Hi, I'm new to the Commons and accidentally uploaded this picture with the wrong filename. The correct name should be Staircasehouse.JPG and is found at Image:Staircasehouse.JPG, which is in use on the English Wikipedia (en:Staircase House). Therefore, this image is without purpose and use should be deleted. Thanks. Polishname11:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guy who uploaded it to flickr calls himself "EuPaparazzi", which is why I presumed that he is a photographer so he could justifiably release his images under a CC-license on flickr. I don't think that an image on a fansite is very indicative of any copyright claim, since most fansites just copy images without caring about copyright at all. I did do a search of Getty images at the time, but did not find this image there. Jacoplane17:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a screen cap uploaded by a FlickR user, who has at least one other screen cap, and one magazine cover on his FlickR page. Rarely are there free pics from a commercial brodcast TV show (during the show, on stage, not after). Rob22:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I originally tagged for speedy under "derivative work, breaks crown copyright" the uploader User:NobbiP removed the speedy and tagged for regular deletion with - why? - however the regular deletion was left uncompleted and I am completing it on his behalf. To the question "why?" British coins are subject to Crown copyright and do not become free until 50 years after their issue, since this coin is from 1994, images of this coin cannot be hosted until 2044. KTo28822:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor resolution that makes it not suitable for using. A larger version of it should be uploaded and named more completelly if possible. "Raimon" seems quite ambiguous. --Lascorz (I'll read it) 16:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ladies and gentlemen, according to Lupo, this pic might cause some troubles in the United States. Also according to Lupo (on his disc), he found no reason, why this image might cause problems in Germany. (Other countries were not prooved).
So, because this bizarre animal from Brazil is not yet described on any wikipedia including en and de, I give this pic (and the Kornkäfer too) as a donation to all national wikipedias. This pic might be a good reason to introduce this funny animal to YOUR wikipedia. On Lupo´s disc you will find some links, which describe, why this animal was able to survive some 10000 years. And if you want to introduce the artist, who sculpted this wonderful big model of originally 6mm Bocydium globulare, so click on de:Alfred Keller (Modellbauer). And sorry to the American people, but I am not responsible for your laws, but you might change them :-). Greetings to all, Mutter Erde22:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said. I just said I hadn't found any German court cases relating to taxidermy. But sculptures are copyrighted in Germany, too. Lupo06:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Valuable images...so just mail someone and see what he is telling you. But in the end I agree with Lupo: "sculptures are copyrighted in Germany, too."...Forrester16:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it cant be PD-Aust as the license says Public domain This image was created in Australia and is now in the public domain because .... but this image was taken in KIEL, GERMANY during 1940-41 and would most likely be subject to the requirements German copyrights. Gnangarra12:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. rimshottalk11:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. --rimshottalk11:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any reasoning? It's neither text in a general typeface nor simple geometric shapes. It's not plain handwriting either. --rimshottalk12:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. MichaelMaggs06:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep Commons is not censored. The subject is not identifiable and I would imagine that this image may well have encyclopaedic use. --Herbytalk thyme13:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - no Commons standard has been suggested that this picture might breach. Deletion request just seems a bit of gratuitous prudery. --Simonxag (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep the image. it is not in bad taste, and adds value to the article it is attached to. --FiveseveNx28
Because we're not a Wikipedia. This template is completely pointless. A bot was suppose to be making use of it but I don't see that happening. It wouldn't work either as en.wp is a much better central interwiki update location right now. They always have the most iw links. --Rocket00003:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reopening. Yes, the template is currently used 8 times, but:
These uses can easily be removed, or if that's not possible it's also possible to tag the template with {{Deprecated}} and delete it once all transclusions have been removed.
There are no equivalents for Featured articles on Commons. Featured galleries seem to have been planned once, but no one has really done anything there.
We don't have any bot who regularly updates these templates like for example on de.wikipedia. Otherwise, the transclusions of this template will remain outdated.
Delete Rocket summed it up: "Because we're not a Wikipedia". It would be quite lengthy to explain, but essentially the purpose the template has on wikipedias can't be served here. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Flickr source is a totally different picture, plus images by that photographer all seem to be licensed as "All rights reservec, not creative commons Seidenstud06:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a new better version of this file: Image:Mapa maquis3.png, I am the author in both cases. I tried to replace it with the same name, but I coludn't, I don't know why, sorry --Gurgut15:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a new better version of this file: Image:Mapa maquis3.png, I am the author in both cases. I tried to replace it with the same name, but I coludn't, I don't know why, sorry --Gurgut 15:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC) --Gurgut15:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a new better version of this file: Image:Mapa maquis3.png, I am the author in both cases. I tried to replace it with the same name, but I coludn't, I don't know why, sorry --Gurgut 15:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC) --Gurgut15:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong license on flickr - uploader has been confused about flickr licenses in the past, and it seems likely this was never marked with the license given here. Patstuart (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as derivative of a copyrighted work owned by Paramount. This is a point that sometimes causes confusion so I'll explain in a little more detail. An image is still a derivative work if it's completely drawn from scratch, if it's obviously intended to duplicate the look and feel of an existing copyrighted work. That's what we're dealing with here. Durova02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I failed to see how this image could consist of any copyright violation when:
1. The form of the template is standard in Taiwan and thus is not copyrighted. Also, this item, even in its original form, is freely reproducible and not legal tender.
2. The registration is not a real number and is in fact presented as 000000
3. The company presented in the invoice is a fictitious "WIKI BOOKSTORE"
4. The items purchased are fictitious: 1 x WIKIPEDIA (1st Volume), 1 x How to post on Wikipedia, 1 x New Comer's guide.
5. Even the "Advertising Area" promotes "WIKI BOOKSTORE ANNIVERSARY SALES, 20% DISCOUNT".
With the above reasons, we can easily conclude that this document is indeed {{PD-self}} and specifically created for demonstration on Wikipedia.
I feel that your blatant questioning of an artistic item created with care for the benefit of the intellectual community without proper understanding of the material inappropriate. It is also a disrespect to the original artist. Please duly retract the deletion notice.
Delete I'm afraid that license isn't good enough for Commons. Does anyone feel like contacting the web site owner? They might be open to licensing the images differently, for example CC-by-SA or {{attribution}}. --rimshottalk14:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ubuntu and Firefox logos are copyrighted (but the image can be edited to remove them). The real problem could be that the web page shown in Firefox has neither license nor source information. --FedericoMP20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the French law be applied in this case in fact? Wikipedia does not have any server in France and i do not live there. It is a genuine question to make my mind on this matter. Med16:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because a sculpture is not "published" when it erected, and for unpublished works, the country of origin is given by the author's nationality, unless it is a film (country of the residence/headquarter of the movie maker) or an architectural work (country where the work is placed)? See Berne Convention, article 5(4)(c). But you may have a point... we should clarify which country of origin we consider in the case of photos of copyrighted works. Only that of the photo? Only that of the work? Both? Lupo09:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. In the U.S., all images of copyrighted sculptures would be not ok, because the US has no "freedom of panorama" for sculptures. De facto the Commons makes an exception for this case (contrary to our policy!) and considers only the source country for such images. But which source country? That of the sculpture? That of the photo? Or both? Lupo22:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This case is rather weird. Fréour was ordered to sculp a national French hero. He knew the - good - location of his work before, so that he could adapt his work on the surrounding buildings. Citizens and tourists are invited to marvel and photograph his work. If I would be the sculptor, my only interest would be, that my name is properly attributed. An encyclopedia as wp is the right place for all curious people, who want to know the artist`s name. Therefore: Keep (And thanks to Lupo, who found the sculptor´s name) Mutter Erde10:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is just a question of asking for Fréour's permission to use photos of his work, I will get in touch with him in May. Evstafiev19:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Evstafiev. In fact i had the intention the ask him an authorization sending him a request by the way of Wikimedia France. However if you get in touch with him directly perhaps it would be better in fact. Med13:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My wife visited Fréour a few weeks ago and explained the above issue. He said he had no objections to photos of his work being used for encyclopedia articles like Wikipedia. Evstafiev11:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a logo for a Spanish soccer team, and thus presumably under copyright (unless the uploader provides evidence that he or she is the owner of the logo). --Powers15:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a logo of a Spanish soccer team, Arenas de Alcabre. It's taken from the website of the team, and uploaded to this site with permission from the team, of which I am member. It's the same image we offer freely to other sites to make links to our site.
Those are orphaned - I was the one that attempted to renew the images, but though it said that the size is 3000x3000 (not actual example), when I tried to view the full image it showed me the old one. I waited some time (10 mins) and this still wasn't fixed, so I reverted my edit, and uploaded a new one. As for how much the pics are used: I replaced the old pics with the hi-res ones in all articles, so now they are orphaned. They still appear as if they are in the article, but they're not - check it yourself, and see that the hi-res image is there instead of the old one. In order words the images I nominated for deletion don't appear in any articles anymore.diego_pmc13:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you really have made them yourself in an especially made box arrangement, then you have them in a better solution. No serious photographer does that kind of work and then uses the absolute minimum resolution a camera can provide. This pictures look much to professional to be really made in that resolution. And, suspiciously enough, the EXIF-data is missing, as it is typical when you just take a downsized picture from the webpage of someone else. So if you really have made this pictures, just proove it by either providing the picture in its original size or by delivering the EXIF-data. Until then Delete, because when looking at the deletion log of this user and the reasons for the deletions, it is more than obvious that the user doesn'r respect copyright at all. -- Cecil16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My first uploads upon joining were truly copyright violations, being new and unfamiliar with the licensing process. The other company-supplied images, I have PROVEN and attempted to obtain consent according to our policies, I am completely in compliance with the no non-free content policies. Now you threaten to remove MY images because you can't find a reason they're mine? That's ludicrous. The images were made in a crappy cardboard light box with a mediocre Canon G10 and then cropped down using IrfanView. That's all there is to it. I don't have the original size since when I cropped and saved the images I overwrote the existing filed with the edited image. I can't explain the lack of EXIF data, maybe IrfanView does not support that. No idea, don't care. Koalorka19:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These files were taken from the official finnish military website, but they are not a part of a decision or statement. Code·is·poetry08:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This images from the finnish military website are not part of an official decision or statement. Thus that licence does not apply for the pictures and can't be used. It only can be used for exactly what the licence said, so while your finnish speaking partner is correct on the licence, the pictures are not useable for it. Delete. -- Cecil16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: show some good faith. Nowadays thanks to forums such as strobist and others providing tutorials and DIY tips it's child's play to make nice 'professional'-looking studio shots with the help of off-camera flashguns, diffusers & softboxes and whatnot (at a cost of next to nothing). Perhaps the uploader is uncomfortable with the idea to give away high resolution shot and thus limits his/her uploads to typical better-than-average web resolutions (when I was active here once upon a time I limited my contributions to no longer than 1024 or 1200 pixels on the long side for that reason). Perhaps a re-upload containing EXIF would satisfy the curious? The FDF ones must probably go thanks to zealots copyright law experts such as rtc et al. Cheers, 88.148.193.9215:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it would have been a user without a huge log of copyvio-contributions I wouldn't have that much a problem showing some good faith, even so at Commons it is a little bit difficult, because most contributors mean their best, but lack in knowledge of copyright laws. According to Koalorkas claim he overwrote the original files and the EXIF-data too, which is a little bit much to take in combination to his log. But some proposition: Koalorka should make one picture of all the 4 weapons together, with the same camera and without removing the exif-data. Doesn't need to be a good quality, just enough to see that it are the same. Since he claims that it are his personal firearms that should not be a problem. -- Cecil17:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't own all the guns anymore, the 686 and CS-1 are gone. This is pretty ridiculous. Since I have released MY images into the public domain for anyone on this planet to use, if you feel my explanation is insufficient because of my history, you can go ahead delete them and then re-upload them yourself. I don't need attribution. Will that make you feel better? Koalorka18:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having looked at the deleted uploads, the above are very similar. The history here plus a lack of exif data are highly suspicious. AGF is fine and dandy, but not in cases such as these. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb02:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have put the tag not because I necessarily want to delete the category but to draw attention to this issue. The English Wiki has a different name "Istanbul Archaeology Museum", there seem to be various possibilities as to the name of the museum in English. Any feedback is more than welcome. --Gryffindor18:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The official page in Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism website reads "Istanbul Archaeology Museum", so does a related New York Times article. I googled them just to be sure. The resultant figures are: 14,500 hits for "Istanbul Archaeology Museum", and 7,430 hits for "Istanbul Archaeological Museum".
(copy of the message left on Gryffindor's talk page) FWIW, I did a quick JSTOR search (same as a Google search, JSTOR is an academic journal archive) and found out "Istanbul Archaeology Museum" counts 12 hits, "Archaeological Museum of Istanbul" 41 hits and "Istanbul Archaeological Museum" 190 hits. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(copy of the message left on Gryffindor's talk page) If it can help you, I have the official guide of the museum (written by its director) and its title is "Archaeological Museum of Istanbul". Μαρσύας?17:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(copy of the message left on Gryffindor's talk page) I have just called the museum and talked to the officials. What they say is both of them goes. Namely, both "Istanbul Archaeological Museum" and "Archaeological Museum of Istanbul" is ok. Besides, I referred to "Blue Guide Turkey", and saw that it gives the name as "Istanbul Archaeological Museum". In this case, we can omit "Istanbul Archaeology Museum" and decide between the latter two. Thanks. --Chapultepec11:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(copy of the message left on Gryffindor's talk page) I have made a Google book search instead of just googling to eliminate the non-academic/unscientific sources. The resultant figures are as follows:
ok, problem: I just found my entry ticket and the brochure to the museum, it says "Istanbul Archaeology Museums". Let me cite "Istanbul Archaeology Museums actually consists of three museums: Archaeology Museum, Museum of the Ancient Eastern Works and Tiled Pavilion Museum." In Turkish it's "Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri" which is plural I assume as opposed to "müze(si)". The Archaeology Museum is in the main building, Museum of the Ancient Eastern Works in the other building opposite to it, a former school, and the Tiled Pavilion. Probably best to create three subcategories for each of these museums. Gryffindor23:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in fact there are three sections, and in Turkish the official name is "Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri" which can be translated into English as "Istanbul Archaeology Museums". So, three subcategories under one main category will be reasonable here. But what about the other side? --Chapultepec00:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Today in the morning I referred to that Byzantinist guide I mentioned yesterday. He told me that the real name in English is "Istanbul Archaeological Museums". Just to be sure, I went to the museum, and saw that he was right. Here is what it reads at the entrance of the museum:
Istanbul Archaeological Museums
Archaeological Museum
Museum of the Ancient Orient
Tiled Pavillion
Here is the result of a Google book search for the term "Istanbul Archaeological Museums" just for verification: 124 items
It is a promotional photo and is distributed throughout the web. Since this is so complicated and not in easy English terms, I will personally go and delete it. My understanding was that this was under fair use and should be free. It is located under a "contact your representatives" page at University of Southern Alabama. Promotional election photos have always been free and I thought I made this clear. Anyway, I'll see if I can figure out how to delete it. Magnoliasouth (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete The word "California" is written in an artistic manner. Probably not a typeface at all but a logo created by a graphic artist. --Simonxag23:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Typefaces, even custom typefaces, are not copyrightable in the U.S. That looks more like handwriting, and (like signatures) would not be copyrightable either. Carl Lindberg02:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll correct the reason. This graffito is copyrighted, no matter whether it was reproduced after a specific photograph or not. --88.65.95.23821:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Using common sense, here's what I think: This was made from a stencil, so it's a derivative work. On the other hand, the people in that campaign who made the stencil likely want it to be used freely (else they wouldn't give it away). But we have no permission. So I'm not quite sure what conclusion to draw from that line of reasoning... – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb16:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted photograph in the background which cannot be easily ignored. We have a cropped version of this picture showing only Melanie Betancourt here88.65.123.23720:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we could blur the background image successfully instead of deleting it, as television programs are akin to do when they worry about running afoul of copyrights. 64.178.96.16821:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image would have to blurred to such an extent that the person could no longer be recognised, so why bother? As I said, we already have a cropped version of the image. --88.65.90.000:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is certainly part of the environment, but that is not the point. The point is that it is an integral part of the image which cannot be ignored. --88.65.95.23821:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you miss the point. What you say is true, but irrelevant due to COM:FOP#France. While France has no FOP per se, there is a loophole when the element (the background picture) is an accessory to the subject (Melanie Betancourt). Keep– Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb16:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that court decision applied to immobile architecture, and I do not know if it can be extended to any other, mobile works. I doubt that the photo in the background can be considered accessory or a "simple element" since it takes about 1/3 of the whole area. In my view it could equally well be the central motive and Melanie Betancourt an accessory element. --62.216.201.3617:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it is screenshot (no TV-artefacts, the frame is not accurately horizontal and rather did not come from professional TV camera); it might be a photo made in TV studio. "Europa da się lubić" program is recorded with participation of audience. Julo09:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have permission on OTRS, also, like Julo said, it's not screenshot, for example cause proportions and resolution of image. Anyways it's Slawek's photo, i don't think he would make copyvio. Herr Kriss (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Was tagged for speedy deletion but is installed permanently in a public place (moviepark, oberhausen, germany) with consent of the copyright owner (moviepark is a licensee for showing spongebob installations). So the sculpture itself is not a copy-vio and as it is installed public, freedom of panorama holds true here. Imho deletion not justified. -- 80.139.35.14812:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is exactly where FOP applies. (@Deadstar: I'm not sure if you understand the idea of Freedom of Panorama? The FOP rule only exists because there is a restriction on derivative works!) --Fb7812:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There was some discussion at COM:UNDEL, and it suggests that this image may not fall under FOP due to the subject being permanently situated in a private amusement park. Private, in this context, means that visitors must pay to enter, and to fall under FOP, the amusement park must not have any entrance restrictions. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 01:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the sculpture is not a public place. German FOP law requires works to be situated in a public place to be freely photographed. --rimshottalk14:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suspicious that this image is really copyrighted and not the Flickr uploaders to license. The reasons are the lack of camera details, the fact it says it was uploaded in 2003, but then says the image was taken in 2007. If you click on the date the image was taken on the flickr page you'll see that the uploader has taken screenshots of copyrighted TV/films and put free licenses on them. I believe the same is the case with this image Polly04:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I considered this when I was examining the photo in the first place. At first I was worried about what appeared to be copyrighted screenshots, but if you go to those pages (e.g., [3] there's EXIF info on it, and that also matches that of photos that he presumably took -- compare [4] with [5] for example. That leads me to believe that the Dion/Groban photo in question is in fact legitimate despite the lack of EXIF info. As for the upload date discrepancy, it would appear to be a technical glitch, because that date is set by Flickr, not by the user. howcheng {chat}16:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.This is pretty likely to be a copyvio. Based on this youtube video of a television segment, the photo is of a rehearsal for the Grammy Awards in 1999. The angle of the video does match the photo. The concert photos the flickr account holder has actually taken have been from public concerts in Malaysia, were they are located. This photo is from a private rehearsal in Los Angeles, California. BlueAzure (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright tag provided says that the copyright holder allows anyone to use it "for any purpose", yet a close examination of the legal information link provided shows that derivative works are not permitted (the image cannot be altered), which is apparently inconsistent with the Commons licensing policy. - Mark04:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepimmediately. Oh come on! I'm sick of those DR! And I'm sick of anonymous IP coward requests! This picture is not pornographic but erotic. And there's nothing bad in illustrating erotic! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Even if the image were pornographic this would not be sufficient reason from deletion. The image is of the Burlesque artist Lolita Haze's act at the awards ceremony for the world's best such performers. --Simonxag18:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepimmediately. Oh come on! I'm sick of those DR! And I'm sick of anonymous IP coward requests! This picture is 1) a non-pornographic illustration of female masturbation; 2) a work by artist Peter Klashorst (and if one thinks we already have enough of Klashorst's work, I'd answer that this artist is famous enough so it would be non-neutral to determine which works we would keep and which we would delete). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, well within Commons:Project Scope. Bad faith nomination. Commons is not censored. -- Catちぃ？ 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keepimmediately. Oh come on! I'm sick of those DR! And I'm sick of anonymous IP coward requests! This picture is 1) a non-pornographic illustration of cybersex; 2) a work by artist Peter Klashorst (and if one thinks we already have enough of Klashorst's work, I'd answer that this artist is famous enough so it would be non-neutral to determine which works we would keep and which we would delete). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, well within Commons:Project Scope. Bad faith nomination. Commons is not censored. -- Catちぃ？ 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keepimmediately. Oh come on! I'm sick of those DR! And I'm sick of anonymous IP coward requests! This picture is 1) a non-pornographic illustration of female masturbation; 2) a work by artist Peter Klashorst (and if one thinks we already have enough of Klashorst's work, I'd answer that this artist is famous enough so it would be non-neutral to determine which works we would keep and which we would delete). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, well within Commons:Project Scope. Bad faith nomination. Commons is not censored. -- Catちぃ？ 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is pornographic and serves no purpose on here. 216.15.111.24316:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This is only one mans opinion I for one prefer to see a photo of a man masturbating than to see a drawing you can learn more from a photo than a drawing anytime! DUKE![reply]
Keep Commons is not censored. We do have adequate pictures of this nature but we act as a repository for material across the Foundation. It is not pornographic even if it is "graphic" --Herbytalk thyme18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commons is not censored. We do have adequate pictures of this nature but we act as a repository for material across the Foundation. It is not pornographic even if it is "graphic" --Herbytalk thyme17:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, cc-sa is a valid license. It's deprecated by Creative Commons but it is a valid license. It imposes a sharealike requirement without attribution. Keep Image is appropriately licensed. -Nard23:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid source. The user who allegedly uploaded the file to the English Wikipedia does not exist nor did he ever exist (as you can tell from log files)--Lamilli16:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But he does exist. (here's a real link to his logs) He just doesn't have a user page. And when you make a DR for a image that's already had one, please leave the past discussions above the new request. Can I close this now? Rocket00001:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepimmediately. Oh come on! I'm sick of those DR! And I'm sick of anonymous IP coward requests! This picture is 1) a non-pornographic illustration of genitalia; 2) a work by artist Peter Klashorst (and if one thinks we already have enough of Klashorst's work, I'd answer that this artist is famous enough so it would be non-neutral to determine which works we would keep and which we would delete). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, well within Commons:Project Scope. Bad faith nomination. Commons is not censored. -- Catちぃ？ 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep Although Commons seems to have an overabundance of exhibitionism images, that is not bad. Abundance is good (hope nobody denies that), and if the theme of the picture were other I am confident nobody would think to delete the excess images. -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en)18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. Avron's comments here and on other recent deletion requests clearly indicate he doesn't understand Commons. Multichill19:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous keep. So you think it's unreasonable to believe his wife knows nothing of his flickr archive of images? How do you know she's not a natural exhibitionist? -Nard02:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The previous deletion request did not address the permission issue, so "per previous" is irrelevant. Whether or not it's a reasonable thing to believe, if there is a reasonable doubt that she might not know her pictures are being used in this way, then we should insist on permission. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We all know that if a photo is of an identifiable individual in a place where privacy is a reasonable expectation we need model consent. Period. Brynn(talk)23:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to believe that consent was given has been provided. Therefore there is every reason to believe that it may NOT have been. Or maybe it was. But we must err on the side of not assuming that it was given because we want it to have been given, NOT assuming a possible rights violation is OK... we can survive without this picture if it can't be shown to have been permitted. ++Lar: t/c21:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepimmediately. Oh come on! I'm sick of those DR! And I'm sick of anonymous IP coward requests! This picture is 1) a non-pornographic picture; 2) a work by artist Peter Klashorst (and if one thinks we already have enough of Klashorst's work, I'd answer that this artist is famous enough so it would be non-neutral to determine which works we would keep and which we would delete). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...17:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commons is not censored. We do have adequate pictures of this nature but we act as a repository for material across the Foundation. It is not pornographic even if it is "graphic" --Herbytalk thyme18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Keep Commons is not censored. We do have adequate pictures of this nature but we act as a repository for material across the Foundation. It is not pornographic even if it is "graphic" --Herbytalk thyme18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. Avron's comments here and on other recent deletion requests clearly indicate he doesn't understand Commons. Multichill19:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Keep Commons is not censored. We do have adequate pictures of this nature but we act as a repository for material across the Foundation. It is not pornographic even if it is "graphic" --Herbytalk thyme18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, well within Commons:Project Scope. Bad faith nomination. Commons is not censored. -- Catちぃ？ 23:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep Commons is not censored. We do have adequate pictures of this nature but we act as a repository for material across the Foundation. It is not pornographic even if it is "graphic" --Herbytalk thyme18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, well within Commons:Project Scope. Bad faith nomination. Commons is not censored. -- Catちぃ？ 23:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Would you please stop this nonsense deletion requests. The purpose of commons is not that the image as to be used in an article. It's an image repository. Besides that, this image IS used (not that it would matter). --Lamilli17:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepimmediately. Oh come on! I'm sick of those DR! And I'm sick of anonymous IP coward requests! This picture is 1) a non-pornographic illustration of genitalia; 2) a work by artist Peter Klashorst (and if one thinks we already have enough of Klashorst's work, I'd answer that this artist is famous enough so it would be non-neutral to determine which works we would keep and which we would delete). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commons is not censored. We do have adequate pictures of this nature but we act as a repository for material across the Foundation. It is not pornographic even if it is "graphic" --Herbytalk thyme17:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepimmediately. Why delete? licence is ok, picture ist used! , picture is not pornographic, picture has quality, and picture is documentating. --Jom19:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Keepimmediately. Oh come on! I'm sick of those DR! And I'm sick of anonymous IP coward requests! This picture is 1) a non-pornographic illustration of genitalia; 2) a work by artist Peter Klashorst (and if one thinks we already have enough of Klashorst's work, I'd answer that this artist is famous enough so it would be non-neutral to determine which works we would keep and which we would delete). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commons is not censored. We do have adequate pictures of this nature but we act as a repository for material across the Foundation. It is not pornographic even if it is "graphic" --Herbytalk thyme17:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Keep Commons is not censored. We do have adequate pictures of this nature but we act as a repository for material across the Foundation. It is not pornographic even if it is "graphic" --Herbytalk thyme17:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Keep Commons is not censored. We do have adequate pictures of this nature but we act as a repository for material across the Foundation. It is not pornographic even if it is "graphic" --Herbytalk thyme17:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I actually would support going through and weeding out some of the pics which drunken guys have taken of themselves using cellphone-cams (see Template:Nopenis), but there's no obvious valid reason to delete this particular image... AnonMoos08:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Keep Commons is not censored. We do have adequate pictures of this nature but we act as a repository for material across the Foundation. It is not pornographic even if it is "graphic" --Herbytalk thyme17:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, well within Commons:Project Scope. Bad faith nomination. Commons is not censored. -- Catちぃ？ 23:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep Commons is not censored. We do have adequate pictures of this nature but we act as a repository for material across the Foundation. It is not pornographic even if it is "graphic" --Herbytalk thyme17:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, well within Commons:Project Scope. Bad faith nomination. Commons is not censored. -- Catちぃ？ 23:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep Commons is not censored. We do have adequate pictures of this nature but we act as a repository for material across the Foundation. It is not pornographic even if it is "graphic" --Herbytalk thyme17:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, well within Commons:Project Scope. Bad faith nomination. Commons is not censored. -- Catちぃ？ 23:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep, the data for this map was thoroughly discussed at en:Talk:Minorities in Greece. The map is the result of compiling data from the best sources available, as is clearly documented in its image description. It currently has the consensus of all established editors on the en-wiki pages where it is used. This nomination is part of a campaign of nationalist anon IPs and throwaway sock accounts, most probably of a longtime banned user, to get rid of this image by any means. Fut.Perf.☼10:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Map contains inaccuracies.I am not a 'Greek nationalist', but I still believe this map should be updated or deleted: 1) It shows Arvanitika spread in a far larger area than its actual extent (about 25% of the area shown on the map). 2) The solid colour of the linguistic minorities areas implies that Greek is completely replaced by other languages in these areas. Greek remains the predominant spoken language in most of these areas, with the exception of the Pomac and Turkish areas in north-eastern Greece. 3) The Slavic dialects spoken in northern Greece are different to the main dialect used by the Slav element of the population in FYROM and should not be labeled as 'Macedonian'. 4) Large pockets within the linguistic minorites areas where Greek remains the sole language are not shown. Michail017114:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete,even before 1919-23 there were many(hundred thousands) people who were speaking greek language(or both greeks and slavic dialects ) according to otthoman and greek census in macedonia.So coloured areas don't show the truth .map is inaccurate...moreover today after people exchanges 1919-1923 (for example treauty lausanne,treauty Neuilly etc) many thousands of slav people left the colourised areas and more than 1.500.000 greeks came from bulgaria and minor asia to (nowdays)greece,most of them stayed at the areas and houses turks and slavs left..
So nowdays there are more than 2.500.000 greek speaking people to Macedonia and only few thousands(30.000+)who speak slav dialects mainly in northern florina(but few of them don’t have greek identity(ouranio toxo a slavskopian party took only 3.000 votes in Macedonia)
Also greeks with one or two arvanites parents are about 200.000 all over the Greece.BUT only 30 thousands of them speak a language that is not teached by greek schools,arvanitika(I am arvanitis btw)..most of them are old people.
Moreover more than 5.000.000 greek speaking people live in attiki (green coloured area) and about 500.000 migrant workers(Albanians,pakistans,Russians. Etc) who came there after 1991.
This map is accurate only for western thraca!and probably its information are taken of propagandist books that speaks-propagandize of so-called “great albania”-“great Macedonia”etc
Ps:The 1904 Ottoman census of Hilmi Pasha recorded 373,227 Greeks and 204,317 Bulgarians in the VILAYET(region) Selânik (Thessaloniki) alone, while it makes no mention of a Macedonian Slav ethnicity (which at the time was regarded as Bulgarian). According to the same census, Greeks were also dominant in the vilayet of Manastır (Bitola), counting 261,283 Greeks and 178,412 Bulgarians.So more than 500.000 were greek speaking people and about 100 thousands slav and vlach speaking with greek identity(as next census also shows)
census in 1925 (after balkan wars and before civil war between communists and anticommunists in which more than 35 thousands slavs (and thousands greeks )left greece and came to communistic yugoslavia and soviet union after defeat etc ) a census that shows the number of greek speaking natives of the area ,slav or vlach speaking people with greek or bulgarian ,romanian identity,greek speaking(that came from anatolia),jews etc
http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/9766/ethnologicalcompositionqi2.jpg
Population Exchange in Greek Macedonia, Oxford, Elizabeth Kontogiorgi, 2006
i have to notice also that many slavs were nazi's allies ,during world war 2 and german occupation of greece, with nationalist dreams of an"indepedent macedonia" (a purpose that never changed even afterwhile they joined democratic army)
last but not least i dont see any data dealing with the map
Anyway ,sorry for my english.I hope you understood me :)
edit:i made some changes and corrections in order to be more specific.I hope my text makes more sense now :)..sorry again for my bad english.bye! :)
The image didn't render properly, It may take me a long time to fix (seeing Im a newbie at svg files) and I don't want it to disrupt the integrity of Wikimedia Commons. --SpecialWindler09:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commons is not censored. We do have adequate pictures of this nature but we act as a repository for material across the Foundation. It is not pornographic even if it is "graphic" --Herbytalk thyme17:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the name of the picture and the fact that it's 480x320 in resolution with video compression artifacts hasn't made you wonder if this was really made by the Flickr user, then go to the back of the class immediately. Will someone with a Flickr account check the rest of the pictures in their album to see if there are any obvious copyvios there? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: request from the owner: he changed his mind
Keep - This Flickr file was reviewed and confirmed to be freely licensed under the terms of cc-by-2.0, regardless of its subsequent removal from Flickr. JGHowes04:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: request from the owner: he changed his mind
Keep - This Flickr file was reviewed and confirmed to be freely licensed under the terms of cc-by-2.0, regardless of its subsequent removal from Flickr. JGHowes04:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: request from the owner: he changed his mind
Keep - This Flickr file was reviewed and confirmed to be freely licensed under the terms of cc-by-2.0, regardless of its subsequent removal from Flickr. JGHowes04:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as since this has gone through the Flickr review process then we can be fairly confident that the licensing was correct and it isn't revocable so remains despite the image being made private on Flickr. Adambro15:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has changed, the image continues to be freely licensed as the licence is irrevocable despite the failure of Flickr to recognise this leaving users to play around with licences as they wish. Adambro19:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't get that, do you mean once I set my photos as "CC-BY", and they were uploaded to Wikipedia, even then I change the licences to "Copyrighted", I can't request to remove those photos? Talk to ►Kevin20:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced if "derivative work" applies here. I have reopened this nomination giving discussion a chance. -- Catちぃ？ 23:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete as copyvio. It is a high-enough resolution image (3456x2304) that one can crop a 550x520 image of a single comic book cover from it, thereby creating a derivative that would be a copyvio. Therefore it should not be on Commons as a free license image. JGHowes00:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Serves a purpose / potential purpose, and you can't exactly crop it and make it appear like a scan - because the images are not at right angles to the camera. Ingolfson (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I took the picture - as well as the portrait of the artist (Image:Ernst Fuchs 2007.jpg) - and a few other images of sculptures (the Sphinxes you can find in Category:Ernst Fuchs (artist)) last October at the 'Lange Nacht der Museen' (Long Night of Museums) here in Vienna. Before taking pictures I did ask, whether this is allowed. The answer was an explicit yes. You are asking for a permission by the artist. Can you give me a hint, how this is handled here at Commons? --Tsui12:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A museum does not usually hold the copyright to its exhibits, so the museum staff cannot give you permission to publish these images under a free license. Permissions are handled by COM:OTRS. What you need is a permission to distribute the images under a certain license, for example GFDL. A permission for wikimedia use is not sufficient. --rimshottalk13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The museum where I took the pictures is not just a museum, it is the artists own villa ([10]), where he lives (not constantly but every now and then). It is managed by the Ernst Fuchs Foundation which, among other things, is responsible for the "conception of new publications, contribution to various publishing projects" ([11]) concerning his art. These are the people I asked for permission. The villa is open to the public regularly (that's why I was able to take a picture of him there - after asking him of course). Anyway. I plan to visit it again soon, because I want to take some more and better images. When I do so, I will discuss this with the people managing the museum.
Speedykeep (or however someone might call it: P.l.e.a.s.e do not force the artist to become a wikipedian, in order to be allowed to allow his work to be published here!!! --WeHaWoe (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm: Maybe the artist would not care, nor should we (WP), more than R.E.A.L.L.Y required. But: I'm a man&human, not a lawyer. --WeHaWoe (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image was listed on possibly unfree images at Wikipedia. The reason given was "No evidence of release under cc-by". --Stifle10:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If its useful to a project, or potentially so, then it isn't "completely useless". All freely licensed images used on WMF should be here on Commons regardless of whether their potential for use beyond one project is likely to be limited. Avron seems to misunderstand the whole concept of Commons and the scope of the project. Adambro
Keep per others. Avron's comments here and on other recent deletion requests clearly indicate he doesn't understand Commons. Multichill19:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If its useful to a project, or potentially so, then it isn't "completely useless". All freely licensed images used on WMF should be here on Commons regardless of whether their potential for use beyond one project is likely to be limited. Avron seems to misunderstand the whole concept of Commons and the scope of the project. Adambro
Keep per others. Avron's comments here and on other recent deletion requests clearly indicate he doesn't understand Commons. Multichill19:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you have a wrong understanding of commons scope. I don't see a rule which says commons has to keep images that are used somewhere when they are out of scope: Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such. There are plenty of other projects in the Internet you can use for such a purpose, like Flickr and others.--Avron10:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Yuval, the image on this cover is PD-old, I assume PD-ineligible for text and composition. If you don‘t agree, please request normal deletion. Regards, Code·is·poetry08:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my initial post: "I assume PD-ineligible for […] composition." Please try to argue related to my posts or just restore and nominate for deletion. Code·is·poetry23:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this DR serve any purpose? The image was deleted twice... Even if indeed the text and its arrangement would be PD-ineligible, what good is it to keep this image, given that we have Image:Amalie von Hessen-Darmstadt.png??? That one is better anyway, and the image is not blemished by some text. Lupo18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yuval Y bestätigt meine Auffassung über Commons-Admins auf das Deutlichste. Wo nehmt Ihr nur all diese urheberrechtlichen Nullen her? --ST○23:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deutscher Text wird hier wohl leider ignoriert werden... Aber du hast schon recht, Steschke. Leute wie Yuval, die keine Ahnung von Bildrechten haben, sind für den Posten des Commons-Admins völlig ungeeignet.
Now in English: The text of this cover is not copyrighted. And the image on this cover is PD-old, so the whole cover is in the PD. Keep. Chaddy23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in that image that would detain that image from being public domain. There is some standard font (PD-ineligible) in it that was put over an obvious PD-old/PD-art image. There is nothing special in the ways the font was put over the image. So the deletion (especially a speedy one) was obviously wrong and should have never happened. That's the reason why I think that this DR is necessary. But since after the second speedy deletion I uploaded a new version without the font this version here is not really necessary anymore. So keep that image as obvious public domain image, but then delete it as inferior duplicate (she is a little bit icteric in this version). -- Cecil23:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Historiograf's pic claims to be an old copy after Schröder, Cecil's pic seems to be the original. So let's keep them both. Mutter Erde10:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Considering that the stamp is from 1980 (according to the text description), the case seems pretty clear. RN197000:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the image is copyright then a fair use rationale can be applied, and the relevant copyright tag applied. Mjroots08:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio: Claimed as being "self-made", but actually just a distorted version of the famous photo taken by Makoto Yokotsuka - better version available on the IUCN Cat Specialist Group's page here --RN197016:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio: Claimed as being self-made, but actually just a scan of the famous photo @ to Art Wolfe (i.e. similar to other photo uploaded by the same user & nominated for deletion in wiki English). Another version with the copyright printed on it can be found here. RN197016:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a brief note in case a moderator checks the users page and fails to find a place where he was informed about this deletion proposal, (s)he deleted it together with a bunch of other notes ([12]). RN197001:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made this combination of Pictures and now find it misleading while it is not clear in it self that the match ist not completely visible--WerWil12:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree: The picture is misleading as it is not clear in it self that the match ist not completely visible. --ISBN07:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment :-). You want to keep an error, no cat, badname ? Even then Thyra reuploads that pic as portrait of Max Liebermann, he has no source, no painter, no date. Makes no sense. (btw.:there are already 8 pics of Liebermann in his gallery) Mutter Erde14:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works belonging to the former Soviet government or other Soviet legal entities published before January 1st, 1954, are public domain in Russia. This was published in 1939 by official Soviet Government Press Agency TASS. KeepJulo22:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is obsolete now. Now from 1st January 2008 the term is 70 years. You can see the new template from Russian Wikipedia: [13]. The cutoff date is 1st January 1938 for the death of the author.--Nxx22:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According new rules, public domain is if: 1. Автор данного произведения умер в период с 1 января 1938 года до 22 июня 1941 года; или оно было опубликовано анонимно в этот период, и имя автора не стало известным до 1 января 1992 года. This work was published between 1.1.1938 and 22.6.1941 and is anonymous, author is unknown. KeepJulo06:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it was published by TASS (as the image description says) then the author is of course kown: TASS did not publish anonymous photos. Is there any information where it was published first? I see no link here to support the claim that author is unknown.--Nxx13:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if TASS ever cared about individual authors and copyrights (in the Soviet community there was no need of such capitalist ideas...) Deerhunter23:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm very sorry, i mixed by authors, I just reviewed the image info and its by George Kiknadze and the image is not copyrighted. I'm sorry, i just mixed up two images of the same person. Iberieli04:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who is George Kiknadze and where is the evidence that he released his work into the public domain? And if it's not copyrighted, how can it be published under a license that presupposes copyright protection? Please do not remove the notice regarding this discussion while the discussion is still open. —LX (talk, contribs)08:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image was supposedly verified within last 24 hours, but Flickr link indicates that file there is private (if there at all). Orlady00:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The flickr account this came from is being used by a user from the English wikipedia to reinsert copyvio images into articles. BlueAzure02:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. I can't find the earlier nomination. Please try again stating why this image should be deleted or at the very least a link to the old one. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb20:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
i am not the uploader, he is User talk:Green Ape. i just added some improvements to the original. anyway i think that the other image of Marquis of Pombal is much better and this one might be deleted if Green Ape agreed. tetraktys14:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that it is really self-made (= self-drew). Where did you get it from and who is the author of that painting, (when) did he die? ...Forrester09:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is a photograph taken by myself which I scanned so that it could be used online. The scanner is not the best in the world. As per the vegetation being different, i live within close proximity of the schoolhouse and have taken pictures of the site at different times.--Smurfette14304:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The uploader has used multiple accounts at the English wikipedia to upload numerous copyvios, that they claimed to been self-made, including postcards. BlueAzure02:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image was said to have been scanned by user from a photograph taken by the user/producer. The vegetation differences between image vs others of the same subject matter has no relevance in proving the images' validity of ownership --69.86.92.25123:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doubful claim that it was "self-made." Moire pattern on image suggests that it was scanned, perhaps from a postcard. Orlady01:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The uploader has used multiple accounts at the English wikipedia to upload numerous copyvios, that they claimed to been self-made, including postcards. BlueAzure02:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The uploader has used multiple accounts at the English wikipedia to upload numerous copyvios, that they claimed to been self-made, including postcards. BlueAzure02:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reynaud died in 1918 at the age of 74. Judging his face on this picture he was surely less than 50 at that time so the picture is anterior than 1894 - and I'd say even before, in the 1880's. I wouldn't think the photographer would have died after 1938.--TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...07:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given this user's uploading history, I have reason to suspect that this image of Francis Mallmann is a copyright violation. I deleted two of his other uploads as copyright violations, as well. Nishkid64 (talk)07:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation/bad license tag. Both statues were discovered in 1956 so, even if the photograper died the same year, there are less than 70 years since then.--Alex:D 15:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC) --Alex:D15:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems you are going to ignore an obvious copyright violation. Or, everybody is on vacation. Maybe this will get your attention? --Alex:D21:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright tag, at the very bottom of each subpage on the Autoliv home page, is for the web page itself, not for the images. The text on the image data bank clearly states that they are available for download. The files and photographs do not have a copyright holder or a photographer stated. A phone call to the press officer at Autoliv, made by me at the time of the upload, confirmed the permission for Wikipedia to use the image. I have also e-mailed Autoliv to confirm the permission. Riggwelter18:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that would be a legal explanation... but, there was a NYTimes article about this. So, even if anonymous graffiti was not copyrighted... how do we prove it was anonymous and not for a patron, etc.? —the preceding unsigned comment was added byGrenavitar (talk • contribs)
My first inclination was to ask if this was derivative or just a drawing? I suppose it probably just has a boatload of post-processing. So, I think that means it's copyrighted and Delete. gren11:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very broad picture and significantly different... the banners are not even the focal point. Or is your argument that freedom of panorama doesn't apply? I can't say I'm 100% sure since until recently I thought all pictures of 3D objects were acceptable... gren11:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources say: (Illustration kindly provided by Raul Martin.) And does not mention the image having been released under the stated license (it is unlikely that it was). FunkMonk02:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License." While maybe they didn't have a copyright agreement with the author and "kindly provided" means little, I think it would be very unwise of us to second guess their copyright and make assumptions about its status. Nothing was noted and PLoS is notable enough that we should trust their copyright claims unless we have proof that they are incorrect. gren11:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It contains trademarked logos and a copyrighted user interface making it impossible to generate a free version of this image --—Locke Cole • t • c04:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What's copyrighted? The wavy lines, monotone background, or the generic symbols? This is de minimis infringement of elements that are pd-ineligible. -Nard14:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User says he generated the image himself, and the underlying data cannot be copyrighted by the researchers - they merely scanned (a 3D scan, but that presumably wouldn't have the necessary originality to be copyrighted) a ceramic figure. If anything we're infringing on the copyright of the original bunny sculpture, but considering this is widely used as a test data set I wouldn't worry about it. 140.247.241.2105:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was ideed referring to the original figure. Whether this figure is protected or not has nothing to do with whether 3D models made from it have become widespread. After all, there is a reason why we do not allow Lena on Commons, which can be found in dozens of standard textbooks. To me the bunny figure looks sufficiently complicated to merit copyright protection. --88.65.115.11322:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that User:Pirat's images are likely copyright violations. The image quality is too high for just any old user. They are either a really good amateur photographer with attractive friends who run around in the nude, or copyright violations. There are other images that are low resolution that look like they were created in microsoft paint.-Optigan1302:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These four Low quality images - self-made drawings - are typical Original Research and should be Deleted. Julo06:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep Me! Is it all deletion? No kidding! Besides, there are two reasons.Because one of reasons is good.Because another reason is too clumsy.Though is interesting; the all deletion a little.I do not see the Internet, each other's faces here.More at first than doubting a person I will believe each other.--Pirat16:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a chance, that you will meet one of your friends again, for example reading a newspaper of next week. She must not show her breasts ;.) Mutter Erde19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some images may be things which himself really made.
Low quality images....It be assumed that this does not matter.
Copyright violations. Some images may not need to delete it. For example that Breasts001en.jpg,Breasts003.jpg,Breasts002.jpg,Breasts001.jpg,Trip Season.jpg,Breast Lang Ja.jpg,Breach0401.jpg.These images resemble closely I do not understand whether an image without a face which photographed whom. Such a photograph is common.But had better others Delete.
Keep Breasts001en.jpg,Breasts003.jpg,Breasts002.jpg,Breasts001.jpg,Trip Season.jpg,Breast Lang Ja.jpg,Breach0401.jpg.AB Members in Prisons of States US MAP.jpg--El torero04:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this was quite a bad idea to start a mass deletion for all of those pictures. Some are clearly connected (the nude that might be copyvios) but some other files are concerned by different cases (maps, drawings...). I think we can delete all the nudes (some details of Image:Circle and an Lady.jpg are quite strange...) but we have to treat the rest separately. For instance there's no reason to delete the page nudity since it could become an interesting gallery. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...12:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe connection was the uploader, all of the images were tagged as self-made, which I don't think is legitimate, especially with the image you noticed(Circle and an Lady) which appears to have a website name/watermark blurred out around the bottom. The drawings are legitimately self-made, but are derivative of copyrighted work(simpsons) and I doubt will ever be of any use on any wikimedia projects. Also I don't see what the Nudity page adds that Category:Nudity doesn't already sort out. The nudity page only appears to be a collection of female nudes based on personal preference. Especially since the intial header was "Hot Gallery"[14], and was moved to the main space under this user's name as Pirat's favorite pictures[15]. -Optigan1300:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the suggestion that most, if not all of these images are copyright violations and so, since we should err on the side of caution, all should be deleted unless the situation is clarified. Adambro19:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with caution I'm having a hard time believing that all of these are copyvio, but some of them probably are. throw the copyvio ones away and keep the rest.72.81.226.24702:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteEXCEPT for Nudity which is valid (even if it must be changed)--and I if it is to be deleted should have its own deleition request since it's vastly different than the other requests and should not have been lumped in. Also, the 4 "Low quality images" should be deleted as out of scope original research rather than copyright violations. If Pirat can come up with some plausible explanation about why they are all different cops sizes and have no EXIF data then maybe this can be reversed. gren11:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These images are sourced to Flickr user ntemisnikolaidis, who has tagged them cc-by-2.0. The images look like press/promotional photos, and they appear to have been collected from various websites ([16], [17], [18]) and uploaded to Flickr with questionable authorship claims. Muchness04:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A highly subjective category. There is no agreement among experts which weapons belongs here.--Avron 08:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC) --Avron08:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically perhaps, yes. But I think most historians would agree that Dreadnought, the A-bomb, the tank, Operation Ranch Hand represented what were hoped to be revolutionary war-winning weapons. I.e. wonder-weapons. There aren't actually many such examples in history - most weapons tend to be evolutionary. I think common sense indicates it should stay, as it hasn't been abused. Rod. Rcbutcher15:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good story for wikipedia but not here for Commons. This category has been already abused. For example Big Bertha was neither revolutionary nor a war-winning weapon. Or Project Babylon, compleatly ridiculous. --Avron17:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - discussion of the weapon's importance or otherwise in history requires a properly referenced indepth article in Wikipeda. I suppose Commons is the repository of photos and audio-visual media relating to the weapons, not ideas about them. Rod Rcbutcher11:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, do not continue to flickr wash. I cannot tell if you are being purposefully ignorant or you really have not read any of the messages we have given you; please stop uploading images you do not own. Patstuart (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one is already Kept (see above). Within scope, described and categorised, used in other projects, source and licence ok. Please do not repeat nomination unless there's a different reason why we should consider deletion.Finn Rindahl13:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This one is already Kept (see above). Within scope, described and categorised, used in other projects, source and licence ok. Please do not repeat nomination unless there's a different reason why we should consider deletion.Finn Rindahl13:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm not sure whether NGW can legally make that call, since, I quote:
The depiction of a municipal seal is allowed: the municipality holds no rights of creation of the seal. There is also no objection against the use of a municipal seal for localising objects that are traded or that are being advertised, just as long it is ensured that no impression of municipal involvement or responsibility is created.
In view of Dutch legislation this image is regarded as being in the public domain, as are reproductions of this seal.
I'm not sure whether NGW can legally make that call, since, I quote:
The depiction of a municipal seal is allowed: the municipality holds no rights of creation of the seal. There is also no objection against the use of a municipal seal for localising objects that are traded or that are being advertised, just as long it is ensured that no impression of municipal involvement or responsibility is created.
In view of Dutch legislation this image is regarded as being in the public domain, as are reproductions of this seal.
I'm not sure whether NGW can legally make that call, since, I quote:
The depiction of a municipal seal is allowed: the municipality holds no rights of creation of the seal. There is also no objection against the use of a municipal seal for localising objects that are traded or that are being advertised, just as long it is ensured that no impression of municipal involvement or responsibility is created.
In view of Dutch legislation this image is regarded as being in the public domain, as are reproductions of this seal.
I just nominated this too – the uploader at en, en:User:Lwuser2060, has since been indefinitely blocked for his persistent additions of copyrighted images – he goes to celebrity photo sites and picks out images to upload. This is one of them. KrakatoaKatie20:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image with no connestiont to article and very similar to:Image:Smažená kuřecí prsa, smažené krevety a brambotová kaše.jpg Karelj21:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have many free photos of celebrities like this, taken by fans at conventions. But this Flickr user uploaded many images under a CC-by license that are clearly copyright violations, like this and other promo images. Doesn't seem like a trustworthy Flickr account. --88.134.141.13311:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The stated source website is copyrighted. No proof is shown that "the copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose." Rockfang23:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether NGW can legally make that call, since, I quote:
The depiction of a municipal seal is allowed: the municipality holds no rights of creation of the seal. There is also no objection against the use of a municipal seal for localising objects that are traded or that are being advertised, just as long it is ensured that no impression of municipal involvement or responsibility is created.
In view of Dutch legislation this image is regarded as being in the public domain, as are reproductions of this seal.
(text rendered bold by me)
The quote is taken from:
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
This image depicts a coat of arms of a (former) Dutch governmental jurisdiction, municipality, province, water board (Dutch: "Waterschap") or diocese. These coats of arms have been registered with the Hoge Raad van Adel[19], and are/were being used by the organisation to which the coat of arms was granted by Royal Decree (Dutch: Koninklijk Besluit). Every person is allowed to use the image of the arms, with some restrictions, see fragment below of the Ministerial Notice of 3 September 1979 (Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken) (Dutch).
Fragment from the memo: The depiction of a municipal coat of arms is allowed: the municipality holds no rights of creation of the coat of arms. There is also no objection against the use of a municipal coat of arms al for localising objects that are traded or that are being advertised, just as long it is ensured that no impression of municipal involvement or responsibility is created.
In view of Dutch legislation the use of the arms or reproductions thereof is regarded as being in the public domain. Everybody is allowed to make a drawing of the arms (on paper or electronically) in his/her own style based on the Royal Decree and claim it to be the arms of the municipality and uses it within the restrictions shown above. But there is copyright on each individual representation of the arms. This copyright lies with the artist that made that specific drawing based on the Royal Decree, not by the municipality.
I do not think that that tag applies. As can be seen on the web pages of the municipality itself [20], this coat of arms was not drawn by User:Knorrepoes himself, but rather was copied form another document, as is the picture on the municipality web site. Hence Knorrepoes holds no copyright whatsoever to this work. There remains the problem of what the real source then is, and whether its authors hold copyright to this particular drawing of the coat of arms. It is clear that the coat of arms as such is not copyrighted, since it is hundreds of years old (its present form was established in 1816), and this image clearly is a derivative work of that original coat of arms. Whether there is enough "originality" in the work for it to be copyrighted on its own, I do not know (IANAL and all that). Until that matter is cleared up, I would advise to Delete this picture, not because of the NGW template, but because the actual source is unspecified. However, any Wikimedian wanting to redraw this coat of arms themselves can just upload that, I suppose. Pbech12:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. This image is *not* the work of Knorrepoes, and no other source is specified. I have argued above that the template is in my opinion not applicable to this particular image. Pbech08:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could be used in post-pregnancy articles, etc. Without evidence of someone abusing the Commons for hosting I see no reason to delete. gren12:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could be used in post-pregnancy articles, etc. Without evidence of someone abusing the Commons for hosting I see no reason to delete. gren11:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could be used in post-pregnancy articles, etc. Without evidence of someone abusing the Commons for hosting I see no reason to delete. gren11:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the Commons:Photographs of identifiable people guideline "In the United States (where the Commons servers are located), assent is not as a rule required to photograph people in public places....the Commons community does not normally require that the subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded." This person is outside, so I'd say it's a public place, probably on a street. So as far as I can see it is irrelevant that she did not consent. Alun17:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to delete as per Carl Lindberg. Image has no obvious utility for Wikimedia projects. Although the "no consent" argument is still irrelevant. Alun05:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no EU harmonisation of privacy laws in place, so in some parts of the Union, it is irrelevant, and in others, it's not. To the best of my knowledge (I'm a Swede but not a lawyer), it's generally perfectly fine according to Swedish laws to publish a photograph of a person taken in a public place without their consent. —LX (talk, contribs)11:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personality rights and lack of model release would mean you could not use this photo for advertising, etc., but that is what the mentioned template is for. I'm not sure what the Swedish standards for privacy are though... apparently this was taken in Stockholm. It would not be a privacy issue in the U.S. though, as mentioned (I think the standard there is "expectation of privacy", where obviously there is none when walking on a public street). However... how could wikimedia projects use this photo, without knowing anything about the person? I say Delete due to Commons:Project scope. Carl Lindberg13:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From http://wwwihm.nlm.nih.gov/copy.html "Since the NLM does not own the copyright to the images, it is the responsibility of anyone using the database, or ordering reproductions based on information in it, to ensure that use of this material is in compliance with the U. S. Copyright law (Title 17, United States Code)." Compliance and freedom to use were not ensured. --Jacopo Werther13:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indeed it's impossible to know when we can trust this Flickr user and when we can't. On the other hand artifacts seem to show it's a scan of a non-digital photo so it may be an old photo this user took. But how could we check that? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...08:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The “permission” states it clearly: “Non-free television screenshot”. The only reason why this could be kept, would be, if the patch is public domain in Japan, because of some Japanese law, or something. (In that case, this should be probably redrawn in SVG.) Mormegil20:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. This appears on a Fermilab website, but there is no indication of PD status as we have no idea who took the photo. It cannot be assumed that all images appearing on this website are, simply by that fact, PD. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deleted. This appears on a Fermilab website, but there is no indication of PD status as we have no idea who took the photo. It cannot be assumed that all images appearing on this website are, simply by that fact, PD. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deleted. This appears on a Fermilab website, but there is no indication of PD status as we have no idea who took the photo. It cannot be assumed that all images appearing on this website are, simply by that fact, PD. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deleted. This appears on a Fermilab website, but there is no indication of PD status as we have no idea who took the photo. It cannot be assumed that all images appearing on this website are, simply by that fact, PD. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC) MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deleted. This appears on a Fermilab website, but there is no indication of PD status as we have no idea who took the photo. It cannot be assumed that all images appearing on this website are, simply by that fact, PD. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this image was taken from my site www.poczet.com without my permission! Original picture of S. Wyspianski has different colours, borders etc. - this picture is remake made by me! 83.238.236.17921:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jeśli tak to przepraszam. Nie wiedziałem, że to było zmienianie. Czy można znaleźć prawdziwy obraz w internecie ??? --Mareczko18:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I scanned it direcly from the original map, published in 1930. It was published by the Swiss Federal Office of Topography and isn't attributed to an author, therefore, the 70 year time limit has expired. --Zumbo16:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since it wasn't first published in the US, it doesn't matter. The US considers it PD if (and only if) Switzerland considered in PD in 1996. Quadell(talk)12:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to Commons:Licensing#Switzerland, "If authorship is unknown, copyright lasts for 70 years after the first publication." The fact that a Swiss Government Agency published it without attribution strongly indicates that the author is unknown. Quadell(talk)12:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, they do give the authors: Aufnahme: Jacky, Schnyder, Anselmier ; Lith. R. Leuzinger. Anselmier is Jules Anselmier (1815-1895), Jacky is Wilhelm August Gottlieb Jacky-Tayler (1833–1915, active already 1858), Schnyder is one Fr. Schnyder (active already 1859), and R. Leuzinger is Rudolf Leuzinger (1826 - 1896). It appears these author indications all apply to the original 1870 publication. Anyway, Leuzinger was the one who drew this map, the others were the people doing the survey. Subsequent changes in Leuzinger's map since 1870 were minor. Lupo15:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kwasura has downloaded a number of photos from the webpages of Finnish Orders of merit. Part of these, the photos of the decorations of the Order of Cross of Freedom, were deleted. This request covers the rest of the photos.
In this case, the rationale for deletion is the same as previously: the photographs themselves are copyrighted and the owner of the copyrights, the Orders of the White Rose of Finland and the Lion of Finland, has not released the photos under suitable licence. The objects of the photos are, however, PD, but unfortunately, this does not make the photo non-copyrightable. Thus, the file should be deleted as soon as possible. This request encompasses the following files
Comment About CIMG0605, CIMG0606, and CIMG0611, I have said, "They are the same as the images deleted in ja", not "these 3 are same". Although it seems that you do not have the admin authority of jawp, do you have the authority to brouse the contents deleted in jawp? In ja, since "Individuals can specify when they indicate by full size, and they infringed on portrait rights" was judged, these were deleted. --Vantey (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fuzzy little cell pic replaced by Image:Graybirdgrasshoppervertical.JPG and Image:Graybirdgrasshopperhorizontal.JPG --Jengod18:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A note though, if the screenshot had not been documented there is a good chance that it would not have ended up here under review. I had a deletion suggestion in which a .org web site had claimed that an image was PD-USGov; it is tempting to consider recreating this situation but without the honest documentation and use a .org site to validate its license in a similar situation. Review mechanisms are quite hacked I think and it seems that only the honest get the scrutiny. -- (and you are welcome for anything I did to keep it easy for you) carol07:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Carol. This is only rarely about personal criticism and your honesty and work is appreciated! I've uploaded a few copyright violations (with the help of Flickr and the Wikipedia PD-US tag) so I know people who spot problems are only helping. --Simonxag14:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No personal criticism was taken! The point is that this image will be gone and the other image(s) persist -- making this voting for breech of license seem (to me -- and I might very well be wrong here) like well, I don't know what it is like but it doesn't seem to be effective at the real accomplishment of goals. And no personal criticism was intentionally delivered in this 'seems like to me' summary of mine. Also, is there a suggested image to use to display the new software that is featured in the screenshot? Perhaps Dave Neary, as he is actively campaigning to get funding for their next meeting and they write hateful things about him on their web site. I have images also.... -- carol02:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
doubtful that flickr user took this image - it's web-resolution, with a border, and the user's flickr stream is questionable and includes things like screen/promo shots of harrison ford as indiana jones 151.199.31.17911:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image does not go according to our policies due to an inappropriate subject of the image and a violation of personality rights. Svens Welt14:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image does not work according to our policies due to an inappropriate subject of the image and a violation of personality rights. Svens Welt14:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image does not work according to our policies due to an inappropriate subject of the image and a violation of personality rights. Svens Welt14:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the seriousness of personality rights violation in this case, I put a speedydeletion tag on the image. -- Túrelio15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image is clearly a screenshot of a copyrighted web site, and includes a copyrighted program logo and screenshot. The fact that it was wrongly uploaded to Flickr is beside the point. Mark15:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this picture should be kept. Who is the nazi using copyright excuses to take it off? Is it the owner of the picture? --67.68.235.178
keep this picture the us has its own camp and is torturing people there , prehaps this photo is the future of those in cuba or abu graib
USHMM does not have authority to release Nazi photos as public domain. Library of Congress page states, "Rights status not evaluated." Possibly may be PD-US, but doesn't belong on Commons. howcheng {chat}20:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a private Nazi photo, but the photo of a murdered man's last breath, a Jewish man, "the last Jew in Vinnitsa." Though the photo may have been captured by a Nazi photographer, it is a world event, a tragedy, an image that belongs to the archives of humanity.
Thus, I vehemently object to the deletion of this photo which would be the removal of evidence of this man's murder and the the extermination of his community. What if it was your face or your father's face captured drawing his last breath as he perches above the grave of his family and community? Having brought this crime to light, it must remain in the light to remind us all of Holocaust... lest it be repeated yet again. On behalf on this man and his murdered community, and for our children, let this reminder remain! - 21:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Theres no GOOD reason for this picture to be deleted. People are complaining over 'Copyright" laws and etc., but is it safe to say that this is the real reason? Delete this picture and you're blocking another piece of history to be shown on one of the most popular Internet Encyclopedias on the Web. And while you're at it, you might as well knock down the statue of liberty. - SPR. 9:54 PM, 2 May 2008 (UC)
Has been used extensively throughout various forms of media without objection. Nevermind the vast historical value.
In fact I would like that this request be speedily removed. Why scroll down the page on its page on Wikipedia. It is claimed under a creative commons liscense
Keep. Please avoid copyright paranoia. This image is universally published, and it is indispensable for the understanding of the activities of the German Einsatzgruppen. Torvindus04:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its value is not in question, only its status. to be hosted on Commons, it must be PD in both the US and its home country (or country of first publication). There is no information on its publication status, so for the time being we'll have to assume the home country is Germany (being as that it's a Nazi photo). Germany has a 70 year pma rule, so there's no way it qualifies there. howcheng {chat}16:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion why ??? This is an historic picture. What are they affraid of ?? Please read Primo Levi and the memory of the camps. We must educated our children for no more events like this. To hell with the negacionists !!!!!!
Keep These photos should not be deleted! it is the proof, the evidence of something as horrid as the holocaust. "For the dead and the living we must bare witness". There is no evidence showing these pictures to be of Nazy ownership, these photos should be used to cause awareness, to show the younger generations, so that it will never happen again. It is crucial!!!(UTC)
Please understand Commons policies. The image is not being deleted from all of Wikimedia's servers. It is public domain in the United States and still lives on the English Wikipedia. However, due to Commons policy of requiring free status in both the US and the work's home country, regretfully it can't stay here. howcheng {chat}23:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To quote Copyright Attorney from Commons:Deletion requests/US holocaust memorial museum images: "Per the Berne Convention and the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty, these images are in the public domain, because as a matter of law a copyright can only be asserted when the creator is identified. Courts in both Europe and the United States have repeatedly held that anonymous Holocaust images like this are not subject to copyright and are therefore in the public domain. For a very specific and detailed discussion of this issue, see Photographing the Holocaust: Interpretations of the Evidence, by Janina Struk, wherein she explains, in lay terms, how anonymous Holocaust images of this sort are in the public domain. As well, international law has, for more than sixty years, voided all copyrights to photographs made by the Axis powers in the 1933-1945 period." --Jarekt02:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think all Copyright Attorney was saying is that "anonymous Holocaust images" were considered PD by courts of most countries, he was not talking about anonymous images in general. However I feel like I should look up the book he mention to read this analysis first-handed. --Jarekt12:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its wrong to delete things like this, we can't just shuffle things like this under the rug, to fully accept the past i belive we nned to see things like this and let it sink in. KEEP IT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.187.124 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Keep nobody has claimed copyright. This image is by no means uncommon, appearing, for example, in many published textbooks. 69.6.102.19621:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info: In case of anonymous photographers the country of origin is the country where the photo was first published. See Berne Covention Art. 5. [26] "The country of origin shall be considered to be: (a) in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country". I have no idea who published this photograph first but likely it was not Germany. --Jarekt12:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The desire to delete this photo is a bit strange. First of all, if someone in Germany does hold the copyright, which is rather doubtful, it is 100% certain that they would never prosecute over a photo like this or even have the chance of being successful if they tried. Secondly, Germany would never challenge the USHMM's claim that it's on the public domain for political reasons. There is absolutely no fear of a lawsuit, which is the purpose of these regulations, so if it's not on the public domain de jure, it most certainly is de facto. I know that the commons has standards, but I feel that this is an important exception given the practical legal situation as regards this case. Djlayton423:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as Jarekt mentions, it is highly doubtful that this photo was published in Germany, and it was known to be taken in the Ukraine. Djlayton423:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reason for this is NOT a cover-our-asses against lawsuits thing, but the basic mission of Wikimedia Commons. We don't make exceptions! howcheng {chat}23:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing strange about some people's (i call them nazis and nazi sympathisers) desire to delete this photo and many like it which testify to the true barbarism of nazi Germany. it speaks of a hidden agenda in them to have the world forget the murders done by German citizens during WWII. keep this photo if just to irritate these nazis among us! there is no legal reason to delete it, there is only the desire in them to repeat the murders all over again. never again.
This last comment by 208.127.166.210 is totally out of line here. The deletion request and votes are not made by "nazis" or "nazi sympathizers" but about fellow users concerned about legal status of those photos. Wiki Commons has its rules and we need to work within those rules and we need people ensuring that we do. What we do not need is anonymous accusations and name calling. In general, I find most of the arguments, explaining their "keep" votes by desire to keep this highly emotional photo, not very productive. It would be much more useful if those users did some research of this photo or related laws. --Jarekt13:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is actually public domain in Germany and thus, by extension, internationally under the Berne Convention. According to § 5 Abs. 1 of the German Copyright statutes, all works of the government are considered to be public domain and, since the Federal Republic is the copyright successor of the "Third Reich", this photograph is explicitly in the public domain in Germany. This is irrespective of whether the Library of Congress or Holocaust Memorial Museum considers it to be public domain. It is also certainly in the public interest for historical purposes to be kept. --NicholasTurnbull21:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. According to {{PD-GermanGov}}, § 5 Abs.1 UrhG only puts items that are part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment (official work) issued by a German federal or state authority or court into the public domain. howcheng {chat}16:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although moral principles are not what is to be disputed here but rather copyright law and what denotes legal usage, it certainly illustrates the graphic nature of the Einsatzgruppen. It would also appear that the referenced laws for the photograph outweigh the ones against it. Twohundredtwenty08:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can someone find external support for NicholasTurnbull's argument: This is actually public domain in Germany and thus, by extension, internationally under the Berne Convention. According to § 5 Abs. 1 of the German Copyright statutes, all works of the government are considered to be public domain and, since the Federal Republic is the copyright successor of the "Third Reich", this photograph is explicitly in the public domain in Germany. This is irrespective of whether the Library of Congress or Holocaust Memorial Museum considers it to be public domain. --Anthony542915:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Laws, ordinances, official decrees and notices as also decisions and official grounds of decisions shall not enjoy copyright protection.
(2) The same shall apply to other official works published in the official interest for public information, with the condition that the provisions of Article 62(1) to (3) and Article 63(1) and (2) concerning prohibited alterations and acknowledgment of sources shall apply mutatis mutandis.
Delete as per replies to my question directly above this. I am no antisemitic Nazi; I certainly respect the educational value of this photograph and wish we could keep it on the Commons. Unfortunately, that violates the Commons' rules. It should be noted, thankfully, that the image can stay on the English Wikipedia. --Anthony542911:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. This may appear to be a completely counter-consensual action, if you call a zerg rush of meaningless arguments "consensus". But it's not. Although other sensible commentators have made these observations, here's a response to the comments in favour of keeping it:
"nobody has claimed copyright", also known as "it is 100% certain that they would never prosecute over a photo like this or even have the chance of being successful if they tried": Wrong. There's no reason the descendants of the photographer would not prosecute over this if they were found. There's also no reason they would not win in court. Stranger things have happened. But this isn't the point. We're a repository of freely-licensed media, not of "images you can probably get away with using".
"There is nothing strange about some people's (i call them nazis and nazi sympathisers) desire to delete this photo and many like it": I am not a Nazi sympathiser by any means. I'm also not (say) a Jessica Alba hater because I'd delete any copyvio photos of her that showed up.
"all works of the [German] government are considered to be public domain": Not so. Only works that are part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment are.
"Please avoid copyright paranoia": A way of saying "let's ignore copyright when we want something bad enough". Bollocks to that.
"Delete this picture and you're blocking another piece of history" and related arguments: Mostly the same as the above. Yes, this picture has huge historical value. Yes, it would be a huge shame if every copy in the world were eliminated. This isn't going to happen; it won't even disappear from Wikimedia, because you can certainly make a fair-use claim on the English Wikipedia.
The reason for deletion is simple and irrefutable: It's still under copyright in the country of origin. Wanting the image on Commons badly enough will not change that, and it won't change our policies on the matter, which are very clear. If you don't like our policies, get them changed. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The reproduction "picture itself" is ok, the text is no problem too, because it can not be read. But the picture of the girl is a problem from my point of view. --Jodo11:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Copyvio of the text underneath the image, at the very least (which of course can be read), and possibly also the image itself. MichaelMaggs20:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keepimmediately.A deletion reason is too unsuitable! Oneself photographed this, and it is a complete original work. I want you to post reliable evidence that I copyvio!--Pirat14:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepimmediately.A deletion reason is too unsuitable! Oneself photographed this, and it is a complete original work. I want you to post clear evidence that I violate!--Pirat14:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
August Oppenberg died in 1971, his works are still protected. There is no evidence that the user Vonveen represents his heirs or has a right to release the image into the public domain. 88.65.115.11318:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. This would need evidence, supplied to OTRS, that the copyright in the image passed to the uploader after his death, eg in his will. It's not enough simply to say this is a family picture. MichaelMaggs07:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to the original uploader (Elred on the English Wikipedia), the copyright owner changed his mind about sharing this image. See my Wikipedia talk page for more information. —Wordbuilder20:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's a bit shaky, though. The owner agreed to let Elred use it but changed his mind before ever officially documenting the release with either Wikipedia or Commons. So, if anyone challenges, there's no proof of the release in OTRS. →Wordbuilder15:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright-holder of the works of Hermann Burte is the Hermann-Burte-Gesellschaft. User Albärt (= Harald Noth) has been allowed in 26. 10. 2007 by Hermann-Burte-Gesellschaft to publish this image under GNU-FDL. --Albärt12:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe dieses Bild bei der Übergabe des Gedenksteines von Eitel Klein am 6. Augsut 2006 selbst fotografiert. Die Tochter des Malers Eitel Klein, Susanne Klein, hatte dieses Bild bei der Übergabe dabei und präsentierte es in einer kleinen öffentlichen Ausstellung. Es ist also eine selbstgefertigte Fotografie des Originalbildes. Wenn meine Fotografie auf Grund des Urheberrechts gelöscht werden muss - ich kann es dann nicht ändern..... --Mef.ellingen16:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe heute ein neues Bild, in Farbe, mit Einvesrtändnis der Fotografin eingestellt. Dieses kann gelöscht werden. Wer hilft mir dabei ? -- SpreeTom 10:33, 27. Apr. 2008 (CEST)
a guy who tried to get some attention in de:Wikipedia, not even a glimpse of possible relevance for any wiki project, very poor quality too... -- Andy king5020:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ich verwende das Foto aber jetzt auch nur mehr für die Spielwiese! Ist das nicht erlaubt? -- Scorepex 23:58, 8 April 2008
the original flickr source is unavailable, so we cant check the licence. But all the pictures by that user are all rights reserved. Unlikely that one was different. -- -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en)17:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
06:33, April 11, 2008 ABF (Talk | contribs | Block) deleted "Image:Hunt seat 2.jpeg" (Deleted because "Was in Category:Unknown as of 1 April 2008; still missing essential information". using TW) (restore)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. This is a lithography by Sotirios Christidis (1858 – 1940), signature is visible at down-right corner and publication data on down-left corner. GerakiTLG01:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made this map first on JPG-type. But now i see, i must use PNG. So i set the PNG type and upload the .png image here on Commons. Now it is double with this old .jpg version. Delete please Map of Amsterdam Metro.jpg. (Sorry for my bad English, i speak more Dutch then English) TahR7808:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a statue by Donald De Lue (died 1988) in the US. There is no Freedom of panorama for artworks in this country. Patríciamsg14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The site is a National Historic Site. I'd like to know who commissioned the statue. If it was the federal government the statue would be PD. Evrik20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a statue on private property, by a recently-living sculptor. "National Historic Site" designation does not mean something is U.S. government property. Comment on above: "I'd like to know who commissioned the statue. If it was the federal government the statue would be PD." Not necessarily, the U.S. federal government can own copyrights that are transfered to it, but it cannot create copywrited works so it would depend on exactly how it was commissioned. However, there is no indication of federal involvement at all in this case. Rmhermen01:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. The government may own the physical statue but no evidence has been presented that the artistic copyright has been assigned by the artist. Copyright would in the normal course of things remain with the sculpter, whoever commissioned it, and it's not enough to assume that just because the government is involved that it will have acquired the copyright. MichaelMaggs21:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This seems to be a statue by Donald De Lue (died 1988) in the US. There is no Freedom of panorama for artworks in this country. Patríciamsg14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider pedantic debates of vague, incoherent, contradictory, and badly-written copyright laws to be a productive use of the time I have available for contributing to Commons - and I'm not particularly attached to the photo in any way, so if you wish to delete it, please feel free to do so without any strong objections from me. In fact, the only reason I uploaded that image in the first place was to replace a much lower-quality image of the same subject that had been used to illustrate threespecific Wikipedia articles for two years. However, the deletion warning on my talk page specifically requested my opinion, so I would say that the artist sold the work and all relevant rights to the US federal government in 1963, that the sculpture in question is the solely-owned property of the US federal government, that it sits on land owned and managed by the US National Park Service, and therefore is presumed to be public domain unless proven otherwise. - Ken Thomas15:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not up to us to judge whether the laws that exist are pedantic, incoherent or badly-written. They are, nevertheless, sometimes vague, I agree with that. They do exist however, and I followed their rationale in proposing the picture for deletion. You may wish to upload it at en.wikipedia under a fair use rationale; or explain that part of "the artist sold the work and all relevant rights to the US federal government in 1963", making it public domain. I am unaware of this, and your explanation about that point in particular can help us avoiding future deletion requests of the same image, for the same reasons. Patríciamsg17:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to say that badly-written copyright law is a reason to keep this image. I was simply saying that badly-written copyright laws are the reason why I'm not going to bother getting into some sort of protracted debate about this image. As far as I'm concerned, arguing about copyright violations is a constant, ongoing exercise in absurdity - especially when the laws people base their arguments on are so screwed up they can be used to justify the deletion of practically anything. Whether or not this particular image is deleted is of little interest to me, but the image deletion warning on my talk page asked me to post my opinion, and I posted it. - Ken Thomas17:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was unveiled (does that count as published?) in 1964 (was there a copyright notice as this is before 1989?). With those 2 provisos I'd say it has to go. The law may be an ass, but it can't half kick. --Simonxag21:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usually when an artist creates a work for a patron (including public bodies), even when the work is commissioned, what the buyer gets is the thing not the copyright. If the work is "made for hire", (i.e. the artist actually becomes a payed employee of the patron and does what they are told) then the patron owns the copyright. It's a subtle difference but I don't think many artists who produce public monuments are actually employees of the US government. The copyright-notice-required rule, that held before 1989, might work to protect some works but modern sculptures will definitely by copyrighted by their producers and there is no FOP in the US. --Simonxag15:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the first daughter of Mr. X (sculptor) can say: "No, I don't like Mr. Bush (or Mr.Clinton). I don't allow the government to use pics of my father's work" and the other daughter can say: "Dear Government, you have to pay and pay and pay... when you use my father's work - the next 70 or more years...". This is a funny fantasy. But I don't believe that any official client would sign such a contract :-). Regards Mutter Erde17:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's the situation. I believe it is normal, as part of the contract for the purchaser to insist on a license for them to make images of the artwork. That doesn't give anyone else any rights though and if no such license is obtained then the owner of the artwork has no rights to copy it. --Simonxag19:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we can state: There are no heiresses with any rights on this statue, because Mr. De Lue has sold them with the statue. This memorial was probably paid by the Boy Scout Organization. Is that a private Organization? I don't know. Anyway, they were allowed to place it on a very good place - in the President's Park, so that every tourist can watch it. What are the conditions? Can they say, this is our private property, you are not allowed to make pics from that memorial and put them into the internet? Might be a nice idea, if somebody mails them a link to this delestion request. If my English would be better, I would do this by myself :-) Regards Mutter Erde20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't find the old discussion, however Simonxag made my point for me.
A "work made for hire" is defined by the 1976 Copyright Act (101. Definitions) as:
"(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or
(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, ... if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. ... "
Fact - it is the President's park. It is a monument to war dead. Its nor different than the FDR memorial. Evrik22:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What say we let en.Wikipedia take this image, as even if there are copyright issues, it meets the non-free use requirements of that project, and the three articles it illustrates are all on that project. Issues such as this, where the projects actually using the images proposed for deletion are not notified directly of the conversation, are highly problematic, and are the reason that more and more editors from sister projects are disturbed to have their images uploaded to Commons. Risker22:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The better option may be just to have someone go to the sculpture and verify that there is no copyright symbol on it. Before 1978, you needed to actually mark things as copyrighted - see {{PD-US-no notice}}. Unless we can find some sort of government policy of getting sculptors to release their copyrights to the federal government I don't see how these sorts of image can be kept otherwise. 140.247.249.2623:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I stated above that I wasn't all that interested in this particular image, but if deleting it is going to be used as a pretext for deleting photos of iconic US national memorials like Mount Rushmore, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, and the National WW2 Memorial, then I'm going to have to make my opposition official. As I stated before: The artist sold the work and all relevant rights to the US federal government in 1963, that the sculpture in question is the solely-owned property of the US federal government, that it sits on land owned and managed by the US National Park Service, and therefore is presumed to be public domain unless proven otherwise. - Ken Thomas11:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone sold their sculpture doesn't mean they sold their copyright. In fact, the law creates exactly the opposite presumption of what you're proposing: the artist keeps their copyright as long as they did not sign a written agreement specifically transferring it. It doesn't matter whether they sold the sculpture to the federal government or to a private party. Mangostar21:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're okay with the deletion of the FDR memorial images? under your rationale thos have to go as well. Evrik20:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See here, which says "Title: Boy Scout Memorial, (sculpture)" and "Owner: United States Department of the Interior, Washington, District of Columbia". The Call Number for the Smithsonian Institution is 76009553, in case that helps anyone take the research further. This source says "this memorial was authorized by the Congress of the United States" (if that helps) and DeLue's NY Times obituary says "no survivors" (but says nothing further about his estate). Carcharoth (Commons)12:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should have gone a bit further in the Google searches. The following is a great source, and someone should write an article on the memorial! See here:
"On November 7, 1964, an estimated 5,000 Boy Scouts and their leaders, top government dignitaries, business executives and Scout officials gathered in Washington, D. C. for the dedication of the memorial honoring the Boy Scouts of America. [...] The $250,000 project, which was launched after being authorized by Act of Congress, was financed by individual contributions of Scouts and their leaders in every state. [...] In 1959 Sculptor Donald DeLue and Architect William Henry Deacy, both of New York City, won the competition in which five international teams of sculptors and architects competed. [...] The bronze figures were a product of Modern Art Foundry, Inc. and the monument was erected by Hammaker Brothers, Inc., of Thurmont, Maryland. During the dedication ceremonies Associate Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark accepted the memorial in the name of the government..."
Deleted. The government may own the physical memorial but no evidence has been presented that the artistic copyright has been assigned by the artist. Copyright would in the normal course of things remain with the sculpter, and it's not enough to assume that just because the government is involved that it will have acquired the copyright. MichaelMaggs21:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
A picture with the same title was deleted on 16 may 2008 after a RFD, and this new one was uploaded a few weeks later on 30 June 2008 (deletion log). I would like to add this comment : it is unclear if this way of buying artworks implies a transmission of copyright ownership to the US governement. But let us suppose that it is so. That would mean that the copyright holder is now the US federal government. In that case, the work is still not released into the public domain. In order to release it into the public domain, a US federal agent with the authority to do so should send an E-mail to COM:OTRS, as is requested from any copyright holder. Teofilo (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a few weeks after that image was deleted, I re-uploaded it - quite frankly, because I found the arguments for deleting it in the first place ridiculous to the point of absurdity. And, to be even more frank, if it's deleted this time, I'll probably just upload it again, although I'll probably change the filename next time to make my consistently reprehensible behavior marginally less obvious. As far as defending this particular image, I'm simply not going to bother restating everything already listed above. I've learned from both experience and observation that those who wish to delete are capable of brushing aside any argument to the contrary. I will however, ask one question. Take a look at this image. Let us assume that the National Park Service has attorneys on staff who are reasonably knowledgeable regarding copyright law. Since their domain is generally chock-full of statues, I think this particular issue is one with which they might be familiar. Assuming all this to be true, why exactly would the NPS allow their employees to take and publish a photo, that would then automatically be in the public domain (because of who took it and when) if that directly violated the copyrights of the sculptor? - Ken_Thomas (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Donald De Lue's Boy Scout memorial sculpture was explicitly copyrighted in 1964. See Smithsonian Art Inventories Catalog, item IAS 76009553. If the copyright was transferred to the U.S. government, then the U.S. government holds that copyright. (Yes, the U.S. government can hold transferred copyrights. De Lue was not a U.S. government employee.) If the copyright was not transferred, then De Lue or his estate are the owners of the copyright. In either case, the sculpture is copyrighted. To keep it, you'd need to show that the copyright owner—whoever it is—has released the copyright on the sculpture, or at least allows anyone to take and publish images of the sculpture for whatever purpose. As to your hypothetical question about an NPS employee taking an image of a copyrighted sculpture: I think his photo would be a derivative work. The NPS may well publish it (maybe covered under "fair use", or they may have a license), and the photo itself may well be PD, but the work shown is not. For derivative works, you always have to consider the copyright of the base work, too, and thus the image would not be free. (Again, unless there was a free license by the copyright holder allowing anyone to publish images of the work.) Lupo15:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: since it was mentioned above in the old first DR: please note that e.g. Frederick Hart's Three Soldiers, part of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., is also explicitly copyrighted, registration number VAu000053504, dated 1983-11-08, copyright claimants Frederick E. Hart & Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. Same problem there... Lupo15:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mistaken assumption here that the copyright remains with the sculptor. In fact, the federal government commissions these works with the intent of them being works for hire. Folks, this is part of a national monument in a national park. To date, and i could be wrong about this, the federal governmant has not once asked wikimedia to take down an image because of copyvio. Evrik (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least I didn't make this mistaken assumption. Even if the government commissioned the work, the initial copyright owner was the sculptor, and if he subsequently transferred that copyright to the U.S. government, the government holds that copyright. A commissioned work is not a "work made for hire". See e.g. here, where a similar case of a commissioned work was discussed. That discussion also mentions sources. The copyright owner can, of course, authorize free reproductions of the work, but I haven't seen any evidence of such a free license for these sculpture here yet. Lupo16:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lupo: "As to your hypothetical question about an NPS employee taking an image of a copyrighted sculpture: I think his photo would be a derivative work. The NPS may well publish it (maybe covered under "fair use", or they may have a license), and the photo itself may well be PD, but the work shown is not."
That wasn't a hypothetical question at all. Please look at this image. Now, what you're telling me is that an NPS employee took a photo of a statue, and I took a photo of exactly the same statue, and that for some inexplicable reason the photo taken by the NPS employee is automatically classified as public domain, and yet the one I took cannot be? On what grounds could you possibly base that assertion? So if I suddenly reveal the fact that I'm an employee of the Federal government, this photo, and the license I uploaded it with, become valid? - Ken_Thomas (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good start. While you're at it, I think there are a ton of images in this category that should be deleted as well. Same logic, really. Federal property, and many pictures take by Federal employees, but the sculptor died in 1941, so those will all need to go. Oh, and don't forget all of these. Heck, that sculptor is still living. Clearly someone has been asleep at the switch. - Ken_Thomas (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not ? There is no difference for the end user, I mean the Wikipedia reader, should the pictures be uploaded here on Commons or on the English Wikipedia as "fair use". Regarding readers of "no fair use wikipedias", like the French language one, I think they might be a little disapointed, but they can understand that these works are still copyrighted, like the Eiffel tower by night or the Louvre pyramid. Teofilo (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should remember that these No Fop claims in the US were created to protect a more or less poor artist. To make use of these rules concerning official or semi official works placed on the best places the president has to offer is bizarre. Mutter Erde (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Award Administration
The Architect of the Capitol will contract with all artists.
The final owner of the maquettes and other material will be the U.S. government. The U.S. government will be the holder of the copyright on the statue.
This is what happens with all statues made on behalf of the federal government, for monuments, etc. They are "works for hire." Evrik (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't say it was a "work made for hire". They just stipulate that they will hold the copyright, which means the sculptor must transfer it to them. (Otherwise, the U.S. government could not be the "holder of the copyright", since works made for hire by employees of the U.S. government are not covered by copyright as per 17 USC 105.)
"Work made for hire" applies to works created by an employee in the course of his duties, and it may apply to nine narrowly defined categories of works if both parties agree that the work shall be a "work made for hire". Sculpture does not fall in these nine categories, and neither is there an employment relationship: it's a competition, and the winning sculptor will be commissioned to execute the final statue. See also Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, a U.S. Supreme Court case that pretty much settled this. All this sentence confirms is that, for the future Rosa Parks statue, the copyright will be transferred to the U.S. government. It is then up to the U.S. government to allow (or not) anyone to reproduce the statue (for instance, by photography) and use these reproductions in any legal way. We need a confirmation for that part. Lupo09:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, the transfer is not in debate. But a confirmation that the copyright owner after the transfer authorizes use of the work that amounts to a free license. Lupo07:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the transfer is not in debate, then the issue is moot. This should be speedily closed, the image should remain and we should go on and be productive elsewhere. Evrik (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? First, wasn't the sculpture commissioned by Boy Scouts America, not by the government? And in either case, where's the evidence that the copyright holder authorizes use of the work that amounts to a free license? Remember, the statue was explicitly copyrighted in 1964. Lupo16:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I called the Smithsonian and the Park Service about this. Aside from laughing, they were confused why anyone would assume that the copyright was owned by anyone except the USGov, or that it wan't in the PD. I can't get anyone on the record about this. Evrik (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An honest word by an honest man. We should close this deletion request with a little smile and a big Thank You to Evrik, Lupo and of course Ken Thomas for this nice pic. Regards Mutter Erde (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Evrik's work. All we can do is ask; we've now asked. It would be advisable to at least write as much on the image description, though. --GRuban (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the original uploader (Elred on the English Wikipedia), the copyright owner changed his mind about sharing this image. See my Wikipedia talk page for more information. — Wordbuilder16:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
marked all rights reserved; impossible to determine if license was originally correct without uploader present (does he have flickr review rights?) Patstuart (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes it is blurred. So what? Bad quality is not a reason for deletion. (Unless into extremes). And this DR should not have been reopened because you don't like the outcome. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentBad quality is a perfectly valid reason for considering deletion. This image is completely redundant to an image of superior quality from the same uploader, there is no reason to keep it as this makes it not useful. Adambro19:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept again. No new arguments, no reason to re-open the deletion request. Oh and by the way? Check this out:
All of the photographs I take now will be uploaded onto Flickr this is because it is a much better uploading site and an administrator can't come along and delete my photographs. On wikipedia, I am currently on a wikibreak and will continue to operate their for the foreseeable future.
From the uploader's user page. Good job in fucking off a good contributor, Adambro! I warned you on IRC, very vocally, that this was likely to happen and you still persisted in having this deletion request open. Meanwhile, I'm going to get in contact with the photographer and see if I can get him to come back. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep If you are disturbed because the painting appeared more than 50 and less than 70 years ago, it is already provided with the appropriate template. Bogorm (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
???? Kenan Messare died in the 1960s or 1970s, so his works are still copyrighted (70 years after the artist's death and NOT after the painting's appearance). GerakiTLG15:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - it would be recommendable to keep it somewhere and to reinstate it 50 years after the death of the author according to the Japanese copyright law (50 years adter the death), which is not so conducive to staunch copyright-conscious deletionism as other countries'. Bogorm (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No description, name without meaning, not used - even if it's an ok shot of the countryside somewhere the lack of info makes it so useless it's outside of the scope of commons. (Moved from en:wiki by bot, the uploader there has only two wikicontribs - this and a similar image) Finn Rindahl17:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image, I took, is no longer used in w:Merle Terlesky, but other image (based on same original) is used. See article talk on Wikipedia for further explanation/discussion Rob00:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is more than "unused" as explained on the article talk page. It stems from an OTRS complaint by w:Merle Terlesky that led to it's removal from the Wikipedia article. The deletion here is part of an attempt at a compromise, for somebody of "marginal" notability, not wanting their image shown at all. Deletion of this image, doesn't prevent future re-use, since the original uncropped version is here. --Rob20:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original image this was cropped out of is here. He is in public holding a sign trying to draw attention to himself. He has posted images of himself on his own web site and other places. This is not a privacy issue. 24.68.249.11419:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, even less so standing there with a sign in one's hand. Furthermore, the image is not disparaging in any way. Therefore, there is no personality rights problem. The crop is obviously useful, so unused is no reason for deletion either. The copyright situation appears clear as well. In summary: there is no compelling reason to delete the image. --rimshottalk13:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
El escudo lo dibujé con el COREL PHOTO-PAINT 7. No lo he escaneado de ningún sitio y es imposible que encuentres otro idéntico a este. Se puede apreciar lo defectuosas que son las perlas de la corona por estar dibujadas pixel a pixel. saludos--Dionisio19:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even though he blurred out the Windows portion of the screenshot, this is a technically still a derivative work of a copyrighted operating system. Microsoft disallows derivative works. --ViperSnake15117:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the girl depicted isn't a prostitute. Suspected case of ex-girlfriend bashing, from an unreliable user (no other contributions). --Richy07:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the girl depicted isn't a prostitute. Suspected case of ex-girlfriend bashing, from an unreliable user (no other contributions). --Richy06:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This image is from a NASA site, but APOD images are not always NASA images. This APOD image is from the 2MASS project. TheDJ13:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that Rp2511 was the photographer. Maybe the original photographer has uploaded his old photos from the 1980s. Maybe not. See his other uploads, which I will list here as well. Carcharoth (Commons)00:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've now listed the remaining uploads. Could someone else fill out the paperwork, including putting deletion tags on those images and linking them to here, as I'm not fully up to speed on what needs to be done for umbrella nominations? Carcharoth (Commons)00:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have speedy deleted Image:SCNL-Koechler.jpg, as it was indentical to Image:SCNL-accreditation-Hans Koechler-2000.jpg, which was previously deleted per deletion request last year. -- Infrogmation18:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No idea why it's not free. I published it with a GNU license, and just changed it to a creative commons license; does that help?—the preceding unsigned comment was added byJp498 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are realy the copyright holder, then you may put the image into any license you want. I just nominated this image because on Wikipedia it was with a copyright (non-free) tag. If you want to this image stays in Wikimedia Commons, it must have a free license. Sincerly, Sdrtirs03:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something/Someone else moved it from wikipedia to wikimedia commons. I presume the license would follow with the image content.
Keep - Copyright paranoia I see here, it's pd-ineligible to me. I'll speedy delete it from en.wikipedia cause it's redundant now. ViperSnake15118:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to what I see, both Russian, Spanish and English Wikipedias use this image in articles about current president of Nicaragua Daniel Ortega. I think this image is interesting because it was taken during a speech in Cuba before reelection and because Daniel is wearing a red shirt that reflects his political views (communism). I haven't seen better images of this politic that are acceptable to be uploaded yet.
--189.154.22.24621:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got this off a list of "missing images". Was going to restore it but I looked at the license. License is for reproduction only, which is not free enough. I know this previously survived a DR but I'm renominating it. That's not a free license. -Nard the Bard00:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hm, don't know what to do about this. The uploader User:Mareino has uploaded 63 maps of parts of USA in stark colours named from "steel" to "steel63" (.gif/.png). I can't understand the purpose of any of those. This one is parts of Ohio and Pennsylvania with Lake Erie. Finn Rindahl00:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. The user comments on his talkpage: Various historical what-if scenarios. Many are in a chronological format, where each map of the same type with a larger number corresponds to a later point in time. Mareino 13:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC). If they were made according to some real data, I might keep but they seem like just randomly coloured and therefore out of scope Badseedtalk02:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is most likely an edited photograph of a complete clock. Even if it just a photo of a disattached clockface it hardly qualifies as a two-dimensial work of art in the same sense that a painting or a drawing does. PeterIsotalo07:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it isn't a work of art, the clock is still hundreds of years old. There isn't really any artistic positioning of the image, so what is there over which to have a copyright? --Arctic.gnome15:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break, dude. I'd never seen a picture of a metric clock before I saw this page and haven't since. Get off the high horse. --(User:74.71.78.161)
It's about as "two-dimensional" as many paintings. Just having the hands of the clock on a plane a couple of millimeters above the clock face doesn't turn it into a "3d-sculpture". Since the photo was taken from a direction perpendicular to the plane, which is the obvious angle for reproducing planar objects, I don't see any creativity involved and I think it is plausible to argue that this is indeed a "reproduction of a 2d work of art". --Itub11:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I made this request is that I was under the impression that Wikipedia is not allowed to make this type of perfectly reasonable, yet creative interpretations. I actually agree with the basic arguments, but I find the reasoning about photos taking "from a direction perpendicular to the plane" rather odd. Does this mean that if a photographer takes a picture of a 3-D object that happens to have a kinda-sorta-almost 2-D detail and edits out the rest of the object, it becomes equivalent to a photograph or painting? If a deletion isn't isn't what is needed here, then I'd really like a clarification of the policy. PeterIsotalo18:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the end we always have to do some interpretation ourselves. My personal rule of thumb is, if the "photograph" could have been taken by placing the object on a flatbed scanner or copying machine and pushing the button, then the object is "2D enough". For example, take coins. A picture such as Image:Assorted United States coins.jpg is an original composition because it has multiple coins arranged in a non-obvious way, taken from a special angle, with a certain light, depth of field, etc., but a picture such as Image:1857 seated liberty half dime reverse.jpg is just a reproduction of a coin, and could have been done by putting the coin in a scanner. (Note: it is possible that the clock is larger than your average scanner, but that doesn't invalidate the essence of the argument about it being 2D enough). Of course, I'm not a judge, so my personal rule of thumb means nothing. But that's the way we (users of Wikipedia) need to decide--by making our own interpretations and reaching a consensus about them. We can't hire a lawyer to examine every single image! I say err on the side of inclusion when the object is 2D enough. If you look at paintings closely, they are not really 2D either, but yet they fell under the Bridgeman v. Corel ruling. Your point about cropping a 2D part of a 3D object is interesting; I think I read a discussion somewhere where someone suggested that we should exclude showing the frame of a painting, because the frame is too 3D. I can't seem to find it now... --Itub12:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious that a clock face or dial is two dimensional, and therefore it is 2D. I agree with the first author. This photograph makes a unique and important contribution to this discussion. BTW, the image is also used on this URL: http://www.antique-horology.org/_Editorial/RepublicanCalendar/Images/181.jpg but there is no indication of the source and the actual clock. --(User:68.192.210.201)
Kept. There seems to be a comprehensible and reasonable consensus decision that indicates this image as a reproduction which lack of originality and creativity since it is a very common and trivial standard-way of displaying and showing such a object. Forrester[[hate+love letters]]14:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Its from a magazine and the picture speaks for its self, it was no secret that the British were executing anyone in their way, its how they became to be globally... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.98.64 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 18. Mai 2008 (UTC)
I think there is no reason too to delete this picture: the licence seems ok and overall the deletion may cause an extra-work about re-updating wikipedia pages that are currently showing this picture.
But if you have a reaon to delete this picture, please let it know. Luc106
I'm sending a couple of e-mails to some sites (including one belonging to the government) that hosts the image, to try to know something more. Patríciamsg16:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio. The flickr account this came from is being used by a user from the English wikipedia to reinsert copyvio images into articles. Also, the description states " From the New Rochelle Parks and Recreation annual guide", so it was clearly not made by the flickr account holder. BlueAzure01:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after researching this, I am almost certain BlueAzure's claim is true, not to mention how fishy it is that the photo is taken down 5-6 days after it was added to Wikipedia, supposedly by a different user. Patstuart (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given by BlueAzure. The flickr account belonging to "schmaberton" is being used to bypass quality control processes here and at Wikipedia in order to "cleanse" copyrighted images previously deleted from English Wikipedia. Most or all of the images currently on that flickr page have been challenged and/or removed previously, under slightly different names. (Note that images sometimes disappear from the schmaberton page shortly after being uploaded to Commons.) --Orlady00:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
uploaded as Image:Schwertfegermarke des Reichsschwerts des Heiligen Roemischen Reiches.png (showing a grinding mark on the imperial sword of the Holy Roman Empire dated 1198) - see annotation: The original filename was wrong, it is no Kruckenkreuz (which was used by Ständestaat Österreich 1934-1938), but a Wiederkreuz, which is a multified latin cross. The sign is embedded in a circle like a Weihekreuz (crux signata) --W!B: 03:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC), and could be misused for revisionistic propaganda, so should be deleted including history - en for de:Kruckenkreuz is Category:Crutch cross --W!B:05:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, you put {{dupe}} in there - is that a {dupe} of {{subst:Tl}}??? ;) or ist tl = dupe + speedydeletion?? --W!B:03:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{dupe}} is another name for {{duplicate}}, and both already put the page/image into the category for speedy deletion. {{tl}} is just a template to display a link to another template ;) --Fschoenm10:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These press magazines from various country are published freely to be distributed within film buyers. Some part of its content could be reproduced. Regarding paying press magazine (Variety for example), well, I have no idea. --Mielle gris13:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All material included in this pic are various flyers to be freely distributed in the streets. Some of them could be reproduced for educational purposes.--Mielle gris12:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All material included in this pic are press release made to be distributed within the press. Please note that no distributor have been favorized, as the material come from various companies. If something is actually covered by a licence in this pic... It's actually inside the various documents (on the DVDs, in the transparrency slides, inside the press release, etc.), so it cannot be seen on the pic.
Keep. All material included in this pic are made to be displayed in public area, that are cinema house : the two posters, all movie clip are designed to be put on the wall of movie house, outside (that is on the street !) and inside. Therefore this pic could have been made in a public area.--Mielle gris11:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons for deletion request --LuisArgenal 23:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I had resive some emails about people liking the picture, whaning more pictures, and using it for their own uses. I request this picture to be delate inmidiately pls!! The model is mad, as result he ask me to delete it form wikipidia.The picture is not mine is from Diego Gonzales.
Delete Photo unused & we don't have a shortage of this particular subject matter! Uploader asks for it to be deleted a short while after adding it, so it should go. But would the uploader & others please note that freely licensed pictures are just that, anybody and everybody is free to "steal" them and use them fro whatever purpose! --Simonxag14:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stealing of the picture by third peoples - LuisArgenal 23:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete The picture's content is fine but I checked back to the Flickr account. It's a clear Copyvio, as are many of the pictures on that account. --Simonxag14:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images were previously used in article but not properly sourced; uploading and using similar images with valid references/appropriate sourcing is reasonable.--69.86.92.25123:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unlikely to be someone's personal snapshot and closely associated with a large body of flickr-washed copyvio material. --Orlady00:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely a copyvio and not the work of this uploader as he claims. The website he gave as a source contains lots of promotional images of the same actress that are surely not his works. The photo looks like it was taken during the arrivals of the Los Angeles premiere of "The Pacifier" in March 2005 (see this gallery on wireimage.com). The only other image uploaded by this user (Image:Gilmore girls.jpg) was deleted as a copyvio. -- 88.134.141.13321:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, IMO speedy okay-- no evidence to support GFDL claim on linked intermediate source either. -- 01:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete Its a design for a wallpaper pattern. If part of the design is somebody's trademark (which they will probably have copyright on) then it's a derivative work. And there's no permission. --Simonxag14:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. This image escaped a deletion nomination on the English Wikipedia by being uploaded here. The photo was clearly taken by a professional photographer during a photo shoot. The camera type is not the same as the one used by the uploader in other photos he (or she) claims are his own and the Metadata section clearly states the author is Vera Anderson. Wordbuilder14:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Derivative work; Freedom of Panorama does probably not apply since the Poster was not placed in public for an indefinite time.Code·is·poetry11:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons for deletion request: The uploaded photograph is a two-dimensional representation of a copyrighted three-dimensional work of art (The wristband itself is the three-dimensional work of art). As such, the uploaded photograph is a work of art derived from a copyright protected item, and per US Copyright Act of 1976, § 106(2) who owns copyright of the wristband has the exclusive right to authorize derivative works, including photographs of that wristband. -- GregManninLB22:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm rather uncertain of this: what's actually on the wristband has to be ineligible for copyright and claiming that a plain wristband is itself an artwork seems to be stretching the rules around such things as action toys to the limit and beyond. But perhaps a court might see the overall styling of the band as copyrighted. --Simonxag14:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question, how is this unlike the photo of the album cover? It only shows the image of the USB wristband, and contains none of the music encoded in the actual band. Instead of requesting a delete, perhaps you should check to see if it qualifies for Fair Use.
To quote from the album cover's image page:
---
Fair use in The I Heart Revolution: With Hearts as One
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
1. It illustrates educational articles about the album from which the cover illustration was taken.
2. The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.
3. The use of the cover will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original. In particular, copies of the image could not be used to make illegal copies of the album artwork on another CD.
4. It is a low resolution image.
5. The image is only a small portion of the commercial product.
6. It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.
--
Let's look at the points:
1) illustrates an article about the item in the image. Check.
2) Used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic. It certainly serves for the subtopic of the different distribution methods for the album.
3) Does not affect the the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's ability to distribute the original. Check, in fact, seeing the wristband may even boost sales of the album.
4) Is a low resolution image. Here it fails, but that could be remedied by resizing the image and uploading the resized version.
5) Only a small portion of the comercial product. Check, it is only the wristband, not the music or liner notes contained therein.
6) Not replaceable with an uncopyrighted image of comparable value. Check, an image of 'something else' would not be an image of the wristband distribution of the album.
So, instead of going into draconian deletecruft, just resize the image so it will comply with Fair Use. Especially since at this time (2:00PM 4/17/08) The article has mention on the 'front page' specifically about the wristband distribution. (User:68.76.235.253)
Keep Obviously, 68.76.235.253's assertion of fair use carries absolutely no weight here, but all I see is a utilitarian object (not protected by copyright) with some text on it (also not eligible for copyright). howcheng {chat}16:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source information is insufficient to determine that the {{PD-old}} tag is accurate. Who is the photographer, and how do we know he's been dead at least 70 years? —Angr16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this is specified in book "Знамя Мира": Сб. – 2-е изд., доп. и перераб. – М.: Международный Центр Рерихов, 2005. – 644 с., цв. и тон. илл. – (Большая рериховская библиотека) ISBN5-86988-161-7User:Deodar
Source information is insufficient to determine that the {{PD-old-70}} tag is accurate. Who is the photographer, and how do we know he's been dead at least 70 years, especially if (as the image info indicates) the photograph was taken only 66 years ago? —Angr16:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
image description page (with source!) restored. If the picture is copyrighted otherwise and PD-China is not applicable, please state why. --Svencb17:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Simonxag14:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These images are copyrighted by the SeaWIFS project of GeoEye corporation as clearly stated here and here. "NOTE: All SeaWiFS images and data presented on this website are for research and educational use only. All commercial use of SeaWiFS data must be coordinated with GeoEye." That spells copyrighted non-commercial to me. According to this NASA actually has a data contract with ORBIMAGE/GeoEye so that they can use the image freely for research purposes only. TheDJ19:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will need to read this further, but if it is true, we need a separate license for these images to make this distinction. TheDJ10:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, i dont get it. "images from the SeaWiFS sensor older than five years are in the public domain and can be re-used or re-published for any purpose. Images less than five years old can be re-used only for educational or scientific purposes; any commercial use of such images must be coordinated with ORBIMAGE." seems quite explicit to me. TheDJ15:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could have just let the bad name and universal replace notices in place. An admin reviews these images and should normally delete them. TheDJ12:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete, I uploaded with the wrong file name, plus need to fix background color to transparent, will upload new version shortly Acer20:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the picture closely. On the website the book in Mohorosh's hand is at the very bottom of the picture. In the picture on wikipedia there is a large space under the book. While it is possible to take the picture on wikipedia and crop it to look like the picture on the website, it is impossible to take the picture on the website and somehow create that space under the book. It is also impossible to take a small picture, like the one on the website, and increase the size and quality to such a large extent. It is obvious that the picture was not "lifted off the webpage". (Wikibiki61303:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand this reasoning. The pictures are identical; only the upper half of the picture is used on the webpage. Since Wikibiki613 just started plugging the inclusion of Rabbi Eliezer Shlomo Schik on the Breslov page, I have the feeling he's an insider in Rabbi Schik's organization and has access to the whole picture. The only question is whether he himself took this professional, studio portrait? Yoninah19:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning is really quite simple. You claimed that the picture was "lifted off the webpage". I proved to you that it wasn't. What is there not to understand? (Wikibiki61318:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Deleted. In my experience photos uploaded to WikiCommons sized 250x380 are always suspicious. Wikibiki613 has not been able to explain how he or she became the copyright owner of this photo. Thuresson (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probable copyvio via flickr wash. A user from the English wikipedia has moved from uploading copyvio photos onto the English wikipedia to flickr washing photos onto the commons. The images , which are all of Sarah Lawrence College, were all uploaded to flickr then uploaded to the commons by the file upload bot and then inserted into a an article on the English wikipedia on the same day. I speedied some of the images that were taken from other flickr accounts (that were not licensed for free use) or from a virtual tour on the colleges website. Others were take from a photo slideshow on the college's website, those have nominated for deletion. I haven't found the original source of the rest, but I see nothing to indicate that they are not also copyvios. --BlueAzure18:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with the situation at en.wikipedia, and I endorse deletion for the reasons given. The user who inserted these images into the article there had a long record of copyvios, including flickr-washing through Commons, and is now banned from en.wikipedia. --Orlady18:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The license on Flickr on April 13, 2008 is actually Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic. It may have been Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license when uploaded, but we have no way of knowing --Nv8200p16:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - most probably the copyright is expired, the Smithonian Institution is certainly not the owner of copyright. --h-stt!?10:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - created in 1902, copyright most probably expired. The Smithonian Institution is certainly not the holder of copyright, most probably only the owner of the print. --h-stt!?10:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO this lacks originality. What could be copyrightable on this image? The text? The graph? Anyway, this is very easy to recreate, so if you are concerned about copyright, someone should create an own version with these figures. --ChrisiPK(Talk|Contribs)19:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed some of the logos without cropping. Does this meet requirements now? If not just tell me what else to remove. Lycaon07:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment still contains possible non free logo's of Limewire, K3B and other progams along with a derivative of an unidentified image. Gnangarra12:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Julo - I suppose that bad quality is one of more important reason for deletion, isn't it? When a debate has reached consensus or when it is likely that no additional arguments will be added, an administrator will close the discussion and determine whether the file should be deleted - this debate was closed before his beginning and no argument except the mine was given. Moreover the uploader asked for deletion. IMHO this photo couldn't illustrate any article, so it's useless. Cancre19:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree. "Bad quality" for professional photographer is not the same than for me or other people. Argument "bad quality" could be used for 99% of Commons images, depending on Point Of View (and we don't like POV!). "Bad quality" argumentation is undefined. By the way, this bird on this picture is not bad. But for me it doesn't matter, do what you want, my opinion is KeepJulo00:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Quality is insufficient for use in biological oriented articles. Guidelines are guidelines, not strict rules. The author stated he only uploaded for id purposes. Do we have to keep all these low quality images if they will never be used? Lycaon07:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's not really awful, just "not that good". Could be used on wikibooks to illustrate what happens when you don't select correct settings for your bird pictures. Jérôme20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I...was stuck for ideas, and just going to post "I have spoken with the family and directly asked about this particular photograph and been assured that I can list it", but then I remembered, I don't even need you to trust me, Zaynab Khadr (eldest daughter and spokesman of the family) wrote it on WP months ago!
There is a serious problems with that photo. It's an obvious attempt to make him look like he's still a child. Other images found online show him to be considerably older than that little kid.
The image page says it's probably a "family-provided image". They're not an impartial source. This is propaganda.
Either the age must be clarified, or that photo should be removed.
-- Randy2063 00:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
...
Rest in peace all who are worried, we have no problem with anyone using this picture, it is in the public domain, and it's all we have now.(Zaynab Khadr 15:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC))
The picture is under "Early life," there is absolutely no problem having the image of him as a kid, if anything, its much more encyclopedic to have his entire life, especially when its in the public domain. Either way, its not a reason to delete the image, its inclusion should be covered at the respective article. Epson291 (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Initially there were only two photos that had been uploaded. One was a picture of him from when he was about 8, and the other one when he looked about 13. Challengers, who thought the use of those photos showed bias against the USA, because they made him look like more of a child than he was at the time of the skirmish.
I didn't agree with that criticism. But I was concerned that claims that the photos were being used with the permission of the family were incorrect. So I asked Zaynab, his older sister. I offered to help get the photos deleted if they weren't actually being used with the owner's permission.
This was a couple of years ago, so I am paraphrasing. At some event connected with Omar, where members of the press were present, they had brought some family photos. Someone asked if they could use those photos, and they agreed. IIRC correctly they weren't asked: "are you releasing your family photos into the public domain?" IIRC these photos were not returned. But, IIRC, she told me that her family was prepared to have those photos considered in the public domain. I haven't specifically asked whether each of the more recent photos had been put into the public domain. But since Sherurcij has, and that answer is consistent with what she told me I believe they should be considered in the public domain.
I believe that the battlefield photo are all unquestionably in the public domain, because GIs took them.
The argument that the images from the captured video-tape that someone in Guantanamo leaked to 60 minutes is also in the public domain is that Afghanistan has not signed any international copyright conventions. I have not heard that CBS has taken an explicit stand, one way or the other, on the copyright status of those images.
A freelance photographer has claimed he owns the copyright on the only family photo known to exist of w:Dilawar, the innocent taxi driver GIs in Bagram brutally beat to death. The production company behind the film "w:Taxi to the Dark Side", seems to be claiming that it owns the copyright on some leaked DoD images, taken in Afghanistan -- including Dilawar's Bagram mugshot. I initially thought these claims were completely bogus. More recently I have heard the argument that, since Afghanistan has not signed any international copyright conventions, images taken there don't belong to anybody, but they will belong to the first person to publish them in a country that does have copyright protection.
I know the law, particularly copyright law, can be counter-intuitive. I find the claim that the first to publish an Afghan image outside of Afghanistan owns all the rights counterintuitive.
That freelance photographer seems to have taken a photo of the family photo of Dilawar, and asserted he owned the copyright on the image based solely on that.
P.S. It turned out that the photo that some observers complained made him look too young? Taken just a month or two before the skirmish. Geo Swan (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi..Its Zaynab Khadr..What seems to be the problem? That pic is of Omar when he was about 5 years old, we as the family have no problem with it being used in a public domain. If there are any other concernes please feel fre to ask. (99.243.180.4)
Keep. The reason it's orphaned is because you removed [34] both [35] images from the Revision 3 article 8 minutes before nominating it for deletion here, for the reasons of "Pointless image that adds no information" and "Another image that adds nothing to the article". They were both of some use in the article. The office image (not very relevant to this discussion) directly shows the subject in it's day to day operation, the control board image directly addresses the text (next to it in the article) about the new studio in the article - it's the new control board in their new studio. Even of itself though, I think this particular image is still encyclopaedic, can you give a reason for why you think it isn't? Thanks. (Note that I've re-added both images back into the Revision 3 article [36] on Wikipedia and invited discussion on them on the talk page)Ha!09:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not universally replaced; used in two projects, including in article space on the Russian Wikipedia. I'd delete if the replacement were universal. Durova04:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a long time since I uploaded this, I vagurly remember some confusion when I uploaded the thing. But it's still CC...I don't know what's different between versions. I do know the person who took the pic I used for the background however, I can contact them for help. I'm sure Torley's intent posting his screenshots under CC would allow for this use.EllePollack19:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was settled some time ago. I uploaded this, agree with the deletion, but haven't got around to getting rid of this yet. Gone. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 21:45, 14 April 2008 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep Hilfe - ich kann nicht englisch; Das Bild habe ich an einem öffentlichen Platz aufgenommen. Nach Österreichischem Recht fällt dies unter "Panoramafreiheit" und ist absolut legitim !!! --Böhringer18:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
need permission for all use & derivative works, not just use on wikipedia. also should have email to permissions@wikimedia.org confirming this. Mangostar16:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The British Overseas Territories and the Channel Islands are not part of the UK, let alone their EEZs. The map thus presents an area much larger than the real EEZ of the UK which is limited to the 200 nautical miles surrounding Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Europe. Godefroy20:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, constitutionally that's right and we might want to point at that fact in the description part (EEZ of the United Kingdom and territories and countries under the sovereignty of the British crown), but I don't think that that's a valid reason to delete the map altogether. Gugganij22:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The map is currently called "Exclusive Economic Zones United Kingdom", the map is therefore wrong. You would have to redraw it and show only the EEZ of the UK, i.e. the EEZs of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in Europe. As for a map showing the EEZs of all the territories under the sovereignty of the British Crown, it would have to have a correct file name, and besides I think such a map doesn't make much sense at all (if oil is found under the seabed of Bermuda's EEZ, Britain will not see any revenue from this oil for example, it will all go to the Bermudan government). Then with the same logic someone might as well make a map of all the EEZs of the Commonwealth, but what sense would it make exactly? Godefroy01:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the map and left only the EEZ of the UK, so the map is now in accordance with the file name. I have removed the delete tag. Rosss23:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's not officially closed yet, so I'm replying. First, thank you Mike! Second, NoCultureIcons, you gave the same exact reason for each one. It's highly likely they will all share the same fate. If some need to be discussed separately then we will do it when we need to. This just makes it easier on all of us. Plus, any discussion is likely to be about personality rights violations in general. :) Rocket00020:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Julo - I suppose that bad quality is one of more important reason for deletion, isn't it? When a debate has reached consensus or when it is likely that no additional arguments will be added, an administrator will close the discussion and determine whether the file should be deleted - this debate was closed before his beginning and no argument except the mine was given. Moreover the uploader asked for deletion. IMHO this photo couldn't illustrate any article, so it's useless. Cancre19:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree. "Bad quality" for professional photographer is not the same than for me or other people. Argument "bad quality" could be used for 99% of Commons images, depending on Point Of View (and we don't like POV!). "Bad quality" argumentation is undefined. By the way, this bird on this picture is not bad. But for me it doesn't matter, do what you want, my opinion is KeepJulo00:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Quality is insufficient for use in biological oriented articles. Guidelines are guidelines, not strict rules. The author stated he only uploaded for id purposes. Do we have to keep all these low quality images if they will never be used? Lycaon07:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's not really awful, just "not that good". Could be used on wikibooks to illustrate what happens when you don't select correct settings for your bird pictures. Jérôme20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This title is from w:Template:PD-art-life-50, but here it redirects to Template:PD-1923. The meaning at Wikipedia is more complex than just PD-1923. It's supposed to mean the original work was published before 1923, and the artist died more than 50 years ago, and the digital scan is non-copyrightable. It's better to use separate templates here than oversimplify with a redirect. --Superm401 - Talk09:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a battery, not an artwork. Things do have logos and other (possibly) copyrighted material on them (such as cars with badges). But we can still photograph them so long as the photo is of the object not the artwork. The opposite case would be the front of a cornflake packet where the picture would be of the artwork on the packet more than the thing itself. --Simonxag22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Patent misinterpretation of derivative work; consultation with intellectual property lawyer advised; avoidance of abject counter-productivity should be enforced. Chensiyuan23:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody's going to consult with a lawyer about something that is so obviously nonfree. Your alarmist reaction isn't surprising, however, given the previous firestorms you've unleashed on similar IFDs. Cumulus Clouds05:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your intellectually hollow response is not shocking either, given your rampant counter-productivity here and beyond. You know nothing about IP, and have no qualifications whatsoever (cf yt), so anyone who listens to you would be rather daft. Chensiyuan15:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have no relevant experience in United States copyright law either. I'm growing increasingly tired of your arrogant, condescending attitude both on Commons and the English Wikipedia. Commons' policies on this are rather clear, this image is a derivative work and so cannot be licensed under PD, CC by SA or GNU. Since those licenses are required for images to be kept on Commons, it will also be deleted. You've yet to provide any reason to the alternative, other than to run me into the ground. Cumulus Clouds03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That must be new. I sent the photographer a message asking her to confirm the photo's license; if she truly wants to set it to all rights reserved, then yeah, we'll delete it. Disavian04:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this photograph does of "All Rights Reserved" and is not proper for this particular article one of an actual stunt in action would be more suiting.
The user who has uploaded this has used a derogotary name that Pashtuns use for this person. This person has a name. His name is Habibullah Kalakani. Bacha-i Saqqao means son of water carrier. This is the term that Pashtuns such as the user that uploaded it use to degrade this person, even though his father was not a water carrier but actually a historian. The file should be uploaded under the proper name. Also, this license might not apply to Afghanistan and this photo might even be the person that is described. It's from a very unreliabe source as the source is a Pashtun-nationlist and is anti-Tajik and anti-nonPashtun. They could have just gotten this image of another person and labeled it as this person. Le Behnam 22:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)--Executioner00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did not use derogotary name, there are sources which have this same exact name and I decided to use the name which is sourced by historians. Show proof that his correct name being "Habibullah Kalakani". The license covers images from USA, Canada, Europe and all other countries with 70 years statute. Most countries, besides USA, Canada and Europe has less than 70 years statute of limitation. So if the image is from Afghanistan or USA doesn't really matter.--Executioner00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All kings of Afghanistan have their images in Category:Monarchs of Afghanistan. This is an image of a very popular Tajik bandit who became King of Afghanistan in 1929 when the country went into civil war. There is no copyright violation. It is very helpful image so we will keep it. An image cannot be deleted just because someone don't like it.--Executioner08:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Authorship (for the source-website) seems to be unclear, "Feel free to download, copy and redistribute." is not enough to keep it here as well. abf/talk to me/12:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is incorrectly identified as being published in the book
Six drawings illustrating Théophile Gautier's romance: Mademoiselle de Maupin. London: Smithers, 1898.
It is, in fact, a previously unpublished hand-colored proof copy of an illustration by Aubrey Beardsley. It is neither in the public domain nor is it part of the work identified on this page. This object is the property of the Fales Library & Special Collections at New York University. No permission to use this image was either sought or granted by the Fales Library. The digital image of this item was created by the Fales Library & Special Collections for use in our online exhibition about Oscar Wilde and his circle. No permission to re-use or re-post this image was sought or granted.
Gusgus62120:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the work that the image is supposedly from is PD, it would be helpful if someone could point out a digital copy of the work, so that we can inspect it to see if this image can be found in it. I couldn't quickly see the work in question on archive.org. John Vandenberg(chat)20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, U.S. copyright laws would make this indeed copyrighted if it was unpublished. Prior to 1978, unpublished works effectively were under a perpetual copyright in the U.S. Since 1978, works created before 1978 but only published 1978 or later are copyrighted:
Until the longer of the end of 2047 and 70 years p.m.a., if published 1978 - 2002 (inclusive)
Until 70 years p.m.a. if published 2003 or later.
According to www.archive.org, the NYU displayed this image on their website at [38] already in 1996. (Although archive.org hasn't kept the image for the 1996-199 versions of the web page, it does show it for the August 17, 2000 version. That's also before 2002...) I don't know who would own that copyright though... might be NYU, or might be the artist's estate, or the publisher of the book or its successors. Lupo10:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A different question is whether a greyscale reproduction of that drawing in the book would count as a "publication" even of the hand-colored proof. Also note that the U.S. Copyright Office in general does not consider mere coloration sufficient to give rise to a separate copyright on a colored version. See e.g. Hearn v. Meyer, 664 F. Supp 832 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), where an illustrator attempted unsuccessfully to claim copyright on his painstakingly restored versions of original Wizard of Oz illustrations. The illustrations were in the public domain, and the court found that the act of rendering them with bolder and more vibrant colors was not an original contribution sufficient to remove the restored works from the public domain. See also Compendium of Office Practices II, section 503.02(a): "Likewise, mere coloration cannot support a copyright even though it may enhance the aesthetic appeal or commercial value of a work." (Although the example that follows is about textile designs, the statement is made in a general context under the heading "Minimal standards [for copyrightability, Lupo]: pictorial or graphic material.")
BTW, when searching for the book, you're more likely to find something useful if you search for "Théophile Gautier" and "Mademoiselle de Maupin". Searching for Beardsley and restricting that search to text (as was done above) won't find Beardsley's image.
Comment Google books has "A second book of fifty drawings By Aubrey Beardsley" that contains the image in black and white, and was published in 1899. Megapixie10:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apologies, I misunderstood the term "proof" when uploading, I thought it was the published image. I have now uploaded Image:Beardsley de Maupin BW.png the black & white image from the book referenced by Megapixie. Thanks, Megs. I'm not going to state an opinion in the debate as such, since I clearly don't know enough about the literary formalities in this specific case. But may I ask that if the final decision is to delete the image, that the EN article that uses it, en:Julie d'Aubigny be updated to use the black-white version? Thanks. --AnonEMouse14:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteOK, so I change my vote. There's a free alternative and the deletion request seems to have at least some legal backing. --Simonxag11:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Request was made by author three minutes after uploading and it is really so unsharp it is more or less useless. Cecil (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image was not created by a public employee of the US government, it is incorrectly tagged. The US government now owns the imagee but retains the copyright unless released. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb11:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification
I should have been signed in, the request for deletion is mine. The artist Frank Boggs created the painting under commission to the US company Wyeth, which then donated the painting to the United States Army Historical Center. The image was taken off of their website. It does not qualify as a public domain image under the existing tag.Awotter21:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just turning this into a mass request. Reasons were basically the same for all of these: "orphan, no longer required, own picture," "orphan, own pic, removing old uploads that are not used," or "orphan, own pic, no longer partcipating in body morphology project." – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 11:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(I Put these up for deletion, I am the subject in the images. Just making this clear for anyone looking at this IFD) - Boochan07:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Useful free-licensed images. The fact that they may not be used at the moment is neither here nor there. This is not just the English Wikipedia's image store, it is a reservoir of usable images for all Wiki projects, present and future, and more. --Simonxag10:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh.. I uploaded them. I WANT them deleted, I initiated the requests. Don't I have permission to get them deleted? If I don't, then theirs definitely something wrong.. - Boochan06:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have this from time to time. The simple fact is that Commons licenses are irrevocable. And if you say you didn't know this, then you should, because the Commons spells out its policy on licenses and copyrights like nowhere else on the internet. If you want the images deleted, you need to give a good reason. --Simonxag11:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you could have them deleted on a whim simply because you uploaded them then that would be a problem. Free licenses are irrevocable by definition; you'll have to give a better reason than "I WANT them deleted." Keep– Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb12:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get your points entirely, and know how the licenses work. The main reasons, apart from the ones mentioned prior arefor reasons related to been identified in public from these pictures, and to reduce that happening to keep my privacy. Also to avoid losing my job from someone finding this sort of display on there, since they are all identifiable, as well as to avoid embarrassment. Many of these images are identifiable, and are not been used in any projects so I didn't see what the problem was in to removing them. I do believe this is a valid reason for deletion when I'm still contributing other, valid images that are in use and have been kept and that my well-being and public image could be effected by these pictures For some of them they could be modified, yes but for others (all the body morphology project ones) its quite impossible to do that. I'd be fine with modifying them for that purpose, but if it comes to that I'd request that the previous uploads (the ones for deletion now) be removed, for privacy reasons. I'm sorry for not mentioning this in the first place (as well as been rude earlier) and if it means only identifiable images that I have listed can be removed I understand completely.- Boochan15:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you're uncomfortable with having identifiable images of yourself publicly available. While I wouldn't support deleting the images, I will try my hand at either cropping or pixellating the identifiable ones. If I don't make a total mess of it we could delete the old revisions. Does that sound fair? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb17:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the slow reply, I haven't been active on the Commons recently and half forgot about this. That sounds completely fair, I appreciate your time to do this for me. The body morphology ones are another thing altogether, since I'm not particpating in the project, id like them to just be able to be renamed to a more generic, non identifying name. =] - Boochan13:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, ill get these all done and cropped eventually then. This can be closed now and the pictures can be kept. - FatM1ke13:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides these, there are another 5000 or so images taken from www.ngw.nl without proper source info, as all of those were scanned from other sources and no original source is mentioned. See also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Images_from_www.ngw.nl_.28coats_of_arms.29. Technically all should be deleted, unless permission has been granted by the authors. Many Belgian arms were drawn by Max Servais (died 1990), most German ones by Max Reinhart (+/- 1966) or Helmut Ulle (1990s) and are thus all with copyright. The Brazilian ones are all drawn by Lauro Ribeiro Escobar, who is also still alive.Knorrepoes11:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the German coats of arms: German coats of arms of municipalities, districts and such are in the public domain, regardless who the actual artist was, regardless if he is mentioned here and regardless who scanned them. See the article de:Amtliches Wappen on the German wikipedia, or the Template:PD-Coa-Germany for what the article says in a nutshell. So those coats of arms should definitely not be deleted. --Rosenzweig19:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
German coat of arms published between the years 1965 and 1995 couldn't be shown in the Internet because of an restriction in the Urheberrechtsgesetz (§ 31 Abs. 4 UrhG) if they where not PD by § 5 (1) UrhG at all. Neither the town could use them itself because of this. That makes no sense and so the author looses his rights in the moment, the town uses this new coat of arms. From that moment they are PD. Please read de:Amtliches Wappen. --ST○20:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may be true and thus the German ones (as well as the Norwegian ones) should not be deleted; but in all cases the source (the artist who made the images for the book) has to be mentioned, not my site as I only scanned them. Just to credit the original artist (regardless of copyright status).
Another thing is that I read in the booklet with arms of the Donau-Ries Kreis from 2001 from the Landkreisordnung : Von Dritten dürfen Wappen und Fahnen der Gemeinde nur mit deren Genehmigung verwendet werden (Coats of arms and flags may only be used with permission of the municipality). There are a number of other rules as well and an interesting one is that when you use the arms for commercial purposes : Die Werbekraft dieser Gegenstände muss zum grossen Teil dem Landkreis (bzw den Kommunen) zugute kommen. Für die Darstellung unter Verwendung neuwer Medientechniken gelten diese Richtlinien entsprechend (the marketing power of these items should for the main part benefit the district or municipalities (whether that is also financial is not clear). To show or use the arms using new media these rules also apply). These rules would indicate that the use, for whatever purpose, is not free and the municipality should give permission. I have seen similar texts in other German books. It looks contradictory to the texts above....Knorrepoes07:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it seems to restrict commercial use, which means the images can not be used by commons as they are not really free to use (I had a long discussion on this with the images I made myself...)Knorrepoes09:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between using and showing coat of arms and it's no copyright question. If you only show the coat of arms in for ex. enzyklopedian background, your are free to do that. You are not free to uses the coat of arms if you (den Eindruck erwecken) do as if it's yours. You are not allowed to use it on your private letters or print T-shirts with it and sell them. That's the privileg of the owner only. --ST○11:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of coats of arms, you must distinguish between using them (in German: führen or verwenden) and merely showing them to illustrate something. We are only showing these coats of arms, to illustrate articles about the respective towns, cities etc. or about heraldic topics. Anybody wanting to do so on a commercial basis is free to do it; I would guess the DVD versions of the German wikipedia that were and are sold contain lots of coats of arms. So do the books of Stadler, by the way; those were commercial, and Stadler didn't have to ask every single town for permission to print their coa. Actually using a valid coat of arms is the privilege of its owner. He/she/it (the town) can use it on their stationery, on their websites etc. in a way that indicates that this is the person or entity that is the rightful owner of the respective coat of arms. The owner can grant that privilege to others (e.g. associations) but must be asked and may charge (money) for the privilege. Using a coat of arms without the permission of the owner is not allowed, but this is not a matter of copyright, but of criminal law. This applies to all valid coats of arms, even if you draw them yourself. You can draw the coat of arms of Berlin, you can show it (like we do in Wikipedia articles), but you can't use it on your stationery as if it were your coa, because it is not. It's a bit similar to academic degrees: you can only call yourself a Dr. or a Ph. D. if you actually have that degree. Regards --Rosenzweig16:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clear, and we should keep them, but they still should be attributed to Stadler or other artists, and definitely not to my site as source....Knorrepoes07:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem with crediting the books from which they originally came, also the actual artist if he is known. But why not tell if the actual file was taken from ngw.nl (or anywhere else)? Not telling that would be not telling the truth. If I take an image file from ngw.nl, upload it here, credit the book/artist etc., but do not tell that I took it from ngw.nl (or somewhere else), it looks as if I scanned the image – which is not true. Regards --Rosenzweig12:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is a different image with the same name in the English page, which causes this image not to be displayed properly. This image has been uploaded with a different name in order to solve the problem Melromero03:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
License is Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 Generic on Flickr not Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic as tagged. --Nv8200p21:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I propose we wait for one day. I talked at length with the head of the library there for release of this photo, and upon the upload it was licensed under the Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. I think what happened is she later set all photos to Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0, because earlier today they were all "All Rights Reserved." Either she forgot about this photo and the special need for the Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic I conveyed to her, or she assumed that it would stay the same? I don't know. I do know she expressed to me that she was fine with the Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic and when uploaded it was under that license. I've messaged her about it, so perhaps when the library opens tomorrow she'll read it and change it back. (Mind meal21:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I withdraw the copyrights --20:11, April 10, 2008 Romancop
Keep You can't withdraw them. These licenses are irrevocable. It is well over a year since upload, so there is not a question of a mistake being corrected. But we are reasonable people & if you can give a good reason for deleting the image we will accept it. --Simonxag11:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sufficiently free. See [60]: "You must, however, obtain permission from the Attorney General’s Department of NSW if you wish to: charge others for access to the work (other than at cost), include all or part of the work in advertising or a product for sale, or modify the work." howcheng {chat}17:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is Wikimedia / Wikipedia doing any of those things? I feel that I've used the correct permission for where it is being held (Wikimedia), and I notified Wikimedia via email of the permission clause. However, if it's an issue, cannot I simply update the Permission field to include the above with a link? If that isn't sufficient, I'm happy to obtain permission. But which part of the above am I asking permission for exactly? (I have the requests for permission templates from Wikipedia, so it's no stress.) However, can it be left up in the meantime as it's being used in his biography article which I'm writing and it's the most decent biopic image of him on the net I could find. I have another I can scan in, but it is in a book from 1986 and doesn't have the reference for the image. Akitora00:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update I am seeking permission for no rights reserved usage, having had the matter clarified by the permissions team here on Commons via email.Akitora08:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Could ((Non-free fair use in|Robert Marsden Hope)) be used as it is for example [61] until I hear about the permissions?Akitora12:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this rename has been too much hastily completed. It is a completely different thing having a category:Military ranks of Socialist Yugoslavia and having a category:Military ranks of Yugoslavia.
Veliki Kategorizator knows that very well. The ranks that are in this category are from the socialist period (in which participated SR Bosnia and Herzegovinia, SR Croatia, SR Macedonia, SR Montenegro, SR Serbia (SAP Kosovo, SAP Vojvodina) and SR Slovenia. In the kingdom period participated (officially only Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) and in the FRY participated only Montenegro and Serbia (Vojvodina, Kosovo). -- Rainman21:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep - "Free On Line Photos est un site de photos gratuites et libres de droits à télécharger." That's pretty clear about the license. Patstuart (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep additionally, this is an overview photo of the whole square, and Peï's copyright on the pyramid does not extend to such images. Lupo06:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the pyramid is visible! But the copyright on the pyramid doesn't give its architect a right on images in which the pyramid is just one element of many. See COM:FOP#France. If the architect has a problem with the pyramid being in pictures of the whole square, he should have constructed it elsewhere, maybe in a remote valley in the Pyrénées. If the photo showed just the pyramid, you'd be right, but as it is, the photo is fine. Lupo10:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't know who would be the copyright owner. If the artist were still living, I'd try contacting him directly. But since he's dead... his estate or heirs, or maybe the city of Oslo, or the Norwegian Ministry of Culture?
Re: used on 19 wikis: of these, six (en-WP, en-WQ, it-WP, ru-WP, no-WP, el-WP) use the image when they shouldn't, if they operate under local laws. Lupo06:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Traced after a copyrighted image by Luis Rey (copyright infingement). Original image was published by "Monster World" and in the book "A Field Guide To Dinosaurs". Original image: [62]FunkMonk20:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Karsten Smedal? When and where was this first published? (Besides, it's smaller than the en-WP version.) Lupo21:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)::[reply]
Image of 3D busts, source site is a collection of images from many sources, but doesn't specify where they got the images from. PD-old would only apply if the image itself were old enough. Lupo15:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the copyright belonged to linuxmag.com to begin with (photographers who take a photo for a company release the copyright to it). GFDL is upheld just fine. Why not contact the uploader and/or email the company so as to ask who the author is before nominating for deletion? Patstuart (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, we don't need the person who authored it, just who owns the rights to it. An author is nice, but not required AFACT. Firefoxman17:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current information in the picture is enough to qualify as a valid GFDL-licensed work. As written above, commercial authorship is still authorship. - Lasse Havelund(p) (t)01:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As of yet there is no evidence to suggest that linuxmag.com had no right to license the picture under the GFDL --Okoura (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is not the pyramide but a public protest organized in Paris against the newest copyright law DVDSI. The protesters are present on the photograph. Look at the penguin on the teeshirt of the photograph who is photographed. Note: according to decisions by French courts, the depicting of an outdoor monument in a public area is not subject to copyright restriction if it is not the only subject of the photograph. There are enough people in front of the pyramide, including many friends of the photograph that protested this day to make this photo legal, as part of a large collection where the pyramide is just a minor element. Look also at the full collection of the series: this makes a single work from the same person. Verdy p (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COM:FOP in France: Concerning buildings, case law (CA Riom, 26 mai 1967) recognizes two criteria for originality: "a definite artistic character" (« un caractère artistique certain ») and the fact that it does not belong to a series. For instance, the architect of the Louvre Pyramid is entitled to claim copyright over representations of the Pyramid. This can extend to the designer of lighting systems; for instance, the company operating the Eiffel Tower claims copyright of images of the tower when lighted at night.
note this is old legislation: on the photo it was shot during a authorized public protest against the adoption of the DADVSI law that is the only ony now applicable for the copyright restriction you're using... But if you want to use it, then this photo is part of a series and is then entitled to have its own originality and value: the pyramide is no longer the only value of this photograph. Verdy p (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Case law traditionally admits an exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (CA Paris, 27 octobre 1992, Antenne 2 c/ société Spadem, « la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité »). Thus, ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of arts installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza.
This is the applicable decision: it was ruled precisly at the time when this photo was shot. The shot was made by the protester, in a place that was completely unavoidable, because it was a protest against the French ministry of Culture, that has his bureaux around the Louvre. All protests against it are reaching the central Louvre plaza, which is the only open area that remains. It's very difficult to photograph a group of persons there without including part of the pyramide. Note that the shot was made so that persons are identifiable, no attempt was made to take the shot without the pyramide, whose presence is symbolic as it indicates the place where the protest occured.
Now the Free and Open software promoters here would like to kill their own defendants in France, due to some obscure law that is not directly applicable without a test in a real court?
Consider the right of the different persons on this photo: the right of the Pyramid designer is can completely ignore the right of the photographer, and the right of the persons shown there that were publicly protesting. These people are more numerous than the single architecture designer. The photo cannot harm the architect right, because the presence of much enough identifiable persons in front of it, as well as the messages they are carrying and your can read, is changing the subject of the photograph... Verdy p (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the copyrights --19:56, April 10, 2008 Romancop
You can't withdraw anything, as you never owned the copyright to this postcard. Do you know how old the postcard is exactly? Does it say who took the pictures? --rimshottalk09:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no evidence of jamestown foundation permission, and even if we did have that, who knows if the jamestown foundation is the actual copyright holder of the image (the artist died in 2004) Mangostar00:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess OTRS permission was given for the entire series of these pictures. Please check [64] for Image:NKVD Dungeon.jpg. I have sent an email twice to Jamestwoen foundation (see my talk page [65]); they allowed using the pictures. Then I forwarded everything to OTRS twice, and they finally gave a permission. In any case, OTRS received my emails, and the reply to the second (last) email was positive.Andrei Lomize17:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The email does not state that they are the copyright holder, and it is unclear whether they authorized use only in Wikimedia, or for everyone. Mangostar17:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the proof. This image was found at the web site of Jamestown foundation, and there is a copyright sign at the bottom. I hope we do not have any reason to suspect this respectable organization of plagiarism?Biophys
As about the authorization, they explicitly allowed to use it under 3.0 license (the second email). So, the use of the images in Wikimedia is perfectly legal. There are no reasons for deletion.Andrei Lomize19:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the images appear at the Jamestown website does not mean that they are the copyright holder. The artist could have given them permission to use the images on the website without allowing them to authorize every other person in the world to use them commercially. The request email sent to the foundation was vague and simply did not address this issue. Mangostar12:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O'K, I found the ticket number - Re: [Ticket#2008010110007126] - agreement confirmed - and I posted the whole message to my talk page.Andrei Lomize17:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that some other pictures from this series were downloaded by another user, Mike18xx [66]. It tells:
You do have our permission. Just be sure to mention Jamestown as a source in the Wikipedia listing, and reference us with a web link to the paintings in your posting. Use this email as our special authorization. Thanks, Glen Howard, President, Jamestown Foundation, 6/14/2006.
Comment (still delete without more proof). Can someone email again and ask them to confirm that they are the copyright holders of these images? I do not think it is typical for a foundation to own the copyright to contemporary artworks. The email sent to the foundation was vague and though it said CC-BY, it asked for permission to use on wikipedia, so who knows what the foundation actually gave permission for. Do you really think the artist would have given all his copyrights to the foundation rather than letting his children/heirs earn the royalties? Without further discussion on who owns the copyrights (and, as yet, silence from the foundation on this matter) I don't think the permission we have is sufficient. Mangostar12:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Should I transfer the images to wikipedia if the permission was given only to wikipedia? However they gave permission for CC-BY. Nothing else is required. Are any reasons to believe that Jamestown foundations is involved in blatant copyright violations? Can you please cite a Wikimedia policy that requires not only to receive a copyright permission, but also obtain a proof that a copyright holder is indeed copyright holder?. Here is the proofBiophys01:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the Jamestown Foundation's right to license these images is made clearer. They have a copyright notice at the bottom of their webpage, but so does everybody. I doubt they are using the images without proper permission from the artists and this might be a free CC license. But so many people who ought to know better get confused about copyright and few copyright owners object to use on Wikipedia (which may be what they are agreeing to). --Simonxag23:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All rules have been observed. There is a copyright permission from an official copyright holder (the sign at the bottom). There is an OTRS ticket. Let's live by the rules.Andrei Lomize02:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I added some of such images to wikipedia myself, and I remember I have read somewhere that Getman donated his paintings to the Foundation, the copyright sign on the web page mentioned here does not necessarily mean copyright of the image: it may simply be a standard sign addressing the web content, because it is on each and every webpage. I cannot see the mentioned OTRS ticket and dont know whether the Foundation claims copyright in it. This issue must be resolved by the person who is authorized and qualified to inspect and judge copyright, not by voting. Wikimedia rules have become more stringent. A huge number of images originated in former Soviet Union was deleted because of resolving unclear copyright status in favor of doubt: "if you don't know it, it is not yours". Mikkalai (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. To confirm my doubts about copyright, please see [67]: it contains two copyright tags: one of them is clearly for the text on the webpage, and another is IMO for overall web design. Mikkalai (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This photograph is a studio portrait or some other kind of photographic work of art protected by copyright for 70 years post mortem auctoris by Finnish copyright law. Such file cannot be used with the licence tag {{PD-Finland50}} --MPorciusCato18:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason for the deletion request: This photograph is a studio portrait or some other kind of photographic work of art protected by copyright for 70 years post mortem auctoris by Finnish copyright law. Such file cannot be used with the licence tag {{PD-Finland50}} --MPorciusCato19:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I added the source pic. This was the result of long discussion about retouching photos. All the authors can be identified through the pic history. Please allow here for further comparison. Thanks, --AM21:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was taken by Harsh Mangal( a user of Flickr). I sent him a Flickr Mail some days ago to ask his permission if I could use his Pic. He replyed by saying that he would love to help Wikipedia and said that he only wanted his picture to be used for Wikipedia. Thats why all rights of the copyright are reserved. So as you know now, I posted it on wikipedia for use by Wikipedia. Is there any way that the picture can remain and not be deleted because Harsh Mangal wants the picture to be used for the use of Wikipedia. The only reason for having all rights reserved of the copyright is so that other people might not use it for their own use.Please Help, and Do REPLY .Manaspunhani (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
License was changed to Attribution 2.0 Generic (an acceptable license) in the past day or two. If this is not a mistake, please take this in conscideration. Can you also hep me by telling me how I can add a copyright of this picture -Regards- Manaspunhani (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
UAE copyright laws state that photographic works are copyrighted for the lifetime of the author and 50 years thereafter. The author has not been identified, but since the photo was taken in 1964, it would still be copyrighted regardless of whether the author is living or deceased. UAE copyright laws. --19:43, March 24, 2008 AreJay
I am the person who uploaded this photo, and I did that under this license {{PD-United Arab Emirate}} which clearly indicates that any photographic production goes into the public domain after 10 years. If this is wrong then many photos will have to be deleted. not only this one. I personally am against breaking the law, but would also like the opinion of an expert on this matter. The source given is from a reputable law-firm that is well qualified with the intellectual property laws in the UAE, I do not question that, but just to be sure an expert's opinion is needed.--Nasib Bitar00:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just another thought, does the law apply for photos taken before the formation of the United Arab Emirates on the 2nd of December 1971?--Nasib Bitar10:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the uploader has been blocked indef and is using various sockpuppet accounts to vandalize these images. Please close the deletion request as it's obviously wrong and without substance. --Denniss12:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: english wikipedia does. Not all wikipedias allow fair use, and certainly not "Wikipedia" in abstract. -- Drini19:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do I prove that I own the copyright of the shoe design? BTW these are not shoes. It's better to call them slippers, though this is not correct too. --Soft needed18:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I object, these are authentic folklore embroidery designs from this part of Bulgaria. No one holds copyrights. Anonymous101, please, reconsider this nomination. :-) --Spiritia18:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My grandma are created more then 1000 "shoes" like this buth shi is not a disigner. So what? Is insane to be wanted copyright from or for my grandma!--Uroboros19:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's like deleting an image of somebody who wears Gucci T-shirt because the owner of the image does not possess the copyright of the Gucci T-shirt. In that manner we have to delete most images. --Soft needed20:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be logo of non notable organisation. Probable copyvio. Organisation non notabe anyway so outside of project scope as it has no value in any wikimedia projects. Anonymous10118:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current description of this image says that it is a photo of a geographic map. The original description, the image's name, and the visual appearance (compare google maps satellite photo) indicate that it is a photo of a satellite photo on computer monitor. Either way it is a derivative work and the uploader is not the copyright holder. BlueAzure03:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Record labels of the 78 era are presumably to be seen as PD-ineligible; this since they have a basic standard design that doesn't differ (apart from part of the text) between various issues and whose designers are generally unknown. /FredrikT12:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Waylon notes (regardless of possible PD ineligible status as well) this label is public domain per US law per age of publication without copyright notice. I believe the "Nipper" dog listening to the gramophone logo seen here was first used in the US market by the Victor Talking Machine Company c. 1901; the logo was based on artwork in an 1890s UK painting by a British painter who died in 1924. So in answer to GeorgHH's question, it is PD on both sides of the Atlantic. However it is still an active registered trademark; I'll add the "with trademark" notice to the image page. -- Infrogmation02:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image page states that "Nndb photos have been donated to the public domain" though I couldn't find such a claim on the NNDB website. As Alec Douglas-Home died in 1995, I also don't believe that the copyright of the photo has expired. Fschoenm18:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. No evidence that NNDB has put all its photos into the public domain; even if this were the case, it's not entirely clear that they would have the right to do so (they certainly don't appear to be particularly rigorous about sourcing, or even having the rights to use material on their site). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image has apparently been released by the Football Association of Serbia, and has been licensed as a free image since images released by the Serbian government are (apparently) PD. However, UEFA regulations have always been very clear about the fact that national associations MUST be separate from the government, and have no political influence, see for example[68]. I'm almost positive that the FA is therefore a private organisation. Their official website also looks very commercial. Jacoplane19:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion requests should not be based on speculation. However I think the burden of proof should be on the uploader to prove the image is copyright free. On first glance it appears the evidence is not there. -Nard22:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was giving the uploader the benefit of the doubt with my speculation. In fact I'm personally 100% convinced this is a copyvio, but I wanted to give the uploader the chance to prove me wrong. But yes, the uploader has not at all proved that this is in fact a free image. Jacoplane15:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Commons should not contain pics which are used ONLY on somebody's user pages (no category, no description). Seven (7) months are quite enough to add category or to use pic in some article. Or should we treat commons like flickr? SpeedyGonsales (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. Seems like a simple map of Ex-Yugoslavia. But since there are no information about what actually is wrong on this map and not representing a former political system of borders there is no valid reason to delete given. Forrester[[hate+love letters]]17:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Yes. Those originals also have the same problem and probably need nomination (or the authors contacted). Delete - absent clear proof of permission. Sadly, because they're cute pics. ++Lar: t/c22:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other images here feature copyrighted logos or items (t-shirts, purses, vehicles, baseball games, etc.) as a small part of the whole. →Wordbuilder20:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those other images should be deleted. Using them is permitted under the fair use section of US law. Commons explicitly bans fair use. The difference between the one I nominated and the ones yyou added is one thing -- one focuses on a copyrighted design, one doesn't (User:Anonymous101)
The helmet is a generic graphic, not an accurate representation of an actual design licensed by any company (e.g., Riddell). The logo on the helmet is not eligible for copyright ("Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents" are not protected) as stated here. Indeed, larger versions of the Double T logo only bear a trademark designation, not a designation of copyright. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created this image but it is not in use (and has a fair-use logo). it is also a relatively poor rendering. --Elred (talk·contribs)
Comment: In point of fact, the image is in use (see w:Eyeshield). The logo is a trademark and cannot be copyrighted since it is merely stylized text. Therefore a fair-use rationale is not required and it can remain on Commons. Since it is a poor rendering, I would like to see it replaced by a better version, if possible. However, I do not oppose the deletion request. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed just above, and yes, it was absolutely marked free when I uploaded it. In fact, I was the one who asked that it be marked with a free license specifically so we could use it on Wikipedia. Yes, we absolutely had every right to use it. But now, the Flickr user (Tattiya) whom I asked to make the image free originally, has contacted me, and asked if she could change her mind. Yes, we can insist she not take back the gift, but in this case, I'm hoping that we can be nice. AnonEMouse14:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tattiya contacted us through OTRS (2008041710036873), the current, cropped version was uploaded as a result. My understanding was that the matter was resolved for now. I know that Air Force Amy is not pleased at the picture, so I offered her to provide us a free image to replace this one. I think that at the moment there is no (longer any) reason to delete. Lucasbfr18:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On Polish wiki it is stated, that materials belonging to PFCK (Polish Combat Kalaki Foundation) has license other that stated on commons - commercial use permission has to be requested. Additionally no source is formally stated by the uploader. --Leafnode13:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem in keeping the image, maybe we should change the licence, but not delete it. What kind of licence should be used in this case?
Besides, in the article I do not refer to the image as "own work" (in this case, an image of mine), or even hint it, but as the cover of a book.--Jdvillalobos20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem in keeping the image, maybe we should change the licence, but not delete it. What kind of licence should be used in this case?
Besides, in the article I do not refer to the image as "own work" (in this case, an image of mine), or even hint it, but as the cover of a book.--Jdvillalobos20:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1970 newspaper in Colombia - I am not sure, but I believe it is not in the public domain. Periódico de 1970 de Colombia; no estoy seguro, pero creo que ya no es en el dominio público. Patstuart (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem in keeping the image, maybe we should change the licence, but not delete it. What kind of licence should be used in this case?
Besides, I refer to it not as a picture I took of the person (or as the person itself), but as how the local newspaper informed about the record set by that byciclist.--Jdvillalobos20:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1970 newspaper in Colombia - I am not sure, but I believe it is not in the public domain. Periódico de 1970 de Colombia; no estoy seguro, pero creo que ya no es en el dominio público. Patstuart (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, in the article I do not refer to the image as a picture of the person, but as how the local newspaper informed about the death of that person.--Jdvillalobos20:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1970 newspaper in Colombia - I am not sure, but I believe it is not in the public domain. Periódico de 1970 de Colombia; no estoy seguro, pero creo que ya no es en el dominio público. Patstuart (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem in keeping the image, maybe we should change the licence, but not delete it. What kind of licence should be used in this case?
Besides, in the article I do not refer to the image as a picture of the person, but as how the local newspaper informed about the death of that person.--Jdvillalobos20:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see no problem in deleting this image if you do. I just printed the Windows screen to show something in an old discussion.--Jdvillalobos20:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anne Frank, the author of the diary shown on this picture, died almost 63 years ago in 1945, not more 70 years ago; so the copyright has not expired. – Ilse@20:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author information is not given and proof that this image is in the public domain has not been given; the source link looks like spam Mind meal21:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is controlled by Getty Images. Getty Images says it's part of the Frank Driggs collection, but a look at the bottom right corner shows that it was taken by a professional photographer whose initials were KH or HK, not by Frank Driggs.
Nevertheless, Getty Images says the image "is intended for Editorial use (e.g. news or commentary). Any commercial or promotional use requires additional clearance." I'm pretty sure that means it's not in the public domain. — Malik Shabazz (talk • contribs) 06:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer was James J. Kriegsmann. LOC image cph.3c20471, "publication may be restricted", taken between 1940-1955. James J. Kriegmann, Sr. died in 1994 at the age of 85.[71] Looks like his son is still in business:[72]. DeleteLupo16:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read the sourced web site but many (all?) of the uploader's other pictures had a wrong source or license, so I wouldn't believe it for this picture either. Fschoenm23:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of this image is a specific design, a trademarked logo. It is not something that appears accidentaly in a photo with another subject, it is similar to a scan of the same packet. GerakiTLG16:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open long enough for people to make interesting arguments. While I should not close a DR I have commented in, I don't see any relevant arguments to the contrary (trademark status is not one of them). Nor do I see anyone showing how the logo is eligible for copyright protection. Ergo, kept as per me. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 10:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep as a category redirect. Useful to make it accessible to people who don't have the "funny characters" on their keyboards. Lupo10:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is actualy a photo of a live video monitor. I took the photo at a free concert on the National Mall, where they used large screen monitors so those further from the stage could see what was happening. This is a photo of such a monitor. (This is actually mentioned in the image summary so perhaps this sort of thing simply isn't allowed.) Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk)15:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What was on the video was the creative work of some cameramans and a director (and of course Chuck Brown) making this photo a derivative work of the video. GerakiTLG16:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image is owned by Boeing, just released via the Navy website thus fair use. The original caption reads "Photo provided to the U.S. Navy courtesy Boeing (RELEASED)". The additional byline "approved for public release" is not a release as public domain but a clearance that the image does not contain classified information. --Denniss03:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had previously mentioned that I had had this discussion about this image, but I was incorrect and it was about a related image also from a contractor supplied to the military. A contractor (in this case, Boeing) doing work for the US Military (aka Federal Government) does not retain rights to that work and the Navy is the true owner of the material, even if solely Boeing (contractor) employees generated the item and did 100% of the work. Funded by military dollars means the military/government owns it. The (RELEASED) at the end of the Navy statement on what it is on the source page is similar to other images when they release this into the public domain. I randomly found another image at the same Navy site and it has the same thing: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=55880 So, this image is owned by the Navy and they have released it to the public. It doesn't not simply mean a "clearance of classified information". The statement in the image that was later cropped out is a standard ITAR notice applied by government contractors in compliance with the law, and I agree they are not allowed to release the license and this is merely compliant with the ITAR/compliance laws. The overriding factor is the Navy website releasing it. In full disclosure, I moved the image from Wikipedia and restored the image once it was speedily deleted after another editor placed {{Fair use}} on the page. MECU≈talk12:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The random image you linked is not comparable as it was made by a US Navy officer. An image released on the navy site is not an overriding factor at all. They sometimes release images owned by others and clearly states this in their image byline/credit. So is this image, not theirs so not falling under the PD-USGov. Please backup you claim an image made by others while working for the US military or government automatically renders the image as PD. Then we'll have to opload a lot of artist impressions of Boeing aircraft developed for the US as PD here, those are only accepted as fair use even at the english wikipedia. --Denniss13:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The similarity with the other image wasn't intended to be "by Navy officer" or a "contractor", it was meant to show how the "(Released)" was similar and therefore applicable. I doubt I'll be able to find quickly the law that work under a government contract is the ownership of the government. This is different than your statement that work under a government contract is automatically PD; it is not. It is simply owned by the government for which the Navy has then released on their website. I shall look, but I directly deal with this at my work (which is how I know about such things, but can't be used as a source of evidence). MECU≈talk01:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The contract would be about manufacturing aircrafts, not necessary accompanied with images for websites. Being a contractor to the government probably would make public domain all works described in the contract, but not everything related to the products. GerakiTLG16:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I created this image to use on a userbox on Portuguese Wikipedia, I guess I didn´t upload the license wrightly, it was a self-made image using theSource=self-made; Edited form the image: New text document.svg, can the deletion be reverted? I´m a new user, please send me info. Thank you. (Victorlage)
Hello again,
I Noticed that Chec-Reference.svg was uploaded (I originally tried to upload it but thought I had no success), so I changed the userbox I created accordingly, so thatCheck-reference.svg will be used instead and Check-reference.png can be deleted without trouble. Though the system still shows it in use, I Think this will change in time since all other occurrences of the image were linked to my original userbox. --Victorlage20:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed just above, and yes, it was absolutely marked free when I uploaded it. In fact, I was the one who asked that it be marked with a free license specifically so we could use it on Wikipedia. Yes, we absolutely had every right to use it. But now, the Flickr user (Tattiya) whom I asked to make the image free originally, has contacted me, and asked if she could change her mind. Yes, we can insist she not take back the gift, but in this case, I'm hoping that we can be nice. AnonEMouse14:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tattiya contacted us through OTRS (2008041710036873), the current, cropped version was uploaded as a result. My understanding was that the matter was resolved for now. I know that Air Force Amy is not pleased at the picture, so I offered her to provide us a free image to replace this one. I think that at the moment there is no (longer any) reason to delete. Lucasbfr18:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The satellite photo is copyrighted by Google and Aerodata International Surveys, as stated on the image itself. --Ilse@11:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an old poster on display at no:Bergen museum in Bergen, Norway, and is a original from the first show of no:Per Gynt at no:Den nasjonale scene. There are one show in 1921. [73] The version for teater of Per Gynt dates to 1874.
I 1874 bestemte Ibsen seg for å lage en teaterversjon av Peer Gynt. Norges teatertradisjon på den tiden var basert på operetter og musikkspill, og Ibsen ante at dette stykket behøvde skikkelig musikk for å lykkes – og ba Edvard Grieg om å komponere denne. Den nye produksjonen ble først satt opp 24. februar1876 i Christiania Theater.
It would be very interesting if the museum in fact has on display a new poster among items in the old Ibsen collection. If anyone can verify this they can e-amil me or the museum. [74] (Note that the text at the poster itself says what show this is, and where it is. Also the image page says what it is and where it is, and likewise the image name itself.) Jeblad07:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bergen museum is contacted about the poster. The main part of the collection are from Ibsens time in Bergen after 1850, and the poster can be from a teater show before 1921. The person I've talked to had to verify the circumstances. Jeblad08:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -the image is copyrighted, according to the EU and Estonian copyright laws authors life + 70 years rule applies) --Termer04:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
licensing information probably wrong. Reinhold Glière lived 1875-1956, and the picture looks like it has been taken in his latter years. If the photo is licensed "old" it means, that the photographer (who is mentioned nowhere) must have died before 1938, which also means, that the picture must have been taken before 1938. Yet the photo is rather typical 50's style (soviet decoration and so on) --FordPrefect4209:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow the English Wikipedia template made it over here. It doesn't really make sense at all since we don't have a Tropical Cyclones WikiProject or articles. --Rocket00010:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beryl is GNU GPL Software, Ubuntu wallpaper "Dawn of Ubuntu" is CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike [75] The wallpaper author is aware that the license he picked is not compatible with most open-content guidelines (Commons/Ubuntu) Where is Dawn of Ubuntu? You might ask him to resolve the license issues. Matt21:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's ineligible as far as artistic expression goes (plain text). It may be eligible for the text itself, although I lending towards no. Rocket00016:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not see the reason for the deletion, and is very sweet. xD.--ELQ (talk)
Comment Looks to be a 1920s publicity photo; might be free PD-US-no-notice or something similar, but I strongly doubt the Flickr user is the copyright holder; IMO better sourcing & info would be needed to warrent keeping. -- Infrogmation02:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have a number of images sourced from Nazarian's Gun's Recognition Guide in commons. The site itself states that it is in the public domain however its source page states that the images are from photographers such as Ian Hogg who are frequently creditted in Jane's. It seems extremely unlikely that such photographers would release their images into the public domain. As such we can only regard images from the Nazarian page as copyvios. --Megapixie04:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Originally uploaded with no license. User changed no license tag to "own work". Insufficient source and license. -Nard03:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am actually inclined to agree with this one by an IP. It is a lousy photo & I fail to see the value of it - maybe it is just me! --Herbytalk thyme18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Date in Filename 2005 is wrong, completely replaced by better version Image:SLR_McLaren-Mercedes_IAA2003_Matl09180156e.jpg Matl17:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There is no proof that this came from a game. It is a good example of anisotropic filtering.
Deleted. The description page said that it was done from screenshots, which makes it a derivative work of that program, no matter how good an example it is. In lieu of proper sourcing information ("Copied from the English Wikipedia" is NOT a proper source, guys), there's no evidence that the given software is under a free license. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The picture is accurate, but the labeling is not: The "g-spot" is slang, and the urethra and vagina point improperly to the labia minora 152.23.78.22519:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Image is well used in a number of Wikipedias. Labeling could be improved a little. But as for "g-spot" being slang, well I dig this cat is jiving us dudes:-)) --Simonxag11:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get concerned when articles, diagrams, etc. of a "controversial" nature get tagged for deletion when editing and/or correction are better courses of action.
"G-Spot" is in Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, so, in my opinion, the claim of slanginess is questionable (the g-spot is a shortened version of the Gräfenberg Spot, after Ernst Gräfenberg (1881-1957),a German gynecologist who wrote a paper on female orgasm in 1950 describing a mass of tissue in the anterior vaginal wall considered to be highly erogenous.
Dr. Gräfenberg is reviled in some quarters as he is often considered the inventor of the IUD (interuterine device), a relatively reliable and effective form of birth control.
If the commentator is observant enough to discern the errors, he/she should provide useful information for the correction of those errors.—the preceding unsigned comment was added by72.195.158.22 (talk • contribs)
G spot is real, I dont care what you guys say. I have ventured there and if its not real enough to get onto a diagram then whoevever is making this diagram has obviously never gotten laid.—the preceding unsigned comment was added by76.7.186.78 (talk • contribs)
Keep Examine the top right hand corners around the page number. These are clearly different scans of the same PD source. --Simonxag11:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Models are generally held to be copyrightable, as the miniateurisation process requires creative decision-making with respect to things like the level of detail used. As far as models go, this seems relatively complex. The photograph would therefore have to be regarded as a derivative work of the model and subject to its copyright. —LX (talk, contribs)11:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but that's not a public place; it's a ticketed venue with the right to refuse admission, so freedom of panorama does not apply. —LX (talk, contribs)18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The UK definition of "public place" is actually quite unusually broad, as noted at COM:FOP#United Kingdom. The Swedish copyright law explicitly requires that a work needs to be permanently placed at a public place outdoors ("på eller vid allmän plats utomhus") to be covered by FOP. Whether Swedish FOP extends to outdoor museums with the right to refuse entry is debatable, but it's quite clear that it does not apply to indoor museums. —LX (talk, contribs)22:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How would freedom of panorama apply anyway? It's clearly a photo of the model ship, not a photo of someone's friend with the ship just happening to be in the background. Superm401 - Talk13:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Swedish freedom of panorama extends to depictions of permanently installed artworks in public places outdoors. This also applies if the depicted artwork is the main subject. You may be confusing freedom of panorama with de minimis inclusion in cases where FOP does not apply. —LX (talk, contribs)14:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as PD-self, but the source is given as "nieznane" (unknown), and it is hardly believable the user would be the real author of the photograph (note that the image is obviously a scan of a halftoned image probably from some newspaper). I guess the uploader meant that he scanned the photo himself. Mormegil12:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a stupid question, but why is "Derivative work of wine label" a reason for deletion? I don't see anything immediately applicable in COM:DG. Tomas er19:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't copyvio. The images are out of copyright as they are older than 75 years. I scanned them myself from a book that relied on them being out of copyright for there reproduction there. Please reinstate them in wikipedia. --JIrate23:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - same for Hans Frank. This was recently discussed in copyright and other information was given along with numerous other images up for deletion. The result was keep. The images are archived under USHMM and they have claimed further copyright. This has been brought up at least twice before and the result was keep. It will remain so, again. This is a waste of time already Profil. And about PD, it is further clarified that the date is before '39. - Zarbon18:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said earliest 2009 based on 1939, even if it's earlier you still have to add the numbers of years that the photographer went on living. How can you claim that this is PD when not even your own source agrees? If you have other information supporting that the image is PD then please put it with the image information. And before you ask no USHMM still has PD tags for some of their images, they ar just not claiming that this one is. /Lokal_Profil18:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I'm tired of having to prove this. Simply put, these images have been deliberated before. I'm not going to search through the history and locate for you how many times they have been brought up for deletion and how many times they have been kept or the reasoning behind it. I have discussed all of that furthermore and I don't like to repeat myself every time someone wants to make sense of why the images are being used. I can't prove it over and over. USHMM has stated it though and I'm not going to go back and search, look, and find all over again for each and every picture. Most of the stuff I uploaded was from USHMM and in most cases, I forgot to point out that they were from USHMM and they were deleted because of this reason. Even when I do point it out, it appears someone brings up the PD rule. And then when I find further information to prove the whole PD thing, someone brings some other reason as to why the image should be deleted. All I can say is that I'm sick and tired of this and that you shouldn't propose deletion without fully examining how many times this same exact image has been brought up to deletion and doing your own research. I'm not going to follow up anymore because I am seriously tired of defending the copyright. I proved it before and I am not in the mood to prove it again. - Zarbon00:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and Local Profil was the same person who brought it up for deletion. It seems as if he has a personal desire to see these images deleted for one reason or another...even when in most cases, most people seem to think otherwise in that entire deliberation. - Zarbon16:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted the result of the other deletion request as "If USHMM claims it is PD then thats all the proof we need". Although I don't agree I'll accept the outcome. This nomination and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:05528.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bormann.jpg (not my nomination) all concern images which have been uploaded from USHMM which they claim are NOT PD. Surely the PD status has to be motivated/proved in that case. Or are we going by the rule that anything from 1939-1945 is PD by default? /Lokal_Profil20:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are a multilingual project. We prefer that images not have labels on them in particular languages. It is better if the areas are labeled with ... symbols, letters in circles, or whatever... and then a caption is given which describes the labeling. Use the {{En}} template (or whateer language the caption is in) and it can then be translated to other languages. That said, I woud not delete this image. I would just suggest that the unlabeled one should be used (after IT TOO is updated with letters or whatever) ++Lar: t/c23:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you may be right. The §9 of Finnish copyright act (with almost exactly identical language) is interpreted in Finland to include also such graphics. The Constitutional Board of Finnish Parliament actually noted this in its memorandum on the subject. However, the Norwegian law may differ, although we have similar legal traditions. --MPorciusCato05:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is clearly not a "Legal statutes, administrative regulations, court decisions and other decisions by public authorities", and as such is not covered by the exceptions in §9 of the law, and is covered by copyright, and not public domain. Laaknor (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
blurring is ok but why cutting the second person away Schumacher ist talking to? In this way the artis looks silly. please reload the complete image (with the painting blurred). I would also appreciate a personal home page of "Vierge Marie" - just to know whom I am talking to. Hannes Grobe07:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
en-wiki page is about "Admiral of fleet", not about "Admiral of the Fleet of the Russian Federation". First is real rank, second is fake one. Vlsergey (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course, it's fake again of old ru-wiki vandal (called himself "Admiral or Fleet", "Адмирал Флота"). There is not such insignia neither rank. Vlsergey (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
w:ru:Воинские звания в армии РФ - ru-wiki page with all ranks, right column - nival. The free space is reserved for non-existing admiral of fleet of russian federation
Sure, but it must be added a border to the coat and then placing it into the flag, according to the legal texts. Anyway, both of those images are new, Chauchinero's one is from November. I really think this last one shouldn't be here. Fran B. E.07:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When a license plate includes non-trivial imagery, that design is eligible for copyright. Unlike the federal government, the individual states can and do own the copyright on their designs. The following are a list of license plates from US states with non-trivial imagery. It appears that they are all copyright violations. Dragons flight06:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Amerykanskie.tablice.rejestracyjne.JPG it is not a picture of the license plate, it is a photo of the wall in a workshop with many (twelve) different plates, and the individual attributes (designs) of every plate are blurred. This picture shows only, that in the USA they have different design in every state, but details of design are not shown. Julo19:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you've said repeatedly, but you have yet to offer a lick of reasoning for why it should be true, and everyone else who's discussed this had disagreed with you. Under US law virtually all creative imagery is subject to copyright unless it is either explicitly released from that copyright, or it was made by the federal government. Just because the state requires you to place such images on your car is in no way the same as saying you have the right to copy and redistribute that image any way you would like. Dragons flight04:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see proof of your claim. I want cited references for every state in the union, and it's territories. You brought up the issue, now you have to prove it. If you can't, then I believe you have wasted both your time and every contributors time here on Wikipedia and Commons--293.xx.xxx.xx21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting....where is my proof? Case files are acceptable if you need some boundaries, along with actual State/Federal Laws, articles, etc. --293.xx.xxx.xx10:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On Commons, the obligation is on the uploader and his supporters to establish that something is free. Copyright is established by federal law and exists in all creative works except where expressly released (w:fair use provides exceptions that likely apply to license plates, but fair use is not allowed on Commons, only on certain Wikipedia's). The burden is on people like you to show that the designs used in these plates are free from copyright. Dragons flight12:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite simply, no license plates, save for the last two or three issued by the U. S. Virgin Islands, have a copyright notice and do not seem to be on file with the USPTO. --Plate King15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please better acquaint yourself with United States copyright law. Neither notice nor registration are required for copyright to exist in recent works. Works created after March 1989 are protected regardless. Works created pre-1989 but post-1976 require either notice or registation. Older works, published in the US, would require a copyright notice. You are welcome to research the issue and assert that some of these are in the public domain for failure to provide appropriate notice, but that won't apply to any of the post 1989 plates. Dragons flight16:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh fer.......What part of Proof Please did you not understand? I asked for specific information that would prove your claim as to whether or not state license plates are copyrighted or no. All you've done is refer me to the broadness that is US Copyright law and tried to shovel the burden on me. I'm sorry, but YOU nominated the images for disposal. It's up to YOU to prove that what your proposing is backed up with clear-cut evidence. If I go and ask the local DMV office or someone in the DOT and I get a completely different answer than yours, then your finding yourself (and to an extent, Commons) with a huge credibility problem.
Oh, and lets also add some extremely dangerous precedent to the mix: Your arguments can also be applied to other categories like Cars and Trucks (I'm pretty sure designs unique to each car can be copyrighted, not to mention car logos and badges irregardless of angle), Fire Engines and Police Cars (I'm sure those designs emblazoned on the sides of those vehicles are also copyrighted by their respective agencies).....I could go on before a good portion of Commons is completely wiped out by such a broad argument. So the ball's in your court....provide the links please. Each state, alphabetical order please.--293.xx.xxx.xx07:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
States don't set copyright law. They can of course release items into the public domian should they chose to but it is up to you to show that they have. You can't really copyright a car design since they are functional articles . Images on the side of cars would probably comes down the question of if we could count it as incidental conclusion.Geni12:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is there no evidence these license plates' designs not been released into the public domain by their copyright holders (the apropos states' governments), but the majority are supposedly released by their uploaders either into the PD or another libre licensing (GFDL, Creative Commons, etc.). So unless the uploaders themselves are the legal representatives of the state governments to whom these copyrights belong, all their licensing claims are invalid w/o evidence to the contrary.
Perusing the English Wikipedia, I came across the following which I'm including in this nomination for the same reasons of copyright-infringement (as stated above and in the original nomination). — pd_THOR|=/\= | 17:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:California 3sam123.jpg - not sure if this would qualify as free-use due to limited artistic content; but definitely doesn't qualify under the licenses provided
Image:DE PC28284.jpg - not sure if this would qualify as free-use due to limited artistic content; but definitely doesn't qualify under the licenses provided
Image:MD 2006.jpg - not sure if this would qualify as free-use due to limited artistic content; but definitely doesn't qualify under the licenses provided
Image:Massachusetts License Plate 2008.jpg - not sure if this would qualify as free-use due to limited artistic content; but definitely doesn't qualify under the licenses provided
Image:NJ 2008.jpg - not sure if this would qualify as free-use due to limited artistic content; but definitely doesn't qualify under the licenses provided
Image:Pennsylvania License Plate 2006.jpg - not sure if this would qualify as free-use due to limited artistic content; but definitely doesn't qualify under the licenses provided
Image:VT 1991.jpg - not sure if this would qualify as free-use due to limited artistic content; but definitely doesn't qualify under the licenses provided
A work by the US federal Government is in the public domain. [...] This does not include governments of the individual states.
Q.E.D. Moreover, you're requesting that these images be kept unless it can be proven that they're copyrighted? As they do not fall under any Commons-recognized blanket PD sourcing, these images are failing to demonstrate that are explicitly freely licensed—a requirement for acceptance. — pd_THOR|=/\= | 02:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be that the uploader is considering that the actual image taken is in the public domain? This whole campaign seems like it could be an attempt at disruptive vandalism than anything productive. --Plate King11:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then the uploaders were mistaken, those licensing tags are only for self-produced and released content. Further, there are no tags for them to have used for US state-released imagery because there are no blanket releases instituted by state governments (see my Commons-linked reply to user:293.xx.xxx.xx above).
It's already doomed seeing that my query has not been addressed properly and i'm getting the run-around. I understand that they may be deleted, however, For reference purposes, please point me to any existing documentation (i.e. news reports/case files/anything other than pointing to "lol copyrighted per US law" article on Wikipedia) that supports the deletion request. I find it quite ironic that Wikipedia obsesses over making acute references and citations on the text portion of the site, yet on Commons, a request for references only is alluded to with vagueness and run-around. Also, I would also find it quite ironic if some States do have such provisions in their laws that allows such photographs or their burecratic response is "Yeah, copyrighted, but we don't care. Snap away." --293.xx.xxx.xx07:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Clearly copyrighted plates. 293 and Plateking: don't take this personally, but we have to make sure that we follow our own copyright standards to the tee, and these are unquestionably copyrighted. In fact, states often enforce copyrights on their own materials. Patstuart (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing i'm taking quite personally is that a simple request for references is being treated like a whiny kids temper tantrum.--293.xx.xxx.xx07:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That non-trivial expression is automatically copyrighted by the authors is just a fact of copyright law, and that a photograph of such a work constitutes a derivative work of it is another. We don't need to show you references: the burden of proof is upon anyone that would say that license plates, or anything else, are an exception to this. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete those arguing for retention have failed to demonstrate these are PD. The onus is on them, and we err on the side of caution.--Doc17:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't viewed most of the images linked above, so I'm not sure if any of these are included, but I believe the images uploaded by SAM-123 (talk • contribs) would fall within this deletion request as well. SAM-123 is claiming to be the copyright holder of the license plates and is tagging them as PD. auburnpilot (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with your observations of User:SAM-123; do all of those images need to be tagged and added here? That would take an inordinate amount of time and effort on somebody's part. Suggestions? — pd_THOR|=/\= | 19:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think he is claiming a copyright on the license plate itself at all. He is claiming to be the copyright holder of the photograph of the license plate. As the photographer of the work, he CAN make that claim. I think it is obsurd to contend that the state owns a copyright on a photograph that SA-123 took merely because a license plate is in the picture. So I too say Keep the photos. 68.190.71.4917:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think you guys are wrong. The license plates themselves are not copyrighted in that they are not considered to be an artistic work. The only laws governing them are that no one may make a duplicate plate and try to pass it off as real for use on a vehicle. Also if a state government takes a photo of a plate then they may own a copyright on the photo of the plate. Theoretically, yes the state does own the license plate on your car, but not the rights to prohibit one from taking a photo of that plate, assuming that the person taking the photo is not violating any law by taking it. If one were to use the logic you guys are using, one would assume that a photo of a Remington shotgun taken by an individual who has legally purchased and is the owner of the firearm would be copyrighted, because Remington happens to own the patent to make the gun. I submit that if I am legally standing on a public street and take a photo of a passing vehicle that happens to include a license plate on that vehicle, that I own the copyright to the photo since I took the photo, not Chevy because they made the vehicle, and not the state whose plate happened to be on the vehicle. 170.145.0.10010:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gryffindor thinks that four of the five images should be deleted and repeatedly added the "duplicate" template to them. I (User:UV) think that these images should be kept, because they are neither exact duplicates nor scaled-down versions of one another, because they probably depict different copies of the same original painting by Creator:Franz Xaver Winterhalter and differ notably in their colour. As long as we do not know which image comes closest to the original, we should in my view not delete any of these versions.
Keep These all appear to have different colors and crops. Picking the "best" one to use in an article is an editorial choice made by article authors, not via deletion on commons. Duplicates are only for the same image (exact duplicates, or a scaled version), which is not the case here. They are separate images of the same subject. Carl Lindberg13:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the policy, I do not see the point in having different variants of the same painting which are of inferior quality. If the files had a higher resolution or showed the whole painting (which all of them do not) then that would be a different matter, but at this moment it makes no sense. Gryffindor21:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If any of the files had a clear source or a higher resolution, we could think about deleting some clear duplicates, but in this case nothing is clear, and it does not do any harm to keep them all, for the user to decide which kind of inferiority he is able to live with. --AndreasPraefcke07:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nice green discovery :-) But these 5+1 might be useful for a category:scanner problems or so ? Mutter Erde 08:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)PS: added the green one as No 6 (from www.hofburg-wien.at) Mutter Erde09:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is complete non-sense to keep over 5 versions of the same painting. If there is a cropped version, it needs to go. As to the argument of different colours, then they can be kept, but a file version which does not show the complete painting (unless it's cut-out of the face), what is the point in keeping it? Which Wiki is using all 5 different versions? Gryffindor07:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cropped versions especially should stay; they may be focusing on one element of a painting more than the whole. Maybe there is an article about the figure in the painting, so cropping away the wall makes more sense... who knows. The question of which to use is an editorial decision, and commons does not make those. We only delete exact duplicates, or scaled-down versions of the exact same image. If there are differences, then different editors may prefer different versions for whatever reason (only they would know), and so we keep them all and let the editors choose. We try to have as many views of a subject as we can. Carl Lindberg14:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use image copied from en.wikipedia.org; nothing indicates that the "copyrighted free use" tag is likely to be correct. --Schutz10:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. What do you mean exactly. Looking at your upload history, I'm kinda concerned. You're asking for deletion of all the larger versions. Is this because you think the scaled-down versions fall under fair use? Rocket00016:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personnes identifiables sur la photo, version recadrée plus utile.
Some people can be recognised and there is a cutted version more useful
(I'm the uploader) --Lucio fr08:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright of the Anne Frank portrait from the 1940s has not expired. The image source (English Wikipedia) marks the image as copyrighted. – Ilse@15:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reproduction only, not free. According with [80] only the reproduction is allowed. So the Four Freedoms are not assured. This tag and those images using it should be deleted.--Pediboi19:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user knows nothing about the subject he has readen. It´s a brazilian federal agency, as Agencia Brasil, they only call for credits. The regular way on free images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.78.106 (talk • contribs) Lijealso13:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. It looks like this template has been adding {{copyvio}} to tagged images for awhile now. There are currently no images that use this so it appears this template is no longer needed. Rocket00023:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted by Rocket000: per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:AgenciaCamaraBr
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Claim of public domain does not appear supported. In addition to deprecated PD tag (which does not assert the reason for PD), image date is 1930 (i.e. was not published before January 1, 1923) and no author is asserted (i.e. life of author +X years PD criterion cannot be used). --ЭLСОВВОLДtalk15:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, move it. I thought it was old enough and took it from english version hoping that same rules are applied here. --Modra08:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Death of the painter is not known. Ewald Thiel * 1855 Kamanten / Ostpreußen, + ? (probably before 1938). The image is Public Domain in the USA because published before 1923 and there is no evidence that it is protected in the European Union --Historiograf17:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the date of death cannot be found out even with a lot of dictionaries and databases (I tried, and if you google you may find out that profesisonal art galleries also tried, and couldn't come up with a result). Deleting this would be just paranoid, but not sensible at all. It is more than probable that the painter died before 1938. --AndreasPraefcke20:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, keep - it seems that the date of this artist's death is extremely hard to find out but very likely before 1938, also the picture is clearly PD in the US at least. Gestumblindi20:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is "Stich nach Zeichnung E. Thiel" now a "demonstration of thorough research"? Sheesh! Not everyone notices the signature in the bottom left, and it can easily be mistaken to read "Ewalt" or even "Ewali" (non-German speaker might not know that "Ewali" makes no sense as it's not a German first name). Incidentally, I know that Histo is right: the death of this person really is not known, even to the most prestigious German specialized encyclopedias such as Thieme-Becker/AKL. But dammit, demonstrate it! State where you looked, show your evidence. (In this case, you might have e.g. copied the beginnings of his entries in Thieme-Becker, Ries, and Müllers Algemeines Künstler-Lexicon, and the French Benezit, with source indications. I think you have easy access to the first three, at least.) Also, it's not unheard of that people get 83 years old. As further evidence you should thus present the years of the latest known works, according to these encyclopedias. Strictly speaking, this is only a "probably PD" work. At the very least, it should be tagged accordingly, so that other reusers of that image can evaluate for themselves whether or not they want to rely on the "probably PD" status of the image. If de-WP wants to be the "probably free encyclopedia", I don't care, but don't force it on others! Lupo09:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Deleteunless Histo adds evidence of a "thorough research", as outlined above, to the image description page. If no such evidence is forthcoming move back to de-WP and delete here. Lupo09:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How thorough must a "thorough research" be anyway? I think what I outlined above (check available reputable sources, even if that means a trip to the library, and present the findings) should be the minimum. But would even more be necessary? Such as—in this case—a query at the historic Berliner Einwohnermeldekartei (EMK)? (Thiel lived at Berlin-Halensee, part of Berlin-Wilmersdorf. A research at the EMK costs 8,18€ and takes time.) Or do we blindly assume that Thieme-Becker not just copied the data from earlier listings but actually did do such a research? Lupo10:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People getting 83 years old is indeed not unheard of, but it was less common then than nowadays. Average life expectancy is nearly 80 years in Germany now but was much shorter in the 19th century, and there also was World War I, so it is not very likely that Thiel reached such an age; and even if he did, it's unlikely that he lived much longer (although not impossible, granted); the probability of any heirs protesting here in the meantime (if his works were still protected) is extremely low. I do not think that copying the beginnings of entries in Thieme-Becker etc. is needed, but looking there and stating that one did so, yes (we should assume so much good faith in experienced Wikipedia editors that they won't lie in such matters). Gestumblindi11:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better to actually show the evidence, so that even people who don't know whether an editor is "experienced" can verify the claim. "I say so" is not a source for anything. We're used to giving sources for claims in articles; if you guys want to go down that road of "probable PD", there should be verifiable sources for the licensing claims. Otherwise, this is a complete no-go. We all know that not everyone is experienced. I may trust Histo to look it up beforehand or to know it off the top of his head, but I don't trust everybody to that extent. And other people might not trust Histo's word. Hence: verifiable sources to show that a "thorough research" has been made, or out with it. Lupo12:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And finally, regarding Thiel, your WWI argument is shaky: Thiel was already too old to be in the armed forces, and AFAIK, Berlin didn't fall in that war. He would've been pretty safe in Berlin; about the only risk would've been starvation. A quick non-scientific check: Of the 333 people in de:Kategorie:Geboren 1855 ("1855 births"), 66 people died 1938 or later. Another 10 died 1937, BTW. Most (but not all) of these 66 people are Germans. (Found through this search, increasing the death year until 1955.) Lupo12:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As always, you think things really through and are quite convincing, Lupo :-) . World War I sureley had a negative effect on the health and life expectation of the German population, also the part who wasn't directly involved in war; at the end of the war, the general situation regarding food, cloths and living space was very poor for most. Nevertheless, as your check shows, it seems that a bigger part of the encyclopedia-worthy people born in 1855 died 1938 or later than I would have thought (of course such a check says not a lot about the general population, as workers, farmers etc. who had poorer medical treatment than the bourgeoisie are less represented). I agree with you that the evidence (of the absence of Thiel's year of death in works of reference) should be shown, but I think it's enough to state "looked in work a, b, c, d... and it wasn't there" as evidence - it's IMHO asking too much to quote or even scan the entries. In fact, out of practicality, we accept "I say so" without further proof in many, many cases here - e.g. if people upload recently made photographs and claim they have created them, we can't know for sure whether they tell the truth. Some degree of trust in the contributors can't be avoided. Gestumblindi18:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised, too, to find that many, and yes, it had occurred to me, too, that the percentage would likely be lower for the general population because of the reasons you mentioned. I said it was non-scientific... :-) Maybe listing the sources and giving one entry (or rather, its beginning: Name and life dates) would be good enough. In any case, it's important to show the sources. In 20 years time, will we still be here to answer questions? Maybe, maybe not. Therefore, list the sources. (Ok, in 20 years, Thiel's works will be surely PD anyway. But you get the point.) Otherwise, we only get a lot of duplicated effort, repeated DRs, and repeated checks. But how far to go with the source requirement? BTW, Saur, AKL register, has Thiel as "last mentioned before 1939"... That doesn't tell us much, since e.g. 1910 is also "before 1939", and the mention might have been posthumous anyway, but I do wonder why they put such a strange year in there. Lupo19:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Therefore, list the sources" - I fully agree, but I don't think going as far as copying the beginning of entries in Thieme-Becker etc., as you suggested above, is needed. I would suggest a statement like: "Consulted: Thieme-Becker, Ries, Müller... (more...), no date of painter's death given in mentioned sources." Gestumblindi19:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it needs more. It needs to state at least "Ewald Thiel, * 12. 8. 1855 Kamanten/Ostpreussen, German painter and illustrator, lived and worked in Berlin." plus the sources consulted. Then we create a creator entry and a category (or just a category) for him, (sub-)categorized appropriately. Otherwise we're back on square 1 because the info will be lost again, and we're left with an image of dubious status. Oh yeah, and somehow we need to tag the image to show that the death date is unknown and the image can thus not be proven to be PD. We're doing this routinely for sculptors. (We've got tons of sculpture images where we have no idea who the sculptor was!) If the Commons is to be and to remain a useful resource and not to degenerate into a heap of images badly described, we need to apply some more rigor. Lupo21:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that Lupo's fanatism is of any help. If a painter is born in 1855 it is clear for me that he is dead with high probability more than 70 years. I see no consensus for Lupo's rigor at Commons. --Historiograf17:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any "fanatism" in what Lupo writes above: "It needs to state at least "Ewald Thiel, * 12. 8. 1855 Kamanten/Ostpreussen, German painter and illustrator, lived and worked in Berlin." plus the sources consulted. Then we create a creator entry and a category (or just a category) for him, (sub-)categorized appropriately." - what's so unreasonable in this? Especially mentioning the sources consulted and stating that these sources don't contain the painter's date of death. Also, "somehow we need to tag the image to show that the death date is unknown and the image can thus not be proven to be PD" sounds only sensible to me. It is, as discussed above, not that extremely unlikely that the painter died later than 1937. Note that Lupo doesn't demand outright deletion of the image in question, only appropriate handling in this tricky case (and deletion if it's not handled appropriately, also possible deletion in the future, of course). Gestumblindi03:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: failure to find information does not automatically make things anonymous. 110 years is not a sufficient margin, there are recorded instances if copyright lasting almost 160 years. Probabilities are irrelevant, we are a repository of Free media, not a repository of maybe Free media. Rama (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Per "we are a repository of Free media, not a repository of maybe Free media." Move it to de.wp. There is no reasonably assured proof given that the author did not live 83 years. Forrester[[hate+love letters]]09:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I don't see any reason to delate this category.The Englisch wikipedia has a very long list of sephardic jews, why should'nt this be possible in Commons? see:
Look, currently you have found three families and Heinrich Heine in Category:Jewish people of Germany. The majority of the Mendelsohn family was/is christian, Heinrich Heine is christian, and even some members of the Warburg family are probably christians too (I don´t know exactly and I'm not really interested in that). Do you want to recycle the definitions as in the de:Nürnberger Gesetze? Why didn´t you start with some catholic or protestant families? Mutter Erde08:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like you to consult the English link on this page. History and thepersonalities of sephardic origin is not a question of religion, but a question of Europan science and culture. Warburg
Sorry for my English. I agree with Warburg. The sefarditas are a very special kind of Jews. Some of them still speak the old castillan language, as it was spoked in the XVI century. In the spanish wikipedia you can find a similar category.--Fergon18:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit more than a deletion request of the cat:Jewish people of Spain. See Warburg's German and Austrian collection of so called Jews. He's making Jews out of christians. For what reason? And he seems to be not interested in christians. That's only ridiculous. Mutter Erde21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons for the creation of the category are independient of the possible interest of the category itself. Knowing important jewish personalities of one or another country is useful for people interested in jewish culture and its importance.--Balbo09:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this is not Deutsche Wikipedia. These categories, as long as they are used with reasonable caution for people who are currently living, are perfectly legitimate and useful categories. As for Mutter Erde's apparent problem with the Jewishness of people like Felix Mendelssohn(-Bartholdy) and Heinrich (Harry) Heine, these were born of Jewish mothers, and as thus, they are actually halakhically Jewish. I also recommend reading H. Heine's Der Rabbi von Bacharach or Romanzero (to mention a couple) before making any more claims of irrelevance. As for bringing up Nürnberger Gesetze, please consider whether working to hide Jewish history (including "ideological emigrants") is really any better. -- Olve (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have red, that the worst thing (besides murder) a Jew (especially a Jewish woman) can do is to leave his/her religion. So I am a little astonished, that YOU are interested in such cats. Btw: The vandals/antisemites/fun guys will come without invitation, when these cats are once established. Regards Mutter Erde (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Judaism is not a clear-cut “religion” in the Christian sense or “Religious affiliation” in the German sense (where one divides people into Catholics and Lutherans depending on what church they go to), but more like a “religious culture” in the Sikh, Buddhist or Hindu sense. By your logic, all references to anything Jewish would have to be erased in the interest of avoiding vandalism (a well-known anti-semitic argument, though I am quite sure that your motivation here is a much more well-meaning one), and Beethoven should also be removed from any Germany-related categories because he died in Austria. By the same logic, or something very similar, the German Wikipedia offends people of all non-Christian backgrounds through marking their death dates by Christian crosses...(!) A lot of us non-Germans are wondering why the seemingly easiest way for Germans to deal with minorities is to avoid referring to them. -- Olve (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the minority, the keep voters are the majority, so these cats will be likely kept, sigh. (And Beethoven will get 2 cats as Austrian and German, like Rosa Luxemburg as Polish and German :-)). Generally I think it is a progress - as in contemporary Germany or in the US Army - that religion is strictly private. My very old mother has learned as a little girl to estimate strange people by their noses, and many years before the Nazis nearly everyone in public, who had an own thought, was suspicious. Er scheint mir Jude zu sein / He seems to be a Jew (de:Adolf Bartels). And then he was mentioned in a printed "encyclopedia" as supposed jew. I hope, these times will never come back. Regards Mutter Erde (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reason why the image should be GFDL; the stated source has “All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.” (emphasis mine) And it is hardly believable the author of the page would own copyright for all images shown there. Mormegil09:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the uploader, when I was a very green WIKI submitter, I assume you are correct, and the GFDL should not apply to the image. Damn! --69.39.106.23519:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded this file because it shows the US government's position advocating en:Heinrich Hoffmann's photographs as public domain. It is in scope as the legality of these photographs on Commons comes up from time to time. -Nard21:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image is derivative of copyrighted poster. There is no permission. FOP in Germany only applies if work is permanently displayed. It is unlikely that a poster would be seen as such. --Simonxag00:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This poster is on display for at least half a year by now. Does this count as “permanently displayed”? I think so. --Aconcagua05:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Given poster's mounting fixture, setting, etc., it does not seem reasonable to expect this to be a permanent display. A six month period is not sufficient time to establish permanence (besides, text of “Ein Jahr für geistliche Berufungen” seems to imply current annum, not perennial, usage). Per Commons:Licensing regarding Panoramafreiheit, "When in doubt, German Wikipedia might be a better choice for upload". ЭLСОВВОLДtalk17:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though it is fan-made, the model is a copy of a copyrighted toy. That makes this photo a derivative work and there is no permission. --Simonxag01:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was put here because it is linked to from wikipedia, and I couldn't figure out another place to put it. Deleting this will result in a broken link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_York_City_steam_explosion. Please move to the appropriate location or let me know where it should go and how.
Deleted. "Since it is published on the internet I assume it is public domain" is absolutely incorrect. If WP needs to link to this, link to it at the URL above. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb17:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proable copyvio via flickr wash. The flickr account this came from is being used by a user from the English wikipedia to reinsert copyvio images into articles. The same image was uploaded by another sock of the user directly onto the commons. BlueAzure23:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same situation as the Brewsterschoolhouse image . . .the first image uploaded appears to be a copyvio, most likely taken from this flickr user. This newer image seems acceptable - it is much clearer + is dated on the lower righthand corner. --RocketJohnson18:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one of a collection of images (most of which are clearly from commercial sources) that a group of multiple usernames has persistently trying to inject into Wikimedia via flickr-washing and other methods. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ThomasPaineFarmhouse.JPG -- how many different Commons users can possibly have independently created this very same image? --Orlady00:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image can still be seen at the flickr account. Its likely this is the original source of the image from which earlier user/users obtained and copied it. -- unsigned message by User:61.9.184.186, whose only other edit here was to comment on a related proposed deletion
Proable copyvio via flickr wash. The flickr account this came from is being used by a user from the English wikipedia to reinsert copyvio images into articles. The same image was uploaded by another sock of the user directly onto the commons. BlueAzure23:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first image uploaded appears to have be a copyvio, most likely taken from this flickr user. This newer image seems acceptable - it is much clearer + is dated on the lower righthand corner. --RocketJohnson18:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Superm401, their have been a number of confirmed copyvios from the flickr account. A number of the images are screenshot of the bird's eye view or satellite view from a mapping site, this one comes from here, this one from here, and this one from here. BlueAzure20:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image can still be seen at the flickr account. It is likely this is the original source of the image from which earlier user/users obtained and copied it. -- unsigned message by User:61.9.184.186, whose only other edit here was to comment on a related proposed deletion
Deleted. "Wikimedia Commons hosts only media files such as photographs, scanned images, diagrams, animations, audio (eg music, spoken dialogue) and video clips, along with any associated metadata." Forrester[[hate+love letters]]10:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Emblem of a group. I can't find anything that indicates that this was released into the public domain and the copyright has not expired as the group was formed in 1964 in the United States. BlueAzure23:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm someone else). I don't know how to "vote" or whatever to keep the image up, I think that the image should remain undeleted. It helps the article, especially when they describe its meaning, even if it is low quality. (User:67.84.63.236)
I second that emotion on not Deleting this image. Make sure you get your 360 degrees straight before deleting something (User:72.130.168.89)
I say leave it so that people can understand that the sign represents something made up; something that caught the eye of street kids as the aritcle explains this is a gang not a religon. Leave it up as gangs have no leagal stance in society. what divinity or miracles has Clarence 13x performed in order to establish this as a religon. I say leave the gangs logo up so people can know this is not a religon but merely a gang.(Jabril Nasir). (User:208.120.87.181)
Image shows watermark and source displays copyright notice. Probably still PD in the US (as it was likely PD under the rules in 1996) but is no longer PD in Russia under PD-old-70 rules. Kelly23:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was not said "keep if unwatermarked version created", but "keep [and] create". Unwatermarked versions are preferred in common Wiki resources. Keep as property of Soviet government propaganda. Julo15:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mutter, findest Du hier eigentlich kein besseres Betätigungsfeld als jeden der anderer Meinung ist gleich sperren zu wollen? --GeorgHH • talk19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - "commons is not censored". However it does seem like we will get an excess of "educational material" if we are not careful. Probably not valid without OTRS confirmation? Whatever else Delete for me --Herbytalk thyme14:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for two very good reasons. 1 - we would need proof that both performers were over 18 (per US law on pornography) a burden that we have refused in the past. 2 - looks like a random porn copyvio to me. Megapixie14:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell from the emails which are now archived in OTRS, the licensing, permissions and model release are all legit, though nothing is foolproof.– Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb02:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful image. If a vandal doesn't have this image, I'm sure they can find something even less appropriate on the Commons. --Simonxag23:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To keep it would require legitimate evidence that it is, in fact, not protected by copyright. --Icarus3
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/06#All pictures of little girls uploaded by User:Belginusanl. The contributions of the user have since 2006 consisted solely of little girls and piercings, and this model in particular. The community has summarily deleted them from all Wikimedia projects and blocked the user, but he still insists on getting the images here by sockpuppetry, multiple real name related identities from the same IP, or uploading by proxy, this time through OTRS. He has uploaded the images on multiple sites all over the internet, including excess personal details of the under age model. This is not how a professional photographer would behave (re alleged model release, name of an existing agency and a US copyright registration) and so the authenticity of the source or the license permission received on OTRS is not credible. Commons does not need to join in on propagating his material. There are other images of all the topics from less creepy sources. DFTT. --Para15:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell from the emails which are now archived in OTRS, the licensing, permissions and model release are all legit, though nothing is foolproof. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb02:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, it is a picture like from a Passport, that don't get the german Threshold of originality (Schöpfungshöhe) and the asshole himself is death. PD... --FischX03:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a average portrait photo which is protected as a Lichtbildwerk by § 64 UrhG (for 70 years after the author’s death). The author is a photographer who is not mentioned here, we have no proper source. The character of the subject shown on the photo doesn’t matter. delete --Polarlys10:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. Well, it's obviously a professional mini photo studio for photographs of the highest quality with illuminating and controllable light banks. (Currently used—same page as last one). Rocket00014:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It says "טלמון" whatever that means but if it's a (notable) logo we mat need some permission verified as it's not ineligible. Rocket00007:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - "commons is not censored". However it does seem like we will get an excess of "educational material" if we are not careful. Drini deleted it previous based on the fact that "educational use only" implied a form of fair use & was there not fully licensed. Whatever else Delete for me --Herbytalk thyme14:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for two very good reasons. 1 - we would need proof that both performers were over 18 (per US law on pornography) a burden that we have refused in the past. 2 - looks like a random porn copyvio to me. Megapixie14:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - "commons is not censored". However it does seem like we will get an excess of "educational material" if we are not careful. Probably not valid without OTRS confirmation? Whatever else Delete for me --Herbytalk thyme14:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for two very good reasons. 1 - we would need proof that both performers were over 18 (per US law on pornography) a burden that we have refused in the past. 2 - looks like a random porn copyvio to me. Megapixie14:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - "commons is not censored". However it does seem like we will get an excess of "educational material" if we are not careful. Probably not valid without OTRS confirmation? Whatever else Delete for me --Herbytalk thyme14:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for two very good reasons. 1 - we would need proof that both performers were over 18 (per US law on pornography) a burden that we have refused in the past. 2 - looks like a random porn copyvio to me. Megapixie14:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mutter, findest Du hier eigentlich kein besseres Betätigungsfeld als jeden der anderer Meinung ist gleich sperren zu wollen? --GeorgHH • talk19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell from the emails which are now archived in OTRS, the licensing, permissions and model release are all legit, though nothing is foolproof.– Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb02:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful image. If a vandal doesn't have this image, I'm sure they can find something even less appropriate on the Commons. --Simonxag23:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To keep it would require legitimate evidence that it is, in fact, not protected by copyright. --Icarus3
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/06#All pictures of little girls uploaded by User:Belginusanl. The contributions of the user have since 2006 consisted solely of little girls and piercings, and this model in particular. The community has summarily deleted them from all Wikimedia projects and blocked the user, but he still insists on getting the images here by sockpuppetry, multiple real name related identities from the same IP, or uploading by proxy, this time through OTRS. He has uploaded the images on multiple sites all over the internet, including excess personal details of the under age model. This is not how a professional photographer would behave (re alleged model release, name of an existing agency and a US copyright registration) and so the authenticity of the source or the license permission received on OTRS is not credible. Commons does not need to join in on propagating his material. There are other images of all the topics from less creepy sources. DFTT. --Para15:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell from the emails which are now archived in OTRS, the licensing, permissions and model release are all legit, though nothing is foolproof. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb02:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the two images look similar but not exactly the same, the other image conveys exactly the same information as this one up for deletion. I would have deleted this if I had uploaded this image, but for now, the uploader's consent or the verdict after at least seven days will suffice. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 17:36, 01 May 2008 (GMT)
Delete Delete it RIGHT NOW!!!!!!! It has been 10 days I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY THIS TAKS THIS LONG!!!!!!!!
Delete The deletion tag have been post ever since April 23, 2008. I just forgot to add it on log, this is common mistake people makes just like on math people write 3 plus 3 equals 9.--Freewayguy04:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your insanity isn't helping. Furthermore, you ordinarily can't say delete again since you nominated. I'm also not the person to delete since I commented. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 18:26, 03 May 2008 (GMT)
No double voting; they will be process one day; I promise; this is only overflow image so they may not take more than 16 days. Some takes over 2month because is just citing problem; oncve its fix the pink tag can be taken away. This image is exactly the same as Image:I-94 (IN) Metric.svg.--216.100.95.9017:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Прочти текст, пожалуйста. Все работы, опубликованные либо публично выставленные до 7 ноября 1917 (в данном случае это иллюстрация), подпадают под действие данного шаблона, независимо от даты смерти автора. --Vizu16:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep. Permission and licensing seems fine (contra "Simple Copyvio" above). And yes, it's original research on the part of the person who made the map. But for images, some degree of that is entirely acceptable when done by Commonists, otherwise there would not be a single user-drawn chart, drawing or map on the whole of Commons. What's more, even if Wikipedia policies (and if I had a pistol, I'd habitually unlatch the safety on such every time someone came here from Wikipedia quoting Wikipedia policy acronyms) applied here, it would be irrelevant, because this work has already been published by someone other than us. So it's not the kind of "OR" that would be prohibited by Wikipedia policy (if using someone else's OR was forbidden, after all, you'd never, ever cite anything but tertiary sources in WP articles). In other news, keep Wikipedia drama off Commons, please; I (and other regulars) have absolutely no tolerance for that crap. You don't want it in the article? Fine, then don't have it in the article. But we do not exist just to serve the English Wikipedia. We serve all Wikimedia projects (and the public at large), and this image is in use on many of them, so it's not at all useless. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Collard: I apologize if I unknowingly annoyed you by using WP lingo to state that the map is a complete and utter fabrication (forget the OR part btw, that is not the issue as I've explained on the talk page). Falsifiers of history, IMO, should not be able to use anything Wiki to perpetuate their claims, be it Holocaust deniers or Zionist revisionists. More troublesome, Wikipedia will appear to endorse those claims, which is detrimental to the projects credibility in the long run. MeteorMaker17:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your main point there -- that bible-history.com subscribes to Biblical inerrancy and is therefore an unreliable source -- is pants, and I've made that point on the aforementioned discussion page. The position that anyone who subscribes to Biblical inerrancy is an idiot and a crank puts you on the fringes of scholarship. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your opinion, and please note that "idiot" and "crank" are your words, not mine. My opinion is that a site with an explicitly anti-science agenda does not qualify as reliable, particularly if it demonstrably falsifies history. I would prefer to crack down on the map directly, but WP rules force me to direct the main effort to showing that the site it's taken from doesn't meet the RS standard. MeteorMaker23:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Making a map based on the Bible isn't a question of "Biblical literalism" -- The account of David and Solomon's kingdom in books II Samuel and I Kings of the Bible contains lots of names of people and places, descriptions of administrative tribal territories, and specific and circumstantial accounts of various political and military events -- and scholars can and have sifted through this material to produce maps without being "Biblical literalists". AnonMoos23:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and that is in fact my point. Scholars have sifted through this material for centuries and not one of them has produced a map that looks anything like this one. It is not based on the Bible (which it blatantly contradicts) nor existing research, it's a free fantasy and has no more place on Wikipedia than a geological world map with Atlantis on it. MeteorMaker10:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they have sometimes produced maps that look something like this one (see p. 36 of the Anchor Atlas of World History by Kinder and Hilgemann, ISBN0-385-06178-1, or p. 13 of Atlas of the Bible Lands by Harry Thomas Frank, ISBN0-8437-7055-4, to mention only sources that I happen to have immediately at hand) -- though it's true that such maps very rarely include any significant territory in modern Turkey.
Look, I'm quite sympathetic towards the view that a map which does not distinguish between the centrally-administered and Israelite-inhabited areas of the United Monarchy vs. the areas of loose personalistic overlordship or nominal tribute-paying can easily give a misleading view of history, and is almost worthless for most purposes in Wikipedia (compared to a map such as Image:Early-Historical-Israel-Dan-Beersheba-Judea.png). However, I'm not sure that's a strong enough reason to delete this image... AnonMoos12:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your views would be welcome at the talk page. Do I understand you correctly that Frank and Kinder/Hilgemann claim that Phoenicia was part of David's kingdom? That's a view that strikes me as highly unorthodox, though I'm not an expert in the field. Is there an online text cite for that? MeteorMaker14:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, those maps don't include Phoenicia (and I imagine few scholars would consider that the United Kingdom meaningfully dominated Phoenicia, given that Solomon seems to have been somewhat the junior partner in his alliance with Hiram of Tyre). However, they do include large chunks of Syria extending towards the bend in the Euphrates in northwestern Syria. And there is a Bible verse 2 Samuel 24:6-7 which I'm sure that the authors of the map Image:Davids-kingdom.jpg eagerly seized upon. I've been avoiding the Wikipedia article "Land of Israel" for a while now, since I find myself to be quite unable to work cooperatively and constructively with Kuratowski's Ghost... AnonMoos15:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Syria part is not in dispute, everybody agrees on that (though most mark Hamath as a dominion, separate from the kingdom). We also agree that no scholar has expressed the view that Phoenicia and a large piece of modern Turkey were parts of David's kingdom. The only source for that claim is the Bible-history.com map, which clearly puts both the map and the site in in the extreme fringe category.
Seeing that the interest in debating the (complete lack of) factual evidence for the map is very low on the Land of Israel talk page, I regret your decision to not take part in the discussion. Your knowledge of history would certainly add a considerable amount of value to the debate. MeteorMaker15:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite true that this map indiscriminately mixes areas which were directly-ruled parts of the early Israelite kingdom (mostly inhabited by Israelites, royally-appointed administrators present, etc.) with areas where there was a very loose suzerainty or personal overlordship at most (so that the map Image:Early-Historical-Israel-Dan-Beersheba-Judea.png has much greater historical value), but I'm not sure that's a reason to delete it. I would want to see greater evidence of malicious falsification. AnonMoos21:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The responsible thing to do is to stop it from spreading even more. Other language WPs have already begun linking to it. The inclusion in Wikipedia gives it an undue status of established fact, while it is in fact an extreme fringe theory, shared by neither mainstream nor other fringe history. The other map is much less contentious. MeteorMaker23:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With permission from Amoruso, the file's original uploader, I have now modified the map to conform with established science. The requested deletion is thus no longer necessary. MeteorMaker16:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE I don't think that text material belongs to Commons: there are Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikiversity for that purpose. Scans of historical books are different story, but is PDF appropriate format for it?
Diagrams and images only PDFs should be converted to more appropriate formats (SVG, JPG, PNG).
Keep PDF-files usually are text files - and pdf is allowed on Commons. Commons:File types and Commons:Project scope says "Text: PDF for rich text documents ". We have no arrangement nor a guideline about which contents should be forbidden as PDF on Commons! Before deleting all PDF-files you've listed here we have to reach an generally consensus how much text or which form of text in a PDF should be allowed. --GeorgHH • talk21:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless the uploader gives further information. (From th other uploads I think they may work for the Star company - which might be OK). --Simonxag23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree. The same user has uploaded other files with a fake license, such an album cover of this same musician. --Dodo14:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless the uploader gives further information. (From th other uploads I think they may work for the Star company - which might be OK). --Simonxag23:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is very dubious why this coleague, if I might call him that, means with his proposal. There are no rules about this and we have galleries which collect different media for the purpose of description. This is why I created the gallery to serve as a multi language description tool. Decorations of Yugoslavia is another creation of the Great Catalogisator and it is highly dubious whether his creation is correct. I emplore the admins not to delete this useful gallery not until a Wikipedia article in French will be finished. The data presented in the gallery is ready to go and if deleted will jeopardise the french article and prolong its creation. Thanks -- Rainman00:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Those images are all categorised in cats like "Orders and medals of Socialist Yugoslavia", "Awards of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" (nearly the same?). Forrester[[hate+love letters]]10:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Cover of a book that was published in 1928. The cover image is not one of Spelterini's photographs, but an artist's impression. The artist even signed on the image; unfortunately, it's not legible. Some "Ch. .....orn, Luzern", I think. The book was published by Schwabe in Basel, so it's not the publisher's name. Lupo20:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: the text could also say "Laquinhorn", and the image was done after one of Spelterini's photos: see [81]. Is the addition of the balloon sufficient such that the artist would have a separate copyright on this derivative work of a photo? Lupo20:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE I don't think that text material belongs to Commons: there are Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikiversity for that purpose. Scans of historical books are different story, but is PDF appropriate format for it?
Diagrams and images only PDFs should be converted to more appropriate formats (SVG, JPG, PNG).
Keep PDF-files usually are text files - and pdf is allowed on Commons. Commons:File types and Commons:Project scope says "Text: PDF for rich text documents ". We have no arrangement nor a guideline about which contents should be forbidden as PDF on Commons! Before deleting all PDF-files you've listed here we have to reach an generally consensus how much text or which form of text in a PDF should be allowed. --GeorgHH • talk21:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not so, I believe Djvu files are acceptable. I thought Common's scope prohibited text in the actual pages, while allowing uploads of images of texts. If so, this can be converted into DjVu, the preferred format, and re-uploaded. - Mtmelendez(Talk)20:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE I don't think that text material belongs to Commons: there are Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikiversity for that purpose. Scans of historical books are different story, but is PDF appropriate format for it?
Diagrams and images only PDFs should be converted to more appropriate formats (SVG, JPG, PNG).
Keep PDF-files usually are text files - and pdf is allowed on Commons. Commons:File types and Commons:Project scope says "Text: PDF for rich text documents ". We have no arrangement nor a guideline about which contents should be forbidden as PDF on Commons! Before deleting all PDF-files you've listed here we have to reach an generally consensus how much text or which form of text in a PDF should be allowed. --GeorgHH • talk21:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, as you say, it is an old document and therefore there is no copyright anymore linked to it but, in Europe, it does well exist a copyright on the photographic reproduction. It could be that an additional licence should be added for the author of the originals (I say L.Da Vinci) for documents felt under public domain. If it is only a question to add a licence for L.Da Vinci's work than no problem you may do it. --Luc Viatour08:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Franckly speach that would be a pity to delete this picture. Luc have changed the licence, now the document is under PD-Old and the picture which where shot by him is under his usual licence. That's sound good to me. Romary11:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
depicts a screenshot of multiple non-free pieces of software (Windows XP, Internet Explorer) and a commercial website (www.microsoft.com), which falls under fair-use but is ineligible for wikimedia commons. 67.100.216.1401:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The IE screen is only a small part of the photo and isn't the main theme. The main theme is using a computer to serve Internet...Elektron11:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree, Elektron; the title of the image is clear that it is specifically showing Microsoft Windows running on Apple hardware. The use of Windows is deliberate and part of the intention of the photo, and is not an incidental part of the photo. Morven13:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no problem with the image... it's low-res, you can't see the page in detail, if that's the case... --Ikescs21:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely derivative work form Windows software and Microsoft site. Blank screen or delete image. And since when we count votes instead of arguments? EugeneZelenko15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidental inclusion of Windows screenshot to demonstrate that computer boots Windows software? And now other site in internet other then Microsoft one... What is "intentional purpose" should be with such logic? --EugeneZelenko15:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the inclusion is hardly incidental. The file is called "Apple Boot Camp.jpg". The description is "MacBook Pro running Windows XP through Boot Camp". It's being used to illustrate the article "Boot Camp" in two different Wikipedias, so we can hardly claim a "de minimis" defense if there's enough of the copyrighted software in question to illustrate an article about it. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh yeah, this would need to be used under fair use. I would speedy it myself, but I'll just vote since the last request was based on votes. Rocket00019:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell from the emails which are now archived in OTRS, the licensing, permissions and model release are all legit, though nothing is foolproof. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb02:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Flickr user had permission to license this (it's now "All Rights Reserved" now, anyway). The character is somewhat notable and highly unlikely to be free. Rocket00007:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a link to BreitBart.com (copyrighted) does not indicate the actual source of the image and thus impossible to know if image is really from the US government and thus public domain. --Ricky81682 (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. The uploaders seem to hold the copyrights to these photos, so that's their license of choice (have also licensed as cc and pd) Badseedtalk03:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the author, Dr. Ron Blakey, is properly credited at all times and the image is only used on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons."
Delete them all. The uploader has changed the template to remove the "Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons" restriction, but hasn't provided any evidence that the copyright holder has consented to this. (It's not even clear that the author has consented to allow them even on Commons; the email to him asked him for permission to use it *on Wikipedia*, which is not sufficient for our purposes. This is why we can't have nice things.) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh... I'll send Mr. Blakey another Mail which will hopefully meet all demands. I hope to have a bullet-proof declaration from him by Monday evening or Tuesday, so I would ask you to restrain your crusade for a while. And to ease your suspicion: The author is well aware of his images' usage on Commons! Have a nice day on Commons! --36ophiuchi16:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)--[reply]
I'm sorry to bother you again. A couple of days ago you gave me the formal permission to use your global plaeogeographic projections in order to improve Wikipedia's article on several geologic time periods. In my original Mail to you I wrote:
I hereby ask you for your kind permission to use your maps under http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/mollglobe.html on Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, they are now nagging around that permissions only covering "the use on Wikipedia" are not sufficient for them for legal reasons and threaten to delete all images I've uploaded and compromising large parts of my work. To make a short story even shorter:
In order to continue the usage of your images I require you to either reject or agree to the following request:
Mr. Blakey, I hereby ask you for your permission to use your maps under http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/mollglobe.html. You will be properly credited at all times.
I agree to the above statement, the maps may be used for this purpose.
Ron Blakey
If, this is too much for you, I would immediately delete your maps of course.
To see an example of my contributions to Wikipedia follow this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian - I've added the quick info bar and a lot more things on all the different time periods and also plan to do the same with their counterparts on the German Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, Professor Blakey has not actually agreed to any specific license release. Please see my email to you in response for more details. howcheng {chat}16:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A proper licensing form has now been implemented and send via mail to Commons. I consider the matter settled. Please remove the deletion-tags. --36ophiuchi12:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New request because the old one (see above) is more than mysterious... Why PD-Japan? It´s a German foto. And don´t tell me, the image were PD because ist could be older than 70 years. That´s nonsense. Chaddy 15:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC) --Chaddy15:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with the previous keep. "Older than 70 years" is not "life + 70", and in lieu of evidence that it was done by an anonymous photographer, we can't have it here. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be in the PD, if the author were more than 70 years dead. But we don´t know the author and it´s improbable that he/she is more than 70 years dead, because the image must be from between 1933 and 1945. Chaddy04:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is from the website: Legal Notice: StephanieAdams.com is an online memorabilia and fan club entity dedicated solely towards Stephanie Adams with expressed consent and permission from Miss Adams and Playboy Enterprises, Inc. Miss Adams does not correspond with fans. Correspondence is sent directly to Playboy Enterprises, Inc. who handles Miss Adams' fan mail. You are welcome to send fan mail to Miss Adams in c/o Playboy Enterprises, Inc.
www.funpx.com is the site from creator Peter Welleman, where only his work is published. So this cartoon is really from Peter Welleman, who chooses to add the cartoon to the public domain. There is no copy right problem, cartoon should stay.--193.173.28.3715:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE I don't think that text material belongs to Commons: there are Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikiversity for that purpose. Scans of historical books are different story, but is PDF appropriate format for it?
Diagrams and images only PDFs should be converted to more appropriate formats (SVG, JPG, PNG).
The claim that the uploader is its copyright holder is unreliable. The image is probably standard "passport photo", the copyright holder is most probably some professional photographer, probably unknown to the uploader. The image is identical to the image published on http://www.wonka.wz.cz/obcanske.htm . Pavel Wonka himself died 20 years ago. Miraceti10:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't speak any Japanese and I rather not rely on online translation services when discussing copyrights. Maybe someone who speaks Japanese can translate? --88.134.141.5415:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the image is circa 1935-37. It's an old image and does not apply to PD. Also, the author is furthermore deceased. The same goes for the image of Heydrich which was also tagged with deletion for no reason. Zarbon14:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would only be in the public domain either if it's author had died before 1937 or if it was published before 1937 and its author remained anonymous. Is there any proof that the author died before 1937 or that he remained anonymous? --88.134.141.5419:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Okay, found the author: en:Heinrich Hoffmann again. Use this site and search for "Eichmann". And just as the dozens and dozens of Hoffmann photos that were uploaded to Commons and later deleted, this image is copyrighted until January 1st 2028 as Hoffman died in 1957. --88.134.141.5419:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Photo of some Nazi leader. No information on why PD-Japan applies here. Japanese-english translation by Google isn't very good, but the source information translates to "Captured from the original photo." and the author seems to be unknown to the uploader. -- 88.134.141.5414:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image has no author info and is probably taken by Vlachogiannis, journalist and close friend of Papadiamantis, who died in 1945 and thus still under copyright protection --Badseed00:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE I don't think that text material belongs to Commons: there are Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikiversity for that purpose. Scans of historical books are different story, but is PDF appropriate format for it?
Diagrams and images only PDFs should be converted to more appropriate formats (SVG, JPG, PNG).
DELETE I don't think that text material belongs to Commons: there are Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikiversity for that purpose. Scans of historical books are different story, but is PDF appropriate format for it?
Diagrams and images only PDFs should be converted to more appropriate formats (SVG, JPG, PNG).
DELETE I don't think that text material belongs to Commons: there are Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikiversity for that purpose. Scans of historical books are different story, but is PDF appropriate format for it?
Diagrams and images only PDFs should be converted to more appropriate formats (SVG, JPG, PNG).
Keep fix it if it's that much of a problem. Although "disputed territories" is just as accurate as "West Bank + Gaza", since they are territories which are disputed. Also, quit quoting Wikipedia policy acronyms at us. That is more annoying than you can imagine. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right, there exists an original version that hasn't been edited to say "disputed territories" and hopefully nobody happens to substitute this one instead. ;) I have to disagree with your assessment that "disputed territories" is just as accurate as "West Bank + Gaza" - that term is used exclusively by the Israeli government. There is no shortage of terms that are technically correct but still carry highly controversial connotations. MeteorMaker18:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This DR was re-opened by an IP with exactly the same reason as already given. I still maintain that whatever name we use is going to upset someone. If we don't use the term "Disputed Territories", we're going to upset the Israel fanboys, if we do we upset the anti-Israel types. I just want this to be closed so that we can avoid drama like this... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I object to deletion determinedly. In the first place this image was announced as his search for a wanted man photograph in the world. I may not know it, but he is a war criminal.--GooGooDoll201:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know that place. (Good wine there!) It's permanently installed outside in open space, so it's ok with freedom of panorama in Austria. --Herbert Ortner12:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Image:Село 0.jpg and Image:Leskovdol.JPG (sourced as own work and tagged {{GFDL-self}}) lists the author as "Dean Vladov" and "Deyan Vladov". It's not clear whether these two are the same and if they're the same as the uploader. For other uploads that have an {{Information}} template, the author is listed as "none", "me", or "Dima-bilan" (cf. en:Dima Bilan).
Delete - you can't revoke the GFDL, but it appears to be low-resolution and possibly outside of scope so I say in my search for arguments that do not involve licensing. ViperSnake15121:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another user has decided to harass the uploader of this picture; need to remove photographer's name attached to it. --QQQQQQ17:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me your interlocutor should be blocked. I'm not clear on how deleting this picture solves anything. Powers18:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd wanted to remove the photographer's name from the images I uploaded. Is it possible to excise it from the record of the page? QQQQQQ18:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, over at Wikipedia. Most of it has been excised from the page histories by moderators due to the viciousness. I'd just like to get rid of the photographer's name from this and other images I've uploaded. QQQQQQ00:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. You can relicense the photo with a more permissive license that doesn't require attribution. Alternately, you may be able to specify a pseudonym for attribution purposes; I'm not sure how that's handled. Powers14:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the uploader has an apparent history of copyright violations. Apologies if I have nominated this in the wrong place, I'm not used to Commons. J Milburn10:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to Image:WMAP 2008.png and others. Low resolution, and it's unclear which version this is (there have been three versions of this map; one from 2003, one from 2005 and one from 2008). Mike Peel13:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No indication given that this is public domain: author is clearly still alive or recently deceased (see [86]). Unless better sourcing is given, we cannot prove this is public domain. Patstuart (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, un saludo. Respecto a esta imagen, 1) Yo tomé esa foto en el mural del Congreso de la Unión, no lo saqué de ninguna pagina web, como la que mencionan en la liga de arriba. 2) Las pinturas de este autor, Elio Carmichael, fueron donadas a edificios públicos de Quintana Roo como lo son el Congreso de la Unión y el Palacio de Gobierno. EL autor está vivo, pero sus obras son donadas para el embellecimiento de las ciudades y la promoción de la cultura. No veo porqué deba borrarse esta imagen. Un saludo, estoy a sus órdenes.--Feliks03:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, freedom of paranoia exists in Mexico: COM:FOP#Mexico. This may fall under that umbrella.
Keep All files uploaded by Anthony was made with the same camera, so I assume that they are selfmade. If you have no objections I will add the self-template to his uploads. --GeorgHH • talk09:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I didn't take that picture, though I did get permission from the person who took the picture to release it under ShareAlike 1.0, so long as ey remained anonymous. Anthony17:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All files uploaded by Anthony was made with the same camera, so I assume that they are selfmade. If you have no objections I will add the self-template to his uploads. --GeorgHH • talk09:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I didn't take that picture, though I did get permission from the person who took the picture to release it under ShareAlike 1.0, so long as ey remained anonymous. Anthony17:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What does it mean "PD without a reason"? The reason was: decision of original author - user:SecretAgentMan00 - in en:wiki, in February 2005 (see this edition). In November 2005, when this file was uploaded to Commons (with a comment: This image was copied from wikipedia:en. The original description was: a typical experiment in chemistry {{PD}} ... 21:38, 27 February 2005 || SecretAgentMan00 || (a typical experiment ...), it was not obligatory to add source and author for PD files. Now permission should be changed to {{PD-author|SecretAgentMan00}} and the file should be kept. Julo07:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication that the uploader is the author and he has many deletion warnings on his userpage because of unsourced images: en:User talk:SecretAgentMan00, only deleted ones. The picture looks like a press or promotional photo that he found somewhere in the web without thinking about Copyright. --Matt13:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The description: "a typical experiment in chemistry" is also very vague. If he really was the photographer he should know what the people in the lab where doing. --Matt13:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be suspicious, don't be prosecutor or policeman. This picture is not an artwork, I don't believe it could be a problem with the license here. There is also no indication that the uploader is NOT the author. You don't have the evidence, that user:SecretAgentMan00 gave false license, you just have some suspicions, and IMHO it is not enough. If the description is "vague" - {{Sofixit}} (just change it), but for me it is just "typical experiment in chemistry". Julo17:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admins, hold your horses. I'm sending an email to the WSMRM people. Their site says Information presented on the White Sands Missile Range Museum Website is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is appreciated. This is a lot like the standard public domain disclaimer used on a lot of US government sites; it may well be that their intentions are to license their images the same way. Give this a little longer so that I can find out for sure. Love, Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's a little complexity, the noteskin and SM itself are licensed under the MIT license, the BG is public domain - BUT, according to this, I'm not sure if this applies to the current temporary theme (which I assume it does), but it says the temp theme's graphics is under CC Noncommercial license - sorry guys! I think the real new theme is licensed under MIT, so if we get confirmation, we could use one of their "previews" of it ViperSnake15101:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Theme elements are licensed under CC 3.0, the license on the existing image simply needs to be changed to reflect that. --AeronPrometheus08:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then the uploader should not claim to be the copyright holder, which one needs to be in order to release it to the public domain (not your fault, of course). Rocket00019:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The painter Isaac Grünewald died in 1946 which is less than 70 years. Also unlikely that Grünewald licensed his works under GFDL. Thuresson08:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. no description, uploader hasn't answered, probable copyright violations. Also wrong format: this should be PNG. Yann (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete -the image is copyrighted, according to the EU and Estonian copyright laws authors life + 70 years rule applies --Termer04:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Image description states that it's not PD-old, but it was released to public domain by Estonian archive - anyone can confirm this? --Leafnode10:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Estonian Film Archives terms of service and the price list are in Estonian though, but what it says is that, for example a copy of a digital image like this one is @ 1172 x 1194 px, up to 2068 x 3106 pix would cost you 60 EEK, meaning about $US 6. So the uploaded image does not only violate the copyright law but also the terms of service of the archive.--Termer18:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
La imagen pertenece al archivo del municipio de Benito Juárez, y es permitido su uso por el gobierno del estado y el municipio para fines educativos como lo es la Wikipedia. No se debería de borrar la imagen, a menos que el Municipio de Benito Juárez indique lo contrario. Muchas gracias. --Feliks17:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Que tal. La imagen aparece en el libro de Fernando Martí, gracias al archivo de Fonatur (Fondo Nacional de Fomeno al Turismo), que fue cedida al Archivo del Municipio de Benito Juárez: Martí, Fernando. Cancún: Fantasía de banqueros. Edit. Uno, 1985. y por su carácter histórico (1era piedra, 1er hotel de Cancún), es permitida usar tanto en medios impresos como medios multimedia. No veo que fines de lucro pueda dársele (además de histórico) puesto que este hotel al que hace referencia la foto ya fue remodelado casi en su totalidad, y también el nombre fue cambiado en 1985. Un saludo.--Feliks18:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear whether the photographer has given all rights to PDS/WASG. This looks more like some kind of press license to me. 84.57.72.16621:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the lack of EXIF data, the low resolution, and the other images this Flickr user has uploaded, I would suggest that this is probably a copyright violation. Adambro12:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of project scope; there are more appropriate ways to show this method of digital manipulation. No model release or other expression of permission. Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 15:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of project scope; there are more appropriate ways to show this method of digital manipulation. No model release or other expression of permission. Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 15:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PDF-files usually are text files - and pdf is allowed on Commons. Commons:File types and Commons:Project scope says "Text: PDF for rich text documents ". We have no arrangement nor a guideline about which contents should be forbidden as PDF on Commons! Before deleting all PDF-files you've listed here we have to reach an generally consensus how much text or which form of text in a PDF should be allowed. --GeorgHH • talk21:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PDF-files usually are text files - and pdf is allowed on Commons. Commons:File types and Commons:Project scope says "Text: PDF for rich text documents ". We have no arrangement nor a guideline about which contents should be forbidden as PDF on Commons! Before deleting all PDF-files you've listed here we have to reach an generally consensus how much text or which form of text in a PDF should be allowed. --GeorgHH • talk22:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-free image, and has been given a false license. Currently on English Wikipedia It's under "fair use" but it's not the "same image". I've found a image on commons I do not have the image page, only direct link to the image. Image isn't beeing used on any WMF projects either, except on the Hungarian Wikipedia --Kanonkas(talk)14:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is more of a request for comment, as I'm not sure what to do with it (sorry if this is at the wrong place). I uploaded it, thinking it would qualify as PD, since it was on a NOAA website, and also since another user said that such an image would unlikely be able to be copyrighted. However, the text of {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} says that it only qualifies if a NOAA employee made it during the course of an employee's official duties. I know that is not the case, since the radar is from La Reunion, which is under the jurisdiction of Meteo-France. So, my question is, is there any license for which it would be Public Domain? If not, I fully request deletion. If so, then I'd like it to stay. Hurricanehink
Hallo IP! Das versteh ich nicht: Das Bundesheer schreibt: ""'Diese Grafik/Fotografie kann kostenlos heruntergeladen werden und ist für eine Veröffentlichung freigegeben. Ein Weiterverkauf ist nicht zulässig. Als Urheberrechtsvermerk ist "Foto: Bundesheer" deutlich erkennbar anzubringen. Die Urheberrechte des BMLV sind durch die Freigabe nicht betroffen. --- Austrian Armed Forces (2007) Directorate of Press and Public Information/MoD This image is cleared for release. Request credit be given as "Austrian Armed Forces Photograph". Please note, that it is forbidden to trade the image."' Das müsste doch für Commons allemal reichen, oder? PumpingRudi10:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meiner Meinung nach: ja. Der obige Text scheint mir eine klare Presse-Lizenz zu sein, also eine Freigabe zur Nutzung der Bilder in Zeitungsartikeln und sonstiger Berichtserstattung. Das ist etwas ganz anderes als Public Domain/Gemeinfreiheit. Deshalb auch der Satz "Die Urheberrechte des BMLV sind durch die Freigabe nicht betroffen." Um auf Commons und anderen Wikimedia-Projekten genutzt werden zu können, brauchen wir eine explizite Freigabe unter einer freien Lizenz wie etwa der von dir genannten Creative-Commons-Lizenz, die Veränderung und kommerzielle Nutzung (z. B. Weiterverkauf) explizit erlaubt. --88.134.141.5415:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Da keine Lizenz vom Bundesheer am Bild angegeben wurde, geht das ganze nicht ohne Mail mit expliziter Lizenzangabe. Wenn keine Mail vorliegt, löschen. --User:Svens Welt22:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wieso? Meinst Du das fotografieren des Gegenstandes "Buch" mit seinem Aussehen verletzt bereits die Urheberrechte? In der Konsequenz müsste auch das Fotografieren einer Tasse dann die Rechte des Gestalters verletzen. (Abgesehen davon habe ich erheblich Zweifel, ob das Ausschreiben des Titels und die Anordnung vier historischer Bilder schon die Schöpfungshöhe erreicht.) Ich hatte extra nicht nur das Cover abgelichtet, sondern den Gegenstand an sich fotografiert. Allerdings habe ich keine Ahnung wie streng das hier auf commons gehandhabt wird.--Olaf217:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn nachgewiesen werden kann das die vier Bilder und die Zeichnung nicht geschützt sind, ist alles ok, ansonsten handelt es sich um eine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Wenn du im Besitz des Buches bist schau doch mal nach ob es einen Quellennachweis zu den Bildern enthält. --GeorgHH • talk19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PDF is allowed on Commons. Commons:File types and Commons:Project scope says "Text: PDF for rich text documents ". We have no arrangement nor a guideline about which contents should be forbidden as PDF on Commons! Before deleting all PDF-files you've listed here we have to reach an generally consensus how much text or which form of text in a PDF should be allowed. --GeorgHH • talk21:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. From COM:PS: "Files that might realistically be useful to one or more other Wikimedia projects, eg Wikisource or Wikibooks, should be kept; deletions should not be based on the sole ground that the file would be better hosted on one of those other projects. Any media file that is realistically useful to or is within the scope of even one other Wikimedia Foundation project can be hosted here."MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The source and license information for this photo is falsified, the actual source is [87]. On that page it states that the photo is from the early 1020's, this is a typo and should be the early 1920's. From what I have been able to find, this was most likely taken (and therefore published) after 1922 and therefore not eligible for PD-US. BlueAzure19:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a large collection of historical images and postcards from New Rochelle and the surrounding region. . . some of which are in no doubt shared by others. The images located on the New Rochelle Public Library site, which you referenced, neither unique to that collection nor are they attributed to a specific creator nor individual collector or owner. The stock photo of the Glen Island Ferry is from the early 1920's according to my knowledge and I have no reason to doubt that it is from 1920 or 1921.--RocketJohnson17:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that if the postcard lacked a copyright claim printed on it, it is not copyrighted and is public domain. US law at the time required a copyright claim and registration. Morven23:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is neither a copyright claim nor a date on the image. I believe that you are correct and it is 'public domain'. Thanks --RocketJohnson04:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No articles linked in any wiki. Underage boy's picture could cause legal problems in Spain. No encilopedical relevancy. Created for personal purpose by a vandal in spanish wikipedia. --Xavigivax09:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No articles linked in any wiki. Underage boy's picture could cause legal problems in Spain. No encilopedical relevancy. Created for personal purpose by a vandal in spanish wikipedia. --Xavigivax09:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No articles linked in any wiki. Underage boy's picture could cause legal problems in Spain. No encilopedical relevancy. Created for personal purpose by a vandal in spanish wikipedia. --Xavigivax09:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No articles linked in any wiki. Underage boy's picture could cause legal problems in Spain. No encilopedical relevancy. Created for personal purpose by a vandal in spanish wikipedia. --Xavigivax09:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly ludicrous ruling (I took the picture). But sadly there is nothing I can do about it. I wonder if it's OK to take pictures in Rhyl, Llandudno, Cowlyn Bay and Chester in June. I hope the architects are not alive!!!! - Arpingstone21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not a ludicrous ruling, given what the law says. We don't doubt that you took the photo. Unfortunately, the law says that architecture is copyrightable, and in some countries photographing such is a derivative work. That's what the law is. The law is ludicrous, certainly, but we're bound to follow it however stupid it is. Sorry, Adrian. :\
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image was obviously taken at a press conference, access to such events is usually restricted to professional photographers. On EN WP en:Image:Hristo stoichkov.jpg was uploaded by en:User:Gejoro and tagged PD-Self. There are only 2 contributions of Gejoro: the image upload and adding the link in the article.
On Commons the image was uploaded by User:Immeros and again tagged PD-Self, no author given, no source bar link to EN WP image. The image has dimensions 250x250 which are common for image thumbnails. No EXIF data, of course. Sadly, I could not detect it via Google Images despite of the numerous searches. But I am sure this is a case of copyright violation. --Spiritia21:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a photo of a statue, which is most likely separately copyrighted. There is no evidence of permission to reproduce the statue, so the photo appears to be an unauthorized derivative work. --Superm401 - Talk00:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP this is a public area part of the Burning Man festival and is linked as such and should remain as should be kept.WayneRay18:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]
Comment What does it being in a public area have to do with anything? The photo is clearly targeting the statue, which means panorama right does not apply. Superm401 - Talk19:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per 17 USC 102(a)(8), sculptural works are protected by copyright. This image constitutes a derivative work and, therefore, certain rights thereto would be retained by the sculptor. Per nominator, evidence has not been provided that sculptor has released right under the current licensing. ЭLСОВВОLДtalk18:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image has inappropriate PD reasoning of "Judging from HRC's hairdo, this of her as first lady, so PD POTUS". Personal and subjective judgment based on a "hairdo" is not sufficient to establish public domain. Tag claims "work of an employee of the Executive Office of the President of the United States" but no source or other reasonable means of identifying the author to verify this claim have been provided. Holding the "position" of first lady does not preclude non-federal/non-EO people from taking a photograph. --ЭLСОВВОLДtalk15:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a photo of a statue, which is most likely separately copyrighted. There is no evidence of permission to reproduce the statue, so the photo appears to be an unauthorized derivative work. --Superm401 - Talk00:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a photo of a statue, which is most likely separately copyrighted. There is no evidence of permission to reproduce the statue, so the photo appears to be an unauthorized derivative work. --Superm401 - Talk00:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can anyone explain me why can a photo of locomotive violate a comic copyright? Do you think about to take down all the photos of Toyota automobiles just because there are Toyota badges on those cars since Toyota logo is a registered trade mark and protected by law? Copyright should be properly protected but not over-extended.-SElefant16:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Japanese FOP (as linked by nominator) does not extend to locomotives and, regardless, does not allow non-commercial usage. Further, the image name and description indicate the character's inclusion is intentional, not incidental. The image is a derivative work, as it does not have FOP exemption/protection. See COM:DW regarding the Toyota analogy. ЭLСОВВОLДtalk15:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Check the description of the page mentioned and found a line of regulation 'only elements, if any, which can be identified separately from the useful article as such are copyrightable'. The Doraemon paintings are actually part of the train livery and it's virtually impossible to demonstrate the outlook of the locomotive without showing the copyrighted cartoon characters, thus I think this case follows the exemption rule mentioned. If the name of the photo file is a concern, may I change it to "JR ED79 Kaikyo.jpg" since the intention of the photo is to explain a special train livery, not to explain how the cartoon characters look like.--SElefant18:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepPlease note that this photo is neither a direct copy of the comic, nor a copy of any creative article. This photo only shows part of the underground theme park with comic character and illustration inside. If it violates the copyright regulation, maybe you should think about take down all the photos contain any brand logo, cartoon characters, and publishing material on WikiCommons. The main idea of the photo is not to duplicate a page of comic book, but to introduce what the theme park looks (BTW, it's not a photography forbidden area).-SElefant16:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The photo clearly contains "original authorship" - someone created this photo, and owns the copyright thereof. PD-Ineligible is for things like this, where no one could sanely claim to be the copyright owner. Patstuart (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wrong picture. In the case of this picture, the photo was passed to me by someone in a forum who's friend took the photo shortly before the monument was dismantled before the Soviet troops left Germany. I no longer have contact with that person, and even if I did, the photo is a holiday trip photo, and if anyone claims ownership, I suggest that it is negotiated then and there. However, anyone can have taken the photo. Are you going to suggest I go and find the sculptor's name?--1mrg310509:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, source is insufficient? I have no way of finding out who owns this photo taken during the war! What would you suggest?--1mrg310506:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that you are aware, but there is a huge number of wartime photographs from Soviet publications which are freely used and reproduced. There is virtually no way to find the owner. I can't even remember where I downloaded the photo from. Even if I found the site, the site owners probably scanned it from a book which is no longer in print, or better still, got it from a veteran. Would you care to suggest how I go about finding out ownership of a combat cameraman in Soviet Union during Second World War 60 years later, reproduced by a Soviet publisher (there was no copyright at the time), in a book by an author who is not alive?--1mrg310509:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No indication that this image was in fact taken by the uploader (no exif, low resolution), history of copyvio uploads. ALE! ¿…?08:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author unknown does not mean that you can assume that this 75 year old image is in the public domain. Author unknown is not the same as author annonymous. ALE! ¿…?08:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's because you left a reference to the PNG file that you traced from, C:\Documents and Settings\Ludus\Documenti\Immagini\venetoxi3.png. I've fixed the problem on my own computer, but before I upload it I'd like to know where you got the original PNG from, and what license this file should be under. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was put here because it is linked to from wikipedia, and I couldn't figure out another place to put it. Deleting this will result in a broken link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_York_City_steam_explosion. Please move to the appropriate location or let me know where it should go and how.
Deleted. "Since it is published on the internet I assume it is public domain" is absolutely incorrect. If WP needs to link to this, link to it at the URL above. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb17:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced by superior image at Image:Duluthcomplexmap.png. I am orginal uploader and modifier of base image. The image is not in use except on User talk:Kmusser, put there by me in connection with my request for its replacement, which he honored by creating the new and better image linked above. Kablammo16:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering this is the work of employees of a government-run museum for the explicit purpose of being displayed at a government-run musuem, could we make a minimum of effort to find out if anyone actually has claims a copyright of this model?
Follow-up: I've spoken to Maria B Andersson, information director at the Vasa Museum, about this issue and explained to her about Wikipedia's copyright policies. She told me that the Swedish National Maritime Museums, the organization that runs the Vasa Museum, claims no copyright of the model. She explicitly pointed out that it is in the interest of the Vasa Museum that this picture be made available as widely as possible and that she is willing to certify that photos of the model can be published without any copyright restrictions. With that said, how do we go about certifying that photos of this Vasa model do not present a copyright infringement?
That's excellent news. What would be needed is her confirmation of that in writing. Could you ask her to be good enough to send permission by email from a museum email address to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? An OTRS volunteer will note the permission and assuming it's OK will add a note to that effect against this image. It should then be OK to keep (and the previously-deleted image could be restored as well). If you want to let me know on my talk page when the email's been sent, I'll look out for it and will take it from there. A suitable wording would be:
From Maria B Andersson, information director at the Vasa Museum:
I am writing as authorised representive of Swedish National Maritime Museums in connection with photographs taken of the model of the Vasa which is held at the Vasa Museum. I confirm on behalf of Swedish National Maritime Museums, as the legal copyright owner of the Vasa Model, that Swedish National Maritime Museums waives its copyright and allows free use of any photograph taken of the model, as if the model were in the public domain. This email relates to Image:Vasa_model.jpg and any other photographs taken of the model.
Please note that it's not enough for her to give permission which limits use eg to Wikimedia Commons or to Wikipedia only.
I've been on vacation for a while, and the information director has now gone on her summer vacation. I have no doubt that the museum will grant permission to take freely licensed pictures of the models. However, I've been thinking more about this deletion request, and I'm beginning to seriously doubt that it benefits anyone. If models on display in Nordic museums are to be considered protected by copyright we'll most likely have to delete several hundreds, maybe thousands of of pictures. I can't for the life of me believe that either museums, model builders or curators have the slightest interest in not exhibiting freely licensed photos of their exhibitions. Interpreting models of this kind as works of art is really pushing legal technicalities way too far.
Sorry, that would require a change in Commons policy to ignore Swedish copyright laws, which isn't going to happen. Models and toys are legally artworks which attract copyright: see Commons:Image casebook#Toys. And, unfortunately many museum curators do try to restrict the use of photographs of their exhibits (perhaps so they can control licensing of images and sell more postcards). I think this deletion request will need to be closed as delete for now, leaving the option open to restore the image once permission arrives. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Museums do indeed occasionally attempt to control photography on their own premises, which is a matter of controlling the actions of visitors, but I've never heard of a museum that actually attempts to take control of copyright of photos of exhibitions of this kind. We're talking about de facto public exhbitions created for the sole purpose of being displayed to as many people as possible. There is not a trace of a copyright claim of models like this, and yet we're trying to delete it because of a technicality that is nobody's interest.
I'm also rather puzzled why a ship model displayed in a museum right next to the original isn't considered a derivative of the original. It's indended to be as close to the original ship as possible, and even the fact that its minituarized doesn't really seem relevant. If minituarization is considered enough to render the model a copyrighatble work of art then photos of tourist souvenirs miniatures of the Venus de Milo (the example given at Commons:Derivative works) should be considered copyright violations.
OTRS note: In Template:OTRS ticket the Swedish National Maritime Museum, which owns the model pictured in this photograph, has released into the public domain any copyright which it may have held in this photograph as a result of that ownership. As far as I can see, that resolves all the potential issues with this photograph, and this deletion request should be closed. - Mark (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops sorry, this was supposed to be uploaded on English Wikipedia. My mistake, please delete. Request by the uploader. WTCA 20:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC) WTCA20:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. Sorry, I got to speedy close this one. The image is nowhere near poor enough quality to delete it on that count, and it's nowhere similar enough to Image:Berckheyde - De bocht van de Herengracht.png to delete as a duplicate, but most importantly it's being used. Alternate versions are good. People have different tastes and deleting them does not benefit Commons. I will add a note about the other version, though, to inform users that might not prefer the other. Rocket00014:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I wasn't able to find this image in the CIA World factbook, despite the notice that it came from there. Also, the image contains a clear copyright notice, copyright belonging to Nikolay Nosov. 65.111.82.4618:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The claimed license is copyrighted free use, which flickr, where the image came from, does not provide as a license choice. The image is currently licensed as all right reserved and the flickr account appears to be made up of images copied from the web. BlueAzure23:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is used on 2 Wikipedias. Is clearly a promotional image released into the PD by the company that took it. For companies that make things other than media, such images are not a source of revenue, but rather need to be got out there to generate interest in and discussion of the product. It's usually an underling that gets the job of doing this. I think somebody might ask for an OTRS confirmation, but this looks OK. --Simonxag16:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacted Fleshlight & asked them to confirm the license. They say they have forwarded the email to the appropriate person. I think we may have to wait a little while. --Simonxag21:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I responded via email approx 3 hours ago. I am an employee of the copyright owner (ILF, Inc.) of that image and represented the copyright owner in the uploading of the image to Wikimedia. It is the company's policy that the image be released into the public domain and available to anyone to use as they see fit. The intent of uploading it in the first place was to replace an image on the Fleshlight Wikipedia entry that was not distributed with my employer's consent and also showed products that do not exist any longer. Noisejunky22:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The claimed license is copyrighted free use, which flickr, where the image came from, does not provide as a license choice. The image is currently licensed as all right reserved and the flickr account appears to be made up of images copied from the web. BlueAzure23:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Logo of a political party, I don't see anything on the source site that indicates that it was released under a creative commons license. BlueAzure22:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This photo is copyrighted. It can be seen here; it has been taken by Dr Jiří Baum in 1931. In this page you can see that "Dr Jiří Baum died sometime around the end of 1944 in a concentration camp in Warsaw". It is not passed 70 years. I don't ask speedy deletion 'cause I don't know very well the international copyright law, and so I need other opinions. Jalo21:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not picking anyone. His userpage is only a list of the Images he uploaded. Its not my fault, they are mostly as bad, that there is no value of them for us... abf/talk to me/12:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say not, otherwise anyone who wants to upload anything useless but otherwise in scope can force us to keep it by adding it to a Commons gallery. I think very poor quality can be in scope only if it is used on another project. But I agree that is a point worth discussing. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A usable image to illustrate the tower and perspective. The fact that the face is partially (and naturally) obscured, makes it more so. --Simonxag10:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image was deleted on en wikipedia because it was a replaceable fair use image. Don't think the uploader holds copyright. OTR permission have to be sent anyway. See also other uploads by this user Rettetast23:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) That's merely your opinion/bias. 2) There's no way this image could have been published before, it's released to the internet for the first time. 3) How can someone take the photo of an unbuilt ship? MILGEM Project00:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DISREGARD THAT. Yes it was (though that was a newspaper scan of a picture depicting the same model). MILGEM Project, if you really are from the Milgem project, my email address is on my user page. Email me from an official Turkish navy (or otherwise Milgem-connected) email address with a statement saying that you are authorised to license these pictures under the given licenses and I'll forward it to OTRS. Thanks, Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I previously tagged this image as missing permission info, since the source link, http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/the-former-yugoslav-republic-of-macedonia-fyrom-topographic-map, did not indicate in any way that the image was licensed under the terms of the GFDL, as the uploader had claimed. Without addressing the actual problem, the uploader then removed the problem tag and changed the license tag to Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0, which is also not supported by the source page. There is no indication that this image may be used commercially or in modified form. In fact, the "use constraints" on the source page suggests it can only be used in un-modified form. —LX (talk, contribs)11:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following images were not previously tagged as missing permission info, but also come from the same source and need to have their licensing status clarified:
The man ist not Larry David. Someone on German Wikipedia had a picture of two people, of wich one should be Larry David. Another guy found that this is wrong, so it would be better to delete this picture with wrong name. --Berthold Werner09:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation but linking to the source is being blocked by the filter so can't add the notice to the page. --NrDg13:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image seems to have a different image "embedded" (thumb shown here totally differs from full resolution image); both versions are undefined, unused and out of COM:SCOPE. --Túrelio15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. It is currently all rights reserved at Flickr. It gives photo credit to a third party, and we have no indication that they have licensed the image under cc-by-sa-2.0. Furthermore, given that the Flickr image has Ms. Shetty's cleavage tagged with a link to a porn blog, this is highly suspect. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb00:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. Sorry, I was too quick to nominate this. It was a Flickr wash, but we now have permission from the copyright holder. The image page has been updated. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb02:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The customized licensing terms are too restrictive for Commons. It states: Online use: ok to use provided www.localfitness.com.au is linked back to via a link that does *not* have the rel='nofollow' attribute (wikipedia excepted). This restriction of use makes it not free. Rocket00019:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is non-free. The requirement of not having nofollow is an unacceptable restriction. Furthermore, it is not even "semi-free" for all WMF projects (we have more than just Wikipedia!). – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb21:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is it "non-free"? All it is saying is that the attribution should be in the form of a link... lol. What is wrong with that??? regarding the wiki remark, i'm happy to expand that to all wiki projects :) LocalFitness14:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is that it makes re-use in some contexts impossible. A lot of sites use software which uses "nofollow" by default; the users have little control over this and so it makes re-use impossible for them. I'm really not sure that this restriction is at all necessary, given that nobody will use "nofollow" unless software restrictions force them to. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 15:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok...Point taken. Will remove that part of the license!
This image is a duplicate of Image:LocationArgentina.svg, whose authors are not credited. It is not used anywhere, and it's only change is to include the Malvinas (wich are currently under international dispute) as territory of Argentina. Thialfi21:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What value does this file have, the other image just works fine and have a higher resolution. The image isn't crediting it's original author either. --Kanonkas(talk)19:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author is unknown. Photo is taken in 1904 year in Russian empire. So maybe correct license template is {{PD-RusEmpire}}, which tells "This work is in the public domain in Russia according to article 1256 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. This work was published on territory of the Russian Empire except for territories of Grand Duchy of Finland (Великое княжество Финляндское) and Congress Poland (Царство Польское) before 7 November 1917 NS and wasn't re-published for 30 days following initial publications in the territory of Soviet Russia or any other states." You may discuss which kind of PD this photo is, but please don't delete it. --Alex Rave11:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, you are right about the copyright situation and I am sorry that I didn't consider PD-RusEmpire. Nevertheless, we have still no source. Code·is·poetry23:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, for the very short term, but tagged as having no source. "Someone from the German Wikipedia probably scanned it from a book" is not a source (and before you dismiss this as an entirely pointless thing to do, bear in mind that even if the photo was taken in 1904, that doesn't mean it was published before then, so it could still be in copyright if the publication was recent enough). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found russian source for this image and can provide book's title, author and ISBN, so i'm asking to restore this image. --Rave (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete We don't know who the author is, if he graanted permission, and Inciclopedia is the page which this image was uploaded, it isn't the author. --Anarkangel18:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. It is indeed from Uncyclopedia. The problem there is that it is tagged as the following:
This is an edited, copydown image with pixels from various/ambiguous sources.
The edits to this image are hereby released of any copyright by the uploader.
However, the individual pixels may be a copyright violation.
Use for any purpose at your own risk, I care not since Uncyclopedia has a fair use policy!
Needless to say, we don't have any tag that would match this. The rather cavalier attitude towards copyright at Uncyclopedia should discourage us from taking any material from that site. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I don't care if I'm honest. I completed only this incomplete deletion request. Maybe the original requester reads this and can post a comment. --Svens Welt20:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like poorly vectorized photo and next saved as PNG. We don't know anything about source. I can't believe that's own work without using somebody's photo. Herr Kriss23:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in lieu of any evidence that it was, in fact, traced from a photo. The one given by Herr Kriss looks entirely different. It's not illegal for someone to refer to photos (and who says there weren't several references?) to draw something. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like poorly vectorized photo and next saved as PNG. We don't know anything about source. I can't believe that's own work without using somebody's photo. Herr Kriss23:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Is that we both work together in the same article y Wikipedia in Spanish. Now, the other photo was deleted, and I sent the corresponding request for autorization in order to use that photo without problems. I have to say that the same person who appears in the imagen is who gave us this photo. Now, what whould have to do? What's the next step? I'm new in Commons, I'm sorry for all these inconvenients.
This is a totally un-historical CoA from a group claiming to be the "heirs" of the Byzantine emperors. As such, it is of doubtful provenance, copyright & licensing status (it has been directly copied from the site, can be seen as promotion material for this group, and is certainly not eligible for PD because of age). Cplakidas19:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. The only source here is "English Wikipedia", whatever that means.
Yeah, I saw that after I nominated it. Still, redirecting images to non-image pages probably isn't the best idea anymore (with our increased licensing requirements and everything). Plus I don't know how that works now with the real image redirects in place. I wounder what would happen if it was used on another project. What would show up on the image page over there? Rocket00017:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that: There is a larger data size so it takes longer to download the page which includes the Image:Watchers of the Stars.jpg rather than Image:Watchers_of_the_Stars_SMALL.jpg. That's one of the reasons I resized the image. --Mattes05:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was settled via otrs. Authorship has been properly stated and otrs ticket linked. So no need to delete anymore. -- Drini16:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With a large proportion probably right to belong to photograph the Russian Space Agency
1) No strong evidence that this photo NASA
2) It is unlikely that the August 19, 1991 at a closed Soviet military site - Plesetsk cosmodrome was admitted American photographer NASA, rather, it is simply impossible during the Cold War sk17:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, Meteor 3 carried the TOMS instrument. It was the first (and last) american built instrument to fly aboard an actual Soviet spacecraft. As such, I do not find it incredibly unbelievable that a NASA employee was present at the launch site. (googling....) http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/m3toms/m3sat.html "As a team of NASA/Goddard scientists and engineers watched, a Soviet-built Cyclone booster carried the second TOMS into orbit and history. In the last days of the Cold War, Meteor-3 TOMS became the first and the last American-built instrument to fly on a Soviet spacecraft." TheDJ23:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Photo (despite image description reports "scan") is under GFDL (released by the uploader/copyright holder, as stated above), subject of the photo is in the public domain per "PD-old rule". PD-Polish is probably incorrect, this may be its first publication.--Trixt (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have no idea which licence is correct, could you help me? This is my photo of the reproduction from the book, published in Poland in 1938. Naravnost14:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Photo (despite image description reports "scan") is under GFDL (released by the uploader/copyright holder, as stated above), subject of the photo is in the public domain per "PD-old rule". PD-Polish is probably incorrect, this may be its first publication.--Trixt (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have no idea which licence is correct, could you help me? This is my photo of the reproduction from the book, published in Poland in 1938. Naravnost14:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove No vaild reason for GFDL stated. ...Forrester 15:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
16:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Valuable images...so just mail someone and see what he is telling you. But in the end I agree with Lupo: "sculptures are copyrighted in Germany, too."...Forrester 16:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment it cant be PD-Aust as the license says Public domain This image was created in Australia and is now in the public domain because .... but this image was taken in KIEL, GERMANY during 1940-41 and would most likely be subject to the requirements German copyrights. Gnangarra 12:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep ineligible. Code·is·poetry 12:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. -- Cecil 16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Done (there is Category:Duplicate for that type of speedy deletion), VIGNERON * discut. 11:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep Commons is not censored. We do have adequate pictures of this nature but we act as a repository for material across the Foundation. It is not pornographic even if it is "graphic" --Herby talk thyme 18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
kept There's no thumbnail image for PDF files, and the pdf is working. Yuval Y § Chat § 14:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Info: In case of anonymous photographers the country of origin is the country where the photo was first published. See Berne Covention Art. 5. [26] "The country of origin shall be considered to be: (a) in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country". I have no idea who published this photograph first but likely it was not Germany. --Jarekt 12:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Question: Can someone find external support for NicholasTurnbull's argument: This is actually public domain in Germany and thus, by extension, internationally under the Berne Convention. According to § 5 Abs. 1 of the German Copyright statutes, all works of the government are considered to be public domain and, since the Federal Republic is the copyright successor of the "Third Reich", this photograph is explicitly in the public domain in Germany. This is irrespective of whether the Library of Congress or Holocaust Memorial Museum considers it to be public domain. --Anthony5429 15:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
On hold
1 week for the uploader to send all the permissions to the otrs, otherwise all of them will go. abf /talk to me/ 12:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Unfortunately, U.S. copyright laws would make this indeed copyrighted if it was unpublished. Prior to 1978, unpublished works effectively were under a perpetual copyright in the U.S. Since 1978, works created before 1978 but only published 1978 or later are copyrighted:
Question Highshines has uploaded these images back in 2006. They seem to come from a Chinese website http://puyi.netor.com according to the upload summary. Are these Chinese works? Why would they be copyrighted? Lupo 16:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
Szajci reci 05:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Jonathan Groß 
17:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
(1) Duplicate?
(2) Duplicate?
(3) Duplicate?
(4) Duplicate?
(5) One of the six
(6) One of the six
--Ikescs 21:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
,Modell_-_Mutter_Erde_fec.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Beach_Volleyball_210406_(1996134021).jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
4.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(632495925).jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,Modell_-_Mutter_Erde_fec.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,Modell_-_Mutter_Erde_fec.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,Modell_-_Mutter_Erde_fec.jpg){kind=link}
,Modell_-_Mutter_Erde_fec.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Beach_Volleyball_210406_(1996134021).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Beach_Volleyball_210406_(1996134021).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Beach_Volleyball_210406_(1996134021).jpg){kind=link}
_Beach_Volleyball_210406_(1996134021).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_hi_res.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](http://wiki.phantis.com/index.php/Image:Mimis-Papaioannou.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](http://www2.netexplora.com/brunohernandez/JPIlustraciones/t-rex_female.jpg){kind=link}
![[22]](http://www.lost-world.com/ingen/dinos/dinos/tyrtwo.jpg){kind=link}
-2008-04-12T12:10:00.000Z-Image:Boy_Scout_Memorial-27527.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-2008-04-10T00:23:00.000Z-Image:JeanGenet-HansKoechler1983.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&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}
![[29]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Mechanics_order_of_magnitude.svg&diff=10950079&oldid=10950066){kind=link}
![[30]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=340019348#File:Anna_May_Wong-Thief_of_Bagdad.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG&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}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
4.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
4.jpg){kind=link}
4.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit§ion=T-1){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&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[61]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Image:Justice_Kirby.gif){kind=link}
![[62]](http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/990/s6001748dr2.jpg){kind=link}
![[66]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I_Remember_the_Port_in_Vanino.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit){kind=link}
.PNG&diff=0){kind=link}
.PNG&action=history){kind=link}
.PNG&action=watch){kind=link}
.PNG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG&action=purge){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.PNG&action=delete){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![[70]](http://www.athensguide.com/elginmarbles/photos/elgin.JPG){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_(632495925).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(632495925).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(632495925).jpg){kind=link}
_(632495925).jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_Metric.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}
![[85]](http://www.plateshack.com/y2k/Georgia/ga2004oldretarmy.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[88]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SuebrainCTscan2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[89]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Allegoria_della_Sapienza.jpg&diff=11158926&oldid=11158910){kind=link}
I withdraw my nomination --GeorgHH • talk 16:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[91]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=349711188#File:Johannesburg1931.jpg){kind=link}
![[92]](http://www.dzkk.tsk.mil.tr/turkce/BASINDUYURULARI/DUYURULAR/milgemDzIndirme/05650003.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
