to conceptually deconstruct the elements of a character to deal with this). So can you actually document that for any of the above characters, the images are not derivatives of prior works that are still copyrighted? Postdlf 18:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- But in some of these instances, the drawings now in the PD are the original works. With the superman images I think it ma be right that the comics that predate the cartoons means that all we have is a PD derivative. What I am asking about is the situation where the cartoons that are now PD are the first drawings of the character. Ideas cannot be the subject of copyright by themselves. Lets try a simple hypothetical scenario. I come up with the idea of "Chloe the Kangaroo" and make some drawings of her in black and white. Years later, I make more detailed drawings of her in colour. I fail to renew the copyright on my black and white drawings but the colour ones are still in copyright. "Chloe the Kangaroo" does not exist, only black and white and colour drawings of her. The black and white drawings of her are now PD and I cannot prevent those images being used in derivatives. However if the derivative is colour and closely resembles those drawings, I may have an action for infringing my copyright on the colour images of Chloe. If it were the other way round (b&w still copyright, colour not) then it must be right that the colour images are mere derivatives and their becoming PD does not affect the original copyright. Of course, I may protect my interest in "Chloe" with a trademark but it is copyright under discussion here. Does that make sense, where all we have are drawings, the only copyright there can possibly is in the drawings. WjBscribe 18:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- The James Bond case involved a car commercial, it had nothing to do with contract law; see Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 900 F. Supp. 1287 (C.D. Cal. 1995) ("the Court FINDS as a matter of law that Plaintiffs own the copyright to the James Bond character as expressed and delineated in their 16 films."). And as the case law discussed in that case makes clear, it's not just the visual appearance of graphic characters that can be copyrighted; purely literary characters can be copyrighted too, if they are sufficiently distinct. Whether a portraying work is PD only matters for the fate of that character's copyright if that character originated in that work. Once again, if a particular work enters the public domain, that only means that no one holds copyright to what originated in that work. Postdlf 17:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- No James Bond films or books are in the public domain though - and my vague recollection is that the case you refer to is actually about an actor's contract (Pierce Brosnan could not appear in a full tuxedo in "The Thomas Crown Affair" because of his contractual obligations from playing James Bond). If no appearances of a chracter are PD, then any recreation of them (or something similar) violates copyright - its a derivative of a copyrighted work. But it is the appearance of the character - photo, movie etc. that is copyrighted, not the character itself. The character's protection is derived from the fact that its appeances are all copyrighted. If the "first drawing" of one of the characters is still copyrighted, then derivatives of that images are a problem. But copyright on a character could not be created by their continuing to appear in copyrighted derivatives if the original appearances are now PD. But I admit my expertise is limited to European (not US) copyright law - I would like to see something that confirms this idea that US law recognises some sort of separate copyright of a character. At the moment, I think people are confused by the fact that these characters are trademarked and that they have appeared in later drawings that are still copyrighted. WjBscribe 17:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- You can have copyright over a character that is separate and apart from specific works that portray or make use of that character. American copyright case law is consistent on this (I remember in particular a case involving James Bond and an infringing commercial that had a tuxedo-wearing, suave action hero). Otherwise, anyone could make derivative use of any character without licensing. Plus we're dealing with a visual representation of a character here—a graphic image consisting of the character's costume and other appearance. Postdlf 17:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and re-evaluate on a case by case basis before renominating - I have some experience in US intellectual property law and I have never heard of this idea that you can copyright a character in the sense that it is being used here. Please give a citation for this concept. People are very badly mixing trademark law in above as well, the only non-commercial/educational issues mentioned in the cases above relate to trademarks and have nothing whatsoever to do with the demands of the CC or GFDL licenses, which are copyright licenses. Under copyright law if these are in the public domain you can make any use of them you wish, on the other hand, you may end up having to pay damages to the trademark owners (who may not even be the same as the former copyright holders) or even get enjoined from using trademarks if you insist on trying to use them commercially. I understand that there is the idea of an intervening expired copyright wherein the original work could still be copyrighted, but that needs to be evaluated separately and on a case by case basis and shouldn't require deletion of the PD derivative work under our policies, unless w:User:Mike Godwin says otherwise. (I will caveat this however by saying that I am much less familiar with Commons policies than with English Wikipedia policies - my experience in the past on Commons being primarily for uploading my own images - so I may be missing something.) --BewareofDoug 19:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC) (aka w:User:Doug)
- Could you clarify for me at all? Your answer seems to indicate that using these images would not infringe on the copyright which is currently held on the Superman character who debuted in 1939. What is the nature of that copyright? Is it possible that this image could be used in any manner which would not infringe on that copyright? For example, if I created a comic book, with my own novel story, using these images, would that be free or would it infringe any copyright held in the Superman character? If this comic book would infringe then there is still some copyright attached in this image, yes? To me, this looks like it may well be in the public domain, but with the protections that the current copyright holder already has on the Superman character, it is more likely that this image can be used similar to a creative commons no derivatives license or a rights restricted license. If that is the case, we must review Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses which clearly states: All material on the Commons must be licensed under a free license that allows anyone to use the material for any purpose (see also Commons:Criteria for inclusion). In particular, the license must meet the following conditions: Publication of derivative work must be allowed. Based on that, if it is indeed the case that not all derivatives of this image can be allowed under copyright law, then this image does not meet the commons criteria and must be deleted. This debate needs to focus on that main point of commons policy. Can all derivatives of this work be allowed, can these images be used for any purpose, including creating new comic books featuring the character depicted, or would existing copyrights on the Superman character prevent them. I believe derivatives could infringe copyright on the Superman character, and therefore the images must be deleted to comply with Commons policy. Hiding 16:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- According to the Wikipedia content guidelines on the public domain with regard to animated movies (cartoons), at least some fictional characters can be copyrighted. At the same time, for a movie to be treated as being in the public domain, the guidelines specify that the movie cannot contain any copyrighted characters. (This is not to say that every fictional character is copyrighted.) There might be something to be said for considering the images on a case-by-case basis. -- Gazebo 05:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Relist on an individual basis - the copyright issues around these specific images are too fuzzy for us to draw a clear general conclusion. It's better to nominate a single image, get input from some professional IP lawyers, and begin to set a precedent for other deletions if necessary. Dcoetzee 04:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note that a precedent was set in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Donaldduck-thespiritof43-2.jpg... Lupo 10:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
PngFactory images
[edit].png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image is under the PNG Factory license which does not allow commercial reuse. Lokal_Profil 21:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- License in English can be found here. Affected images are
- Image:XBox360_(pixel_art).png
- Image:NES (pixel art).png
- Image:SNES (pixel art).png
- Image:Game Boy (pixel art).png
- Image:DS (pixel art).png
- Image:GameCube (pixel art).png
- Image:Nintendo 64 (pixel art).png
- Image:XBox (pixel art).png
- Image:Wii (pixel art).png
- Image:Game Boy Advance (pixel art).png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
/Lokal_Profil 21:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also Category:Nintendo pixel art could be deleted afterwards since it contains only these iamges. /Lokal_Profil 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted (but kept the cat, it still has one image in it). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All uploads by Moldopodo
[edit]As far as I see, the user (: User:Moldopodo) just uploads files from various authors, mostly taken from the website http://www.beltsy.md/ licensing it with Template:PD-MD-exempt. The template shows which content is not covered by copyright, but why fall these images in this category? --Polarlys 22:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- The images do not fall under this license, because photographs taken by government officials are still under copyright. Delete User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Clear copyvio cases, already 3 months old by now Delete Fransvannes 21:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I see no reason {{PD-MD-exempt}} would apply and I see no attempt to explain why it would. These images are not laws, court decisions, state emblems, official signs, folklore expressions or daily news and facts of simple informational nature; they're expressive, original and creative works of the mind. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you really did not search very far into the matter to say that they come from www.beltsy.md ... and the best of it that nobody even contests, it's enough that one persons says bullshit and everybody repeats... how smart. I will not change any license to the proper self-tag or whatever there should be as a matter of principle, because of malicious manipulations of Future Perfect at Sunrise and her disruptive editing. Delete them all, I don't givea damn, poor geeks, but one thing is sure I am not uploading them or modifying the licenses to the ones there should be as a matter of principle. There are ways to explain it politely and to draw one's attention to improve in advance and not like Future Perfect at Sunrise did, by announcing a posteriori "they are deleted".--Moldopodo 06:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete except for the flags and CoAs which appears to fall under Template:PD-MD-exempt. /Lokal_Profil 13:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete most. I've looked at {{PD-MD-exempt}} and it would appear to apply to some of the images I'm seeing in the upload log, but not to most i.e. to the flags and CoAs referred to by Lokal Profil above. It may be that the deleted Image:Balti-arm.jpg would qualify, too, if the proper license were added. For the most part, however, the images I've checked do not seem to qualify and they should be deleted by someone experienced with this bit of law. This is a pity, as many of the images would be nice to have if they could be properly sourced and licensed. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 09:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Here be Dutchmen
[edit]- Image:Scand1945.png
- Image:Cwnzcudf.png
- Image:Shintoflagdailan.JPG
- Image:Cwnzcudf.png
- Image:Cwasiadalian.png
- Image:Cwasiabohai.png
- Image:Cwdalian.png
- Image:Bohaigo.PNG
- Image:Bohai4.PNG
- Image:Bohai3.PNG
- Image:Bohai2.PNG
- Image:Shintoflagdailan.JPG
- Image:Bohai1.PNG
All images by User:DrTurtlesse. This appears to be a bunch of the same images that portrait nonsense... Siebrand 20:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete nonsense. 24.89.233.235 00:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete nonsense Durova 23:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 18:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Newspaper clippings
[edit]- Image:QueenScout.jpg (from 1968)
- Image:London This Week Trole Band.jpg (from 2003)
- Image:London This Week Mayor DiCicco.jpg (from 2004)
Newspaper clippings are fair use only; the newspaper has a coypright on selection and arrangement at least, and the texts also are copyrighted. The clippings are from Canadian newspapers. Delete all three. Lupo 23:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete derivative works. -Nard 23:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The photographs and articles by Ingelbert Lievaart were put up by him through me and are his, his permission, he wrote the material and it is his. The queen scout.jpg was there at the request of the wikipedia Queen scout group as proof that I was a Eagle and Queen scout.
I'm working a backlog of potential entries for List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America). I need a good reference before we can add Wayne Ray to the list. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 09:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC) (deleted personal e-mails) That will not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. We need something published like a newspaper article. It does not have to be web accessible if we have the full cite. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Oh gotcha, that was back in 1968 or 69, I only have that newspaper article, not much related to Scouting just articles and reviews and interviews on my website wayneray.ca/indexx.html , sorry WayneRay 03:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)WayneRay If you scan the article, it can be put on WikiSource and used as a ref. Rlevse 09:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
WayneRay 21:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
- He apparently did not write the article about DiCicco's election results; there's some other name mentioned top left. Lupo 13:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 16:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work. -Nard 03:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Many of the Felix cartoons are now in the public domain. See Commons:Deletion requests/Cartoons (with which this should probably be amalgamated). AnonMoos 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Felix originated before 1923, so it's unlikely that the same character-copyright arguments would apply. --dave pape 01:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, unequivocally Keep -- AnonMoos 10:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, unequivocally
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative image. -Nard 22:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Should we delete this too → Windowsxp ? - Rocket000 23:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - you can't copyright basic typefaces. ViperSnake151 02:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. {{pd-textlogo}}, but with {{trademark}}. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
What does "parish heraldy" have to do with copyright? -Nard 03:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. License since changed to {{PD-ineligible}}, but coats of arms are not ineligible for copyright. —Angr 19:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Same as Image:002-a.png. Can someone who can read Ukranian say which image should be deleted? Patstuart (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, of course it's the same image as itself. —Angr 19:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope. EugeneZelenko 17:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- What is it (translation?), how do you know it is outside project scope? --Tony Wills 03:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. It appears to be the signature of Wang Dan. Apparently not out of project scope since it's being used at zh:王丹. —Angr 19:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Other images by this uploader (vi:Hình:Tomorrow.jpg) do not inspire confidence that this very non-amateur looking photo was self-created.
Patstuart (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, since I ever took photos for Eddie Peng at 2008 TIBE, I think this photo can be replaced and deleted. Rico Shen contact... 18:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. —Angr 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
same as Image:Handbuch Hanicke 12.jpg (wrong name) Kuerschner 18:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Bad name, also Image:Handbuch Hanicke 12.jpg is better quality. --GeorgHH • talk 21:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. —Angr 19:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work. Are you painter? EugeneZelenko 17:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, she is.
Delete Unless permission is sent by the painter to OTRS in the next 7 days. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission has been found in the Wikimedia OTRS system.Trixt (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
According to fr:Riccardo Simonutti, painter is still alive. Are you painter? EugeneZelenko 17:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes I'm. What is the problem with this pic ?
Can you answer me ?
Delete Unless permission is sent by the painter to OTRS in the next 7 days. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission has been found in the Wikimedia OTRS system.Trixt (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Outside project scope, derivative image. -Nard 15:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a derivative image of one of MY photos and I have the permission of the organization. You can imagine that if the organization is communist they doesn't believe in copyright.—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Delatorre (talk • contribs)
- Emailing permission to OTRS for confirmation would be nice. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission has been found in the Wikimedia OTRS system. If the organization is communist they doesn't believe in copyright: no proof that this statement is valid.Trixt (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
February 24
[edit]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Likely copyright violation: Photo of an artist's work in a museum. --Themightyquill 22:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Canadian law is liberal concerning freedom of panorama. As long as a sculpture is permanently installed in a public place or building, pictures do not violate the copyright of the artist. This sculpture is permanently installed (as far as I remember they would have to destroy a part of the building to get that thing out of this room) and the museum is a building and I think would also count as a public place. Therefor Keep. -- Cecil 00:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep FOP. -Nard 07:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Great! Should the license change or we leave it as PD by the uploader? - Themightyquill 22:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Canada has freedom of panorama, and photos of such sculptures can be PD. Buchanan-Hermit 02:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Freedom of Panorama applies. Deletion request withdrawn me, the user that suggested it. Themightyquill 04:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's a broken svg, already been replaced. Self-nom for delete. Soxred93 00:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 00:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Rocket000 10:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work. -Nard 00:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Dodo 10:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Rocket000 10:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work. -Nard 00:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Dodo 10:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Rocket000 10:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative image. -Nard 00:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Dodo 10:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Rocket000 10:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source information, no proof that it is GFDL ViperSnake151 02:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- out of project scope Delete Julo 20:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"PD deemed" is not proof of public domain status. --Superm401 - Talk 05:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Also source page is not owner of image (http://www.marxists.org). -- Deadstar (msg) 15:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 15:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ihave strong doubts that this picture is PD, paracin.com doesn't seem to be the official website of the city --Mazbln 07:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree. The website whois says it's controlled by "ICP d.o.o.", which is a company. There's also a watermark. Even if the website were the official site for the city, I'm not sure the PD justification applies. First, I don't know if the work of Serbian cities (as opposed to the state itself) is public domain. Second, is this really a "law, decree, regulation or official material "? Superm401 - Talk 10:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 15:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Superseded by Image:GoldCoastGalaxyColours.png (note caps) on enwiki Chuq 22:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Newsflash: we don't just exist for enwiki. Also we don't delete superseded images. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deriv work - billboard is clearly not included incidentally. Megapixie 02:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per COM:FOP#Hong_Kong -Nard 21:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment if the object is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.. Since when is a poster permanently installed? If the poster was a small part of the image or it's inclusion was incidental, I would tend to agree, but it's not - it's used in the Yumiko Cheng article on en for example. Megapixie 23:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, per COM:FOP --Polarlys 22:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deriv work - billboard is clearly not included incidentally. Megapixie 02:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per COM:FOP#Hong_Kong -Nard 21:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment if the object is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.. Since when is a poster permanently installed? If the poster was a small part of the image or it's inclusion was incidental, I would tend to agree, but it's not - it's used in the Yumiko Cheng article on en for example. Megapixie 23:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, per COM:FOP --Polarlys 22:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
PD-old not assured.Code·is·poetry 09:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete That's right... ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 12:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Kept. PD not 100% guaranteed, but considering Stenzler was born in 1807, this image is unlikely to have been taken after 1860. The chances that the copyright on this has not expired are unrealistically remote. —Angr 19:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
No proof for PD-old given, author unknown.Code·is·poetry 09:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. The chances that the copyright on this image has not expired are unrealistically small. —Angr 19:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
PD-old is not assured, author unknown.Code·is·poetry 09:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Lamont died in 1879; the chances the copyright on this painting has not expired are unrealistically slim. —Angr 19:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
PD-old not assured, no author given.Code·is·poetry 13:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Bock died in 1874; the chances the copyright on this photo has not expired are unrealistically slim. —Angr 20:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Probably not PD-old as made in 1900, no author given.Code·is·poetry 13:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- "probably not PD" is not good reason to delete. If author is unknown - 100 years is much more than enough. Keep Julo 18:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Every media on commons should have a free license; PD-old is such a free license, however, we cannot assure that this file's copyright is expired. The year of creation makes it even improbable that the author died before 1937. Code·is·poetry 20:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- if author is unknown we can use template:Anonymous-EU instead. Keep and change license Julo 17:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- The author is not unknown just because we don’t know him. Code·is·poetry 17:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- if author is unknown we can use template:Anonymous-EU instead.
- Every media on commons should have a free license; PD-old is such a free license, however, we cannot assure that this file's copyright is expired. The year of creation makes it even improbable that the author died before 1937. Code·is·poetry 20:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept and license changed to {{Anonymous-EU}}. —Angr 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Description is okay now after nld, but the license was added by an IP. abf /talk to me/ 09:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep It looks like own work. There are metadata for the image.--Ahonc (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Image of someone else's artwork. I don't see how this could be GFDL. - Themightyquill 22:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Would the embassy's extraterritoriality mean that Canadian FOP applies? Just a random thought - not sure if it only applies inside the building. --dave pape 02:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, but is it permanent or placed? Direct link to section: COM:FOP#Canada ~Kylu (u|t) 07:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is permanent, in the sense that it is on display there indefinitely as a feature of the facility rather than as some element of an exhibition. I don't know if it's physically bolted-down or anything, but it's more than 5 tons of metal, so frankly it's not going anywhere. The Tom 18:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, but is it permanent or placed? Direct link to section: COM:FOP#Canada ~Kylu (u|t) 07:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if you want to try to see whether the area OUTSIDE the Emabssy premises is considered to be American or Canadian territory, here is a suggestion: ask an policeman to go with you looking at the sculpture, and them do something that is apperantly unlawful, and then see if the police officer will intervene, or he will report to his superiors who will report to the State Department which port to the Embassy and ask for permission to intervene. --Boberger 18:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- BEANS! — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if you want to try to see whether the area OUTSIDE the Emabssy premises is considered to be American or Canadian territory, here is a suggestion: ask an policeman to go with you looking at the sculpture, and them do something that is apperantly unlawful, and then see if the police officer will intervene, or he will report to his superiors who will report to the State Department which port to the Embassy and ask for permission to intervene. --Boberger 18:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
There is one famous painting by René Magritte, where he just pictures a pipe. The title is "Ce n´est pas un pipe", which in short describes the matter of intellectual ownership. The photo is not "The Spirit of Haida Gail by Bill Reid", it is the phographers depiction of Bill Reid´s sculpture. The photo is a unique art of work in its own right, e.g. by choosing the angle, the lense properties, the exposure, how much and what that is contained in the photo etc. I hope ypou will now mor clear will understand how, not un image by, but a photo of somebody else´s artwork is an aretwork in its own right. --Boberger 18:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- A photo of somebody else's artwork is a derivative work, meaning the copyright of the original also has to be taken into consideration. If this statue were located in Canada, the statue's own copyright would clearly not apply to the photo, because of the Freedom of Panorama exception. If the statue were located unambiguously in U.S. territory, the statue's own copyright would also apply to the photo, since sculptures are exempted from the U.S. Freedom of Panorama law. As it is, the statue is just outside the Canadian embassy in Washington DC, making it very hard to decide which country's interpretation of FOP is to be applied. —Angr 20:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Seems to be on the grounds of the Canadian Embassy, sovereign soil and all that. Canadian FOP applies and we are good to go. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
February 25
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author admits the image is not from wuhan at all and have apologized. --Benjwong 01:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's quite a photograph, though! Any chance of getting an accurate description of the location? It would be very encyclopedic. Durova 05:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have seen similar images of this lakefront in a news website a year or perhaps years ago (maybe the BBC?). I seem to recall a series of photographs taken on the lakefront of Geneva, Switzerland, but can't be 100% sure about the location. The image is therefore unfortunately a copyvio, though. Arria Belli | parlami 18:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete flickr page says "photo found on internet". Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 15:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
pure unfree work, include large amouts of text and book covers 205.200.180.141 01:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Durova 05:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Derivative work. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright. The assertion "there was no creative input by the photographer" is subjective, unsupported and unjustified. There is always creative input by the photographer. --81.154.246.173 07:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Der Bob, is 1911 before 1923? Why yes, yes it is. Keep. -Nard 07:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Obvious keep. Anon does not seem to be familiar with basic copyright law. Faithful reproductions of 2-dimensional public domain images are considered non-creative non-copyrightable works. This image is an exact copy/scan of a two dimensional image image published in 1911, so it fits this. See Bridgeman v. Corel, a US case where it was determined "that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality". Wickethewok 09:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside project scope. Also, licensing issues. Contains unfree Wikimedia logo, GFDL text, and a cc-by-sa 2.5 image. If one were to accept the cc-by 3.0 license for this image both the GFDL and cc-by-sa would be violated. -Nard 07:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll gladly change the license to which ever one is appropriate, just tell me which one. also I use it for my wikipedia user page as a jokeish request to fight vandalism which can be viewed here just tell me how to fix it and I will. (could you try to leave the message on my wikipedia talk page? thank you--Pewwer42 08:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's also a bit disrespectful... AndonicO Talk 15:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- If the consensus is that it's disrespectful, I could change it, take out the picture and have a fake "article" I'm not to picky just give me a few hours to change it (this one took about 3 and a half) and also I mentioned the image to Mr. Whales on his talk page and you can see his response there (I'm not fully sure what it means)--Pewwer42 Talk 21:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think there's enough text to qualify for the GFDL here (de minimis, not fair use). Therefore the licensing issue is easy to fix, by changing it to cc-by-sa. Also, I thought the picture was funny and not at all insulting. Given that it's in use, I don't think it's out of scope. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I changed it to the right license I think and made the talk bubble easier to read, tell me If I got the right one--Pewwer42 Talk 01:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- The GFDL is not necessary here, so I removed that. Licensing is fine now IMO. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- so If its fixed, can the deletion nomination come of the image page?--Pewwer42 Talk 02:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- The GFDL is not necessary here, so I removed that. Licensing is fine now IMO. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I changed it to the right license I think and made the talk bubble easier to read, tell me If I got the right one--Pewwer42 Talk 01:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. It's in our scope (it's used and about Wikipedia) and the licensing seems fine now. - Rocket000 10:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not a photo of the FBI itself, otherweise they would know the date of the photo. ALE! ¿…? 12:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - it certainly belongs to the FBI by now. I don't think we'll find any terrorists crawling out of Afghanistan to sue Wikimedia for copyright violation. And even if it was taken by a Western photographer, then it would be difficult to prove (the FBI doesn't know where it's from). In any case, it has been good enough for PD according to the US government, and I think it's good enough for Wikimedia. Patstuart (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- In connection with terrorism the US does not care to much about laws, does it? So the last argument does not count in my opinion. --ALE! ¿…? 13:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what this has to do with the image at present. As said, no one knows who created the image, and even if the person were to claim it, a) no one would believe them, and b) they would be arrested and laughed at. I would even be tempted to mark this {{pd-ineligible}}. Patstuart (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Even a criminal owns his copyright and can have it protected. --ALE! ¿…? 15:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll think about this however ALE!'s view seems correct to me. The fact that some people have lower standards of legality (even governments) does not seem to be a valid argument in connection with the legal issues in licensing? --Herby talk thyme 09:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would bet, the FBI uses the image as "Fair use" (scnr *ggg*) Marcus Cyron 12:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll think about this however ALE!'s view seems correct to me. The fact that some people have lower standards of legality (even governments) does not seem to be a valid argument in connection with the legal issues in licensing? --Herby talk thyme 09:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Even a criminal owns his copyright and can have it protected. --ALE! ¿…? 15:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what this has to do with the image at present. As said, no one knows who created the image, and even if the person were to claim it, a) no one would believe them, and b) they would be arrested and laughed at. I would even be tempted to mark this {{pd-ineligible}}. Patstuart (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- In connection with terrorism the US does not care to much about laws, does it? So the last argument does not count in my opinion. --ALE! ¿…? 13:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Reflecting I am not convinced by the argument that because he is a terrorist (to some at least) that we can ignore licensing. How about major criminals or maybe minor criminals etc etc - it would be the thin end of the wedge. If the real legal licensing become clear, fine - if not then delete --Herby talk thyme 12:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - it's simple - he breakes the rules - not we. Marcus Cyron 15:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If the supposed (!) copywright owner finds an attorney, who sews the FBI, that will be their problem. If the attorney chooses wikipedia first, I bet there would be 100 (minimum) young advocats who will desire to get this brief - for free of course, because this case would be a chance to get very popular within only one day. (If you find nobody, ask Mutter Erde :-) ) Mutter Erde 17:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. abf /talk to me/ 13:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Julo 20:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- comment Depending on the date of the photo it is entirely posible that the photo was taken by someone who would not face arrest if they admited to doing so.Geni 17:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete following the link from the image to source theres a FAQ link there that says What commercial uses of the "Ten Most Wanted Fugitives" are allowed? None. Commercial use is strictly prohibited. Descriptions and pictures of the "Ten Most Wanted Fugitives" are provided for the sole purpose of eliciting public assistance in tracking fugitives. [128] (my emphasis), as all free licensing also permits commercial use the image cant be hosted on Commons. Gnangarra 01:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per reasons above. - Rocket000 04:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Deleted File:FBI -Bin Laden.jpg as a recently uploaded duplicate. --Martin H. (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
was tagged as nsd, but creator was given, so i cant imagine why. Any oppinion? abf /talk to me/ 14:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep indeed. It's from 1527! --Herbert Ortner 17:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment If I had to guess why it was tagged as nsd, it's because the photographer/scanner isn't mentioned, which some people think is important. - Rocket000 04:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Too old to be copyrighted. Mormegil 13:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
tagged as PD-self, wich seems quite inbelivible. abf /talk to me/ 19:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Same with Image:Europe map kosovo.png. abf /talk to me/ 19:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Ummm, why? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see why it's "unbelievable" either? -- Deadstar (msg) 16:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I believe it, at least AGF. - Rocket000 23:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I dont see, why is it unbelivible. --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 14:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Okay, I see... abf /talk to me/ 18:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unclear use of the category. --Rémih 17:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possible copyright violation - original file at [129] makes no mention of Creative Commons license. --62.254.220.101 12:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I would assume that the uploader, professor Shulman, obtained such permission from the author or copyright holder. Let's assume good faith and wait for further clarification from him; he has posted his contact details on his userpage so it should be easy to ask him for it. PS. I checked but I cannot find information that govcom.org is licensing its content under a free license. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed; I didn't want to request for speedy in case something had been overlooked. --62.254.220.101 10:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Dear anon, in the meantime, would you consider creating an account? It would facilitate our discussion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Done! I tend not to contribute to Commons very frequently, so I didn't think it'd be necessary. --Saxsux 11:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it allows, for example, to distinguish between you and thousands of other anonymous editors. If your IP changes it would be hard to know if its you or not even in this discussion... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dear anon, in the meantime, would you consider creating an account? It would facilitate our discussion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed; I didn't want to request for speedy in case something had been overlooked. --62.254.220.101 10:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. it is true if copyright has been infringed then it is a resposibility to remove said article
- Thanks, Anon. As part of the deletion nomination process, the original uploader has been notified - we're awaiting their response to make sure they don't have permission to use the image. --Saxsux 10:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Update. I have emailed the author, dr Richard Rogers, who wrote to me: "the digital divide cartograms are (c) 2005 Govcom.org. The copyright is on the maps themselves. Govcom.org is happy with (cc) Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike, as in science." As NC license are not accepted on Wikipedia, I'd like to ask him to give us a C permission, but for that I would need to give him an explanation of why this is the case. I cannot find a policy or any page on Commons that make it clear; I have a thread in Help desk and Village pump but all I got was this cartoon. I am sorry, but to convince a serious academic of why he should use a different license than the one he is used to I will likely need a little more than a comic strip... PS. Do note that if we can convince him we could get a lot of other useful graphics from this organization. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- See freedomdefined:Licenses/NC for a possibly useful “The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License”. --Mormegil 13:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright issues aside, I think it's a bad cartogram/anamorphic map. It shows internet usage in relation to the original geographic size of a country, regardless of population density; i.e. if a country has high internet usage it can be shown smaller in size than another country with identical usage, if the latter happens to have larger territorial size. This makes interpretation hard. A better way to represent internet usage is shown in worldmapper.--83.77.187.104 16:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, not free for commercial use, and there's been enough time to arrange a non-NC license. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Smackdown Baghdad 2003.jpg and Image:Torrie Wilson Baghdad 122003.JPG
[edit]
- File:Smackdown Baghdad 2003.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Torrie Wilson Baghdad 122003.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
There is no indication on the author's SmugMug account showing that it is indeed public domain. Oakster 08:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was just going by the template: "As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." Mshake3 04:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that, while it was taken by a US Soldier, was it part of his official duties or he did it as a private person. If you want to have images of WWE events that are in the public domain, I suggest giving Google a look. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. giggy (:O) 01:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deletion requests/Images of Biel.ch
[edit]The images of biel.ch are only usable for non-commercial, this is disallowed here.
Images: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&img_user_text=RotGelb uploaded from User:RotGelb
--Kolossos 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 16:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Without an author, there is no proof for this 1914 postcard to be PD-Old. ChristophT 17:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Some files from User:Koniczek
[edit]- Image:Got Popularna.jpg
- Image:Got ms.jpg
- Image:Got mz.jpg
- Image:Got db.jpg
- Image:Got ds.jpg
- Image:Got za w.jpg
- Image:Got dz.jpg
The images of various types of the Polish Mountain Tourist Badge uploaded by User:Koniczek are suspected copyvios. The badges are issued by the Polish Tourist-Sightseeing Society (PTTK) and are pretty unlikely to be under the copyrighted free use licence. --Maire 18:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete For me it's clearly derivative work. We don't know who is the autor of it, so we can't say that's PD-old. Even if it's PD-old, then it seems that those photos aren't really self-made, and it's 3D object, so PD-art doesn't apply. Herr Kriss 19:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Julo 18:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 16:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
PD self does not apply. I doubt the user was the photographer who took this picture around 1910. ChristophT 17:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Uploader was confused or careless in uploading, but added image to gallery of photos of photographer dead for more than 70 years. Arria Belli | parlami 17:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Oops, my mistake, sorry. Deletion request reopened. Arria Belli | parlami 18:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom.--Trixt (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
no date, no author, no permission - no evidence for PD-old ChristianBier 01:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The date is certainly pre-1915 (Blücher sank at Dogger Bank) and this looks like a First World War-era postcard so you can probably safely say it was published pre-1923 but not necessarily in the US. Can also probably safely say it is German in origin though who took it, I don't know.
So I would say it satisfies US PD standards but I don't know that it satisfies German PD standards.There is a colourised postcard version of this image (or another image in the same series) at Image:SMS Bluecher.01.jpg so if this one goes, that one should too, I guess. Gsl 2.0 03:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)- This is for sure German postcard published before WWI. It would be good, if somebody knew whose is the signature. Pibwl 23:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- The "signature" would be the postcard publisher's mark but it is not one I have seen before. According to the Cornell copyright term & public domain guide a work published outside the United States before 1923 is in the public domain in the US (which does not agree with Help:Public domain for the period 1909-1923 -- which is right in this case?). As far as I understand Commons rules for PD, the photo must be PD in the US and the country of origin so the question is, is it PD in Germany? I assume it would have to satisfy "life+70" but I don't like our chances of identifying the photographer. Gsl 2.0 05:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is for sure German postcard published before WWI. It would be good, if somebody knew whose is the signature. Pibwl 23:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. If the boat sank before 1915, I think that is good enough. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Image is not in public domain because it is credited to "Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute" not NASA, nor is the image hosted on NASA's website. Dream out loud 01:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- To quote the New Horizons image usage policy http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/gallery/imageUsePolicy.php: "New Horizons is a NASA mission and adheres to the space agency's guidelines for image use and reproduction." Also, the NASA New Horizons webpage: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html uses, in its header, material that is clearly of the same set of drawings. As such I think it is safe to assume that although the images were created by JHUAPL, they do fall under the general NASA/JHUAPL image usage policy for the New Horizons mission. But the only way to be sure of course is to call JHUAPL. (which i won't be doing since i'm not in the USA). TheDJ 15:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. They use NASA policy, good enough for me. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Should be the same like Image:Sarganserländer 1. Ausgabe DooFi.jpg, however MediaWiki can't create a Thumbnail. Petar Marjanovic 13:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Go go gadget deletion! --DooFi 16:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep high-resolution, lossless archival versions can be useful, even if MW refuses to create thumbnails for them. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment and delete; the highest resolution you can find here. --Petar Marjanovic 01:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Was the PNG made from the JPEG? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment From this? Yes. It's the original scan. --Petar Marjanovic 12:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No one bothered to explain why this should be deleted, other than it can't be thumbnailed (minor detail) ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Should be the same like Image:Sarganserländer 1. Ausgabe DooFi.jpg, however MediaWiki can't create a Thumbnail. Petar Marjanovic 13:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Is this the same subject as in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sarganserlaender 1. Ausgabe DooFi (64colors).png? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. --Petar Marjanovic 01:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Aye, go ahead. I'm sorry for all the mess. Didn't know that gifs/pngs OF THAT MAGNITUDE are invalid..... -DooFi 12:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Kept. Same as the other. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
February 26
[edit]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There are two copyright marks in the screenshot, as well as a logo. Rockfang 04:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete {{screenshot}}-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 12:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Rocket000 04:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Because there ara no picture Cavelucas 09:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The svg is damaged, posibly it has a png o jpg background. But it can be repaired easily.-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 12:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep it contains a reference to a local bitmap. Cavelucas, you can remedy this by just removing the bitmap from the SVG file. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 15:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 16:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope, not used. ALE! ¿…? 09:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE. Dodo 10:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Totally out of scope. Not even used in user pages.-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 12:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, drive-by uploader and complete wank Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no encyclopaedic value, just some bad negative photography which is pornographic when changing colors again. JD {æ} 11:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. If the author were a famous photographer with his own article, it could be kept. But it is not the case.-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 12:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, negatives are not sexy, nor does an shitty overexposed close-up photo become artistic when you invert the colours. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no encyclopaedic value, just some bad negative photography. JD {æ} 11:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- delete, the same as the preceding images, out of scope.-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 12:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. I don't see how this is even "erotic" (with the colours inverted it just looks like a shitty over-exposed photo). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like a DVD screenshot to me. ALE! ¿…? 16:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Old not closed request of 26. Mai 2007 by User:Gryffindor.
--GeorgHH • talk 21:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Possibly unfree, image must have been taken in the 1970's which means copyright has not expired yet. --Gryffindor 19:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Just keep it --81.68.125.220 18:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
keep it unless someone claims to have the copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.191.233 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 3 Aug 2007 (UTC)
Given the political situation when and where it was taken, is this image actually copyright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.183.147 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 8 Aug 2007 (UTC)
No, the Khmer Rouge have been deposed, and the author of this image declared it public domain. Nobody to contest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.110.77 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 Oct 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, image is a picture of a picture (looks like a photo of a museum exhibit). Copyright issues are moot. How does one remove this delete template? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.9.95 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 11 Nov 2007 (UTC)
"Possibly unfree" doesn't justify an automatic removal. -Pink Panther —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.175.82 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 12 Nov 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Picture of a picture = derivative work. Copyright issues are never moot. Rocket000 18:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Unclear license, author not given Omerzu 20:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, unclear. gren 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
'self-made' seems wrong. abf /talk to me/ 12:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and change the tag to {{PD-shape}}. Applying new colours to the Nordic cross, used since at least the 13th century, does not merit copyright protection. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. self made seems possible. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
sorry, but it does not loock like a self-made Image. abf /talk to me/ 12:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm, why? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No good reason to delete, I think that it may be self-made.--Trixt (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Suspect user after 2 others of same subject being deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be created from Image:Saudi Arabia - province locator template.png without proper attribution and done in paint with poor jpg compression. I don't think the color change is important but if it is it should be re-created with proper attribution and as a PNG. --gren 00:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- The point is: The link-text on the labeled map can be more visible on the Grey back ground rather than the Green one. Ammar shaker 03:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not Used. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
February 27
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I would like to remove my contribution. It is unused. Kma922 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - personality rights. Patstuart (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Keep! It's a great photo!
- Delete After discussion with Kma922. Morgoth666 09:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Why? if we have to remove unused photos from this server, it would be a great percentage (more than fifty?) that I don't know! But IMHO, almost all photos on Commons are not used. You made a series of photos of this model, published it here on Commons, now you are backing off for this one, this series are helping us to understand the model, a graphical point of view if I could say so; some other people would have made a category of this series. So, why not keeping it?Morgoth666 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC) - Delete image uploaded in error, unused; personality rights. Lupo 09:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep no reason to delete it IMO. Just part of the diversity of nude photographs availbale on Commons. May be useful to some people. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete We try to honor author's requests when possible. The file being unused is not a reason to delete but it is one less reason we should keep it. When it comes to images of this nature, we should have a little more respect for the uploader's wishes with personality rights and everything. Let's not keep it simply because we can. - Rocket000 15:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Herrick 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted / Author requested.--Fanghong 00:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fake license. -Nard 01:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio, cd cover.-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 09:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file has been replaced by Image:Closed_Caption_Demonstration_512k-Felix.ogg. The version displayed here is obsolete and should not be used in any projects. --Torindkflt 01:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 03:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 16:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader said on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Viandox.jpg the poster was « from the sixties ». The author is not mentionned. Even if the author died in 1960, his work will not be in the public domain before 2030. There is no FOP in France. guillom 08:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copyright violation. guillom 08:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Les affiches et posters de publicité ne tombent pas dans le droit public dès qu'ils sont exposés ? Il serait donc interdit de publier n'importe quelle photo sur laquelle on apercevrait une affiche publicitaire dont l'auteur ne serait pas mort depuis plus de 70 ans ? Romanceor 11:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Dans l'ordre : non, ils ne tombent pas dans le domaine public, et oui, il est interdit de publier une photo dont le sujet principal est une telle affiche. Désolé. guillom 15:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Bah non, non, c'est moi qui suis désolé ; je ne savais pas et je m'en repends. Romanceor 16:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Dans l'ordre : non, ils ne tombent pas dans le domaine public, et oui, il est interdit de publier une photo dont le sujet principal est une telle affiche. Désolé. guillom 15:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. guillom 08:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no source indicated --137.205.8.2 08:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I marked it with {{subst:nsd}}. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(Superseded) --25 February 2008 User:Konny1979 Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Superseded images are not deleted, but can you also mention the other file in case there is some other reason it should be considered. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: user request
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No indication for PD, www.yankeegardener.com itself is © 2000 - 2001 Yankee Harvest, LLC. All Rights Reserved GeorgHH • talk 09:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Website states these images are reproductions of a book published by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. So it should be {{PD-USGov-FWS}} --Denniss 11:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
On their main page (bottom) they write "While the specific content of Fifty Birds of Town and City is in the public domain and therefore free of copyright restrictions, please be advised that this website including its graphical arrangements, fonts, sounds, and additional pictures are protected by U.S. copyright laws, and all rights are reserved." Unless that bird is one of their own pictures, which I don't believe, it is in fact PD. Keep --Ogre 11:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept / --Fanghong 01:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
image showing less than nothing! --89.164.26.21 16:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think you are right. It shows the Bzmot train's inside.--Beyond silence 13:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- agree with 89.164.26.21. Delete Julo 19:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
deleted, no useful content --Polarlys 11:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
IMHO this image is not self-made. If it was a high res image would be available. ALE! ¿…? 16:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Agree; this is likely from some website :( – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio from [131] rimshottalk 17:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image shows "moshgirl" or "moshzilla", an old internet meme or phenomenon, see http://moshzilla.com/ for example. I highly doubt that user SAGAT was the original photographer. Azbycx 15:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC) --Cecil 19:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unencyclopedic image. Reverend X 20:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. User's only other upload was a similar image already deleted as copyviol. -- Infrogmation 14:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 17:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is a copyvio from here --Reverend X 19:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted / Copyvio --Fanghong 01:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC) + +
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
porn, free advertisement, no interest for Wikipédia --Tognopop 09:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Used in the es.wikipedia article on what appears to be breasts (I don't speak it). Probably should be added to the naughty image list. WilyD 22:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is no porn; No reason for deleting. --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 23:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Nolanus. --Dezidor 23:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Nolanus; see also Commons:Nudity. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept, since result of discussion is unambiguous -- Cecil 08:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I can't see a reason why it is PD-old. GeorgHH • talk 23:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. -Nard 00:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 14:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The author can only be a natural person, not "Willem Lodewijk Gymnasium". Unless the uploader certifies that he has indeed taken the photo -- which also appears on the mentioned web site -- himself, this license seems dubious. 84.57.75.48 23:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above, website states that it's copyrighted: © Willem Lodewijk Gymnasium, 2006-2007 -- Deadstar (msg) 08:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 10:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is an erotic image, not an educational one 87.4.223.104 23:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep in scope. -Nard 00:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This image is not at all educational.
- Keep - Why can't erotic images be educational? It may not be educational when it comes to human anatomy but it is educational when it comes to erotics. :) Otherwise, why don't you delete almost everything in the category: Pornography? Maybe just the the categorization is wrong, then we should just change the category, but as long as images like this one, this one or this one stay on Wikipedia, I see no reason to delete the image we are discussing here. --Botev 20:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Because I'm the photographer and I changed the permissions at Flicks, it's not allowed to use my pictures without my acceptance and I don't want to publish my pics here. Thanks for your understanding! 213.47.87.123 20:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Sorry dude but the Creative Commons allows for infinite relicensing, in fact this is a requirement of free licenses, so the license we have cannot be revoked. -Nard 20:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Licenses cannot be revoked in this manner. This image was obtained with and confirmed to have a CC Attribution 2.0 Generic license. Are there personality rights issues, however? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No, elcobbola, there are not. Oven Fresh (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Disagree; this is a nude in an obviously non-public place. See COM:PEOPLE - where's model consent? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If it was once released to CC, it stays that way, even if the original file was relicensed. As far as the personality rights are concerned - that's what we have the {{Personalityrights}} tag for! And the model consent has been granted through the cc license. --Botev (✍) 17:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- The CC license has nothing to do with consent. That tag is helpful for images with identifiable persons taken in public. It does not resolve "unreasonable intrusion without consent" concerns inherent to nudity in private places, as articulated in COM:PEOPLE. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete this is a nude in an obviously non-public place, and needs consent per COM:PEOPLE. The fact that other images may be wrong as well is not a good argument for making things worse. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment OK. But note that if this image gets deleted for that reason, I am going to nominate all the other images for deletion as well. --Botev (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. I'll note that the CC license is not revocable and, therefore, that the reason provided by the nominator is bogus. However, there's still the issue that it's an identifiable person in a private place, and therefore, that we need permission from the subject. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No permission by author (photographer!), proposal suggests that this image under the given license can be used for Wikipedia purposes only. Polarlys 17:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The image is a photograph that was taken in the mirror, so Tila herself is the photographer. When I sent the request MySpace message, I included detailed verbatim that the image may be used in accordance to the Creative Commons, and she approved of it, as there is not indication that she said "Wikipedia only" --wL <speak·creatively> 20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Taken using a mirror? Ah … Your request included a very limited view on what “modification” (“fix colors”) and “sharing” (“With the licence, it lets us use the pic on different language versions of the site, and on a print version of the encyclopedia when it drops.”) means. --Polarlys 20:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've told her what I would do with the picture, but the links to everything including the commons deed were included so she could read over it --wL <speak·creatively> 21:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with WikiLeon, keep.
You should definetely keep this picture up there. Just because Tila took it herself, it doesn't mean anything. get over it and leave her alone.
Deleted. This could be a textbook example of a bad request for permission. Do not link people to licenses, give an insufficient description of the license and then think that is sufficient to secure permission. It is not. The odds of someone actually reading a license, even the simplified "human readable code" versions, are nearly nil, especially so of someone that does not have a lot of time in their hands. The author's attempt of explaining it went as follows:
- With the licence, it lets us use the pic on different language versions of the site, and on a print version of the encyclopedia when it drops. It also allows us fix the colors of it so it doesn't look so bright.
And yet, this does not even hint at the fact that anyone must be able to do the same things -- and this is an absolute and non-negotiable requirement for the Commons and a fundamental part of the Creative Commons license in question. It suggests that "modification" is limited to adjusting the colour balance, when we require (again: it's a non-negotiable thing) that people be allowed to do anything to it. Her response, "yes you may use that pic", is entirely consistent with someone not reading the license and seeing "oh, someone wants to use my pic for their project, that's cool" -- when we are about a lot more than that.
We have a duty here, folks, to ensure that people are understanding what they are consenting to. That's essential if we're going to keep this project free for anyone to re-use, for any purpose, rather than merely being a host for images that the English Wikipedia can get away with using.
With that said, Tila seems pretty reasonable and I don't think it would be hard for someone with a MySpace account (I don't have one, and won't until Satan starts buying winter clothes) to try and secure a proper permission from her, since she seems quite reasonable. But please, don't follow Leon's example; make sure she knows what she's consenting to and get a proper license release, or even better (i.e. simpler and impossible to understand), see if you can get a public domain release. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic: commons is not a webhost for porn. Patstuart (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unencyclopedic image. Reverend X 20:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unencyclopedic, he's just pissing in an ocean of piss. ViperSnake151 21:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- *she's - Rocket000 04:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Emmm.... where is the porn? I see some pubic hair, a wine glass and some cyrillic (?) letters Mutter Erde 21:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Great I love it! —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.37.128.63 (talk • contribs)
- Delete Out of scope. There's no need for "watersport images" --Herrick 08:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Compleatly useless. Jorva 23:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep "Out of scope" is hyprocrisy since it illustrates urolagnia. "Porn" is also hypocrisy since there's nothing really pornographic on this particular picture. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment it's really difficult to find non-pornographic AND free-to-use illustrations of urolagnia. This picture is one of these rare possibilities. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - 1) this image is not used in an article anyway, and strikes me as more of a personal collection, and 2) Image:Pissing-illustration.jpg works great, where as all this image shows is a person peeing in a glass and says nothing about the above condition. As far as I can tell, it's only pornographic. Patstuart (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment TwoWings, I notice you defend images like these a lot. Just keep in mind, nearly every image in the world illustrates something. That doesn't mean it's in our scope. Hardcore porn can illustrate an article on hardcore porn, but will it? Not for very long. Personally, this image isn't worth it. It's poor quality and doesn't effectively illustrate anything, yet it is the only pic we have of someone pissing in a glass (that I'm aware of), if that's important :/ - Rocket000 15:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I defend that kind of pictures when I think it deserve to be defended. I already voted "deleteé for other nude/"porn" pictures. And the reason why I defend those kind of images is because they are more likely to be deleted for personal non-neutral POV than any kind of pictures. So this lack of objectivity makes me want to defend them more than any other picture that will easily be defended by other people. I hate censorship and exagerated prudishness. So when it's not porn and when it has an encyclopedic value well yes I will defend it. And it's the case here: it's not porn as some say it and there's not much illustration for such subject. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, I wasn't saying that like it's a bad thing. :) I hate censorship too, but there is a difference between deleting a picture for moral reasons (oh no, it's porn!) and deleting a picture because it's useless. The latter I'm completely ok with censoring. (That and censoring because of copyrights, of course.) And you're right, these types of images do get targeted more, but I that's not a bad thing either. We might not care about keeping a few useless sunset images, but we do mind keeping a few useless penis images (the consensus, I would say) . We got a reputation to consider. We don't want people coming to Commons to look at free porn and we don't want Commons to be an outlet for exhibitionism either. On the flip side, we're not an encyclopedia, and we're not here just to host encyclopedic content (Wikipedia's the only encyclopedia out of all of Wikimedia). The thing is most borderline "out of scope" images can usually find a use on userpages at the very least. However, content like this usually doesn't belong there.
- I appreciate you defending images you think are useful and risk censorship over content, but most of these aren't being nominated simply because of the content. Honestly, I think the censorship is taking place with a completely different type of images. Images that offend people in other ways, such as racially or politically. - Rocket000 20:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I never accused you of accusing me! I was just pointing out problems and the reasons of my struggle! Anyway I can understand what you mean about tje useless penis images etc. But in this case, we "unfortunately" don't have other better quality illustration of the same thing. If we had it I would go for a deletion but it's not the case. What's more, this picture has some sense when it's taken with its "sequel" image, i.e. Image:Drinking urine.jpg. The illustration of urolagnia is the confrontation of these two images and those are not strictly pornographic. They're actually less pornographic than the third urolagnia image we have on Commons (Image:Pissing-illustration.jpg) but for some reason I've never understood there's never any problem with explicit drawn porn!!! Anyway as I said such subject doesn't have any better illustration on Commons so as long as we don't have any better one these two images are useful. (the drawing doesn't illustrate the same aspect of urolagnia) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rocket and TwoWings; on the topic of useless penis images. Have you ever counted the number of Commons' images showing female genitalia and compared that to the number of images showing male genitalia? I think there are quite a moderate number of male genitalia images, but we are compleatly overwhelmed with female genitalia images. Jorva 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was just using that as an example, we may have more female genitalia, but I think male genitalia is uploaded more. People just have less of an issue with female nudity. Penis images are used in vandalism a lot too. - Rocket000 01:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rocket and TwoWings; on the topic of useless penis images. Have you ever counted the number of Commons' images showing female genitalia and compared that to the number of images showing male genitalia? I think there are quite a moderate number of male genitalia images, but we are compleatly overwhelmed with female genitalia images. Jorva 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I never accused you of accusing me! I was just pointing out problems and the reasons of my struggle! Anyway I can understand what you mean about tje useless penis images etc. But in this case, we "unfortunately" don't have other better quality illustration of the same thing. If we had it I would go for a deletion but it's not the case. What's more, this picture has some sense when it's taken with its "sequel" image, i.e. Image:Drinking urine.jpg. The illustration of urolagnia is the confrontation of these two images and those are not strictly pornographic. They're actually less pornographic than the third urolagnia image we have on Commons (Image:Pissing-illustration.jpg) but for some reason I've never understood there's never any problem with explicit drawn porn!!! Anyway as I said such subject doesn't have any better illustration on Commons so as long as we don't have any better one these two images are useful. (the drawing doesn't illustrate the same aspect of urolagnia) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I still don't think this is a very useful image, however, it is the only non-illustrated image of the subject we have that actually shows the action. And as TwoWings pointed out, this is one part of the two photo series, when taken together effectively illustrates urolagnia (i.e. it's not just someone pissing in a glass). Is it pornographic? Maybe to some, but we have a lot of images that someone or other would consider porn (For example, I consider this, this, and this as porn.) - Rocket000 02:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, per TwoWings. The fact that this may be considered pornographic is totally irrelevant. Oven Fresh 20:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but the fact that it's unencyclopedic does, a fact which you have failed to address. Patstuart (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh yes it is: The fact that it illustrates urolagnia and that it makes sens connected to the other picture is a fact which you have failed to realize! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.199.247 (talk • contribs) 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- w:WP:JUSTAVOTE applies well here. Patstuart (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unencyclopedic & therefore out of scope as well. --Herby talk thyme 15:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you say it's unencyclopedic? Isn't urolagnia an encyclopedic subject? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Urolagnia is a valid subject - I do not consider this a good example and you are at it again - you have your opinion which I respect & I have mine - please respect it - thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I respect it. I just wanted to know why you thought it was unencylopedic. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Urolagnia is a valid subject - I do not consider this a good example and you are at it again - you have your opinion which I respect & I have mine - please respect it - thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you say it's unencyclopedic? Isn't urolagnia an encyclopedic subject? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
senseless stuff, isnt it? abf /talk to me/ 19:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as per above discussion. —Giggy 00:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is pretty base (in before "Commons is not censored"; we're also not meant to be a repository of random gross-out pictures). I don't see how this is even vaguely educational or useful. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 04:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep For 2 reasons. First because this has already been kept and there's no new argument for its deletion. Second because this picture makes sense as an illustration of urolagnia when it's seen with the other picture mentionned in the description. It's a kind of diptych and the two pictures only make sense when they're seen together. So you just have to read to understand. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Needless to say, if this is deleted the other one should be as well. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 07:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well this DR seems to be only about one picture so why isn't it mentionned? Indeed it would at least make more sense. But the fact is: it ilustrates urolagnia, urolagnia is an encyclopedic subject, and we don't have many illustrations about that. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Needless to say, if this is deleted the other one should be as well. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 07:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. You know what I don't like ? - clouds. Obsence things hanging in the sky. Lets delete all the images of them on commons. And images of fish as well - they aren't even wearing any clothes! We shouldn't be censored because otherwise we start picking up bias (anti-nudity, pro-nudity, pro-Judean people's liberation front, anti-People's Judean liberation front). The photograph is at least reasonably arty (in a Larry Clark kind of way). Commons shouldn't be censored (within the bounds of the law). And it damn well shouldn't be censored based on individual users tastes. Megapixie (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep - watersports is a fairly well documented sexual fetish, and this illustrates it fine without any problems of identifiability. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
February 28
[edit]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
image of unfree game board Samuell 00:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment US Patents don't have copyright. The claim this is from a patent, if true, may be enough to make this free. -Nard 00:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 00:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, Polarlys. Re-opened. This is not a speedy case that can be closed 40 minutes after the nomination. See Commons:Image_casebook#Board_games... Lupo 08:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Where does this photo come from? Is this a photoshopped photo taken by de:User:Horst Frank or what? Lupo 08:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, looks like. See [132] ("I've set up my Monopoly game and photographed it; I'll put the image in the article soon."), and then the insertion of the image here. The claim is not that this photo came from a U.S. patent, but that the original design were published in a U.S. patent without copyright indication and was thus PD, and that the design of this German version were so close to this original PD design that is is not copyrighted in itself, and that therefore the photo was not a derivative work of a copyrighted original. The photographer of course has a copyright on his photo (choice of angle, lighting, board setup, etc.), but since it appears to be a self-taken photo released by the photographer, that's not a problem either. Looking at en:Image:DarrowPage1.png, which is extracted from the patent application available at uspto.gov, the graphical elements of this board here are indeed very close to Darrow's original design. Keep Lupo 08:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, looks like. See [132] ("I've set up my Monopoly game and photographed it; I'll put the image in the article soon."), and then the insertion of the image here. The claim is not that this photo came from a U.S. patent, but that the original design were published in a U.S. patent without copyright indication and was thus PD, and that the design of this German version were so close to this original PD design that is is not copyrighted in itself, and that therefore the photo was not a derivative work of a copyrighted original. The photographer of course has a copyright on his photo (choice of angle, lighting, board setup, etc.), but since it appears to be a self-taken photo released by the photographer, that's not a problem either. Looking at en:Image:DarrowPage1.png, which is extracted from the patent application available at uspto.gov, the graphical elements of this board here are indeed very close to Darrow's original design.
- Keep Lupo, you beat me to it! This image was most likely deleted without reading the copyright rationale on the image page itself, which I added on 6th Jan with a view to preventing accidental deletion on the grounds that this is 'just another copyvio of a board game'. Monopoly is a special case since the original design of the Monopoly board is now out of copyright: see Commons:Image_casebook#Board_games. This is a clear keep. --MichaelMaggs 10:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Monopoly is a special case. Cowardly Lion 14:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
IMHO this image and other images showing the Peterborough Snow Ball are out of the project scope. ALE! ¿…? 08:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like it illustrates a style of dance. User may have uploaded more snapshots than we need, but IMO a slight over-abundance of free licenced illustrations relating to an encyclopedic topic is better than too few. -- Infrogmation 14:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Snow Ball is an annual contra dance with four bands that runs from noon to midnight. It is harder to see what people are doing because it just looks like a crowd of people, but I only take photographs of the dances while people are dancing. I went there to take photographs during the day, when the light would be better, but unfortunately got there too late. The video is an amazing view of what the group is actually doing. SayCheeeeeese 15:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
uploaded a newer file Char0609 13:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 15:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{duplicate}} (or {{badname}} if own work/upload) for duplicate images. Arria Belli | parlami 17:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Because this flag never existed it is a strange hoax/re-creation from a symbol that has been found on one map. Clear intent is to show that Serbian Empire did have a flag, but did it have such flag or not, where is any proof that such flag ever existed. --Rainman 23:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Also see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:NemanjicCrnojevic.svg.
- Keep - not a valid reason for deletion. // Liftarn
- Delete - file without adequate source, it is OR made from scrap using [133] -- Rainman
- The file is properly sourced. // Liftarn
- Delete - this is not even the case of re-creation but instead of falsification of history. It is a pure fantasy flag, fiction.--Imbris
- Note - discussion ongoing over at this User's talk page on English Wikipedia, baseless accusations disproved.
- Keep - There is absolutely no reason to delete. --PaxEquilibrium 02:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
![[133]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Serbia_on_the_map_of_Angelino_Dulcert.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. Invalid reason. As long as it's freely licensed and in our scope (as it's use shows that it is), there's no problem. We don't editorialize here - take the discussion to Wikipedia (or wherever). We simply host media. What people do with it is up to them. Our images don't have to be "true" or verified or NPOV or even what you agree with. - Rocket000 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is a derivative of the copyrighted Adobe Reader icon Dream out loud 23:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Even it's copyrighted, everyone is using this logo now, it's becoming a classical basical image. Taipeisoir 08:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC
Keep Just use the {{trademark}} template on it and it will be fine. Heck, you know how many "copyrighted logos" we have stored on Commons just because of the whole "you can't copyright basic typefaces" thing. Vipersnake151 14:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep I agree with "you can't copyright basic typefaces". Wooptoo 18:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Not a "basic typeface". —LX (talk, contribs) 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. This icon is included in numerous GPL'd and free software packages including commercial ones. It's been used in MediaWiki. All evidence suggests that either it's PD-ineligible or has no restrictions outside of trademark laws. The logo in this image is stylized a lot more than the actual logo, which is no more creative than a simple typeface. - Rocket000 23:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Images of Dierato
[edit]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
What is country of origin? WHo is sculptor? See Commons:Freedom of panorama. EugeneZelenko 16:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Appears to be Mexico: [134]; Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Mexico seems to state quite clear that Mexico has FOP. Patstuart (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Patstuart. Durova 02:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. - Rocket000 02:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Considering the uploader's contribs and the image itself, I strongly suspect a copyvio. --Dorftrottel 07:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Very likely a copyvio. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 10:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Considering the original uploader's contribs (see Image:20030520015715!Clitoris.jpg) and the image itself, I strongly suspect a copyvio. --Dorftrottel 07:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 10:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I have a better picture of Matt Berry which Matt wants to use for his wikpedia picture. -24 February 2008 User:Ben meadows
- Keep Presumable that would be this image which doesn't have a proper license on it, nor does it look self made. In any case, no reason to delete this one. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The other image is better for the w:Matt Berry page, though. I support it being used instead, if we can prove that the copyright holder(Matt Berry or his management?) has released it under a suitable license for upload to the commons. What's the procedure for doing that sort of thing? boffy_b
- I've just noticed that the uploader, User:Ben meadows, attempted to add the necessary info when he uploaded it. It shows up repeatedly in the file history, but isn't in the page. I've updated the info on the image page to reflect that in the file history, and put the better picture on w:Matt Berry. I see no reason to delete this photo, though. boffy_b 21:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No reason for deletion. rimshottalk 14:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Suspected copyvio. Doubtful copyright situation to say the least, stemming from this user. --Dorftrottel 16:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - user with a history of copyright problems; we have enough other photos of the same material. Patstuart (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 10:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source. Looks like a scan from a offset print. Kolossos 14:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 15:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Jodo 13:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
--
- Done, VIGNERON * discut. 11:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope. EugeneZelenko 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Changing to Keep reluctantly, per Rocket000. Durova 02:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Changing to
- Keep It's crap, but it's used crap. - Rocket000 16:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unencyclopedic image. --Jodo 13:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
w:User:Wyatt915's auto(?)portrait, used on his own page. Kept. Julo 12:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The author is unknown and the picture was taken in the 1930s, so we do not know whether it is still copyrighted or not 88.65.71.170 18:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. Not enough info. Patstuart (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- If the author is unknown the picture can go under Anonymous-EU beacuse it was took more than 70 years ago --Clockwork Orange 14:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
deleted, “author unknown to me” ≠ “anonymous work”--Polarlys 15:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of COM:SCOPE Kolossos 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. --Jodo 13:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Mormegil 13:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Highly suspect license, considering the uploader. Dorftrottel 16:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like with the arm angle that they are holding the camera--Caveat emptor 09:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Why? --Starscream 09:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing conclusive about licence. A potentially useful image for a subsection on breast size143.117.225.197 15:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep no problem.--Pirat 16:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete
Another copyvio by this uploader. Removed accusation of other uploaderAppears to be copyright violation based on users past contributions. -Optigan13 23:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC) - Keep beautiful Photograph.--El torero 04:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Why to censor? --Jacopo Werther 13:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why welcome obvious copyright violations? Dorftrottel
- Comment Users past contributions are NO evidence for obvious copyright violations. --Jacopo Werther 19:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why welcome obvious copyright violations? Dorftrottel
- Delete obvious copyvio; see other contributions. --JD {æ} 12:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete From the description: I produced by a retouching software. Self-explanatory.--141.84.69.20 20:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment推定による明確な根拠も無い削除依頼にはいささか疑問を感じます。また、賛否投票についてですが、推論を元に協議するのは危険な行為であり、また、削除理由に十分に削除に値する論拠が示されていない状態で投票することに疑問を感じます。--Gazomo 08:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Jacopo Werther is right: Users past contributions are NO evidence for obvious copyright violations. Ivan Akira 06:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'm Sorry but I produced by a retouching software is NO evidence for obvious copyright violations. Where are the really evidences which this image is a obvious copyright violations? --Jacopo Werther 18:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete either copyvio or under age. abf /talk to me/ 11:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
deleted, another guy who starts uploading images of various women, claiming to be the author. Kind of boring. --Polarlys 21:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
highly suspect license, considering the uploader. Dorftrottel 16:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There does not seem to be a problem. --Pirat 16:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep non problem.--El torero 04:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Seems we are playing a bit of guilty until proven innocent by marking it as a copyvio. 75.135.77.90 20:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If I am not mistaken, we can see that the Photoshop filters "Lighting effects" and "Smart blur" (or an artistic submenu filter) have been used. I am not sure why anyone would do this to their own photography - I suspect this is a cropped, shooped nude, used without permission. The filters could be there to make it harder to identify. Disguised copyvio. -- en.wikipedia user:Talionis 121.45.114.93 15:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete My reasons stated above suddenly seem like enough. -- en.wikipedia user:Talionis --121.45.114.93 15:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete likely copyvio. --Bradeos Graphon 01:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We can talk all day about what it is "likely" to be or what we "suspect", but I don't buy either as a reason to delete an image. KristoferM 03:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think Talionis is right, based on this Gazomo contribution, I don't see anything wrong or even copyvio. Ivan Akira 06:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
deleted, another guy who starts uploading images of various women, claiming to be the author. Kind of boring. --Polarlys 21:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Highly suspect license, judging by the uploader's contribs. Dorftrottel 16:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
keepI dont see a problem she shows haw to have sex and it is beatiful
keepThe license can be replased.I'dont see any real problem with this photo.By the way the wikipedia has few images of japanese woman.Vicond 04:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep Deleting a picture just because the uploading user has had questionable contributions is not a valid excuse. The image should be compared based on its relative value, not the value of he who uploaded it. 70.179.52.204 06:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep no valid reason given to delete.86.145.1.102 12:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment could we have any reasons why we may not trust this user? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It seems to process a face, and there is not problem.--Pirat 16:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete
Another copyvio by this uploader. (Unrelated comment accusing other editor removed). Looks like copyright violation to me. -Optigan13 23:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC) - Keep I think Non Problem.--El torero 04:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I see no valid reason to delete this (beautiful) picture. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete now it's clearer with the user's new contributions. It is copyvio. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason not to as far as I can tell.72.81.226.247 17:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete obvious copyvio; see other contributions. --JD {æ} 12:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment根拠が曖昧すぎる。明白な証拠を示してほしい。--Gazomo 08:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Vicond is right, about the license, it can be fix to a valid one. Ivan Akira 06:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
deleted, another guy who starts uploading images of various women, claiming to be the author. Kind of boring. --Polarlys 21:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
New version here --Sebado 20:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Where's the new version?--rimshottalk 17:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Badseed talk 16:02, 8 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}
COPYRIGHT! Like other picture from this user, it is simply copied from a commercial website (www.djjv.de) --77.128.186.170 17:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete - and all the other ones listed below. Patstuart (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I think the photo of Einstein is still coprihted 217.236.230.89 14:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Derivative work. Durova 15:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is NOT derivative work, Mr. Einstein's portrait is circa 8% of whole picture and is partly and blurred view in the background. If this photo is not out of project scope - Keep Julo 16:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- But the uploader is in the United States where no freedom of panorama exists. Doesn't that create a derivative work issue? If not I'll change my vote, but that seems to be the issue here. Durova 00:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Einstein is not the primary subject of this picture; in fact, he's hardly any of it at all. Patstuart (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per Patstuart. Some men on commons suffer from sth with a shape of a "copyright paranoja". If they only sniff a bit sth they think that can be "copyrighed" they become very excited. Strange and dangerous... Electron 06:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Paranoia maybe, but there's no FOP in the U.S. and never applies to indoor posters anyway. It doesn't matter if it only takes up 8%. What if the picture was of a really high resolution? It's the same as if I make a collage with a bunch of copyrighted photos each of them only taking up 5% of the entire picture. Is that ok? No. And "Einstein is not the primary subject" is a fair use rationale. - Rocket000 16:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - the only groups I have known to be sticky about this issue are low-budget media and MTV (I never understood that): 95% of the media seems to be under the assumption that such an image is not a copyright violation, and if there are any comparable cases where a court has decided in favor of a violation, please do cite that case here. In any case, these media that do censor such images often just blur it: were this not an orphaned and a not-useful-for-an-encyclopedia image, I might suggest doing that here. Patstuart (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- The same thought crossed my mind, but what would be the point? An out of scope argument could be made here: looks like a snapshot for a personal photo album; hard to imagine any WMF project use for it. Durova 03:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I guess if a user wanted to use the blurred out photo on their userpage it would be in our scope. - Rocket000 07:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- The main theme of this photo is CD/DVD scratching (as the title is describing)... It can be useful when you want to ilustrate haw you can damage an CD/DVD (as it is use on pl-wiki)... Is it so hard to understand? Regards Electron 07:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, fair enough. I personally don't see it adding any value to the article, but I guess it's appropriate and free images make any article better :) - Rocket000 11:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't found the better free photo to ilustrate the problem. BTW: CDs (especially CD-ROMs) are very sensitive of scratching because there is only a very thin lacquer layer on the upper (usually printed) side. Under the lacquer layer is placed the spiral with dates. If you use a sharp ball-pen you can damage the dates... DVD disks are better shielded (the dates is placed in the middle of the gauge of a disk). Regards Electron 12:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah I ruined a few burned CDs that way :) - Rocket000 14:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't found the better free photo to ilustrate the problem. BTW: CDs (especially CD-ROMs) are very sensitive of scratching because there is only a very thin lacquer layer on the upper (usually printed) side. Under the lacquer layer is placed the spiral with dates. If you use a sharp ball-pen you can damage the dates... DVD disks are better shielded (the dates is placed in the middle of the gauge of a disk). Regards Electron 12:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, fair enough. I personally don't see it adding any value to the article, but I guess it's appropriate and free images make any article better :) - Rocket000 11:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The main theme of this photo is CD/DVD scratching (as the title is describing)... It can be useful when you want to ilustrate haw you can damage an CD/DVD (as it is use on pl-wiki)... Is it so hard to understand? Regards Electron 07:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I guess if a user wanted to use the blurred out photo on their userpage it would be in our scope. - Rocket000 07:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- The same thought crossed my mind, but what would be the point? An out of scope argument could be made here: looks like a snapshot for a personal photo album; hard to imagine any WMF project use for it. Durova 03:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- My Goodness, it is easy to edit this image and clear from it Einstein photo. Difficult? No. So why is it not edited??? 83.23.15.207 15:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Commons:De minimis? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept, de minimis inclusion. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 13:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Adam Carr is probably not the author of this poster, so he cannot release it in the public domain 88.65.71.170 18:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - derivative work with no original source. Patstuart (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
error in svg: contains link to a local image Erik Baas 21:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, there is nothing to salvage here: the svg doesn't contain anything but the link to the local file. --rimshottalk 17:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- PS: an older revision does contain something. Let's wait for the author's input. PNG version is here, but doesn't have a license. JPEG version is here. --rimshottalk 17:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
(Old request of 29 June 2007) no source, uploaded from hr.wiki, where is wikipedia permission only. 29 June 2007 User:Suradnik13 --GeorgHH • talk 10:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Freebsd logo
[edit]
Freebsd logo is free copyright? see [135]--Shizhao 13:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - no fair use on commons. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - See http://www.freebsd.org/logo.html, is clear, is necessary obtain permission to use the logo. http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/documents/Guidelines.shtml are guidelines for obtain permission. Commons not have permission. Shooke 00:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Shizhao 14:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Alexkhandria2k
[edit]
Considering the fact that these are the only contributions ever by User:Alexkhandria2k, I find the simple assertion that the user holds the copyright to be doubtful, to say the least. Further considering that Commons has more than enough illustratory images of female genitals, I recommend deletion of all listed images. Dorftrottel 17:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see any formal reason for this request. Missing the point of aesthetics - permission license is OK, description is OK. It might be educational, taking picture description into account (Asian type, 32 y. old). "More than enough illustratory images" is not a good reason, see how many dogs or cats or... sunsets we have in Commons... Julo 18:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- About the license: My concern is that this user uploaded these five images, then vanished forever. There's no editorial reputation to vouch for that claim of copyright ownership. Dorftrottel 20:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Did it ever occur to you that the person who contributed this registered a different name just for these pictures? Most people don't want their name stamped to a picture of their pussy on the internet. --71.191.135.128 06:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, that did not occur to me. Dit it ever occur to you it would be possible to mail those pictures to another user in good standing, preferably an admin, and ask them to upload it for them? Dorftrottel 20:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then someone knows. It's traceable. - Rocket000 04:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Traceable?? Also, this way, no one knows, which is no better. Dorftrottel 14:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, traceable. The best way to be anonymous is to be anonymous. :) - Rocket000 00:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- This way, no one knows, which is no better. Dorftrottel 16:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, traceable. The best way to be anonymous is to be anonymous. :) - Rocket000 00:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Traceable?? Also, this way, no one knows, which is no better. Dorftrottel 14:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Then someone knows. It's traceable. - Rocket000 04:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, that did not occur to me. Dit it ever occur to you it would be possible to mail those pictures to another user in good standing, preferably an admin, and ask them to upload it for them? Dorftrottel 20:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Did it ever occur to you that the person who contributed this registered a different name just for these pictures? Most people don't want their name stamped to a picture of their pussy on the internet. --71.191.135.128 06:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
In some Wikipedias users are openly encouraged to use sockpuppets for uploading of difficult images of any kind (e. g. in german Wikipedia). Here even EXIF data is intact, what's very untypical for copyright violations. Those EXIFs reveal a camera type that was very common for that period too. So there's no reason for copyright paranoia! And pictures of female genatalia with natural pubes are undoubtedly of encyclopaedical value nowadays. --Hemulen 14:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep AGF here. Other than being the uploader's only contribs, there's nothing here which makes me question the license. - Rocket000 04:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please assume the assumption of good faith. Dorftrottel 14:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- What? I was talking about me assuming good faith, not telling you to. - Rocket000 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh. Sorry, I misunderstood. Dorftrottel 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- What? I was talking about me assuming good faith, not telling you to. - Rocket000 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please assume the assumption of good faith. Dorftrottel 14:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reason to deleted these pictures nor to think there might be a copyright problem (pure speculation) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's also pure speculation that the license is valid, with no indicator either way. Dorftrottel 14:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer the term "assume good faith". We usually take people's word unless there's reason not to. - Rocket000 00:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's what I meant. If there's a good reason to assume there might be a problem of trust with that user, well fine. But I see no such reason here. As for the "we have enough genitalia images" argument I think it has no value here since they are quite good quality shots so if we have to make a choice then we'd better delete poorer images. What's more I always find quite interesting to see that such argument is always used for anatomy or erotic pictures and almost never for - let's take some few example - personal pets or souvenir shots of a trip in Paris! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hm. There is simply no basis on which to base any trust, really. Dorftrottel 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Then you can start a DR for maybe 50% of the pictures on Commons! Have fun! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why not start right here? Dorftrottel 17:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, because it's not policy to assume copyright violation in the absence of evidence.Quelcrime 00:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's not the way it works. The burden of evidence is with the uploader. Dorftrottel 04:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, because it's not policy to assume copyright violation in the absence of evidence.Quelcrime 00:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why not start right here? Dorftrottel 17:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Then you can start a DR for maybe 50% of the pictures on Commons! Have fun! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hm. There is simply no basis on which to base any trust, really. Dorftrottel 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's what I meant. If there's a good reason to assume there might be a problem of trust with that user, well fine. But I see no such reason here. As for the "we have enough genitalia images" argument I think it has no value here since they are quite good quality shots so if we have to make a choice then we'd better delete poorer images. What's more I always find quite interesting to see that such argument is always used for anatomy or erotic pictures and almost never for - let's take some few example - personal pets or souvenir shots of a trip in Paris! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer the term "assume good faith". We usually take people's word unless there's reason not to. - Rocket000 00:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's also pure speculation that the license is valid, with no indicator either way. Dorftrottel 14:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There's no evidence these are copyvios. Simply asserting a suspicion with no evidential support is not reason to delete. The burden of proof is on you, if you want to assert copyright violation. It sounds like prudery with 'copyvio' as an excuse.217.44.132.81 00:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Cite actual grounds for suspicion of copyright violation. I've never heard that images are copyright violations unless the uploader has uploaded a certain minimum number of images. I've only uploaded one.Quelcrime 00:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Perhaps Dorftrottel could sort out the tags on his own uploads before making unfounded accusations against others whose tags are perfectly in order.86.145.1.63 11:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- ?? What are you talking about, brave and mysterious IP? Dorftrottel 04:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep These pictures are of good quality and there's no sign for copyright violation. These picures serve to lift the taboo on female genitals and are perfectly suitable for commons. 212.27.185.253 11:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I can't see any evidence for copyright violations and I don't share the point of view, that the number of figures related to a certain topic should be limited. --Iwoelbern 13:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no reason why this image would be free. The NATO flag is a copyrighted logo, and this one is probably that too. --25 February 2008 User:Ssolbergj Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This amounts to fair use. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete from Commons and re-upload to en.wiki et. al. for fair-use on specific articles. Andrwsc 00:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- KeepThe fact the flag of NATO is not free is not a sufficient reason to delete. Here are few other symbols that belong to NATO, and yet they are still free: Emblem of the NATO Response Force.svg and SFOR svg.png. --Oren neu dag (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- KeepPer Oren neu dag reasoning(Top Gun) 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Two circles and some words. The placement of these elements don't seem to be original enough to merit copyright protection, as they do not pass the standard originality test of whether two people could conceivably have created the work independently. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Text logo.--Ahonc (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Logo may be ineligible for copyright, but not its realization.--Trixt (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
February 29
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unproven accusation --Gerry Ashton 17:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The image Drunk-driving.JPG caption contains an accusation of drunk driving without providing any reliable source for that accusation. Also, the name of the image is itself an unproven accusation. --Gerry Ashton 17:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep It is not a reason for deleting. Author of the picture does not have to prove anything. He has a free hand with naming his work. Julo 18:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
As neither the car nor the driver is identifiable, that should not be a problem. -- Túrelio 19:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Although most people in the world would not be able to identify the car, a person familiar with the neighborhood where the crash occurred would be able to identify it. --Gerry Ashton 19:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think they have already noticed the crash, don't you thinks so? --Jaqen 02:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly so. And the notice of people is what makes the car, and perhaps the driver, identifyaable But the crash may not have had anything to do with drunken driving; we have no reliable source to say that it did. --Gerry Ashton 03:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and rename. Not personally identifiable. -Nard 01:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and rename unless a source is provided. Not personally identifiable. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 03:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Renamed to Image:Crashed Honda Accord.jpg. PLEASE do not use COM:DEL for rename requests. If you have a problem with the name of a file, rename it. This is a wiki, guys. - Rocket000 04:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No information on the year of death of the painter. ALE! ¿…? 15:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Born 1986 - de:Benutzer:Giacomo1970/Baustelle. Delete, unless the uploader is working with the artist and can send proper OTRS permission. --dave pape 00:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission for more than seven days. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Speedy deletion was requested, a standard request might be better. --32X 17:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
original request: PD-old can't be established since there is no source for the photo. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 32X 17:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I confirm this should be a speedy deletion request. We don't have to take care of copyvios on Commons. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 01:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand - "We don't have to take care of copyvios on Commons"? Is there a way to hold off on deleting it while I do some searching? I know it's been up for deletion for a little while, but I only just ran across it. -- SatyrTN 05:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I just deleted. This was uploaded nommed 2 weeks ago, plenty of time for research. If you find anything else the image can be restored, its not like it's lost and gone forever. -- Drini 18:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Drini: unsourced 2 weeks
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
image of unfree image Samuell 02:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- But it's as background only. // Liftarn
- Delete per nom. It's made to illustrate the photo. - Rocket000 04:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Jodo 16:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Shizhao 14:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image has been taken from an Image Search due to the low-resolution, thumbnail sized image so if it was uploaded with the "found on Google or random site" licensing tag, it would have been deleted as it is not supported. There are no summary tags included either --3mgrant 10:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. The other uploads by this user seem to be suspicious too. --91.65.124.74 18:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Jodo 16:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Shizhao 14:52, 21 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}
No indication at the source site (http://www.beloit.edu/~classics/ ) that the image is under GFDL. ALE! ¿…? 15:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per nom. --Dodo 12:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. →Christian.И 14:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
flicker says all rights reserved, no flicker status checking in history --Motopark 17:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Deletecopyvio.--miya 09:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 08:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
flicker says all rights reserved, no flicker status checking in history --Motopark 16:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Deletecopyvio.--miya 09:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 21:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
original picture deleted from flicker, can't check status --Motopark 16:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The author, Bob Folscheid, keeps all his photo "all rights reserved". So this photo may be in the same status.--miya 09:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 21:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
flicker says all rights reserved, no flicker status checking in history --Motopark 16:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio.--miya 08:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
flicker says all rights reserved, no flicker status checking in history --Motopark 16:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio.--miya 08:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 21:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
flicker says all rights reserved, no flicker status checking in history --Motopark 17:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Deletecopyvio.--miya 09:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 21:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo come from the website of the mosque Kimdime69 15:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Website is http://www.mosquee-lyon.org/galerie (I can't check at the moment).
- User also nominated the following images with the same reason:
- -- Deadstar (msg) 09:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I checked the website: It says that it is copyrighted. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted -- Deadstar (msg) 13:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
out of scope. Image of random woman in the street. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC) ---- Deadstar (msg) 12:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Other uploads by same user along same lines: Image:Madness 048.jpg and Image:Madness 044.jpg. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Although the image might potentially be useful with a better description, the current name and description indicates that the sole intent is to make seemingly unfounded statements about the mental condition of the subject. As such, it's a rather severe personality rights violation. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per LX. MichaelMaggs 16:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I found the below comment on this image, and wanted to ensure it was dealt with.
Not sure the problem is for commons, or for Serbian wiki, but obviously IP user has an issue with it.
I don't think there is a problem: The description page states clearly where it was cropped from, user has released the original with a PD-self license (and thus allowing cropping etc.) and as far as I can see licensing is the same as on the original (but should perhaps be changed from PD-self to PD-User). ---- Deadstar (msg) 10:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
PD-license accepts all derivative manipulations. Keep Julo 17:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- WARNING!
- Violation of the integrity right and other rights
- The image of Sophie Marceau on this page is actually a mutilated and distorted fragment of my original work Image:Peter Shelokhonov with Sophie Marceau 1997.jpg The mutilated and distorted image of Sophie Marceau is wrongfully attributed to user Steveshelokhonov in Serbian Wikipedia. The mutilated and distorted image appeared in the article on Sophie Marceau in Serbian Wikipedia (revision Софи Марсо, at 22:22 on February 15, 2008).
- NOTE: Article 6bis of the Berne Convention protects attribution and integrity, stating:
- Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.
- 1. Use of the mutilated and distorted image Слика:Sophie Marceau2.jpg is in violation of the integrity right protecting the original image from mutilation and distortion. The integrity of my original work, even donated to public domain, is still under protection of both federal and Florida law, and other international laws.
- 2. The file in Serbian Wikipedia Слика:Sophie Marceau2.jpg is not my work, but it is a mutilated and distorted part of my original work Image:Peter Shelokhonov with Sophie Marceau 1997.jpg, and such mutilation and distortion was done without my prior knowledge.
- 3. The template from my original image Image:Peter Shelokhonov with Sophie Marceau 1997.jpg was improperly used with the mutilated image Слика:Sophie Marceau2.jpg in Serbian Wikipedia. Improper use of my template from my original image was done without my prior knowledge.
- You may calmly consider helping Wikipedia by correcting the violations:
- a) undo the misuse of my original licensing template that was improperly used with the mutilated and distorted image Слика:Sophie Marceau2.jpg in Serbian Wikipedia.
- b) undo mutilation and distortion done to the original image Image:Peter Shelokhonov with Sophie Marceau 1997.jpg
- Your cooperation is appreciated.User:Steveshelokhonov 01:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- INFORMATION BELOW THIS LINE IS WRONG
- (on image page - information on image was here)
- The above was added on 28 February 2008 by User:130.166.33.224
- Delete. Dear fellow Wikipedians,
I see your votes, and I respect your rights to making your point. However, please consider my position based on the law, common sense and mutual respect.
My own original work is the image of Sophie Marceau with my father, Petr Shelokhonov.Image:Peter Shelokhonov with Sophie Marceau 1997.jpg I took the photo after the actors finished filming a scene for Anna Karenina and made themselves available for photographers. Sophie Marceau was very nice, graceous and generous, she projected a radiant ambience and made people around her very happy. My father brought me to the filming location and introduced me to Sophie Marceau, and I was impressed with the beauty, talent, and professionalism of this fine actress. My father, Petr Shelokhonov, died in 1999, and I decided to give his original images of my own work, including this one, to Wikipedia, and to public domain. However, the integrity of my own work remains under protection of international laws that are honored by Wikipedia policy.
I made the above image to document the meeting and work of two film actors, Sophie Marceau and my father, Petr Shelokhonov.
Article 6bis of the Berne Convention protects attribution and integrity, stating: Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.
I donated my original image to Wikipedia with understanding that this community respects my objection to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to honor and reputation of my late father, Petr Shelokhonov.
My message to the Serbian Wikipedia users, regarding the distorted image, was treated with good understanding, and my request to return to using my original image was honored.
It is not only the legal issue of integrity and attribution, but also a matter of common sense, mutual respect and reputation regarding all parties involved.
Your cooperation is highly appreciated. Steveshelokhonov 10:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep both or Delete both - no middle ground. Commons, wikipedia, etc = free use + free modification. An image that we can't modify, isn't a free image, and should be deleted (as should any image whose terms of use imply no modification). Keep all on the grounds that the user released modification rights to the image or delete all on the grounds the user doesn't understand the commons concept of "free". I'm happy with either outcome. Megapixie 15:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Either original image is free and may be freerly modified OR it's not free and should be deleted. This modification of original image is not prejudicial to honor or reputation in any way. My opinion is to Keep. A.J. 20:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support The same oppinion here. When the original is FREE so it could be changed. Keep or delete both.--Avron 14:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose mutilation of the original image violating integrity rights and personal rights of my late father, actor Petr Shelokhonov.
I, Steveshelokhonov, did not mutilate my own original work, but some Wikipedian mutilated my original work, so my late father, actor Petr Shelokhonov, is now missing.
Article 6bis of the Berne Convention protects attribution and integrity, stating: Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work.
Here the mutilation was done against the integrity rights and personal rights, that are protected by the Bern convention and international laws.
Me and my mother are shocked by such mutilation of the image of my father, Petr Shelokhonov, in Wikipedia.
We respect fellow users in Serbian Wikipedia who agreed to use my original image keeping its integrity.
Personal rights and integrity rights should be honored, and violations should be deleted! Steveshelokhonov 23:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete As I understand, the relatively new wikipedian, Steveshelokhonov, did not realized all the implications of putting the {{PD}} on the original image. I do not think we should exploit the honest mistake of the user. I suggest to change the copyright tag on the original image Image:Peter Shelokhonov with Sophie Marceau 1997.jpg from PD-self to something like {{Copyrighted free use provided that|Any derivative work should not crop out, or otherwise obscure faces of Peter Shelokhonov and Sophie Marceau}}. I suggest to Steve to think for awile, maybe consult with his lawyer and formulate exactly what is not allowed to do in the derivative works to the image. Anyway I have put a personality warning there informing people that by cropping out people from the image they violate the explicit wish of the author and also may infringe his legal rights. Regarding the Image:Sophie Marceau2.jpg I think that keeping it is unethical (and maybe even illegal - the personality rights are qite complicated) and, thus, should be deleted Alex Bakharev 01:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I've added Image:Peter Shelokhonov with Sophie Marceau 1997.jpg to the request. Since we either keep both or delete both. Megapixie 02:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The suggested "provided that" message is against Commons policy. A.J. 07:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Against policy per Commons:Project scope "... commercial use and publication of derivative work is allowed." Megapixie 07:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Steveshelokhonov is trying to persuade that cropping image is violation of authors moral righs or personal rights of persons on the photo: that's not the case. Basing on this photo, how anyone possibly could say anything wrong: derogatory or against honor or reputation of the author, his father or Sophie Maceau? No one also modified original image: it's kept as the author published it. This can be dangerous precendece as people may try to force Commons to keep their {{watermark}}s on similar basis. A.J. 07:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- In my country copyright law, author may request to remove his credit from modified work when he/she does not accept modification, even when copyright was transfered. What about US law? A.J. 07:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have an E-mail exchange with Steve and he would rather delete both images, the original one and the modified one. It looks like when he has labeled his image as PD he did not realized the image can be edited in such a drastic way. I suggest to follow his wish and delete both images Alex Bakharev 00:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment ‘’’Delete both images to end the problem. I agree with several Wikipedians who directly and via e-mail gave me advice and recommendation: Request to delete BOTH original photo and it's fragment. Steveshelokhonov 21:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete both. I agree with the building consensus above of the proposal by Megapixie. It is clear that the author never intended to release the original image into the public domain (did it by honest mistake). Since he chooses the images deleted, we should respect it. Steve then is free to upload his image under a different licence. (I also had a brief email exchange with Steve.) Yury Petrachenko 05:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment What about other uploads then? I think we should require OTRS permission for them. A.J. 10:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Alex B. appears to be in contact with him - Alex B. could you confirm that he understands that the remaining images may be modified and used commercially. Additionally he needs to understand that this is irrevocable (we're being nice/understanding this time). If he's not comfortable with that then we should delete the lot. Megapixie 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hesitant Delete In cases like this, I always have an urge to keep the images to make a point... but that's not a good reason. Because of Steveshelokhonov's obvious misunderstanding of the public domain, moral rights, and personality rights, I don't think we can honestly say these images were meant to be released as PD. It seems a better license would be CC-BY-ND (which isn't allowed on Commons). If Steveshelokhonov has a problem with a little cropping, I would hate to see what would happen if this image was really manipulated. Image:Peter Shelokhonov with Sophie Marceau 1997.jpg should never have been uploaded to Commons. And respect is good.- Rocket000 11:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment
Thank you, everyone, for this thoughtful, respectful and careful dicussion. I learned something from this mistake, and I am also discussing the whole story with specialists outside Wiki. Integrity of images is the key issue here; if two figures may be separated by anyone altering the original image, that means all group portraits in Wikipedia are at risk.
The CC-BY-ND license is used in many images, but how safe those images are? Is it safe to donate images under CC-BY-ND license without worrying about the risk of alteration of images by other users? Steveshelokhonov 23:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Both deleted, please understand what free content licensing means before you upload files here :/ --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source points to Norwegian wiki, which now points back here. Can someone check the info there as uploader has changed vital details (like who took the image) on other images he transwikied from this band.He also states "© William D. Lollar" so perhaps it is copyrighted? ---- Deadstar (msg) 11:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Kjetil_r 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source, wrong license. All very doubtful. ALE! ¿…? 08:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Source is given: Image:Eichmann trial news story.ogg. --GeorgHH • talk 08:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think the same. Source is given. It's a screenshot of the video. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 11:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The license of the source video is very doubtful as well. I have marked it as missing essential source information. --Rosenzweig 23:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- It seems the video is PD because Universal put their entire newsreels in the public domain. So this image then is PD, too, and we should Keep it. --Rosenzweig 01:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- It seems the video is PD because Universal put their entire newsreels in the public domain. So this image then is PD, too, and we should
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope, unused personal image with a lot of recognisable people + their names in the description. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Vriullop 13:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Could this not be used to illustrate w:unity? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope personal image. Any personal image can be used to illustrate something, but that is not always a reason to keep. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope -- Deadstar (msg) 14:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope personal image. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Very low quality image, very not sharp (the bird is not identificable by that image), there are already much better images of Turdus Merula, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 14:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Too poor quality to be of any use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Very low quality image, very not sharp (the bird is not identificable by that image), there are already much better images of Phalacrocorax carbo, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Too poor quality to be of any use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Very low quality image, very not sharp (the bird is not identificable by that image), there are already much better images of Phalacrocorax carbo, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Too poor quality to be of any use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
unfree shampoo bottle Samuell 03:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
How, exactly, is it unfree? It is part of the trade dress of a trademarked shampoo bottle and I will certainly be on the safe side and tag it {{Trademark}} if consensus dictates. Neither the text on the bottle, nor its color or font is eligible for copyright, and more so as sentence fragments containing no unusual words nor an advertising slogan. If that drop is copyrighted, then we can crop it out but it does not dominate the image. But I really don't see where copyright becomes a problem ... I carefully avoided the product logo. Daniel Case 04:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No elements eligibles for copyright.--Trixt (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
No checkable source, no indication for PD. GeorgHH • talk 09:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
No checkable source, no indication for PD. GeorgHH • talk 09:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Unknown original author and source, no indication for PD. GeorgHH • talk 08:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No source. -Nard 04:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - seems to be {{Anonymous work}} and/or {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} Julo 13:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Approximately four months at deletion review with no source or supported PD rationale having come forth. Author and/or date of publication is not know. Author may be known to someone (just not to us), which precludes claim of {{Anonymous work}} in the absence of a sourced assertion of anonymous publication. {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} relies on publication conditions; again, we have no date of first publication to support that license. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Very low quality image, very not sharp (the bird is not identificable by that image), there are already much better images of Phalacrocorax carbo, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Not the best photo, but I'd put that down as a cormorant even without reading the description. It's the only image in the category to show a single bird in a relatively isolated nest. Deleting doesn't save any disk space either, so no harm in keeping it around. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you painter? EugeneZelenko 16:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please send then a permission to OTRS? Thank you! --ALE! ¿…? 14:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. After a brief search, no valid OTRS permission has been found.--Trixt (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Copyright obviously by Johnny Cash Port(u*o)s 23:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, I aksed at Commons:Questions, and they explained me like this: a traditional tune, the song is in the PD, but Cash recorded it, he has a "Leistungsschutz" (at the moment, I don't know how it's called in english), which lasted fifty years, these fifty years are now over, so this file is PD. Waylon 07:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you could apply that to American works. -Nard 10:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Pre-1972 audio recordings in the US are a bit of a legal muddle. US copyright law did not cover them, and they were protected by state law. In most cases it doesn't make a difference (you write the score, it is protected by copyright, the recording is a derivative work of the score, covered by the same copyright). I do believe in a case where simply the recording is protected and not the score state law would apply. I'm going to retag as {{PD-US-record}}. Furthermore, this was recorded in TN by a TN resident for a TN label (Sun Studio) and TN no longer recognizes its common-law copyright (see http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/tca/PDF/011/CorpCater.pdf - "state common-law actions for copyright infringement no longer exist."-Nard 16:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. N seems to have the information ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)