Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/05
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
May 1
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Request for deletion from author. Bad name (typo). The author uploaded a file with correct name and better quality here: Image:Bruxelles Arc Cinquantenaire.jpg --85.177.177.10 06:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Image talk removed Julo 07:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyrighted logo Anarkangel 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
Deleted. Even if self-made, it's clearly the copyrighted logo. Rocket000 14:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative of copyrighted work. (Not permanently there so FOP doesn't apply) Anonymous101 14:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Agree w/ nom. Cirt 15:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)- Delete per nom. Adambro 15:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per COM:DW --Kanonkas(talk) 19:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Other & better version already on Commons Image:Eta Carinae Nebula 1.jpg - Vol de nuit 14:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Eta Carinae Nebula 1.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by DRBot (talk • contribs) 11:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
URV Michael Reschke 15:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Copyright violation: Game cover
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
URV? More material for deletion by this user--Michael Reschke 16:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Michael Reschke 16:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Non free image --Kanonkas(talk) 18:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, non-free screenshot. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The map is based on the Antarctic Digital Database (www.add.scar.org), and carries an acknowledgment on the NOAA page from which it is taken. Use of the ADD requires acknowledgment of the source, and this should be re-instated on the map. Note also that the map cannot be subject to Creative Commons licensing for the same reason; the ADD is copyright data. There is no problem with putting a map based on the ADD in non-commercial sites like Wikipedia, but acknowledgment of the source is a condition of free use.
Please do not assume that a map on a US web-site is necessarily free of usage restrictions.
--APRCooper (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (Manager of the Antarctic Digital Database) – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete To be clear, this is unfortunately a derivative work. No fault to the uploader (who couldn't be expected to realize this), though. If you see the original, the Antarctic Digital Database is credited there. The ADD's licensing terms specifically prohibit commercial usage. howcheng {chat} 18:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete although someone should recreate this image in SVG. The specific data on which the boundaries are formed is copyrighted, but similar data can be acquired for free. Bastique demandez 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to be difficult, but no, there is no equivalent "free" data for Antarctica. And I have no problem with the ADD being used, as long as it is properly acknowledged. I'd be quite happy if there was a note stating the ADD was the source of the topographic data, and stating that it is used by permission of the copyright holder (on whose behalf I manage the resource). If I knew how to do it, I'd vote against deletion; it's a nice map that tells the story well. Incidentally, the ADD web-site will provide a download in SVG format.--APRCooper 20:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not certain the topographic data is necessary for the image, just the coastlines, which can be acquired for free. Bastique demandez 22:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you are thinking of VMAP0, the quality of data for Antarctica is dire and highly inaccurate. I am afraid that the only good quality source is the ADD - and I don't make anything from saying that!--APRCooper 09:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This was a test upload and I would like it to be deleted, thanks -- penubag (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure there is a different method for deleting images which are requested by the author for deletion, would someone be kind enough to tell me how I nominate for speedy deletion? -- penubag (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. You can use {{speedy}} for this sort of thing in future, if you like. Getting on IRC and asking us to do it is even faster. :) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Aw, my IRC client says I'm denied access. -- penubag (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This collage uses Image:Thom_yorke_radiohead2.jpg, which was deleted as a copyvio. -- 88.134.141.54 13:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment An admin will have to check this. --Simonxag 13:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The portion in question came from here, which was originally licensed under an acceptable license (and later changed). But the Flickr page in question says "This photo is copyrighted, though I don't hold the copyright license to it. It was taken by a friend of a friend". Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong name, my mistake, sorry JMK4189 14:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - duplicate/wrong name Leafnode 09:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong name, my mistake, sorry JMK4189 14:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. duplicate/wrong name Leafnode 09:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong name, my mistake, sorry JMK4189 14:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. duplicate/wrong name Leafnode 09:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Protected document. Most likely text only (outside project scope). EugeneZelenko 15:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Game Cover => URV Michael Reschke 16:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
16:04, 1 May 2008 EugeneZelenko (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:LCAnn.jpg" (Image already removed) -- Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
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 Kriss 00:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Look at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Jerzy Dobrowolski.png. It that del req i found original photo and it's from same serie Arek's photos. I just can't find original of this, but if he once made dw it's very probably that he did it also here. Herr Kriss 00:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Seems likely to be a copyrighted logo Naerii 03:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Simple, but most likely copyrighted. No source or license or anything. Please use {{subst:nld}} or {{subst:nsd}} next time. Rocket000 00:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope. Commons is not private photoalbum. EugeneZelenko 15:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Might be used to illustrate a sort of swing but is a photo of a young person in a private situation. Not used. --Simonxag 13:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not my work, sorry. Can't put the image under any appropriate licence. Please delete. Kindest regards, --Mannemer91 18:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)" (Nicht mein Werk, tut mir leid. Kann das Bild unter keine geeignete Lizenz stellen. Bitte Löschen. Besten Dank, --Mannemer91 18:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)) --Drahreg01 18:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete Uploader says it's a copyvio. --Simonxag 13:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not my work, sorry. Can't put the image under any appropriate licence. Please delete. Kindest regards, --Mannemer91 18:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)" (Nicht mein Werk, tut mir leid. Kann das Bild unter keine geeignete Lizenz stellen. Bitte Löschen. Besten Dank, --Mannemer91 18:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
Speedy delete Uploader says it's a copyvio. --Simonxag 13:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not my work, sorry. Can't put the image under any appropriate licence. Please delete. Kindest regards, --Mannemer91 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)" (Nicht mein Werk, tut mir leid. Kann das Bild unter keine geeignete Lizenz stellen. Bitte Löschen. Besten Dank, --Mannemer91 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)))
Speedy delete Uploader says it's a copyvio. --Simonxag 13:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Most likely scan from magazine EugeneZelenko 15:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Incorrect license. The article it is used in on wikipedia states BTIU/ATPC was established in the late 1980's. This picture could not have been taken in 1954. Rockfang 22:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, invalid license. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Inferior duplicate of Image:Leda and the Swan 1508-1515.jpg. --Gustav VH 18:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep I'm not an art expert so I don't know if it's inferior or not. Aesthetically, I find them both as pleasant. So I think it's best to let the local projects and re-users decide on which one to use. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for not being specific, this image has a yellow colour cast and is of low resolution compared to the other one. Gustav VH 10:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. as duplicate Gnangarra 12:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I believe that this image is entirely a trademark, and it cannot be released under a free license, despite {{Trademarked}}. Trixt 21:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, trademarks are irrelevant to us, but this logo design is very likely copyrighted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Gnangarra 12:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio, This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit. --guerreritoboy 22:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Given the uploader's other actions on the Wikipedia, I wouldn't be surprised if they worked for the company, however they haven't said they do so I suppose we should delete the image. --Simonxag 01:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Gnangarra 12:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
derivative work h-stt !? 11:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Model is copyrighted & seems to be in Germany in a place that may well not be completely public. That would require permission which it doesn't have. --Simonxag 12:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is on exhibition in the historical museum. If this is not allowed, delete it. I am not really certain about the legal status in this case.Ramessos 19:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
un involutary mistake was made during uploading:Person in picture is not Fernando Pessoa, Is Jean Paul Sartre --78.3.69.214 12:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a correctly named version somewhere? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep and rename to Jean-Paul Sartre. --Vriullop 16:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Tagged for renaming. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
same image as http://www.plantaodacidade.com.br/Anteriores/quinta060308/uxiiI.htm 189.100.248.174 17:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- The user has made several copyright violations in pt.wiki. I suggest all his images should be controlled or even deleted right away. Dantadd✉ 14:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Eh. The image on the site is in much lower resolution than this one, and the Last-Modified header predates the upload here by only a day. Hm. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Considering this article seems to detail the end of a restauration or something, i think it might be likely that the museum released this image for press purposes or something. (google.......) Got it :D http://www.agenciadenoticias.pr.gov.br/modules/news/article.php?storyid=35684 and http://www.aenoticias.pr.gov.br/modules/xcgal/displayimage.php?pid=58446&album=12540&pos=0 seem to be the source. I'm not yet sure what that entails, cause I cannot translate it very accurately. TheDJ 13:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I see a copyright notice at the bottom of the page DJ found, so deleting as copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
photo personnelle à remplacer pou non fonctionnement — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANGLO152 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC) (UTC)
was already done --ALE! ¿…? 21:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unable to verify source --F3rn4nd0 09:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The image appears to have been used on the English Wikipedia before this (although no url to the old image is given) and the site still lives at the web archive. -Nard 15:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- ok, so what is the license? copyvio?--F3rn4nd0 18:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- "As I have no interest in restricting the use of my pictures, all pics on this site are free to download, use and share with everybody. However, if you intend to use any of them on your own web site, please be sure to drop me a line , so that I can check out the all the new homes my pictures have found. I don't object to commercial use of my pictures but, if you intend to do so, please tell me about it." sounds like norightsreserved or PD to me. Use some reading comprehension and common sense. -Nard 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Sounds completely free to me. (PD requires the author to explicitly state the dedication, so {{norightsreserved}} would be appropriate). Rocket000 03:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Was deleted before per Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2007/03#Image:Bushdog002.jpg. Apparently, this was unknown in the recent debate. See here for the last version of the source web site. I still think this should go. Lupo 19:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I am the uploader. And it's ok for me to delete this image. --Pixeltoo 20:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete According to the previous discussion the copyright status of the image is confused. --Simonxag 01:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
inappropriate; distasteful 66.191.161.74 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, biology is really distasteful … --Polarlys 18:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
kept, --ALE! ¿…? 21:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
pornographic with no use 70.178.187.98 20:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete It's a modern photo of explicit actual sexual activity. I think it might be seen as porn under US law. If that's the case, then we need legal documentation to show that the participants are not under age. That doesn't mean that such pictures wouldn't be useful if we could get the documents. --Simonxag 13:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Agreeing with the US law concern. Also, don't think that the utility of the image is really there. Currently it is only linked to from userspace on the English wikipedia, for instance. Darkspots 20:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously mature sex organs. It might be useful to show the people the difference between this couple and an under age couple, but this might cause problems with US law. So the younger generation has just to believe this, sorry kids. Mutter Erde 09:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Pornographic? Why? Because of Nudity? Or an erection? No. Marcus Cyron 21:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep not pornographic; just normal sexual actions --91.128.173.49 20:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- delete I hate it, coz i am gay. --91.128.173.49 20:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Picture is apparently out of project scope (no serious chance to use it in an article) and not in use. Ra'ike T C 09:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment You should first close correctly the second deletion request before you start a third one.- btw.: commons is not only a repository for interwikis. Example: Nearly nobody on wikipedia would need 10 MB pics and bigger. They are stored for print media.(Source). Mutter Erde (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I closed it. I was thinking there was going to be some response so I left it open, but now we have this page. As a biased and involved party, I support deletion on the grounds that I can not honestly see this being used on any Wikimedia project (in their mainspaces, at least). Rocket000(talk) 10:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unnecessary to me. --Herby talk thyme 10:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Herbythyme (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Marcela (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Unless the description is changed, it should be deleted, as "heterosexual sex" is an obviously false description. Fossa?! 22:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, could be useful. Herby & Cirt: The Wikimedia Commons has many pictures that aren't necessary to me, but I nevertheless do not want to delete them. --Kjetil_r 14:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Kjetil r --Isderion (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Of course, this picture can be interesting for both biology and sexuality. Ajor933 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept as per Kjetil r, Isderion, Ajor933, etc. Third DR.
I believe that this photo is not a work of the US federal government, but is a photo by Associated Press photographer w:Ike Algens. This image is under fair use on en.wiki (w:Image:Altgens mary ferrell.jpg) Trixt 01:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Altgens' image is indeed under fair use (see full version at w:Image:Altgens1.jpg), but please note what is written under the copy I uploaded (Image:CE369.jpg): "Commission Exhibit 369". This is a copy of the picture as cropped, reworked (see the arrow pointing at the supposed Oswald in the entrance of the TSBD) and published in the Warren Commission report (see here. This is thus a free picture. Bradipus 11:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- IMVHO I think that this image is only an evidence, not an original work by an officer or employee of the U.S. government (I don't think that put a simple arrow on a photo or make a simple cropping set it as new creative content). I believe that this is not a derivative work, so this image is copyrighted.--Trixt 01:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whether or not it is a derivative work is not important, I mentionned the fact that it had been reworked only as an additionnal argument, but the fact is that once it has been published in a US Government public report, it is in public domain. See this discussion for instance. Bradipus 11:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think that this statement is wrong (but this is only my idea, of course :). A "work of the United States Government" is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties. So, work must be prepared (it must be an original work or a derivative work), not only (re)published.--Trixt 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, think about it for a minute: what does mean "prepare"? If we were to follow your idea, nothing would be free in, for instance, a governmental report: each person's testimony for instance would be copyrighted by the person who testified. Look, all what is in that report is free, in public domain, period, nothing can be more free than that. Any further discussion beyond this would require the opinion of US copyright lawyers, but me think they would settle the issue in a second: public domain. Bradipus 22:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please see en:WP:PD#Public records. Just because something is in the "public records" doesn't mean it couldn't be copyrighted. Lupo 23:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Warren Commission Report is not a public record, it is a government report. Please consider en:WP:PD#U.S. government works instead, where the sole exception to the PD rule for governement reports is as follows: "Works produced under a commission from the U.S. government by a contractor are most likely copyrighted". Altgens was not a contractor of the Warren Commission, but a witness. On government reports in general: High-profile government reports can be uniquely lucrative for publishers because they are relatively cheap to produce. There are no acquisition costs, since the documents are in the public domain.
- You know, this discussion is exactly why I virtually stopped contributing to Commons: people trying to have the works of others deleted based on vague legal notions. Even if it is done in good faith (do not take this personnally), it is extremely tiresome. Bradipus 23:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is a government report, which is a government record. Non-free photographs may appear in a report, the content of which may otherwise be ineligible for copyright protection, under fair use provisions. Republishing such a report would then constitute another instance of fair use. As far as I know, there's no principle whereby the government can expropriate the copyright of others simply by republishing their works. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please see en:WP:PD#Public records. Just because something is in the "public records" doesn't mean it couldn't be copyrighted. Lupo 23:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, think about it for a minute: what does mean "prepare"? If we were to follow your idea, nothing would be free in, for instance, a governmental report: each person's testimony for instance would be copyrighted by the person who testified. Look, all what is in that report is free, in public domain, period, nothing can be more free than that. Any further discussion beyond this would require the opinion of US copyright lawyers, but me think they would settle the issue in a second: public domain. Bradipus 22:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think that this statement is wrong (but this is only my idea, of course :). A "work of the United States Government" is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties. So, work must be prepared (it must be an original work or a derivative work), not only (re)published.--Trixt 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whether or not it is a derivative work is not important, I mentionned the fact that it had been reworked only as an additionnal argument, but the fact is that once it has been published in a US Government public report, it is in public domain. See this discussion for instance. Bradipus 11:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- IMVHO I think that this image is only an evidence, not an original work by an officer or employee of the U.S. government (I don't think that put a simple arrow on a photo or make a simple cropping set it as new creative content). I believe that this is not a derivative work, so this image is copyrighted.--Trixt 01:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It's clearly not in the public domain, Commons_talk:Licensing#Warren_Commission_Report. Samulili 15:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I do not think it is that clear. The discussion is indeed there, as I thought appropriate to bring it in a broader forum although the discussion has apparently stopped there. Anyway, I finally found the credit page of the WC Report, which contains copyright notices for some reproduced stuff (such as this one), but no copyright notice (just "credit") for the full version of the Altgens picture for instance. What the impact is of "credit" vs "copyright notice", I am not sure, but in any case there is no notice at all for the reworked version of the Altgens pic I have uploaded. Other possible aspects of the issue are the absence of copyright notice in relation with this or with the exception applicable to stuff published "pre-1964". Some arguments in favour of the free status of the document, but to what extent they are convincing I do not know. I am a pre-90's european lawyer, these US technicalities are a bit unclear ;-) Bradipus 20:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I believe if it was first published in the USA before 1978 without notice of copyright it is public domain per US law anyway. Any info on first publication and if there was a copyright notice? -- Infrogmation 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- It was for sure published on November 22 or 23, 1963, but was it with or without copyright notice...But we can control that it was published in September 1964 in the WC report (full version, with a credit but no copyright notice) and in November 1964 (the reworked version, published in volume 16 of the exhibits, without credit or notice). Bradipus 20:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- It was published in the Warren Commission report without a copyright notice. But that was probably not when it was first published. Even if it was, that still doesn't make it a work of the US federal government. I'm thinking they could use an unpublished work under fair use just as they could a published one. I don't think this would count as the "first publication", even if it was never published before or since, and doing so would not make it a government work any more than me publishing your unpublished photos gives me the copyright to them. Or something. This is a headache. ;\ Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have sources who say clearly it was published either on the day or the day after the assassination. Remember Altgens was working for United Press. As hinted hereabove, I think the solution may be the same as the one for Image:Moorman.jpg. Bradipus 12:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Considering the above, would it be better to replace the licence tag with Template:PD-US-not renewed? Bradipus 19:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. There is no evidence that the work is not copyrighted. Patrícia msg 22:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe that this photo is not a work of the US federal government, but is a photo by Associated Press photographer w:Ike Algens. This image is under fair use on en.wiki (w:Image:Altgens mary ferrell.jpg) Trixt 01:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Altgens' image is indeed under fair use (see full version at w:Image:Altgens1.jpg), but please note what is written under the copy I uploaded (Image:CE369.jpg): "Commission Exhibit 369". This is a copy of the picture as cropped, reworked (see the arrow pointing at the supposed Oswald in the entrance of the TSBD) and published in the Warren Commission report (see here. This is thus a free picture. Bradipus 11:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- IMVHO I think that this image is only an evidence, not an original work by an officer or employee of the U.S. government (I don't think that put a simple arrow on a photo or make a simple cropping set it as new creative content). I believe that this is not a derivative work, so this image is copyrighted.--Trixt 01:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whether or not it is a derivative work is not important, I mentionned the fact that it had been reworked only as an additionnal argument, but the fact is that once it has been published in a US Government public report, it is in public domain. See this discussion for instance. Bradipus 11:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think that this statement is wrong (but this is only my idea, of course :). A "work of the United States Government" is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties. So, work must be prepared (it must be an original work or a derivative work), not only (re)published.--Trixt 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, think about it for a minute: what does mean "prepare"? If we were to follow your idea, nothing would be free in, for instance, a governmental report: each person's testimony for instance would be copyrighted by the person who testified. Look, all what is in that report is free, in public domain, period, nothing can be more free than that. Any further discussion beyond this would require the opinion of US copyright lawyers, but me think they would settle the issue in a second: public domain. Bradipus 22:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please see en:WP:PD#Public records. Just because something is in the "public records" doesn't mean it couldn't be copyrighted. Lupo 23:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Warren Commission Report is not a public record, it is a government report. Please consider en:WP:PD#U.S. government works instead, where the sole exception to the PD rule for governement reports is as follows: "Works produced under a commission from the U.S. government by a contractor are most likely copyrighted". Altgens was not a contractor of the Warren Commission, but a witness. On government reports in general: High-profile government reports can be uniquely lucrative for publishers because they are relatively cheap to produce. There are no acquisition costs, since the documents are in the public domain.
- You know, this discussion is exactly why I virtually stopped contributing to Commons: people trying to have the works of others deleted based on vague legal notions. Even if it is done in good faith (do not take this personnally), it is extremely tiresome. Bradipus 23:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is a government report, which is a government record. Non-free photographs may appear in a report, the content of which may otherwise be ineligible for copyright protection, under fair use provisions. Republishing such a report would then constitute another instance of fair use. As far as I know, there's no principle whereby the government can expropriate the copyright of others simply by republishing their works. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please see en:WP:PD#Public records. Just because something is in the "public records" doesn't mean it couldn't be copyrighted. Lupo 23:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, think about it for a minute: what does mean "prepare"? If we were to follow your idea, nothing would be free in, for instance, a governmental report: each person's testimony for instance would be copyrighted by the person who testified. Look, all what is in that report is free, in public domain, period, nothing can be more free than that. Any further discussion beyond this would require the opinion of US copyright lawyers, but me think they would settle the issue in a second: public domain. Bradipus 22:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think that this statement is wrong (but this is only my idea, of course :). A "work of the United States Government" is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties. So, work must be prepared (it must be an original work or a derivative work), not only (re)published.--Trixt 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whether or not it is a derivative work is not important, I mentionned the fact that it had been reworked only as an additionnal argument, but the fact is that once it has been published in a US Government public report, it is in public domain. See this discussion for instance. Bradipus 11:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- IMVHO I think that this image is only an evidence, not an original work by an officer or employee of the U.S. government (I don't think that put a simple arrow on a photo or make a simple cropping set it as new creative content). I believe that this is not a derivative work, so this image is copyrighted.--Trixt 01:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It's clearly not in the public domain, Commons_talk:Licensing#Warren_Commission_Report. Samulili 15:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I do not think it is that clear. The discussion is indeed there, as I thought appropriate to bring it in a broader forum although the discussion has apparently stopped there. Anyway, I finally found the credit page of the WC Report, which contains copyright notices for some reproduced stuff (such as this one), but no copyright notice (just "credit") for the full version of the Altgens picture for instance. What the impact is of "credit" vs "copyright notice", I am not sure, but in any case there is no notice at all for the reworked version of the Altgens pic I have uploaded. Other possible aspects of the issue are the absence of copyright notice in relation with this or with the exception applicable to stuff published "pre-1964". Some arguments in favour of the free status of the document, but to what extent they are convincing I do not know. I am a pre-90's european lawyer, these US technicalities are a bit unclear ;-) Bradipus 20:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I believe if it was first published in the USA before 1978 without notice of copyright it is public domain per US law anyway. Any info on first publication and if there was a copyright notice? -- Infrogmation 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- It was for sure published on November 22 or 23, 1963, but was it with or without copyright notice...But we can control that it was published in September 1964 in the WC report (full version, with a credit but no copyright notice) and in November 1964 (the reworked version, published in volume 16 of the exhibits, without credit or notice). Bradipus 20:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- It was published in the Warren Commission report without a copyright notice. But that was probably not when it was first published. Even if it was, that still doesn't make it a work of the US federal government. I'm thinking they could use an unpublished work under fair use just as they could a published one. I don't think this would count as the "first publication", even if it was never published before or since, and doing so would not make it a government work any more than me publishing your unpublished photos gives me the copyright to them. Or something. This is a headache. ;\ Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have sources who say clearly it was published either on the day or the day after the assassination. Remember Altgens was working for United Press. As hinted hereabove, I think the solution may be the same as the one for Image:Moorman.jpg. Bradipus 12:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Considering the above, would it be better to replace the licence tag with Template:PD-US-not renewed? Bradipus 19:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. There is no evidence that the work is not copyrighted. Patrícia msg 22:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no licence --Tibidibtibo 12:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I see no problem. Is there any evidence it is copied from elsewhere? Sv1xv (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader has to choose a valid license. Like PD or CC-by-sa-whatever :-) I will ask uploader. --MGA73 (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have already done so. Sv1xv (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah you'r fast... Anyway so did a bot :-) And it seems to me, that it was the uploader, that wrote "no license" above our little chat here. --MGA73 (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have already done so. Sv1xv (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
uploader provided a better version Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
May 2
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
same picture on Commons : Image:Charlemagne et Louis le Pieux.jpg --Vol de nuit 01:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Charlemagne et Louis le Pieux.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Collage of copyrighted album covers. --Ilse@ 08:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Again example = album cover. Addshore 20:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, blatant derivative work. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Collage of copyrighted album covers. --Ilse@ 08:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. See album cover. Addshore 20:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Copyrighted covers --Kanonkas(talk) 20:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Portrait is a non-free photograph from album cover. --Ilse@ 08:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Also seen in Image:Tiesto collage.jpg and Image:Tiesto collage2.jpg. Addshore 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment These two have been deleted. Thanks. :) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete ASAP if someone will go and remove the references to it on es.wikipedia. Because of the way it's used (within an imagemap), it's not as easy as waiting for the de-linker (if es.* even have one) to do it... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted cover --Kanonkas(talk) 20:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Delinked and deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
See Category talk:Flickr images needing human review; concerns it could be a derivative copyvio; see Commons:Derivative works. giggy (:O) 10:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - seems to be in violation to me, contains image of game. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree.Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 commons es 11:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- DeleteIt doesn't just contain the game image it is basically of the game image. --Simonxag 13:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Possible violation of COM:DW and/or a copvyio. --Kanonkas(talk) 17:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious derivative work. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Password protected pdf Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 14:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko 15:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Password Protected pdf Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 14:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko 15:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Password Protected pdf Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 14:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko 15:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Protected by Password pdf Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 14:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko 15:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Password Protected pdf Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 14:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko 15:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Password Protected pdf Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 14:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko 15:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Password Protected pdf Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko 15:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unintended duplicate upload by author Montebianco 15:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Delete per uploader/nominator - It's a duplicate --Kanonkas(talk) 16:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Software screenshot. Which software? EugeneZelenko 15:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This. "Copyright © UCAYA 2008. Tous droits réservés." Deleted! Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I have made this graphic, mistake in the name, better version can be found here: Image:Metallphthalein.svg Moebius1 18:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Next time use this "{{bad name}}" if you do anything wrong --Kanonkas(talk) 19:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, also what Kanonkas said Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is a copyrighted logo, and goes under copvyio. Kanonkas(talk) 17:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio abf /talk to me/ 17:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, {{copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright attribution is wrong 71.204.61.143 20:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I dont understand. Why is the copyright attribution wrong? --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 14:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why not simply correcting what is (allegedly) wrong, instead of deleting? --Túrelio 20:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No problem that I see. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright image Mind meal 22:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- This should be covered by the book cover license as it is a book cover.
Mettai.Cherry 17:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, we don't allow fair use here. See Commons:Licensing. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Kelly-Bohrrohr 217.184.84.211 16:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, nonsensical request. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Replaced by nearly identical Image:Viva Zapata movie trailer screenshot lighter.jpg Patstuart (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is my personal car. I do not want it the web as it clearly shows my address therefore is a theft issue. 92.1.78.234 20:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I've edited out the number plate. The old version with the uncensored license plate has been deleted. Is it okay if we keep it like this? (P.S. if you're still seeing the old version, clear your browser cache.) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep issue has been dealt with. Morven 22:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think editing out the number place is appropriate, perhaps we should also remove the plaque beside the car which gives the names of the owners/restorers. The car was in a public place (Parnell Rose Gardens, Auckland, NZ) at the time of the photo. Keep but take any reasonable steps to preserve the privacy of the owners.-Gadfium 06:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The owner's names have now been edited out. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, in lieu of any further objection from the owner. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of a copyrighted work, textbook example stated in Commons:Derivative works --hbdragon88 23:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Was nominated for deletion before Commons:Deletion requests/Harry Potter Fan art but survived on the grounds that it was a generic picture of an old guy. If it's just a picture of an old guy, why is it called "Dumbledore" (and why does it look like Richard Harris in the movie)? Dumbledore is a copyrighted character, a picture of him without permission (and that's what this is) is a copyright violation. --Simonxag 22:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep and rename to Old wizard.jpg. This is a stock character in many fantasy stories - and so could be used in articles about Merlin, Gandalf and Dumbledore. Brisvegas 10:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. We'd have a hard time proving that this is a "generic wizard" when there's "Fan drawing of Albus Dumbledore" in the page history... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Rename. Vincentsc 09:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per Simonxag. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see any resemblance. Move to Image:Old guy with beard and glasses. Zanaq 08:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- This image doesn't convince you? hbdragon88 17:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. This is Derivative works Kanonkas(talk) 08:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Another derivative projector image Patstuart (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 06:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a screenshot from a live apperance in Sydney (search google for similar images). Not self made. Patstuart (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 06:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Yet another projector image. Patstuart (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 06:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
no freedom of panorama and copyrighted window --Jodo 12:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope. Commons is private photoalbum EugeneZelenko 15:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
i cannot figure out how to add a picture to an article. any help with this and i can move the picture.
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
General on the image died in 1995. No source is givesn. Unlikely to be GFDL. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of a recent sculpture. ALE! ¿…? 21:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I took the picture myself. The artist, Brian Andreas, knows it's being used and has no problems with that. (???)
Ben
- We need permission then. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyrighted logos ("tiësto" and "Elements of Life") used, status of photograph questionable. --Ilse@ 08:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, logos are certainly copyrighted. Kameraad Pjotr 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The Las Vegas Police Department is not part of the U.S. Federal Government, so this is not public domain Rob 22:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, no PD-USGov. Kameraad Pjotr 19:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This appears to be a WWII era photo of the general; I may be wrong, but I do not believe that qualifies it as public domain (does the German government allow free photos from this era?) 1941 appears to be an estimate on the part of the uploader. Would {{Anonymous-EU}} apply if we can prove somehow it's pre-1938? Patstuart (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I made the estimate based on the uniform, however, it is possible Keller had this rank in 1937. There is no restriction on publication of wartime photographs by the German Government that I know of, but it may have been recently introduced. I had been surprised by the Russian change in polity also.--1mrg3105 01:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Its protected by german Urheberrecht (author's rights) the same way as any other picture. That means PD 70 years after death of author. --Herbert Ortner 20:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unless someone can provide proof that the image is indeed in the PD. The author can't be dead for more than 70 years, and if the author remained anonymous, the photo would still be copyrighted for 70 years after first publication. --Kam Solusar (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no way PD-textlogo applies applies here. Besides the color and positioning, a half-circle is not a letter last time I checked. --Superm401 - Talk 10:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There is nothing copyrightable in this sign. Nothing at all passing the threshold of originality. -Nard 01:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I strongly disagree. The U.S. has a very low standard of originality. There are several elements I think qualify, including the colors chosen, the stylized half-circle, the use of a border, the shape of the sign, and the shadows around the letters. Superm401 - Talk 00:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, agree with Superm401. Kameraad Pjotr 16:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is Convolvulus arvensis (note stigma),not any type of Ipomoea 68.196.106.94 06:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Please request a rename, not deletion MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is Convolvulus arvensis,not any type of Ipomoea 68.196.106.94 06:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Then surely what you need to request is a rename, not a delete. -- Korax1214 (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC) (who's been guilty of the same mistake)
Kept. Please request a rename, not deletion MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
this is most likely an artistic work by an artist who died just same years ago, no information on publication provided Polarlys 14:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- keep: As stated on the image description page, this work was produced in 1952 in Australia. Australian copyright law states that photographs (even artistic ones) taken prior to 1st January, 1955 are in the public domain, so there is no problem here. I have added a link to the image description page proving that the photograph was taken in 1952, by an Australian photographer, of an Australian dancer, and is held by the National library of Australia. I think it's fair to assume that the photograph was taken and first published in Australia. Therefore, the image is certainly in the public domain under Australian copyright law. Papa November 10:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it is copyrighted in the EU (life+70), and also in the U.S. because it was copyrighted in Australia on January 1, 1996... Lupo 22:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Copyrighted in the EU even though it was first published in Australia by an Australian national? Also, why is the EU relevant? (No comment on the US thing.) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not strictly relevant for our policy (U.S. & source country). Only mentioned since that means that the image, even if it was ok in the U.S. (which it isn't), could be used basically only at en-WP and thus would better be hosted there. Lupo 07:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Copyrighted in the EU even though it was first published in Australia by an Australian national? Also, why is the EU relevant? (No comment on the US thing.) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I didn't realise that we needed material to be free in the US as well as the source country. Perhaps Template:PD-Australia should be modified to explain this. Papa November 23:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it is copyrighted in the EU (life+70), and also in the U.S. because it was copyrighted in Australia on January 1, 1996... Lupo 22:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. {{PD-Australia}} is in line with many other similar templates and I don't know of a decision to get rid off all of such templates. Samulili (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Pages 30 & 31 Book Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 22:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is an error in the way uploading the file by an unexperiens user. Be patient it will be replaced by the requested scans soon --Joergens.mi 07:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Error has been corrected. There are now the correct scans in --Joergens.mi 08:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, not out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 18:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
B.Harry images
[edit]All images owned by B.Harry - Licence incompatible with free use - Copyright owner requires notification before use (see here). This is impossible to comply with anyway since the copyright owner's email address has been suppressed.
Images include:
- Image:Fr exocet.jpg
- Image:Fr aster-retouche.jpg
- Image:Fr aster2.jpg
- Image:Fr mistral.jpg
- Image:Fr vlmica.jpg
- Image:Mitraillette-bizon.jpg
- Image:Rpo.jpg
- Image:Atgm.jpg
- Image:Igla.jpg
- Image:Dijikt.jpg
- Image:Aams.jpg
- Image:Aams2.jpg
- Image:Imiguns.jpg
- Image:Dhruv cockpit.jpg
- Image:Dhruv front.jpg
- Image:Dhruv side.jpg
- Image:Singaporesguns.jpg
- Image:Missiles exocet 3versions.jpg
- Image:Fr scope.jpg
- Image:AAD.jpg
- Image:Indian Navy exercise.jpg
- Image:Lca tejas formation.jpg
- Image:Pv3 tip.jpg
- Image:LCA PV3 front.jpg
- Image:Lca mmr.jpg
- Image:In lca3 001.jpg
- Image:C-130J.jpg
- Image:Ifr1.jpg
- Image:P15a.jpg
- Image:Tu-142m1.jpg
- Image:Pinaka.jpg
- Image:Shar cougar hover.jpg
- Image:In lch 001.jpg
- Image:In lch2 001.jpg
- Image:Lahat.jpg
- Image:Tankex.jpg
- Image:Arjunmodel.jpg
- Image:Arjun3.jpg
- Image:Arjun2.jpg
- Image:APC India.jpg
- Image:Pinaka1.jpg
- Image:Akash misile nishant uav.jpg
- Image:Brahmos5.jpg
- Image:Sukanya class .jpg
- Image:Prithvi SRBM.jpg
- Image:Dhruv-civil.jpg
- Image:Ifr2.jpg
- Image:Dhruv runway2.jpg
- Image:Sarang twi.jpg
- Image:Dhruv drop1.jpg
- Image:Hansa takeoff.jpg
- Image:Skat col.jpg
- Image:Skat formation.jpg
- Image:Skat break.jpg
- Image:Destroyer INS Mysore.jpg
- Image:Su-30MKI air show1.jpg
- Image:Su-30MKI air show2.jpg
- Image:Prithvi SRBM-cropped.jpg
- Image:Ultimax 100.jpg
--Rlandmann 12:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I request two weeks time to contact Harry B and to get his permission. although Permission exists for the use of the images. Until that time please don't delete this.Thank you. Chanakyathegreat
- Yes, permission exists - that's not under dispute. The problem, however, is that the permission has a condition attached ("But also notify [MAIL REMOVED] before usage as well") which is unacceptable (see here under "Acceptable licences") and, in this case, unable to be complied with anyway. I doubt even we've been adhering to B.Harry's terms; has he been informed every time one of these images has been used in a Wikipedia article? --Rlandmann 19:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This requirement is unacceptable. Note the following log entry:
- 15:39, April 11, 2008 Zirland (Talk | contribs | Block) deleted "Image:Su-30MKI air show1.jpg" (Copyright violation: http:/ / www.acig.org/ artman/ uploads/ mki_move.jpg) (restore)
- – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Permission exists--151.32.198.143 11:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Permission exists--Gaetano56 11:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted for further discussion. Also Delete unless we can get this requirement lifted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless restriction removed. Morven 22:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Further clarification here is needed. Is this a "request", or a "requirement". A request is not a problem, but it it is a requirement then Delete. TheDJ 13:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reads like a "requirement" to me, and ultimately we'll never know, because I don't see any way of getting in contact with the copyright holder :/ Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless restriction removed. This is fairly obviously a non-allowable restriction. --MichaelMaggs 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Seems more like a request to me. There is a permission and the pictures are of great encyclopedic value. --IncMan 10:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- The wording of the owner's conditions is "but also inform... before usage as well". How can that be construed to be anything other than a condition of use? The encyclopedic value of these images is not under dispute, but that doesn't make them free to use. The uploader of these images asked for two weeks to get clearance for these images, and that was nearly three months ago now, with no sign of any progress. --Rlandmann 00:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It is very easy to fix this. Someone email the owner and let him know that his pictures are being used on "The Internet" as cc-by-sa states they will be linked back to commons (or where ever they came from). And call it a day. --ShakataGaNai Talk 08:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. More than 3 months has elapsed and the non-compliant condition has still not been removed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
May 3
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyrighted. check http://www.blues.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Home/0,,10412,00.html 74.85.13.60 02:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted logo --Kanonkas(talk) 09:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. copyrighted logo Leafnode 10:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyrighted logo http://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=صورة:PIJ_emblem.png 74.85.13.60 03:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 09:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio, cf [1] Relata refero(disp.) 11:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Leafnode 11:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unneeeded 84.81.139.214 16:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep In use -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, in use. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's unlikely a commercial enterprise (Universal Music) would put a promotional image under a free license. We'd need some proof. Rob 06:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copvyio --Kanonkas(talk) 08:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm all for a speedy on this if anyone else agrees. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure if I could tag this as a speedy because it listed "Universal Music" as the author, and so maybe that counts as a "source". But, I'm sure nobody would object to this being speedy deleted. --Rob 23:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No source link, no OTRS -> delete --Leafnode 10:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Very well. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio - flickr page does not mention GFDL --Time3000 12:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 22:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as Flickr doesn't support tagging as GFDL. Sauce has "All rights reserved". Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate (sorry) Pieter Kuiper 13:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Duplicate Leafnode 07:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope. EugeneZelenko 16:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope. --GeorgHH • talk 18:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per COM:PS --Kanonkas(talk) 19:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 22:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, okay then! Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
and Image:Celia Blanco1.jpg, Image:Eva Angelina.jpg
Most likely copyvio on Flickr. EugeneZelenko 16:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete The original Flickr user is no longer on Flickr. Wonder why? --Simonxag 22:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bad image. Almost the same exist as Image:Rudi mig spomenik.jpg --Veliki Kategorizator 20:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, also no proper source. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
license tag for this image is totally false Patstuart (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-old Patstuart (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Franco con miles de sus partidarios a suregreso del exilio en la primavera democratrica del 46 recorren las calles de Asunción en dirección -al Panteón Nacional.JPG
[edit]I seriously doubt the uploader took this picture of Franco in the 1930s Patstuart (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete User seems to have made a number of problem uploads. --Simonxag 22:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
seems Copyrighted . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greece_National_Crest.jpg 74.85.13.60 03:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete no proof of authorship and free license --Leafnode 10:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
also:
(There might be more)
Kõik õigused autorile means all rights reserved in estonian -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 commons es 10:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete If "Kõik õigused autorile means all rights reserved in estonian" - Then it's a Copvyio. --Kanonkas(talk) 11:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's the translation I got.Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 commons es 12:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. There's also plenty more where that came from. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: 08:23, May 6, 2008 Flominator (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Rihanna Tallinn.jpg" (No permission: see User_talk:Flominator#Image:Rihanna_Tallinn.jpg for details) (restore) – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. However, it appears the source site in question *does* allow CC licenses, as Flickr does. It's also possible that they allow licenses to be changed, just as Flickr does, so this might not have been the fault of the uploader. Certainly, several of the uploads I checked out were indeed CC-licensed. Make of that what you will. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Serious doubt about authorship of a photo used in this image. I've left a question about this issue on user talk page (per notification by Kanonkas) Leafnode 11:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Me too. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no permission on de wikipedia --Jodo 22:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC) --MB-one 12:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Changed from Speedydelete. Permission was given: "Released under the GNU Free Documentation License." --MB-one 13:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Im sysop of the german wikipedia, so i can view in the deleted version. In the deleted versions there is no permisson. The image was now deleted on de because of failed "Dateiüberprüfung". Before it was marked as a wrong commons transfer by the commons admin Codeispoetry. So it is obvious and has to be deleted --Jodo 15:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete in light of previous contributor. --Simonxag 22:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yay, Deleted! Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derived from a deleted image from vector-images.com completed deletion request --Svens Welt 20:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
it is an orphan file. i uploaded it --Dimorsitanos 14:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep It's not a valid reason to delete a file because it's unused. --GeorgHH • talk 18:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: Duplicated file
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Dubious copyrights claim. EugeneZelenko 16:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete believe it or not, it's actually in use. But that's still a dubious copyright claim. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as above --Leafnode 07:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 19:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Is this encyclopedical, useful for any wiki project? Don't think so... GeorgHH • talk 17:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Without a description. Unused & useless. --Simonxag 22:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The character of the monster is not copyrighted, but the artwork that is photographed here will be. There is no Freedom of Panorama in the US. So this photo (a derivative work) needs permission, which its does not have. --Simonxag 21:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. no Freedom of Panorama in the US MichaelMaggs 17:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
|
copyvio, the image Include the Hebrew scouts logo Hidro 19:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I made this logo 4 years ago when I worked in the Israeli National Scouting Center. --Dor Posner 19:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
KEEP artistic license, artists own interpretation and also for above explination. WayneRay 17:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
Comment it seems to be a "missing permission" case. Yuval Y § Chat § 20:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: Deleted because "Was in Category:Unknown as of 5 May 2008 - still missing essential information about its legal status". using TW
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
|
Author not given at original source.Code·is·poetry 20:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Surely it's own work of the original uploader. Keep Julo 19:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. It is. Code·is·poetry 10:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work, bad resolution, personality rights abf /talk to me/ 16:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Dear ABF, please explain. What do you mean with "personality rights"? Best --Weissmann 05:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality & possibly taken in a private setting (it's a bit hard to tell, the quality is so bad). --Simonxag 22:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete ack above - without parents' consent kept in OTRS we cannot keep it --Leafnode 22:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted / --Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b!? 13:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"You are welcome to use any images from our site that will help in any project that helps to raise awareness of these scams. All we ask is that you credit our site." Sounds not enough for the free use that is claimed at the bottom of the picture. Apperently the picture comes from a forum on the internet, no deeplink, so hard to retrace. --Ciell 14:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The image came from ShiverMeTimbers' website. I used to have the email from him giving me the permission to use the image, but I don't have it any more. I am not sure that I understand the problem. Did I use the wrong category? Thanks for notifying me Pjeichler 14:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Just a matter of comprehensive reading and common sense. --Baiter1950 18:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Indeed, and the way I read "any project that helps to raise awareness of these scams", is that re-use in ways that don't help raise awareness of these scams (use your imagination here) is forbidden. :/ Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete due to the unclear licensing situation. Adambro 15:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Admins, hold your horses, OTRS might be coming up.. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin)
Well, this has had enough time, and still no OTRS. So, deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unclear information about author. See Image:Mudan.JPG. Who took the picture? Svens Welt 20:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Original upload log ([2]. Original uploader was ru:user:Знанибус): == Краткое описание ==
Городской автобус Mudan MD 6106 в Воронеже.2006 год.
== Лицензия ==
{{PD-self}}
{{Изображение
|Описание = Изображение:Mudan MD 6106.JPG<br />Городской автобус Mudan MD 6106 в Воронеже.2006 год.
|Автор = Андрей
|Время создания = 27.07.2006
|Источник = Фото автора
|Лицензия = {{PD-self}}
}}
[[Категория:Изображения:автобусы]]. This image was transfered by me. Where is problem? Keep it. lvova 21:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The problem was that two authors claimed authorship according to the information template. This cannot be possible. Keep this file and replace the other. --Svens Welt 11:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The problem was that two authors claimed authorship according to the information template. This cannot be possible.
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Mudan.JPG
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=16777 this picture is by General Dynamics Electric Boat and thus not taken by a US-Gov employee schlendrian •λ• 20:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- anybody taking care? --schlendrian •λ• 15:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=16778 this picture is by General Dynamics Electric Boat and thus not taken by a US-Gov employee schlendrian •λ• 20:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no more usage of the picture, short of some userpages, and if you doubt the reason to be valid read en:Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government#Works_produced_by_contractors, which says: works produced by contractors under government contracts (or submitted in anticipation of such contracts) are protected and restricted under U.S. copyright law. --schlendrian •λ• 16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Code·is·poetry 13:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Unclear information about author. See Image:Mudan MD 6106.JPG. Who took the picture? Svens Welt 20:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
May 4
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possible copyright violation - there's no guarantee that this person is eligible to release this logo under free license. Logo source: http://www.miranda.pl/ Leafnode 10:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Deleted due to author's explanation that he redrew logo and because of that he claimed to be the author Leafnode 10:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader has a history of uploading copyvio images, and apparently does not own a camera. More than likely, this image is copyvio as well. Ytoyoda 00:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I originally made this on wikipedia, but it does not seem to be useful to store the timeline on commons, especially since the code here is broken.
- Delete per my reasons above. Brisvegas 10:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Yeah, you can only put images from Commons on other Wikimedia sites, not templates. ViperSnake151 13:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unreadable (at least in Firefox), not very useful here. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Might as well speedy this per author's request. I can't see much discussion is needed. Rocket000 14:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON=misspelling --Wiktor 13:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
ACTION=deleted --Rocket000 20:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As "cover art" this image is most likely under protection of at least copyright. As such it could only be used as either a fair use image or needs the artist to actually release it to public domain. The former is inapprpriate for the Commons, and the latter is not supported by the summary and licensing present. --J Greb 13:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, simple copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON (Website says "All rights reserved") only completed deletion request --Svens Welt 14:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Although the Flickr situation check out okay I am suspicious that the Flick user is acutally the copyright holder and as such I propose this image be deleted. Adambro 14:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Surely a press image. --GeorgHH • talk 18:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Definitely so. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deletion Rant and may not be in Commons Scope NB: Check file first) --WayneRay 16:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 20:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Essay that should be on Wikipedia Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 16:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 20:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Business ad article Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 16:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 20:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
advertizing Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 16:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: Out of project scope
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
List of radio programs Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 17:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Julo: Outside project scope.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Advertizing article Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 17:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Julo: Outside project scope.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Article Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 17:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Julo: Outside project scope.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Article Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 17:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Julo: Outside project scope.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
One paragraph Bio Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 17:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Julo: Outside project scope.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
One paragraph Bio Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 17:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Julo: Outside project scope.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
embeded image in the svg, which is not shown, broken svg file, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 20:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, no content apart from linked image. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyrighted artwork from the Busta Rhymes album "The Coming" (or derivative work of such), see the watermark in the lower left corner ("All Rights Reserved") and compare en:Image:Busta-coming.jpg, [3]. High on a tree 23:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
SVG rendering didn't work accurately (Note:I created image) Anonymous101 07:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- You don't want to fix it? I can do it if you want. Rocket000 08:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- It would be great if you could fix it. I will try if I have time although my svg skills are poor. Anonymous101 14:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
. I will fix it later Anonymous101 08:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm not sure what this is trying to be. The icon and text suggest it's suppose to be Template:Trademarked/de. The name and the way it was categorized suggests it has something to do with copyrights and not trademarks. (It's definitely not a license.) And lastly, it categorizes tagged images into Category:Insignia! We could easily fix these things, but why? What's wrong with {{trademarked}}. Rocket000 08:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete German Wikipedia license tag that is not allowed at Commons -- Prince Kassad 18:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, not in use, not useful. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like an animated advertising. Out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 18:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, 8.96mb animated GIF? Nice. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Album cover (Spanish: Portada de Album), and apparently that album was not published by NASA. High on a tree 22:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is a clear fabrication derived from this image. There can be no use for this other than to deceive readers, and thus has virtually zero value to this or any related project. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think the nominator means this image. And yeah, Delete. Obvious shoop. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I think I was trying to do two things at once and pasted the wrong link :) Fixed. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 20:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is specular! The correct view is the other (below)! only completed deletion request --Svens Welt 19:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I am the uploader and I agree about the deletion of this version of the image, since the correct, flipped version was uploaded already. --User:G.dallorto 21:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Kay! Deleted! Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Vague source, unknown author. --Otterathome 22:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I uploaded this image fron en:WP, but the image on en:wp has been deleted, and the licence of this image is unknown. I agree to delete this image.--Nopira 11:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The source image is here. The image there has no license, and if we apply the default license of Uncyclopedia, that'll still only be CC-BY-NC-SA. So as much as I think we can never, ever have enough cat pictures, it has to go. :/ Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio from http://www.vera-naumann.de/privat_schloss.htm Rosenzweig 11:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course you can delete this picture! I wasn't sure whether I should load it up and so I'm going to send an E-Mail to Mrs. Naumann to ask herfor permission. But until I've done that you can remove it from Commons.--Adrian Roßner 11:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
User art(?) Out of scope as it's not being used. Rocket000 14:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Simonxag 18:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete user is indefinitely blocked here and on Wikipedia. I doubt it's going to be used again. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Work by Salvador Dali. I don't think FOP applies. Rocket000 19:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
|
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Most likely copyvio on Flickr EugeneZelenko 17:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
odd how do you place that? did you click over to the CLEARLY LINKED FLIKR PAGE? if you did you would notice the picture and its status as SHARE ALIKE.......or are you not seeing that? Hollywoodnorthreport 17:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Unfortunately some of us have learned to be skeptical of Flickr licenses. The validity of the license relies on the Flickr user "syntheticentertainment" (which does happen to be the name of the band'd management company) having the right to upload this promo image. As they haven't uploaded anything else can't really tell. --Simonxag 18:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and drop the attitude, Hollywoodnorthreport. Suspecting Flickr-washing here. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-so I am confused here...whats so wrong with someone posting a picture to flikr? and if so should this not be flikr's responsibilty to weed out so called illegal images? again this all seems very odd to me.....what is the bands management company owns the picture and decided to release it for use around the world? is that really so RARE and WRONG?Hollywoodnorthreport 06:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, it is Flickr's responsibility to weed out infringing images. But we also have a duty to our users as well, to not host anything that could be a copyright infringement. This looks like it. And yes, it is very rare that a band's management company releases material under licenses that are acceptable to us. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-so what if the original photographer was also the band manager? I have emailed them and this is the case. So what now? Here we have a legally posted photo that is available for SHARE ALIKE and you are telling me thats not good enough? What hoops do I need to jump through next to satisfy you?Hollywoodnorthreport 23:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Forward the email in question (which confirms that the Flickr account in question does indeed belong to Synthetic Entertainment) to OTRS, at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. We have these "hoops" for a good reason. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- ...hello? ;\ Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
-ok on this216.19.183.91 04:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
-ok on this..Hollywoodnorthreport 05:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Meaning, you forwarded the email to OTRS? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- yes sir the email has been send! let me know what to do next please. cheersHollywoodnorthreport 01:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Identity confirmed via OTRS. howcheng {chat} 18:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture was not produced by "20 minutos", but only reproduced. Dantadd✉ 18:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then, would it be a case of misatribution by 20 minutos? 20 minutos licenses publish their work under a by-sa CC license, unless its signed by another author, which this photo is not. Thus, it does not fall into any of the exceptions listed in http://www.20minutos.es/licencia_20_minutos/ . Obviously the picture was made before the founding of 20 minutos, not for them, so its either an already existing free work they use and license, or a previous private work the use without caring for providing authorship. --Javier ME 09:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- We cannot know if it's a case of misattribution unless we found the true source of the picture. Until then, the only thing we know is that the photo seems to be under the CC license stated in the website, since no other source (and in particular none of the CC-excluded sources) is cited. Thus, deletion should not proceed. Habbit 18:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. 20 minutos was founded in 2000, so they are certainly NOT the authors of this photo (it looks like an official shot to me, by the way). 20 minutos has published lots of older copyrighted photos without (proper) attribution. I do not understand the rationale of "if we cannot find the real source, preserve it": I always thought the uploader was the one who had to prove the photo is free. --Dodo 09:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This was uploaded by myself. On the given source there is no credit so I thought it to be PD, which is wrong, as I now see: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=8846 lists the picture as Photo courtesy Electric Boat. Therefore it is not taken be a US gov employee and not PD --schlendrian •λ• 15:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC) schlendrian •λ• 15:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- anyone? --schlendrian •λ• 15:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- if you have doubts about whether or not the reason is valid, cf en:Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government#Works_produced_by_contractors --schlendrian •λ• 12:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Code·is·poetry 13:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
tiene copyright. Me equivoqué al subirlo sin licencia completed deletion request --Svens Welt 11:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Speedy delete Copyvio & uploader removed license on day of upload. --Simonxag 18:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
done Julo 18:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Julo: copyvio
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
missing permission of Author Niteshift 01:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work. EugeneZelenko 17:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 22:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. →Christian.И 15:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
this picture is not free use, copyvio only completed deletion request --Svens Welt 14:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 19:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Permission for non-commercial use only. EugeneZelenko 16:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Uploader did add 2 fully free licenses, but also added the condition at the same time. --Simonxag 18:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing allows non-commercial licensing as long another, free license is given. --GeorgHH • talk 18:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- True, but it's what the user said: I allow these images to be used for any personal use with no monetary gain or commercial project. Use in presentations is permitted so long there is absolutely no commercial gain. Rocket000 20:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Or you could read it another way: The uploader understood that the GFDL is inconvenient for presentations, and so gave additional permissions for that. Same for non-commercial re-use. I see it as a multi-license, not as an additional restriction. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, unfree for commercial use. Kameraad Pjotr 16:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Geology.com claims copyright on this image. They also state that it is based on NASA data, so it might be PD. GFDL license is incorrect, in any case. rimshottalk 09:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Status unclear enough for us to keep MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Because the image quality is not good, and I will upload a nother format for this photo (in PNG) U.point 10:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Don't upload a PNG, JPEG is best suited for this sort of thing Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I can't see a difference between the png and the jpg version, but could you upload it withouth the watermark? --rimshottalk 16:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. Jpeg is a good format for this image. Samulili (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The given source ("The English-speaking wikipedia, picture uploaded by Author, under the "GFDL" License") is not specific enough to be verifiable; most probably it refers to the image which was inserted recently into en:Celia Calle and was deleted a few hours ago because of "Lack of licensing or source information".
A previous upload by the same user at Image:CeliaCalle.jpg was deleted because of an unfree license. High on a tree 13:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to delete this image. I have uploaded it with full free permission for public use and for the Artist on Wiki. I am the owner of this image (Author). I previously uploaded the same image, but accidentally placed it under unproper use.
- Delete - in the absence of some proof that the uploader can validly license the image it should be deleted. The would probably require an OTRS email proving ownership. --Herby talk thyme 15:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to email the author privately for any proof that this image is a valid license image of the Artist, and was given permission to use freely for the Artist (Email has been included here for this very purpose). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbcity (talk • contribs) 17:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- On the contrary the obligation is on your to prove valid licensing. --Herby talk thyme 18:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. But how to I prove valid licensing??. Please kindly help me understand or let me know, I will do so immediately. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbcity (talk • contribs)
- Check out this page for the information that you need. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. No permission on OTRS. Samulili (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
May 5
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Typo in file name, now uploaded under correct name Malleus Fatuarum 00:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete next time use {{bad name}} if you do anything wrong --Kanonkas(talk) 05:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Leafnode 09:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is an image I have created myself in order for an .svg file to be created out of it. I consider the .svg version Image:Revolution_flag_of_Egypt_1919.svg superior and therefore request this file, my own work, to be deleted since it has served its purpose. only completed deletion request --Svens Welt 08:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. Leafnode 09:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ich möchte, das diese Foto gelöscht wird, da ich mich nicht auf meiner Seite veröffentlichen möchte. Bitte schnelle löschung Mannemer91 19:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC) --Mannemer91 19:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader's request, low-res headshot. Lupo 12:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Animated banner with spelling errors Erik Baas 00:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- oppose - an error is a reason to fix the error, not a reason to delete the complete banner - GijsvdL 00:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep in use, fix the errors rather than nuking it Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- The author has been told about the errors (more than once, in this file as well as some 15 others just like this one !), but does obviously not want to (or is not able to) fix them. And I don't want to waste any time fixing useless (as well as annoying) things like animated banners... - Erik Baas 14:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't blame you, but it's still being used so it seems some don't mind a few spelling errors. Rocket000 16:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- "don't mind a few spelling errors" ? In an encyclopedia ? Brrr... :-( - Erik Baas 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't blame you, but it's still being used so it seems some don't mind a few spelling errors. Rocket000 16:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- The author has been told about the errors (more than once, in this file as well as some 15 others just like this one !), but does obviously not want to (or is not able to) fix them. And I don't want to waste any time fixing useless (as well as annoying) things like animated banners... - Erik Baas 14:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep i agree with Lewis Collard. Multichill 10:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Fixing things is always preferable to spurious deletions. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work abf /talk to me/ 13:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete moreover out of project scope. --Svens Welt 14:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- KeepThe artwork (such as it is) on the Coca Cola bottle is only incidental. We have lots of pictures of things and these things (like cars) often have company logos on them. If the picture was of the artwork rather than just containing it. the situation would be different. I don't personally much like them, but some of Klashort's pictures are being used on the Wikipedia to illustrate sex-related articles. --Simonxag 00:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Vol de nuit 13:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Shows mainly the text part of the logo which is {{PD-US}} anyway. See Image:Coca-Cola logo.svg. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept per Bryan. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Will be goor idea to remove book cover. EugeneZelenko 15:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Done – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I created this image, but it has too much text, so another one is being used. There is no reason for this image to exist. J.delanoygabsadds 17:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, in use Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdraw Oops, forgot to check that out *blush* J.delanoygabsadds 23:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept / J.delanoygabsadds 23:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source, no author. Deleted on en.wikipedia for having no source, see [4]. Svens Welt 09:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Chech Explorer 11:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Citrus Bowl.JPG
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Copyright Violation, The Description of Flickr says that this is a Press Image and thus the Image is probably copyrighted. All the Best --Mifter (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Mifter (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This image is no copyright violation. If you follow the source link, you get to the image description page on flickr. There it says clearly that the picture is licensed as CC-BY-SA 2.0. Perhaps Mifter should act more diligently before slapping a deletion request on an image, especially check the flickr source page for the actual license. If this is just an oversight, I beg a pardon. Can happen to everyone. Of course the picture is copyrighted, also GPL licensed software or CC-licensed works are copyrighted - but they are licensed. Only old public domain works are not copyrighted anymore. Gorinin 19:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I am so sorry about all of this, when I saw the description I misinterpreted the description as to mean that the Image had been made by someone else and copyrighted, and was posted to Flickr by someone else who was not the copyright holder and then incorrectly licensed as their own work, I did see that the page said CC-BY-SA 2.0. was the license but I thought that the Flickr User was not the actual copyright holder thus making the license in-valid and as a result I put it up for deletion. I truely apoligize for this, I simply thought that it had been made by a stock photo company which makes copyrighted Images for press use which are not allowed on Commons. Once again I apologize for all of this, --Mifter (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file was moved from nl: without my permission; it is just an experiment, and not ready to be used outside nl. Erik Baas 23:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - image was released at NL under GFDL. Once released is always released. GijsvdL 23:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted by request of author as this seems to be a temporary image for testing/tweaking purposes. Not used except for nl, where a local duplicate exists. NielsF ? (en, nl, fr, it) 23:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I uploaded this picture and don't know how to delete it. I cannot get the copyright information right. I tried to upload again and select copyright info but it keeps saying I havn't specified it. I give up, this is too difficult...
00:37, 5 May 2008 user:Brentf777
- Comment email contact initiated, hold thy horses for now Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 10:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, problem resolved now. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ergfgbgb 24.4.97.206 03:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, fkjyh89yt29yt1t. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This looks like a promotional image, and given the lack of resolution, it must be deleted. only completed deletion request --Svens Welt 06:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Chech Explorer 11:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The blog that linked this picture is under some CC license (that I didn't check), but that was merely linking to a picture on a fan site, which didn't have a copyright statement (and without much regard for copyright at all, as far as I can tell). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Even logo image has (R), so I don't think that it's GFDL Leafnode 10:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Chech Explorer 11:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and tag with {{PD-ineligible}} and {{Trademark}} instead of GFDL. --88.134.141.54 12:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with {{PD-ineligible}}. This is simple text and one shape. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A photo in a drama of the artist, unlikely owned by uploader. --Stewart~惡龍 12:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Also no source, so deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader states "wikipedia only use" Benherz 14:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. License is invalidated by extra condition. --Simonxag 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Most likely commercial online maps screenshot. EugeneZelenko 15:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, Google Maps screenshot. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source: Google and license pd-self Leafnode 17:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Blackwolf45: This is a wallpaper made by Antena 3 Television, and its avalible at their web page. I found it in Google, but the real source is Antena 3.
- Being available to download doesn't mean that it's in public domain --Leafnode 18:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
6 page student essay Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 18:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko 15:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bad, erroneous animation made with a program in evaluation mode (see upper left corner of the image!), --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 18:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, out of scope. Also, people still pay for that stuff? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source given, only statement on en.wiki that image is released by owner into PD, which can't be verified Leafnode 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Spanish music band's history Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko 15:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hebrew glossary of land valuation terms Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 18:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko 15:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Procedure to registry the same subscription Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 19:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko 15:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Quotations by Craig W.J. Minogue Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko 15:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
1 paragraph Bio Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 19:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko 15:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Model Agency ad Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 19:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Julo: out of scope —Preceding unsigned comment added by DRBot (talk • contribs) 21:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
maybe copyvio, no correct licence to be found on that source. 80.135.213.48 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- The photo was copied from http://www.regione.sardegna.it. The disclaimer for the site says cc-by-nc-sa. Even if we consider that the government of the autonomous region of Sardinia own the copyright for the photo, they won't allow any commercial use. delete. --Andibrunt 20:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image looks like a promotional image from the Austrian Red Cross; no plausible reasoning is given to substantiate the claim that it is licensed under the GNU FDL 217.84.37.67 20:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derived work, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 20:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
TV screenshot, deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Says clearly in the permission description that all rights are reserved by the school --Elipongo 22:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Users images deleted from en as copyvios. More images at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Mo_j90 Rettetast 22:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted them all. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Artists Bio 4 paragraph Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 18:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Although quit with that "images only" stuff. :P Some scanned source texts are useful to have around. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok I use a TypeItIn.org program and sentences and paragraphs are typed out in less than a second so I hadn't paid much attention to it. I was going by E.Z's comments to me earlier. I agree and have left many text based pdf files as they are linked to galleries and categories. Thanks and I will edit the button. WayneRay 17:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The map is factually wrong. The ALCA does not exist yet, and many countries that reject it (like Bolivia and Venezuela) are marked as members. The map uses the criteria "Countries that the US would want to be members of the ALCA" Thialfi 02:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Non-notable fancruft. Er, I mean, it's used. There's nothing in our scope that says files must be factually true. And all I see is a map of world. The text you accompany it with on an encyclopedia is up to you. Rocket000 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't game the system. A map named "Alca members", with countries marked incorrectly as members of an international organization that does not exist, and some of them even reject to be a part of, has no use for an encyclopedia, no matter what "Scope" lists or does not list. And don't worry, we have plenty of other world maps to use Thialfi 20:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- COM:NOT. The file is used which means it is in our scope. That's it. Rocket000 07:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Used, therefore in scope; we exist to serve the local projects, and editorial decisions like this are not usually issues that we care for. (In before flaming my talk page with Wikipedia policy acronyms.) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
|
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source, no author. Why GDFL? --Svens Welt 08:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC) --Svens Welt 08:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Chech Explorer 11:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, no indication of GFDL status. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
|
Image has wrong name and description: it is actually an image of the core of the galaxy NGC 4261, depicted at Image:Ngc4261.jpg. Mike Peel 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep we have the "edit" button for a reason... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- The edit button doesn't let me move the image to a new name. That means that the image would have to be re-uploaded then this one deleted. However, as the image does not have a link to the source of the image (it just gives nasa.gov), and we have the image in an alternative form at Image:Ngc4261.jpg, I don't think it's worth doing that. Mike Peel 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- The cropped version is useful. Use {{rename}}. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept - use {{rename}} – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source, no author. Deleted on en.wikipedia for having no source, see [5]. --Svens Welt 09:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Svens Welt 09:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Chech Explorer 11:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- It looked like it might be from Google Maps, so I checked. Their image is different, but the scale is identical, so it was probably taken by a satellite at the same height with the same configuration, if not the same satellite, which most likely makes it a copyright violation. Delete based on that as well as the lack of a verifiable original source. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, no verifiable source. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hockey club logo, no proof of free license Leafnode 10:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Chech Explorer 11:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 07:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
possibly copyvio; compare [6] --NoCultureIcons 02:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Chech Explorer 11:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It doesn't quite look like a commercial immage, more like something a fan took on meeting the band. --Simonxag 23:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Checked deletion log on nl.wp. Was uploaded as PD-self. Looks OK to me. Siebrand 01:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, agree with Siebrand. Kameraad Pjotr 19:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
No proof of PD-old. Imported from pl.wiki, where it was imported from uk.wiki, and where also is no proof of PD-old :-) Leafnode 14:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, no proof of PD. Kameraad Pjotr 19:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete appears to be a copyrighted photo of 3D statutes, not a free photo of a 2D painting as marked Mangostar 17:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep image changed, along with source and attribution. It is now a crop of image:26 muchenykiv Yaponii 03..jpg. Evrik 21:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, this image is still not free (and nor is the image it's cropped from). This building was created in 1962 (w:Twenty-Six Martyrs Museum and Monument), which means the sculptures are still copyrighted (50 yrs after death of the creator, per Template:PD-Japan). According to COM:FOP#Japan, freedom of panorama in Japan only gets you the right for non-commercial reproduction of images of publicly displayed artwork. (Not enough for the commons.) Mangostar 23:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is a publicly displayed artowrk. You just made my point. Thanks. Evrik 20:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm, what point? The non-commercial restriction makes it not free enough... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Non-commercial? WHat are you talking about? This has a fee license. Evrik 14:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm, what point? The non-commercial restriction makes it not free enough... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Can we move this along, this is now a free image. Evrik (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, FOP does not apply. Kameraad Pjotr 19:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Copyrighted material, less than 70 years old (see word "1947"). only completed deletion request --Svens Welt 07:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure copyrighted. In Morocco and other Arab states, PD is fifty years after author's dead. Maybe the only need to change the license: {{PD-old}} --> {{PD-Morocco}}
Julo 12:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC) - Comment If there's any Arabic speakers in the house, see if this has any information about the death of the person that wrote it. Also tell me how you don't get a headache reading right to left. ;\ Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. If it is just a list of names (a list with no originality), and a photograph of a 2D object, then it's PD-ineligible. Samulili (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This woman is said to be our Empress Elisabeth of Austria ???. I don´t believe that without a source. Regards --Mutter Erde 13:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. No source (for PD-old nor for being of Empress Elisabeth of Austria). Samulili (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Manhattan Eruv Prohibition Text file not in Commons Scope (Images only) --WayneRay 18:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, unclear copyright status. Kameraad Pjotr 18:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that Pope's COA is under GFDL Leafnode 09:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Chech Explorer 11:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Drawings of coats of arms have their authors, who have drawn them. They have their own copyrights and they can accept GFDL, if they want. The pattern of pope's personal coat of arms is not copyrighted, AFAIK. Julo 12:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Benedict XI lived in years 1303–1304. I don't think that they had GFDL then. I don't argue that it's not free. I only say that it's probably not GFDL. --Leafnode 12:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Do you think they did have computers in 14th century and did they know JPG-compression standard?
I just say, that the person, who created this JPG, could use GFDL or any other license. And it is not reason for deleting the file. Julo 14:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think that person who 'created JPEG' has no rights to decide about license of this image. If you know what the license is - fix it and 'keep'. --Leafnode 15:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Do you think they did have computers in 14th century and did they know JPG-compression standard?
- Benedict XI lived in years 1303–1304. I don't think that they had GFDL then. I don't argue that it's not free. I only say that it's probably not GFDL. --Leafnode 12:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Image was first uploaded to it.wikipedia as it:Immagine:Stemma-Benedetto-XI.jpg. There, as here, a permission email is copied on the description page. It gives permission for usage. Under what licence it doesn't mention. On it.wiki, aforementioned Stemma-Benedetto-XI.jpg is tagged with the template it:Template:StemmiEcclesiastici which is mentioned on it:Wikipedia:Copyright_immagini#Autorizzate_solo_per_Wikipedia (use authorized only on it.wikipedia). So, Delete. NielsF ? (en, nl, fr, it) 16:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- If that's true, everything here has similar situation. --Leafnode 16:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- That would indeed be the case, yes. NielsF ? (en, nl, fr, it) 17:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- If that's true, everything here has similar situation. --Leafnode 16:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and it is not the correct coat of arms (see http://www.araldicavaticana.com/pbenedetto11.htm). Odejea (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Crazy Horse Memorial
[edit]- File:Crazy-horse-memorial-2004-d.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Crazy-horse-memorial-2004.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Crazy-horse-memorial-2004-e.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Crazy-horse-memorial-2004-h.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Crazy-horse-memorial-2004-g.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Crazy-horse-memorial-2004-b.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Crazy-horse-memorial-2004-c.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Crazy-horse-memorial-2004-f.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Crazy Horse model.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Crazy Horse Memorial comparison.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Crazy Horse Memorial side.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Crazyhorseface.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CHMem.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I believe that since because the Crazy Horse Memorial is a private undertaking, not a government project, that images of it, and the various other models, replicas, and artworks at the memorial site are non-free derivative works. Kelly 17:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Nonsense. Keep them. The Crazy Horse Memorial Organization should be contacted at memorial@crazyhorse.org
- Keep Nonsense. Have you not read all the discussions with people, who want to withdraw their donated pics from commons, with the argument: No, you can't change you licence later. It's the same in real life. This was a government work, now it's private. No reason to change the licence Mutter Erde 18:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I read the Wikipedia article and all the links from it that are still alive. I didn't see anything that indicated the monument was ever a work produced by an employee of the federal government or under a contract specifying the outcome would be a work for hire. I got the impression that it is and always has been a private non-profit endeavor. It would be helpful if you could provide the source of your claim that it was a government work.
- Even if it were true that it was originally a government work, my understanding is that the monument is now being modified independently of the government (and please feel free to object if you think this assertion is false). If that's the case, then the work can definitely change from a public domain work to a copyrighted work, as a public domain work with copyrightable modifications is subject to the copyright of the persons making the modifications. (Photos of the work before such modifications would of course be unaffected.) —LX (talk, contribs) 18:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if you could provide the source of your claim that it was a government work.... I have no idea: I'm only quoting the voter's for deletion argument, hoping he has made some thoughts (and some investigation), before he starts a deletion request. Otherwise: Do not disturb. Regards Mutter Erde 20:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I guess I don't understand your question - I said that the statue is private, not government. To my knowledge, the statue has never been a government work. Kelly 20:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have read the "since" as "now it is a private property". In en I found this description: The monument has been in progress since 1948 and is still far from completion. If finished, it will be the world's largest sculpture... That looks to me like a Government work. In 1948 the Indians were very poor people. Mutter Erde 20:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Lakota are not building the monument - in fact, many of the Lakota don't like the whole idea. It is a private enterprise. Kelly 21:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have read the "since" as "now it is a private property". In en I found this description: The monument has been in progress since 1948 and is still far from completion. If finished, it will be the world's largest sculpture... That looks to me like a Government work. In 1948 the Indians were very poor people. Mutter Erde 20:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I guess I don't understand your question - I said that the statue is private, not government. To my knowledge, the statue has never been a government work. Kelly 20:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if you could provide the source of your claim that it was a government work.... I have no idea: I'm only quoting the voter's for deletion argument, hoping he has made some thoughts (and some investigation), before he starts a deletion request. Otherwise: Do not disturb. Regards Mutter Erde 20:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Even if it were true that it was originally a government work, my understanding is that the monument is now being modified independently of the government (and please feel free to object if you think this assertion is false). If that's the case, then the work can definitely change from a public domain work to a copyrighted work, as a public domain work with copyrightable modifications is subject to the copyright of the persons making the modifications. (Photos of the work before such modifications would of course be unaffected.) —LX (talk, contribs) 18:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Question: is the monument located in an Indian reservation, and if so, what does that mean in terms of applicability of US copyright laws? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe it is part of a reservation...IIRC, South Dakota has 7 or 8 reservations, and the Black Hills isn't included. (Actually here is a map - no reservation.) In any event, this shouldn't affect copyright law. Indian reservations are technically lands administered by the Federal Government, and U.S. law extends there. When the reservations enjoy special privileges within the law, as in the case of gambling establishments, those privileges are generally established by Congress or the Federal courts. Kelly 20:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence that this was ever a government project. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Except the ones on Wikipedia, Image:Crazy Horse Memorial comparison.jpg, Image:Crazy Horse Memorial side.jpg, Image:CHMem.jpg and Image:Crazyhorseface.jpg which should be moved there and have their 3d fair use tag added. There is no FOP in the US. This causes a lot of frustration over photos of recently produced important monuments, but it remains a fact. --Simonxag 23:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Is there a note on the ticket as no cameras or photographs only for family purposes or something like that? Mutter Erde 10:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment There doesn't need to be one. Whether they explicitly forbid photography or not is orthogonal to the issue of whether photos that were taken are derivative works or not. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment See Photography at Crazy Horse Memorial and Use of Website Contents JPH-FM 16:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
why should the Crazy Horse sculpture page be deleted? Personally i never knew a sculpure existed at all, therefore if it had been deleted i would possibly never have been aware of it! Free access to the page of the sculpture makes a contribution to world awareness of the crimes committed against the native americans--83.40.143.124 08:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- It appears the images mentioned in the deletion discussion may infringe on the sculptors' copyright, which would make it illegal to host them here. That is why. If all images on the gallery page are deleted, it doesn't serve much of a purpose, so it would probably be deleted too. Pages on other Wikimedia projects are of course unaffected aside from images hosted here being removed from them. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'm a little uneasy with the idea of forbidding photography of a mountain-- when someone does satellite mapping of the whole area do they have to ask permission? But what do I know, I'm not a lawyer. Marnanel 20:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, I have to admit it seems a little odd to me, too. This is, after all, the largest sculpure in the world. It makes me wonder - if the Great Pyramid at Giza were being built today, would it be copyrighted, or {{PD-ineligible}}? Kelly 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- They could presumably get away with a claim that the inclusion is de minimis, and there are also fair use provisions to consider for contexts other than ours. As for the pyramids... {{PD-shape}}? {{PD-freaking-huge-shape}}? ;-) Joking aside, no, copyright protection is not limited to works of certain sizes. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: The photos have enough originality to qualify for copyright in their own right. This nomination is nonsensical and an example of copyright paranoia. IvoShandor 04:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep NO evidences for copyright violation. --Jacopo Werther 07:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - to the above two posters, please see the terms here regarding photos of the artworks. There is no Freedom of Panorama in the U.S. Kelly 14:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The facts of the issue are:
- It is undoubtedly a sculpture. Yes, a freaking huge sculpture carved out of a mountain, but we can no more call this "a photo of a mountain" than we could call a photograph of the Mona Lisa "a photo of some canvas and some paint".
- It is not, and never has been, a work of the United States Federal government (as one commenter has claimed).
- United States law does not allow distribution of photographs of sculptures, when such sculptures are still under copyright. This one clearly is still under copyright; that it has (to quote one commentator) enough originality to qualify for copyright in their own right makes no difference -- indeed, this is actually a pretty good legal definition of what distinguishes a derivative work from a plain old copyright infringement.
- The Crazy Horse Memorial Foundation, the copyright holders, are actively against people distributing photographs of the memorial.
With these things considered, and no thorough refutation of these facts being offered, I'm very surprised this has gone on so long. Therefore, all these photos have been deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The original uploader on EN:W does not provide any requested information about the image. It seems that the image is pirated. Already in the category for speedy deletion on the Bulgarian Wikipedia. Chech Explorer 10:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Hm, however, when explicitly asked the user explicitly asserted that s/he was the author of the image. I think that unless the opposite is proved, we should assume good faith and consider the image okay. Spiritia 12:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --DStoykov 20:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Generally we would not expect a professional image to go through picasa. In addition most people perceive me as human and as a result have a hard time directly lying to me.Geni 23:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Ownership validated through OTRS. howcheng {chat} 21:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Gandalf der Graue
[edit]- File:Startseite sh.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Landkarte ausschnitt.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Balti.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KingPope.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
User:Gandalf der Graue's images are of the online game Second Home. The author may be correctly stated, but on the game's website there is no mention of a free license.--141.84.69.20 21:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. There has been plenty of time for the uploader to respond; I suspected at first that he might be connected with the site in question. But in lieu of a response, these have been deleted as random screenshots (and therefore derivative works). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
May 6
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There are alot of photos of penises, and these ones by user:BigBoris are unuseful and unused (and imho he just wanted to show is ugly penis, but this is not the point).--Ryan258 17:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I agree WayneRay 19:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
- Delete poor quality. Plenty of penises already. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted, not in use. Thuresson 04:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
and Image:Art Rooney Statue.jpg
On freedom of panorama for statues in USA EugeneZelenko 15:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This statue is commonly used at George Mason for promotional purposes. Indeed, social organizations often take pictures of this statue and use it for their own purposes, with no objection from either the artist or the school.
See here: http://braddockheritage.org/history/present/
Here: http://www.examiner.com/a-728465~GMU_student_organization_wants_guns_to_be_allowed_on_campus.html
And here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/sports/ncaabasketball/28mason.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Furthermore, popular statues located at University campuses are rife on Wikipedia, with no problems. For example, the Homer statue at UVA, and the War Memorial at Virginia Tech.
More examples: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:James_Madison_statue.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:JamesBlairStatue.JPG
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Statue_of_James_B_Duke.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laxmatt (talk • contribs) 2 May 2008 18:55 (UTC)
- Comment "Everyone does it" isn't a defense... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is an interview with the artist in which she states, among other things, she views this as public statue, she likes to hear that people take pictures of it, and ultimately this statue is part of the George Mason Community, not a private work. I especially would like to draw attention to the scluptor's last statement, "I think that impluse is why I enjoy creating work in the public domain". http://gazette.gmu.edu/articles/9964/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laxmatt (talk • contribs) 16:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I realize I'm boring on about this but this is a great statue, part of the George Mason community, and should be part of any good wiki page about GMU. Here is an article about a panel of "Public Artists", including Wendy Ross, the sculptor of the George Mason statue. http://gazette.gmu.edu/articles/9787/ "Public Art' is a distinct and meaningful phrase, from the first line of the wiki page: "The term public art properly refers to works of art in any media that has been planned and executed with the specific intention of being sited or staged in the public domain, usually outside and accessible to all." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_art It is inconceivable that a professional artist like Wendy Ross would be unaware of what she is saying when she states: "I enjoy creating work in the public domain".Laxmatt 05:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Public domain" has a meaning outside of the context of copyright, so it is quite conceivable that she didn't think about the copyright meaning of the term when she said that. Wendy M. Ross has the copyrights on the statue unless she signed them over to someone else. She can't control people taking pictures of the statue, but she can potentially control people publishing images of the statue; at least any publication that wouldn't be fair use anyway. Why don't you just ask the sculptor for permission to license the image as either PD, CC-BY, CC_BY-SA, or GFDL? That's what was done with Image:Babe Ruth statue.jpg. (Warning: be prepared to explain precisely what these licenses and "releasing into the public domain" mean, and be prepared for a potentially lengthy e-mail exchange. If and when you do have the artist's permission to license the image under a free license, forward the whole e-mail exchange to permissions-commons
wikimedia.org, stating clearly to which image that applies. Don't worry if the image gets deleted before you have the explicit permission, it can be restored. That happened to the Babe Ruth image, too.) Without explicit release by Wendy M. Ross: Delete Lupo 10:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- And besides, maybe it's better anyway to delete this image and go through the whole process for a new image of the statue that is includes the feet. Lupo 10:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, she doesn't have the rights to the statue: George Mason University does. I only point the quotes to illustrate that this statue was from the outset a work of public art. Also, given the educational and research nature of the wiki article on GMU, it seems evident that the picture indeed falls under fair use.Laxmatt 15:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, maybe it was a work made for hire for GMU. Then ask them. The point is, ask the owner of the copyrights. "Fair use" images are not allowed here. The problem with public art in the U.S. is that there are still copyrights on public artwork, and U.S. copyright law has no exception for images of public art. Such photos are just derivative works of the public artwork. Other countries' laws explicitly declare photos of public artwork not to be derivatives (or rather, they say that such photos may be published and sold without the consent of the owner of the copyrights on the public artwork). But sadly not so in the U.S. See COM:FOP. Lupo 21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay then. Deleted. We're not "trolls": we care about copyright and the vast majority of other websites do not. As I said, "everyone does it" is not an excuse. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Design found at http://www.attaque77.com.ar/ . I doubt wether this is PD-Ineligible or not. --Chabacano 23:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As I said in the description page, this image is a imitation of that logo, it is entirely my work, I used Adobe Photoshop CS3, using Image:Pentagram.svg as a base, number 77 made with Army font. Conclusion: it shouldn't be deleted. --Anarkangel 03:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you drew this diagram, but the design is from somebody else. I can not draw Mickey Mouse and say that I am the author holding all the rights. My doubt here is if the design is simple enough to be ineligible for copyright.Chabacano 14:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep PD-Ineligible. A star and 2 numbers. It's trademarked, not copyrighted. Rastrojo (D•ES) 15:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, clearly not eligible for copyright. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright not clear: as I had written in the Talk Page, I have not found on the website any text saying that this image may be distributed under a CC-BY-SA-2.5 or any other licence, in fact I have not found any copyright information! So if not expressly permitted, it seems to be a copyvio...
The only information about the (k)ubuntu logos and other is the draft Trademark Policy. Even if Commons does not take the trademark law into account (only copyright), I should say that this expressly forbids any commercial use of the logos!!
François [Discussion] 13:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have to admit that not only I am not familiar with the law nor those licenses, but I am also not familiarized with Wikimedia Commons policy. I only grabbed the image from Kubuntu-feisty.png (now deleted), and re-uploaded it with a proper name... So I can't really say if it can be used here... My opinion is that it should be OK, but again, it's just my opinion...SF007 17:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. It's copyrighted, as are all such things. There is no evidence that this has been released under a free license. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope as it's not being used anywhere. Rocket000 05:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep technically out of scope, but then this person has made lots of really good contributions... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, but also has been inactive since 02:19, 2 September 2006 Rocket000 13:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image is not beeing used on any wikimedia projects. This image should be deleted because it's out of our project scope --Kanonkas(talk) 12:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Kanonkas.--Otterathome 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Very well, then. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader admits this graph was entirely based on original research and accepts it will have to be deleted. --Guinnog 21:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Ahem, look at the diff link. The comment was made by Grahamzilch, not by the author of this picture. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- The comment was left by the original uploader if you look more closely. See here --Guinnog 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, ignore me then. ;x And in that case.... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- The comment was left by the original uploader if you look more closely. See here --Guinnog 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted! Entirely original research, and by that I'm figuring he majicked the figures for projected population out of nowhere. The author (who has exercised RTV) agrees with deletion. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work --Cumulus Clouds 03:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Misguided -- no cited law on derivative works in Singapore (the only operative law in this instance), be it in statute or in common law. Since you're asserting the contrary, the burden of proof is on you to show such a law exists. If there is no law to be breached, how can there be a breach? Chensiyuan 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, the burden of proof is upon you to show why the law in Singapore is different to that everywhere else in the world. Good luck. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is absurd. There is hardly a law that exists "everywhere else in the world" (even if there was, there are nuanced differences), at most laws that exist across a bunch of Commonwealth jurisdictions. It's very simple logic; if you assert I have breached a law, you must tell me what law I have breached, and the corollary of that is that law applies to me. Laws in many places are defined by exclusion or prohibition, and in the odd case, by exception. So to ask me to prove something does not exist is disingenuous. Where does it say that there is a prima facie assumption that the law of derivative works is universal? And where does it say that prima facie, US or UK law applies? You can't throw a simple rule of jurisdiction out of the window. The rules of other jurisdictions are inapplicable here because none of those jurisdictions would have any locus standi to assert rights against the subject matter in question -- that rule is certainly universal. The a fortiori maxim is only fortified on the jurisdictional point, not on the perceived lingering imperialism.
- No, the burden of proof is upon you to show why the law in Singapore is different to that everywhere else in the world. Good luck. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- For the benefit of clarity, see section 7 of SG's C Act:
"artistic work" means —
(a) a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph, whether the work is of artistic quality or not;
(b) a building or model of a building, whether the building or model is of artistic quality or not; or
(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship to which neither paragraph (a) nor (b) applies
- Then see section 63 of the same Act:
63. —(1) This section shall apply to sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship of the kind referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of “artistic work” in section 7.
(2) The copyright in a work to which this section applies that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast.
- You might speculate that the work wasn't situated anything more than temporarily, but the poster was up for a year. You might also argue that the poster does not belong to (c) but (a) even though the poster was neither drawn nor painted, but the statute is silent and in fact (c) is residuary. Chensiyuan 23:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Battering people with Latin phrases when perfectly good English equivalents exist is not the same as making an argument: it makes you look silly, almost as much as tl;dr bluster and laughable claims of "perceived lingering imperialism" do (protip: I was born almost two decades after Singapore gained independence, and restoring the British Empire is not at the top of my list of priorities). I have never claimed that there is one, universal legal jurisdiction. Since I have read the Act in question, and assumed you had, and since it was so clear to me that this didn't fall under FOP (and assumed it would be for you too), I wondered if you had some strange definition about the definition of "derivative work" that contradicted the understanding of the concept pretty much everywhere in the world (i.e. that taking a photograph of something could, in no circumstances, create a derivative work).
- Away from these meta-arguments, though. You may or may not be right about it not falling into the category of "a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph". The courts will ultimately decide that if it ever comes up (although given that the advert itself is primarily photographic, there's a very good case to be made for you being wrong on this count). What is pretty clear to me, is that this doesn't fall under "works of artistic craftsmanship". This government page gives an example of "designer furniture that is not mass produced". Or to quote us, about the same term considered in another jurisdiction ("lingering imperialism" again? Nope, we're talking about the definition of an English phrase, and it matches up perfectly with the "designer furniture" example):
- In Hensher -v- Restawhile, some examples were given of typical articles that might be considered works of artistic craftsmanship, including hand-painted tiles, stained glass, wrought iron gates, and the products of high-class printing, bookbinding, cutlery, needlework and cabinet-making. Copinger and Skoane James suggests that original jewellery is another candidate.
- To me, it's obvious that an advert is not in the same category (and I don't even need the above example to make my point). What's more, even if you were right, you'll have a hard time making the case that it was, in fact, anything other than "temporarily" situated there, even if it has been there for a year (that, to my mind, is far from permanent.
- Ergo (hell yeah, LATIN!!), Delete. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- You might speculate that the work wasn't situated anything more than temporarily, but the poster was up for a year. You might also argue that the poster does not belong to (c) but (a) even though the poster was neither drawn nor painted, but the statute is silent and in fact (c) is residuary. Chensiyuan 23:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Advertising poster placed only temporarily. Even if it was on display for more than a year, it even shows its expiry date. So it was displayed all along with the clear intention of being removed again at the very latest at the end of 2007. That's still temporary, not "permanent". Lupo 09:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious copyvio, per Lewis Collard. Not permanently in a public place, either. MichaelMaggs 17:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Do we need that? W!B: 04:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Probably not. It's used only one time. Delete --Svens Welt 08:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete if the template author doesn't object, it's easy to adjust the nominal resolution of the SVG. Then again, couldn't this become a maintenance template to suggest an SVG have its nominal resolution increased? Hmm... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I hope that is obvious to everyone by now. Rocket000 20:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image not fourd in source. and source not CC license --Shizhao 08:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of free license -- Infrogmation 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Even if this was all wrong, it's not clear that the fansite would have the authority to CC-license it anyway. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No EXIF, low resolution. Probably copyvio on Flickr. EugeneZelenko 15:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Low resolution indeed but the Flickr user have a lot of photos of celebrities arriving to the Ed Sullivan Theatre, as well as photos of herself together with celebrities in the NY area (example). Thuresson 21:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The above image was low resolution too. Seems plausible that the Flickr user took this. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Thuresson convinced me. Gridge 11:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC).
Kept. giggy (:O) 03:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bad quality: out of focus. EugeneZelenko 15:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep but the picture is in use, so the picture is within project scope. Multichill 21:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, if it's in use it's usually in scope. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The template corresponding to this discussion page should be deleted, it does not seem to be used and is either highly specific or probably just nonsense. (Flowers collected by new swiss poets....) --Vigilius 18:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, looks like a big bag of blah to me. I'll speedy it if there are no objections? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless User:Joergens.mi says he's still going to upload that book. It's not nonsense. "Blumenlese aus den neuen Schweizerischen Dichtern" was a two-volume book published by Heinrich Kurz in Zürich, Switzerland in 1860. The title means in modern English "A selection from modern Swiss poets". User:Joergens.mi evidently had planned to upload the pages from the digitized version at Google Books, but then didn't do so. He did upload the first volume. If the template is deleted, also delete Category:Blumenlese aus den neuen Schweizerischen Dichtern 2. Lupo 07:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Thanks Lupo for your information. I just have forgotten to upload the second volume of that book. --Joergens.mi 17:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Behold The problem is fixed the according book is loaded --Joergens.mi 19:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Smells like a copyvio. Low resolution photo of an actress from a movie premiere, from a point where most likely only professional photographers had access. Originally uploaded by en:User:QueenSupreme89 to the English Wikipedia with a PD-self tag only, no further information about date or location, no EXIF data. Most other uploads by this user were deleted for various reasons. -- Kam Solusar 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete speedy as copyvio (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41101000/jpg/_41101561_friel_pa.jpg) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as user Elcobbola said. This image is a copvyio, and has been copied from BBC --Kanonkas(talk) 19:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete A lot of images deleted in wiki.en. This one seems just another obvious copyvio. Lijealso 19:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
So source, I don't belive, there's a permission given. Marcus Cyron 20:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sourced to unidentified 1997 magazine? Delete -- Infrogmation 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The cover of the magazine is also copyrighted and photo of it cannot be licensed under GFDL or CC without permission of copyright holder. Reaperman 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless uploader can show they are the author/copyright holder of the magazine and the magazine is published under GFDL. -- Infrogmation 00:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
depicts copyrighted artwork (book cover) --Gustav VH 10:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom unless book cover artwork visible is shown to be PD. -- Infrogmation 15:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 07:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
1. It might be copyright violation. We have better images on Palmse manor than that. completed delrequest --Svens Welt 14:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. The uploader, who I know is interested in things from Estonia, has many similar 800 by 5XX pixel, low quality images which to me seem like scans of his own photos. Samulili (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
the link from the image to source theres a FAQ link there that says What commercial uses of the "Ten Most Wanted Fugitives" are allowed? None. Commercial use is strictly prohibited. Descriptions and pictures of the "Ten Most Wanted Fugitives" are provided for the sole purpose of eliciting public assistance in tracking fugitives. [7], as all free licensing also permits commercial use the image cant be hosted on Commons. 75.156.52.162 11:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Omid Tahvili is not one of the "Ten Most Wanted Fugitives" of FBI. Can you provide a more specific link for this particular image? --BorgQueen 13:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, per BorgQueen. Kameraad Pjotr 18:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Image:GrundrissAjantaHoehle1.jpg shows the same cave plan and is much better than Image:Ajanta cave 1 outline.jpg. I am the author of Image:Ajanta cave 1 outline.jpg and want to have it deleted. KWa 12:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC) --KWa 12:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Are you sure? The picture is not doing anyone any harm just sitting there, you could tag it as {{Superseded}} you know... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, user request. Kameraad Pjotr 18:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
possible copyright infringement only completed deletion request --Svens Welt 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 18:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Logo of the 2008 Summer Olympics, copyvio. see [8] --Shizhao 16:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- If this was taken in the People's Republic of China, then we should be able to Keep this. "[C]opying, drawing, photographing, or video recording of an artistic work located or on display in an outdoor public place" is permitted, according to us. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, according to Flickr, it was taken in Beijing, so FOP does apply. Kameraad Pjotr 18:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
No items on the image, but the copyrighted logo. OsamaK 12:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't note the old request. Anyways, I still suggest deleting.--OsamaK 12:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, the copyrighted logo is not an issue if FOP applies. (Does it? I have no idea of chinese copyright laws.) --Rotkraut (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept - COM:FOP. Anonymous101 talk 10:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Statues in the U.S.
[edit]- Image:JMU APC Duke Dog.JPG, Image:James Madison statue.jpg, Image:James Madison statue 2.jpg, Image:James Madison statue 3.jpg (inaugurated 2002): all by Lee Leuning, living U.S. sculptor.
- Image:JamesBlairStatue.JPG, Image:CopleySculpture.JPG (unveiled 2002): by Lewis Cohen, living U.S. sculptor.
- Image:BNDuke.jpg, unveiled 1999, by Steven H. Smith, living U.S. sculptor.
- Image:Women's Memorial.jpg, Image:Women's Memorial2.jpg: dedicated 1993, by Glenna Goodacre, living U.S. sculptor.
Unfortunately, even "public art" is copyrighted, and the U.S. does not have a "freedom of panorama" exception for sculptures. Lupo 07:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep That was not a good idea to mix the en:Vietnam Women's Memorial with the others. So let´s keep them all Mutter Erde 08:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- What is the difference with other sculptures? Delete unless you'll receive sculptor permission. --EugeneZelenko 14:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- What is the difference with other sculptures?
- Delete, clear copyvios. --Kjetil_r 18:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Clear copyvios? According to the article en:Vietnam Veterans Memorial, version of May 2, the opposite is clear. Mutter Erde 19:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I see nothing in that article of relevance to the legal issues here. --MichaelMaggs 17:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Clear copyvios? According to the article en:Vietnam Veterans Memorial, version of May 2, the opposite is clear. Mutter Erde 19:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. These all seem clear-cut examples of obvious copyvios, given that there is no freedom of panorama in the US. MichaelMaggs 17:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Fabelfroh 2008
[edit]images
[edit]
- Image:Cardamine_hirsuta.jpeg
- Image:Barbula_fallax.jpeg
- Image:Allium_paradoxum_detail.jpeg
- Image:Allium_paradoxum.jpeg
- Image:Gagea_pratensis.jpeg
- Image:Luzula_pilosa.jpeg
- Image:Luzula_campestris.jpeg
- Image:Equisetum_hyemale.jpeg
- Image:Lamium_maculatum.jpeg
- Image:Strix_aluco.jpeg
- Image:Euthrix_potatoria.jpeg
- Image:Chrysolina_sp.jpeg
- Image:Sclerotinia_tuberosa.jpeg
- Image:Zootoca_vivipara_detail.jpeg
- Image:Zootoca_vivipara.jpeg
- Image:Hyla_arborea_detail.jpeg
- Image:Primula_vulgaris_sibthorpii.jpeg
- Image:Helleborus_argutifolius.jpeg
- Image:Saxifraga_sancta.jpeg
- Image:Saxifraga_juniperifolia.jpeg
- Image:Crocus_vernus.jpeg
- Image:Crocus_vernus_detail.jpeg
- Image:Crocus_flavus.jpeg
- Image:Hyacinthus_azureus.jpeg
- Image:Chinodoxa_luciliae.jpeg
- Image:Puschkinia_scilloides.jpeg
- Image:Scilla_siberica.jpeg
- Image:Anemone_blanda.jpeg
- Image:Gagea_villosa.jpeg
- Image:Pulsatilla_montana.jpeg
- Image:Anthrenus_verbasci.jpeg
- Image:Bryum_rubens_rhizoidgemmen.jpeg
- Image:Bryum_rubens_rhizoide.jpeg
- Image:Bryum_rubens_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Bryum_rubens_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Bryum_rubens.jpeg
- Image:Brachythecium_salebrosum_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Brachythecium_salebrosum_blattrand.jpeg
- Image:Brachythecium_salebrosum_blattgrund.jpeg
- Image:Brachythecium_salebrosum_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Polytrichum_juniperinum_assimilationslamellen.jpeg
- Image:Cephaloziella_hampeana_zellen.jpeg
- Image:Cephaloziella_hampeana_habitus.jpeg
- Image:Cephaloziella_hampeana_flankenblatt.jpeg
- Image:Cephaloziella_hampeana_brutkoerper.jpeg
- Image:Cephaloziella_hampeana.jpeg
- Image:Encalyptra_vulgaris_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Encalyptra_vulgaris_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Encalyptra_vulgaris.jpeg
- Image:Anomodon_attenuatus.jpeg
- Image:Sphagnum_squarrosum_stammblatt_zellen.jpeg
- Image:Sphagnum_squarrosum_stammblatt.jpeg
- Image:Sphagnum_squarrosum_astblatt_zellen.jpeg
- Image:Sphagnum_squarrosum_astblatt_querschnitt.jpeg
- Image:Sphagnum_squarrosum_astblatt.jpeg
- Image:Sphagnum_squarrosum.jpeg
- Image:Helodium_blandowii_stammblatt_zellen.jpeg
- Image:Helodium_blandowii_stammblatt_grund.jpeg
- Image:Helodium_blandowii_stammblatt.jpeg
- Image:Helodium_blandowii_astblatt_zellen.jpeg
- Image:Helodium_blandowii_astblatt_spitze.jpeg
- Image:Helodium_blandowii_astblatt.jpeg
- Image:Helodium_blandowii.jpeg
- Image:Sphagnum_palustre_stammblatt.jpeg
- Image:Sphagnum_palustre_astblatt_zellen.jpeg
- Image:Sphagnum_palustre_astblatt_querschnitt.jpeg
- Image:Sphagnum_palustre_astblatt.jpeg
- Image:Bryum_argenteum_paraphysen.jpeg
- Image:Bryum_argenteum_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Bryum_argenteum_antheridien.jpeg
- Image:Bryum_argenteum.jpeg
- Image:Weissia_longifolia_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Weissia_longifolia_blattgrund.jpeg
- Image:Weissia_longifolia_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Weissia_longifolia.jpeg
- Image:Trichodon_cylindricus_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Trichodon_cylindricus_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Trichodon_cylindricus.jpeg
- Image:Sphagnum_rubellum_stammblatt_saum.jpeg
- Image:Sphagnum_rubellum_stammblatt.jpeg
- Image:Sphagnum_rubellum_stamm_querschnitt.jpeg
- Image:Sphagnum_rubellum_astblatt_zellen.jpeg
- Image:Sphagnum_rubellum_astblatt.jpeg
- Image:Pottia_davalliana_sporen.jpeg
- Image:Pottia_davalliana_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Pottia_davalliana_kapsel.jpeg
- Image:Pottia_davalliana_blattrand.jpeg
- Image:Pottia_davalliana_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Pottia_davalliana.jpeg
- Image:Plagiothecium_laetum_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Plagiothecium_laetum_blattspitze.jpeg
- Image:Plagiothecium_laetum_blattfluegel.jpeg
- Image:Plagiothecium_laetum_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Plagiothecium_laetum.jpeg
- Image:Acaulon_triquetrum_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Acaulon_triquetrum_kapsel.jpeg
- Image:Acaulon_triquetrum_habitus.jpeg
- Image:Acaulon_triquetrum.jpeg
- Image:Dicranella_staphylina_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Dicranella_staphylina_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Dicranella_staphylina_archegonien.jpeg
- Image:Dicranella_staphylina.jpeg
- Image:Campylium_calcareum_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Campylium_calcareum_blattfluegel.jpeg
- Image:Campylium_calcareum_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Campylium_calcareum.jpeg
- Image:Acaulon_muticum_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Acaulon_muticum_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Acaulon_muticum_archegonium.jpeg
- Image:Acaulon_muticum.jpeg
- Image:Orthotrichum_affine_stoma.jpeg
- Image:Orthotrichum_affine_peristom.jpeg
- Image:Orthotrichum_affine_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Orthotrichum_affine_kapsel.jpeg
- Image:Orthotrichum_affine_blattgrund.jpeg
- Image:Orthotrichum_affine_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Orthotrichum_affine.jpeg
- Image:Orthotrichum_affine.jpg
- Image:Tomenthynum_nitens_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Hieracium_lachenalii.jpeg
- Image:Pterygoneurum_subsessile_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Pterygoneurum_subsessile_glashaar.jpeg
- Image:Pterygoneurum_subsessile_blattspitze.jpeg
- Image:Pterygoneurum_subsessile.jpeg
- Image:Pterygoneurum_ovatum_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Pterygoneurum_ovatum_blattspitze.jpeg
- Image:Pterygoneurum_ovatum_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Pterygoneurum_ovatum.jpeg
- Image:Pottia_bryoides_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Pottia_bryoides_blattspitze.jpeg
- Image:Pottia_bryoides_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Pottia_bryoides.jpeg
- Image:Fissidens_bryoides_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Fissidens_bryoides_kapsel.jpeg
- Image:Fissidens_bryoides_blattspitze.jpeg
- Image:Fissidens_bryoides_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Fissidens_bryoides.jpeg
- Image:Ctenidium_molluscum_stammblatt.jpeg
- Image:Ctenidium_molluscum_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Ctenidium_molluscum_blattrand.jpeg
- Image:Ctenidium_molluscum_astblatt.jpeg
- Image:Ctenidium_molluscum.jpeg
- Image:Bryum_flaccidum_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Bryum_flaccidum_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Bryum_flaccidum.jpeg
- Image:Aloina_aloides_sporen.jpeg
- Image:Aloina_aloides_peristom.jpeg
- Image:Aloina_aloides_kapsel.jpeg
- Image:Aloina_aloides_detail.jpeg
- Image:Aloina_aloides_blattrand.jpeg
- Image:Aloina_aloides_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Aloina_aloides.jpeg
- Image:Stereum_hirsutum.jpeg
- Image:Peltigeria_rufescens.jpeg
- Image:Cladonia_fimbriata.jpeg
- Image:Cladonia_pyxidata_grund.jpeg
- Image:Cladonia_coniocraea.jpeg
- Image:Parmelia_sulcata_detail.jpeg
- Image:Lophocolea_minor_unterblatt.jpeg
- Image:Lophocolea_minor_habitus.jpeg
- Image:Lophocolea_minor_flankenblattzellen.jpeg
- Image:Lophocolea_minor_flankenblatt.jpeg
- Image:Lophocolea_minor_flankenblatt.jpg
- Image:Lophocolea_minor_brutkoerper.jpeg
- Image:Lophocolea_minor.jpeg
- Image:Fissidens_dubius_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Fissidens_dubius_blattspitze.jpeg
- Image:Fissidens_dubius_blattrand.jpeg
- Image:Fissidens_dubius_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Fissidens_dubius.jpeg
- Image:Pylaisia_polyantha_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Pylaisia_polyantha_kapsel.jpeg
- Image:Pylaisia_polyantha_blattfluegel.jpeg
- Image:Pylaisia_polyantha_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Pylaisia_polyantha.jpeg
- Image:Ceratodon_purpureus_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Ceratodon_purpureus_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Isothecium_myosuroides_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Isothecium_myosuroides_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Isothecium_myosuroides.jpeg
- Image:Brachythecium_rivulare_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Brachythecium_rivulare_kapsel.jpeg
- Image:Brachythecium_rivulare_blattrand.jpeg
- Image:Brachythecium_rivulare_blattfluegel.jpeg
- Image:Brachythecium_rivulare_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Brachythecium_rivulare.jpeg
- Image:Amblystegium_serpens_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Amblystegium_serpens_kapsel.jpeg
- Image:Amblystegium_serpens_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Amblystegium_serpens.jpeg
- Image:Cirriphyllum_piliferum_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Cirriphyllum_piliferum_blattfluegel.jpeg
- Image:Cirriphyllum_piliferum_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Cirriphyllum_piliferum.jpeg
- Image:Brachythecium_oedipodium_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Brachythecium_oedipodium_kapsel.jpeg
- Image:Brachythecium_oedipodium_blattrand.jpeg
- Image:Brachythecium_oedipodium_blattfluegel.jpeg
- Image:Brachythecium_oedipodium_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Brachythecium_oedipodium.jpeg
- Image:Mnium_marginatum_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Mnium_marginatum_blattspitze.jpeg
- Image:Mnium_marginatum_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Mnium_marginatum.jpeg
- Image:Plagiomnium_cuspidatum_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Plagiomnium_cuspidatum_blattrand.jpeg
- Image:Plagiomnium_cuspidatum_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Plagiomnium_cuspidatum.jpeg
- Image:Porella_platyphylla_zellen.jpeg
- Image:Porella_platyphylla_unterblaetter.jpeg
- Image:Porella_platyphylla.jpeg
- Image:Plagiochila_porelloides_zellen.jpeg
- Image:Plagiochila_porelloides_blattrand.jpeg
- Image:Plagiochila_porelloides.jpeg
- Image:Neckera_complanata_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Neckera_complanata_blattspitze.jpeg
- Image:Neckera_complanata_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Neckera_complanata.jpeg
- Image:Homalia_trichomanoides_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Homalia_trichomanoides_kapsel.jpeg
- Image:Homalia_trichomanoides_blattspitze.jpeg
- Image:Homalia_trichomanoides_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Homalia_trichomanoides.jpeg
- Image:Mylabris_variabilis.jpeg
- Image:Plagiothecium_ruthei_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Plagiothecium_ruthei_blattgrund.jpeg
- Image:Plagiothecium_ruthei_blattfluegel.jpeg
- Image:Plagiothecium_ruthei_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Plagiothecium_ruthei.jpeg
- Image:Schistidium_apocarpum_kapsel.jpeg
- Image:Schistidium_apocarpum_blattspitze.jpeg
- Image:Schistidium_apocarpum_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Schistidium_apocarpum_basale_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Schistidium_apocarpum.jpeg
- Image:Campylium_chrysophyllum_lamina.jpeg
- Image:Campylium_chrysophyllum_blattfluegel.jpeg
- Image:Campylium_chrysophyllum_blatt.jpeg
- Image:Campylium_chrysophyllum.jpeg
Plus a lot more not listed here. See the user's gallery for the remaining images uploaded with the extra "restrictions". (His request, however, is for all his uploads from 2007 and 2008, a total of nearly 2000 high quality images.)
Nomination
[edit]I nominate the newer Pictures of User:Fabelfroh for mass deletion. Those pictures are licensed CC-BY-SA-NC-3.0 in their metadata. This is not a valid license. In the Infobox there is a CC-BY-SA-3.0 template, however with the restriction ... a commercial use of the image is only possible with the permission of the author. This is clearly against Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses which doesn't allow this restriction. Currently it looks like Fabelfroh is not willing to make his work commercially available anymore. Unfortunately. I still hope he changes his mind because his work is great! Ikiwaner 20:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- Delete There is no option but to delete the relevant images with this non-commercial restriction if User:Fabelfroh isn't prepared to change this as seems to be the case. However, despite this user's request request to delete "ALL photos of 2007, 2008 and ALL moss photos too. And I mean ALL", only those photos with invalid licenses can and should be deleted. I'd like to leave this a few days though to see if any other solution can be found. I wouldn't like for us to have to delete all these images then find there is a way to keep them. Adambro 23:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- This deletion request is for those explicit NC-images only. About 250 of Fabelfrohs 1800 images are affected. I think the other images are OK since they are without further restrictions. Fabelfroh can't redraw a license he once gave. --Ikiwaner 04:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment In after enormous DR. It'd really suck to have to delete all these photos, but that's what we'll have to do. Delete in lieu of a change of heart. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Oh, we could technically keep them as I pointed out on his talk page. The license these are under makes it perfectly clear that that those additional restrictions don't apply or are completely optional. If the metadata and the license tag don't match, then it's dual-licensed and either one can be used. Anyone's allow to remove the NC part from the metadata (implying we choose the other). This isn't a licensing issue since these are CC-BY-SA-3.0 and nothing more. This is a "it right to hold the author to these terms against their will?" If the author wasn't a member of the community and this was some random website's material, it would be different. I still would prefer a better rationale for removing these from Commons but regardless I don't think people would feel comfortable keeping them. Rocket000 04:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment And there's a lot more discussion of the above-mentioned issue here, between the Rocket and I. I worried about informed consent, the Rocket made the good point that "it is the licensor's responsibility to understand the terms and conditions they are willfully agreeing to". But then, isn't there some responsibility on our part to make people know what they are consenting to? That a certain new user (who I dealt with today) who persistently uploaded materials as "all rights reserved, contact us if you want to us it" should trouble us enough, but here we're talking someone who has been uploading materials to Commons since 2005. How is this possible? If he really had no idea about this (and there's a case to be made for him being fully aware of it), are we stating our requirements explicitly and forcefully enough? And for goodness' sake, how did FP and QI reviewers miss this? Do they even understand the problem here?
These, I think, are serious issues that need to be discussed. Maybe we need to be more annoying about this at upload time. Or maybe he knew the deal around here and was just screwing with us all along, using Commons for self-promotion. Discuss. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC) - Comment If the copyrights are indeed partly owned by the university (which I'm not sure about, as Germany doesn't have the same work for hire laws that the US has), then the CC license was not valid in the first place. In that case we can't do anything but delete all images affected by this, not only those with a NC statement. I am sure that the Urheberrecht (similar, but not equal to copyright) always belongs to the author and is non-tranferable. Usage rights, on the other hand are implicitly tranfered to the employer. The question is whether these can be transfered exclusively and whether they were transfered exclusively in this case. --rimshottalk 06:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is my worry as well. Basically, if the user incorrectly specifies the usage rights he has on his own copyrighted works, would this be classified as what we call in the rest of the world: "a copyright violation" ? Are we supposed to subject to the entity that has the usage rights? I seems to be so. TheDJ 11:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm generally finding myself in agreement with Rocket's dual licensing comments. I do share Lewis' concerns re QI and FP, and I really don't know what to do about it at this stage. Reviewer education is needed. But I don't think deleting the images will help in that regard. giggy (:O) 10:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Incidentally, if help is needed in closing this (if kept), I can use Giggabot; specifically approved for this sort of thing. Just give me a yell. giggy (:O) 10:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- We can't keep these images, even if the uploader has violated the license by specifying additional conditions which aren't valid, it should be clear that he hasn't and doesn't agree to release these images under an allowed license. We can't just remove the additional conditions and keep them. It is very disappointing that as I understand it, some of these photos have gone through the FP and QI processes despite these issues and it highlights a lack of scrutiny which has to go beyond simply looking whether it is a good or interesting photo or whatever. I'm not very familiar with either of these processes but checking the licensing should be the first stage of both as it is the most important. It doesn't matter how great an image is if it shouldn't be on Commons. The only option I see available unless the uploads changes his position. Adambro 11:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Incidentally, if help is needed in closing this (if kept), I can use Giggabot; specifically approved for this sort of thing. Just give me a yell. giggy (:O) 10:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete non-commercial is non-commercial. The intent of the author with these specific images is obvious once you read his license (basically an adaptation of cc-by-sa-3.0). This is not a revoke, but simply a license that is not allowed on Commons (If I add additional non-compatible requirements to the GPL license in my software, the FSF won't recognize it as GPL software either). Also there is the possibility of an incorrect interpretation of the usage rights that could be granted by this user (some usage rights possibly lay with the university as mentioned above by rimshot). As such the rights might not be HIS to grant, and as such there might be a partial copyright violation with all images uploaded, even those that do not have the -NC adaptation. The problem is how can we distinguish between his personal photo's and photo's that were taken as part of his University work? TheDJ 11:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify my difference with Rocket000 in this case, who asserts that due to: "There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. This License constitutes the entire agreement, Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from" might technically enable us to remove this NC restriction from his images. I'm not so sure about this. I think that because of the way our licenses are made "visible", Fabelfroh effectively changed the license, instead of making such "additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You." I also therefore propose we move the attribution to a separate "section" (possibly just a simple <hr> beneath the CC-BY-SA license to make the difference more clear.
- Fabelfroh didn't change the license. It stills says CC-BY-SA-3.0, right? You're arguing against what the actual legal document says, not me. Rocket000 14:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, what i assert is that he used a different license and put the CC-BY-SA-3.0 sticker on his own license. The assertion is that as soon as you change this license, you can no longer call that license by the same name, without violating the license. As such, he created a derivative of the license that misused the "moniker" CC-BY-SA-3.0 without actually being the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, and that this is probably illegal. It does not necessarily mean that the works automatically are subject to this license (at least not in all countries in the world, especially if this was not the intent of the licensee). I understand what you are trying to say, but that is something that applies mostly to derivative works, where you have the issue of contamination ( a piece of a work forces a new work into a certain license) or with revoking licenses. TheDJ 19:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Also note that this is an assertion. I'm not saying its true, but i'm saying that things like this can be very complicated. What you quote from the license is there more to protect the license itself, and possibly the licensor and the licensed work from 3rd party distribution. In practicality I think is not a given that it traps the licensor into a license once he has put the string "CC-BY-SA-3.0" on a work. In many courts throughout the world, the original intent of the copyright holder will be important and the question will be raised if the string "CC-BY-SA-3.0|withrestrictions" will be recognized as a separate/new license, that illegally carries the CC-BY-SA-3.0 moniker, as opposed to it being "CC-BY-SA-3.0 license with illegal and not relevant additions by the copyright holder". When you say "technically" you mean "to the letter of the license", but unfortunately copyright law is much more vague when you actually bring it into a court, even if you have licenses that are as well defined and relatively "clear" as those of CC seem to be. TheDJ 20:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I can agree with that. It is a complicated issue. Rocket000 12:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fabelfroh didn't change the license. It stills says CC-BY-SA-3.0, right? You're arguing against what the actual legal document says, not me. Rocket000 14:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify my difference with Rocket000 in this case, who asserts that due to: "There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. This License constitutes the entire agreement, Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from" might technically enable us to remove this NC restriction from his images. I'm not so sure about this. I think that because of the way our licenses are made "visible", Fabelfroh effectively changed the license, instead of making such "additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You." I also therefore propose we move the attribution to a separate "section" (possibly just a simple <hr> beneath the CC-BY-SA license to make the difference more clear.
- Comment Those are great hard to replace photos that took a lot of labor to upload and organize. It seems like Kristian Peters name appears as author 4 times on each page and Fabelfroh few times too, but there is no mention of any university copyrights. I think the university restriction was probably invented afterwards to explain tinkering with the copyright templates. --Jarekt 12:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep Freely licensed and within our scope. ...and for the following reasons:
- Fabelfroh has never made the claim he didn't know non-commercial licenses weren't allowed. Actually, all the evidence points to him knowing full well all along. The most obvious and compelling reason for this assertion is that he only included this little restriction in the metadata. Now obviously, if you don't want to allow commercial use, you're going make sure people know that! The common person doesn't check the metadata—I think I first pointed this out and I only check if because of the current discussion. This seems kinda deceiving to me.
- As I said above, just because the license tag and the EXIF data don't match doesn't mean there's an issue. It just means it's dual licensed and since one is a free license, this is allowed on Commons.
- So the license is fine. What about the additional statement: "Also a commercial use of the image is only possible with the permission of the author"? Well, according to the actual legal part of the license he willfully and publicly stated it was released under, this addition restriction is completely optional.
- After being informed that additional restrictions can be safely ignored by anyone, he continued to license his images with the additional text. Again, the common person isn't going to know everything about the Creative Commons licenses (as some previous comments show). Whether or not it's intended, this is pretty misleading not unlike the metadata situation.
- This isn't the first time Fabelfroh has added additional restrictions on top of licenses that don't allow it.[9][10][11]
- The issue with the GFDL addition is that is makes it completely incompatible with "real" GFDL licensed material. If it was even possible to add anything in the first place (which it's not, without calling it something else). The same goes for any share-alike license. You can't "share-alike" if everyone has their own customized copy-left license. This is staple of all copyleft licenses.
- Originally, I believe this was done as a honest misunderstanding of the license as the original beginning said "For clarity over section 4 of the GFDL license..." This was later changed to "In addition to and for clarity over section 4 of the GFDL license..." so he plainly knew he was making additions.
- His knowledge of the GFDL (like clarifying Section 4 for us) suggests he's not as clueless about these licenses as it may seem.
- There's a history here of trying to restrict the use of his photos while still being allowed to enjoy Commons with all his QIs, FPs, praise, and of course, exposure.
There's one issue left I didn't touch on... he now says he doesn't have full rights to these images. To put it bluntly, I simply don't believe this:
- He never mentions this in the license. For someone so concerned1 2 with us following the letter of these licenses, you'd think he won't leave out a small detail like the copyright holder of his own license.
- Usually, when there's kind of joint deal with photographers and their employers (I guess that's the relationship) the terms are layed-out beforehand and agreed upon. His ability to continuously change the license doesn't suggest this happened.
- Even his metadata says he owns the copyright in so many words: He owns the original copyright. So what, that means he sold out on us? He owns the original copyright but "sold" part of it to some university? He's contradicting himself.
- He originally stated that it was his intention to limit commercial use, not some third party: The idea behind the addition was to restrict commercial use to wiki(m|p)edia only. And that still is my intention.
- Previous to this "university owns part of the copyright" claim, he said he couldn't change it due to some dubious compatibility issue with Flickr.
Some are amazed that this has gone unnoticed for so long. I'm not. He's been here since 2005. He's a well know user with what looks like a standard license (and it technically is). The NC part is hidden away where no one looks. And that extra condition was added in like it was just some additional attribution-specifying after thought. Who checks the license of well established users every time they view one of their images?
I said keep because I believe the user is the sole copyright holder and knew exactly what he was doing. When he couldn't get his way, he decided that he rather not let us have any of the images from the last two years (and the moss ones for some reason) regardless of the licenses attached to them. Should we really keep them... that's up to the community. Like I said I don't think many will feel comfortable keeping them, so the question is do we honor this user request and delete "ALL photos of 2007, 2008 and ALL moss photos too. And I mean ALL." or do we pick and choose and go with only the ones listed here? Or do we accuse the user of uploading things with false licenses he had no right to do and delete them all as copyvios? Rocket000 14:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest we'd be better concentrating on the non-commercial issue and worry about his suggestion that he might not be the copyright holder of some of the images separately. As you note, for him to turn around and say this now is somewhat suspect. Adambro 16:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- "according to the actual legal part of the license he willfully and publicly stated it was released under, this addition restriction is completely optional", well, the license does say that. But then, are we really saying that the courts will interpret a license atomistically, as if it had some separate existence apart from the intent of the author? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think we have different ideas about what his intentions were. Rocket000 19:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I do not understand how Rocket000 uses this as an argument for keeping the images: The idea behind the addition was to restrict commercial use to wiki(m|p)edia only. And that still is my intention. To me that's the sad reason why this is not a formalistic discussion but the lack of Fabelfrohs will to allow unlimited commercial use. Given the assumption that WikiM|Pedia is a non commercial project no commercial use is allowed at all. --Ikiwaner 17:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Because licenses are irrevocable. Rocket000 19:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Wouldn't it be better if when you uploaded an image you _had_ to select a valid license and that would be listed on the image description page in a non-editable way so there was no way to write additions or other non-valid licenses ? The chosen license should also not be changable by the user itself after upload. /Daniel78 19:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the credit/acknowledgement line was used for this, which simply needs to be user editable. This is why I suggested we make a clearer separation in this CC-BY-SA license about what part deals with the actual license, and what part deals with the required credit line of this license. That would make cases like this easier to spot, and it would be harder to fool non-Commons people in this world. TheDJ 19:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Quick mock-up of how I think we should change the layout of this license template. TheDJ 19:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Even so, but it seems all people have to do is say they don't want to allow commercial use anymore and people disregard what the license says anyway. Rocket000 19:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the credit/acknowledgement line was used for this, which simply needs to be user editable. This is why I suggested we make a clearer separation in this CC-BY-SA license about what part deals with the actual license, and what part deals with the required credit line of this license. That would make cases like this easier to spot, and it would be harder to fool non-Commons people in this world. TheDJ 19:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Rocket000 arguments. --Jarekt 14:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and scrub the invalid extra conditions. Fabelfroh has made his bed, now he gets to lie in it. First-time user, I can see giving them the benefit of the doubt, but Fabelfroh has been around a long time, and now has only the choices of accepting the free license or publicly admitting to dishonesty. Stan Shebs 09:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete In my opinion, if there is an apparent licensing conflict then we ought to accept the licensor's apparent intent at face value and act accordingly. It appears that Fabelfroh's intent from the beginning on these images was to include a restriction limiting commercial use. Yes, that is self-contradictory with the inclusion of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 tag. Either this contradiction is intentional (which I see no specific evidence of) or the contradiction is the result of a simple mistake. The people voting Keep here want to exploit that mistake by using only the CC-BY-SA portions of the license to determine that these works are in actuality free of commercial restrictions.
Personally, I do not consider that to be ethical. If it one assumes Fabelfroh never intended to forgo the commercial restrictions, then saying that Fabelfroh waived these provisions by error is essentially trying to exploit Fabelfroh's mistake to her detriment and our advantage. Beyond the mere question of ethics, it is not obvious whether simply removing the contradictory clauses would be legal either. Contract law establishes that an agreement may be void if the agreement contains a mistake and the non-mistaken party is aware of the mistake and attempts to exploit it to his advantage. It is possible, though probably not obvious, that attempting to exploit Fabelfroh's mistake in order to invalidate the commercial clauses and force Fabelfroh into a position she never intended would be sufficiently grievous to void the entire proceeding, and in essence generate the legal finding that CC-BY-SA was never appropriately agreed to in the first place. Hence, I think we have to be concerned that the contradictory clauses create a situation where, in essense, the accompanying CC-BY-SA statement has been tainted to such a degree as to be legally unenforcable.
In the face of complicated issues like this, I don't think it is really our place to assert to the rest of the world that these images are bona fide free content. If Fabelfroh won't agree to remove the restrictions herself, then I think the only appropriate course of action is to delete the images. If, as some apparently believe, Fabelfroh has been attempting to exploit our system for her own advantage by willfully including the questionable licenses, then I think that is all the more reason to remove the content and insist on only content that is unambiguously allowed. Dragons flight 02:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep for the moment. My reading of the extra terms is that they are intended to allow non CC-BY-SA usage, with the permission of the user. But I agree they need to be clarified one way or the other. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Instead of making a another even larger mass deletion request, let's also deal with Fabelfroh's request to delete all his images from 2007 and 2008 (plus some other non-specified images). If you're going on perceived intent here and not what the license says, we should remove all images he doesn't want to be free. Deleting only the ones uploaded after this change would still be going by the letter of the law in a way. He has requested these all be tagged for a deletion request, but I feel these can be dealt with together (and IMO, the fate of both should be the same). Rocket000 15:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think we've got to make a distinction between images he uploaded and released under a free license and those that he didn't. I think it is important to note that he didn't upload the later images under an acceptable license and then wanted to delete them when it came to light that this would allow commercial use. It should be obvious that with the later images, he never agreed to release them under an accepted license. So whilst I think we should delete the later images because he never really agreed to release them freely, those earlier images without the additional restriction regarding commercial use were released under an acceptable license and so should be kept. There are no grounds to delete the earlier images since he can't withdraw the license and so any images before the December 2007 change should be kept, any after should be deleted. I'd therefore suggest that we concentrate on discussing these later images. Adambro 15:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, everything he uploaded is under a free license. CC-BY-SA-3.0 is indeed a free license (and he hasn't removed that after being informed extra restrictions are null and void, btw). It's the intent we are considering, which appears to be the same in both cases (the user himself doesn't make a distinction). Of course he can't withdraw the license in either case, but can we hold him to it? And if we can, should we? Rocket000 01:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- This issue isn't if can Fabelfroh withdraw consent. The issue is if Fabelfroh was able to give consent in the first place. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, everything he uploaded is under a free license. CC-BY-SA-3.0 is indeed a free license (and he hasn't removed that after being informed extra restrictions are null and void, btw). It's the intent we are considering, which appears to be the same in both cases (the user himself doesn't make a distinction). Of course he can't withdraw the license in either case, but can we hold him to it? And if we can, should we? Rocket000 01:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- We can't do that. If Fabelfroh didn't have permission to upload under a free license, we can't keep them. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. "CC-BY-SA, commercial use only with permission of the author" is not an acceptable license on Commons. --Carnildo 21:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. all image uploaded since December 26, 2007 as they arent under a free licenses. Images upload prior to this were uploaded under a free license and relicensed, questions remain as to whether the uploader was able to release the images or not and whether the uploader understood the licensing. For the issue of clarity images these should be identified and renominated. I'll ask User:Giggy to do the mass deletion. Gnangarra 02:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Slowly working through it, any help is appreciated. giggy (:O) 02:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Busy with some other stuff. Will get to it, but it may take a few days, unless anyone else wants to take it on board. giggy (:O) 03:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
May 7
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is unlikely to be the Flickr uploaders to license. I doubt they hold the copyright on this iconic photograph given that the Flickr uploader is only 28 years old and the photo was taken before they were even born. Polly 01:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Do ya think. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bad filename. I'm uploading it again with a better name. Sanfranman59 05:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment use {{badname}} on the image, so their is no need for a deletion request to happend. --Kanonkas(talk) 06:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted using normal dupe procedure. Siebrand 20:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This looks like a professionally made picture and not some snapshot. The user who uploaded it on english Wikipedia has no picture-uploads left because they all were deleted (no source, no source, no source, moved to Commons). In on of his uploads the user himself stated: Unknown source, found it in somebody's browser-cache. In case of this picture here his only comment was Demis Roussos, the singer, there was no mentioning that it's own work ore something like that. -- Cecil 14:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks likely to be a copyright violation. Adambro 16:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author request--Kuara 10:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC) completed request --Svens Welt 18:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per uploader request. Durova 00:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong name, replaced bij Image:Juffer van Batinghe Dwingeloo.jpg Gouwenaar 20:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per uploader request. Durova 23:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
One sentence 7 word Text file not in Commons Scope --WayneRay 23:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Likely to be a copyvio (it is obviously a professional promo shot) and missing source (the image description page at scn: [12] does not name a source either, Request for source has been deleted without explanation). High on a tree 23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio. Durova 23:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I don't think that she gave the uploader the permission to upload this picture. Petar Marjanovic 19:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Private image, out of scope --85.183.209.105 05:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader labeled image with "permission=no". -- Infrogmation 16:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Blatant copyvio Cuarto 20:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete It is a map from a manga called "Hunter x Hunter". I couldn't check whether it was a direct copy, but according to the Italian Wikipedia such a map does occur. So this map, having the same imaginary geography, must be seen as derived from that. --Simonxag 22:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's a screenshot from an episode of the anime. --Cuarto 16:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- If it's that simple you should have just added the Copyvio tag. --Simonxag 22:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dupe of Image:Amphitheater von Lyon.jpg wich was upload by a robot and with the right name of the town Lyon Otourly 20:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by User:Siebrand. No need to nominate duplicates. Rocket000 02:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is an official logo of an organization. As such, it cannot be released under a free license and a free variation cannot be created as it infringes the copyright of the original. This is a copyvio. Night Ranger 21:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Ahonc: In category Copyright violations; no permission
An un-commented gallery consisting of two pictures which are already shown in same appropriate category looks all-too-much like spam. Although I'm one of the authors of the pictures, please delete ASAP. WeHaWoe 17:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC) --WeHaWoe 17:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Beloved seemingly francophone wikipedian,
- it strongly infringes WP policies to remove a deletion request from an article, as you did here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josef_Pr%C3%B6ll&diff=11524577&oldid=11495188 - It is even worse to declare such changes, as you did, as "minor changes".
- The subpage you created and seemingly want to "protect", has nothing but redundant information to the category and its picture descriptions.
- I note that at 15:43 local time (13:43Z), the gallery "article" is still unused in any WP projects:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?w=_100000&i=Josef_Pr%C3%B6ll - The comment you recently added to the gallery page would be more appropriate to the "Category" page, anyways.
- eod from my part (j'en ai mard. Fais n'importe-quoi si personne ne t'empêche). WeHaWoe 13:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. While we're at it, perhaps delete User:Kelson as well, since this appears to be a vandalism-only account. -- Korax1214 19:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Upgrade to Speedy. I reckon my suggestion that User:Kelson be blocked from editing as well is a good one. Reasons:
- He keeps removing the deletion tag, apparently having difficulty understanding the "Do not remove this tag until the deletion request is closed".
- In his last removal, he gave the spurious reason that we "are not allowed to ask" for content to be deleted -- which is news to me, if so then why is there a deletion process in the first place?
- To my mind, Kelson has no understanding of Wikimedia Commons, what it is, what it's for or how it works, and at this rate never will, so enough already. -- Korax1214 00:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- As long as I do not get any good justification : that means based on a rule elaborated by the community, I will not accept the suppression of this gallery. Currently, this gallery, is the best way to browse images of Josef Pröll. I would appreciate that people invest more time to upload/improve pictures than leading this outdated galery vs. category conflict. Thanks for your comprehension. Kelson 09:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- @Kelson: en:RTFM. WeHaWoe 21:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry... you are not at school, that's not an acceptable answer... give a link the corresponding policy. Kelson 09:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Added later, and for definite eod: I for myself am well aware that I'm not at school ;) -- I thought I was talking to a kid and did my best to assimilate and adapt my speech and thinking ;) -- therefore, in case you're an elderly person, as myself is (or even older), I'll put it this way: Please be as kind as to care about the rules of this place. They can be looked up 24/7. And now, dear K's, (both of them) let's stop this silly&time-consuming conversation. It is just waist of energy. WeHaWoe 11:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry... you are not at school, that's not an acceptable answer... give a link the corresponding policy. Kelson 09:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- @Kelson: en:RTFM. WeHaWoe 21:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- As long as I do not get any good justification : that means based on a rule elaborated by the community, I will not accept the suppression of this gallery. Currently, this gallery, is the best way to browse images of Josef Pröll. I would appreciate that people invest more time to upload/improve pictures than leading this outdated galery vs. category conflict. Thanks for your comprehension. Kelson 09:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Kelson has attempted to sabotage the deletion process again, hence Upgrade done -- "this gallery is subject to an existing deletion debate, which the owner has repeatedly sabotaged by removing the delete tag, under the delusion that he has special privileges including immunity from the deletion process (see gallery's revision history). Enough is enough." And maybe it's about time all of Kelson's other "contributions" came under scrutiny as well, since from the above and other comments, he clearly doesn't understand Wikimeda Commons and never will. -- Korax1214 06:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I've just added a reply to Kelson's user page, in the (forlorn?) hope that he might actually make a good Wikimedian; I hope I've managed to stick to the points at hand, and not sink to personal attack (I was sorely tempted). -- Korax1214 07:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, of course I meant his talk page. -- Korax1214 07:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I maybe do not clearly understand, but you are definitely not able to give the concrete rule on which your deletion request is based on... and you have to do it. Kelson 09:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wishful thinking again. I clearly stated the very concrete reason on which my speedy was based, namely that you keep sabotaging the deletion process instead of trying to seek favourable closure (keep) the official way. -- Korax1214 10:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your reason is not based on a policy~, at least you are not able to give it : that's all. Kelson 11:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wishful thinking again. I clearly stated the very concrete reason on which my speedy was based, namely that you keep sabotaging the deletion process instead of trying to seek favourable closure (keep) the official way. -- Korax1214 10:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- For anyone passing. I did delete this as it was tagged as speedy. However on reflection I decided I was wrong & restored it. However I have also protected it as Kelson appears to think it is ok to remove deletion tags while the debate is in progress. I have warned them against such actions in the future --Herby talk thyme 11:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't understand the motive of this request. How exactly can this gallery be considered as spam? This gallery doesn't have any added value compared to the category, but as long as the gallery/template issue isn't closed, this is no reason to delete it. As it is, I would incline towards a speedy keep. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Galleries holding the same content as a category are extremely common on Commons. This is no ground to request deletion.
Comment on behaviour:
- WeHaWoe, your suggestion that this gallery is spam could be read as offensive ; your subsequent bossy attitude towards Kelson does nothing to alleviate the problem.
- Kelson, you are not allowed to remove deletion request tags, as is clearly specified on them. Your command of English is sufficient for you to understand this.
- Korax1214, statements like "perhaps delete User:Kelson as well, since this appears to be a vandalism-only account" are utterly unacceptable in any case. Kelson is a serous contributor on several Wikipedia projects, as can clearly be seen on his personal page.
Apologies =
[edit]I recognize my error (deletion of the banner) and I apology for that. Kelson 12:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
On request: once more, same stuff:
[edit]The gallery is pretty useless=100%redundant to the content of that less-than-poorly equipped category (3 pics in Category, 2 in Gallery, no description in Cat until I did, and 2 of 3 pics are mine).
Infringing was that deletion requests were removed (obviously more than once according to talk -- I did not care about or look up that more than once) by Kelson, thereby declaring his removal as "minor"
This gallery seems to be of no interest to anybody but Kelson at this given time (no links perceptible), and, meanwhile, user:Rama ;) Therefore I supposed kind-of "Link- and Namespamming". I'm not especíally keen on that kind of "stuff", but did rather stumble over, having contributed to the category and just seen redundant stuff in it. I will probably not contribute to any Category-vs.-Gallery discussions any more. Best, WeHaWoe 13:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- @Rama, mainly, and all others: keep it or delete it -- both will do pretty much the same. That's what I tried to express by my edit 11:39, 4. Jun. 2008 (&eod, from my part, REALLY). WeHaWoe 13:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Again, I might have to clarify: before I added my 2 pics, there was ONE pic in the category and of-course-same pic (guess by whom?) in that "One-pic-Gallery". I'd have called such "kiddy-like", and that was the point where I brought in my del.request. -- no: it was a speedy first. WeHaWoe 13:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All Ichthyornis are fossils, so this is redundant to Category:Ichthyornis. --Hesperian 11:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All Ichthyornithidae are fossils, so this category is redundant to Category:Ichthyornithidae. --Hesperian 11:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All Ichthyornithiformes are fossils, so this category is redundant to Category:Ichthyornithiformes. --Hesperian 11:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 19:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photo of a 3D sculpture. How old is the photo? The source site doesn't say. If they took these images, they would own the copyright on the photo. Lupo 12:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright status is unknown, and the source site doesn't state any date when this picture/sculpture was made --Kanonkas(talk) 13:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well if you look a bit further... en:John Rogers (sculptor), then we at least know the sculpture is more than 104 years old, and that according to the person who added the photo to wikipedia, the sculpture should be from 1862. TheDJ 13:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment but did the person who placed the image there give a reference to support that? He died when he was around 75 years if the content on en wiki is true, then the copyright status would have expired on 2007/2008. If it was taken in 1862 which we do not have a source to prove. --Kanonkas(talk) 14:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- The sculpture itself is fine (made in 1862, artist died 1904), it's the photo in question. Rocket000 16:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. This is not about the 3D object shown, it is about the photo itself. Lupo 07:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- The sculpture itself is fine (made in 1862, artist died 1904), it's the photo in question. Rocket000 16:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It's perfectly OK to use this picture. It was taken from my website, johnrogers.info. The pictures of all of the Rogers statues on the website were taken from the book that my parents, Meta and Paul Bleier, and I wrote on John Rogers. Wikipedia has our permission to use this picture, particulary since the picture came from the archives at the New York Historical Society and is no longer copywrited and is in the public domain. Bruce Bleier (PS...I've never used Wikipedia before and I guess I'm doing this wrong. I'll have to spend some time and figure out how any of this works, but you can always contact me through the website noted above.)
Kept. THat's good enough for me. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I think such information is more suitable for Wikibooks. EugeneZelenko 15:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I have placed it in Cat: Education Pdf files along with other similar educational files and will better link them laterWayneRay 23:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
- Delete after moving to eswikibooks, preferably as wikitext. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Even if the whole thing does get Wikibooked, it's good and useful to have the original material around for posterity's sake. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This graphic is low quality and have bad name, I make better with correct name: Image:Śrem - UAM.jpg completed only deletion request --Svens Welt 17:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Speedy keep used on the Wikipedia. --Simonxag 22:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, in use = useful. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Yet another penis picture. This one appears to be orphaned on all WM projects as of today (according to Checkusage) Lucasbfr 23:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Szczepan talk 11:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Suspect likely copyright violation. From record photo, no reason to think image is public domain nor that the uploader is image's copyright holder --Infrogmation 00:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
L'image a plus de cinquante ans (1954).--207.253.63.13 13:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
So, if the image is more than 50 years, it is in the public domain, or not? --190.10.169.38 19:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- No. For details of copyright laws of various countries, see Commons:Licensing. And some photographers have even been known to live more than 50 years. -- Infrogmation 00:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rama: Copyright violation
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unsourced; previous uploader on en:Wikipedia made no claim that image was public domain nor to be author nor copyright holder. --Infrogmation 00:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This image is clearly older than 70 years and therefore in the public domain. Karl Stas 18:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- The age of the photo is not so "clear" to me; Pons lived into the 1970s. In any case, mark on the photo seems to read "DeBelle" or "DeBells", "N[ew] Y[ork]", so it is a US work, and without other information about source and copyright cannot be assumed to be copyright expired unless it can be shown to date from 1922 or earlier. Per the en:Wikipedia article, she did not even make her operatic debut until 1928, and continued performing roles professionally to 1960. -- Infrogmation 22:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader en:User:Karl Stas has not been able to provide source information. Thuresson (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
(Note: This is not the same image as an earlier image with the same name previously deleted.) Dubious license on Flickr. I strongly doubt the Flickr user is the actual photographer/copyright holder; their Flickr stream seems to be a collection of found images, dubiously tagged CC. --Infrogmation (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Flickr page is made up of what seem to be scans and should not be trusted. J Milburn (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Mbdortmund. –Tryphon☂ 09:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
See this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Tyranozaur.png FunkMonk 04:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 19:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Logo and nothing but the logo; therefore this can be seen as a copyvio. This in no way matches the panorama fredom we know in NL. --Erik1980 09:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, FOP does not aplly. Kameraad Pjotr 19:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a logo and nothing but the logo; therefore it can be seen as a copyvio. This in no way matches the panorama freedom we know in NL. Not even suitable for fair use... --Erik1980 09:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, FOP does not apply. Kameraad Pjotr 19:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
it's from copyrighted anime only completed deletion request --Svens Welt 11:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 19:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No postal stamp, copyright violation!--Schmelzle 14:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC) completed deletion request --Svens Welt 10:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Can't be GFDL-self. Samulili (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Out of project scope (private photo) or promo photo. EugeneZelenko 15:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This image has been uploaded with the solely purpose to appear on a Wikipedia article ("Trío Venezuela" in spanish Wikipedia) , It is a scanned picture of my father's musical band back in the 60's, so no promotion is intended. Javier7 19:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
KeepPromotion is perfectly OK, we're just worried that the license i genuine. The explanation seems fine to me. --Simonxag 22:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is a licensing issues which should be solved: although Javier7, a son of one of the men in this photo, own a copy of the work, I must doubt if he owns the copyright to the work. Samulili (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Since the uploaders father is depicted in the picture, it is obvious that he didn't make the image himself, so his son is just the heir of the image but not of the copyright. Unless the photographer has not only sold the image but also the copyright, the right stayed with him. Cecil (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images uploaded by Mazerf
[edit]- File:A89-St-Marcel-d'Urfe.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:A89-Suchères.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:A89-Thiers.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:A89-17.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:A89-13.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:A89-15.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:A89-16.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:A89-11.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:A63biriatou.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- All these images are copyrighted and come from the Sara websites :
- Mazerf lies when he explains his photos are personal work. Just have a look at his discussion page. He has been trying to import the same images for months... Is it possible to block his account?--79.89.193.117 16:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be true - images state (C) JRL. Close as delete. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted all other user contributions as all were in same vein as these, and almost certainly similar copyvios. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Library and Archives Canada non-PD images
[edit]
A - E
[edit]- Image:Aerial view of whole Expo 67 site e000990829.jpg used on 4xwikipedias (4x on en.) (working)
- Image:Barbados hostestes Expo 67 e000996037.jpg (used 1x on en:wiki) (rmv from en:wiki 20May)
- Image:Ben Johnson Seoul 1988.jpg (used on multiple wikis) (repl on en:wiki 17May) (nfy 22xwiki/39xarticle 20May)
- Image:Bing Crosby family Expo67.jpg used on 3xwikis, free image of Crosby availiable but not his family +added
- Image:Bobby Hull of the Chicago Black Hawks hockey team.jpg (used on en:wiki, de:wiki, fi:wiki) (repl/w non-free on en: 13May) (waiting)
- Image:BrianOrser1988Olympics.jpg (used on multiple wikis) (repl on en:wiki 20May) (waiting)
- Image:Canadian Pavillion at Expo 67 e000990974.jpg (used on en:wiki)
- Image:Canadian Supreme Court justices circa 1950.jpg (used on en,fr,he,ru:wiki)
- Image:Castrotrudeau.jpg (used on multiple wikis) (repl on en: 20May) (waiting)
- Image:Chretien1967.jpg (used on en,eo,fr:wiki)
- Image:ChurchillStLaurent1954.jpg (used on en,pl,es,zh,no,hu:wikis)
- Image:Expo 67 cubes in a room.jpg used on 4x wikipedias (working)
F - J
[edit]- Image:Frank Mahovlich of the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team.jpg (used on en,cs,de,fi,fr:wikis) (upld to en: 20May) (waiting)
- Image:French actor Jean-Louis Barrault and french actress Madeleine Renaud at Expo 67.jpg used on 2 wikipedias, free images availiable for both subjects
- Image:French Pavilion with minirail Expo 67 e000990875.jpg (used 1x on en:wiki)
- Image:General Charles de Gaulle at Expo 67 e000996503.jpg used on 5 wikipedias (4x on en.w)
- Image:Germany Pavilion Expo 67 - Montreal Quebec.jpg used on 3 wikipedias
- Image:Glenn Gould 1974.jpg used on 21 wikipedias, multiple times (only other free images are a Yousef Karsh pic of him as a kid that probably also needs to deleted and a statue) (notified 22xwiki/28xarticle 13May)
- Image:Glenn Gould 1959.jpg used on 10 wikipedias '(only other free imageaa are a Yousef Karsh pic of him as a kid that probably also needs to deleted and a statue)
- Image:Gracekellycrop.jpg crop = vio (multi-wiki - need to find full photo & replace)
- Image:Grace Kelly closeup Expo67.jpg (used on multiple wikis) (upld orig to en:wiki 14May) (waiting)
- Image:Grace Kelly baby 1967.jpg (used only on commons) speedy
- Image:Grace Kelly pressconf Expo67.jpg (used on multiple wikis) (upld to en:wiki 14May) (waiting)
- Image:Grace Kelly daughter Expo67.jpg (used on 6x wikis)
- Image:Grace Rainier Monaco Expo67.jpg used on 3 wikipedias, wikinews
- Image:Grace Rainier Monaco minirail Expo67.jpg used on 3 wikipedias
- Image:Grace Rainier Monaco minirail profiles Expo67.jpg used on 10 wikipedias
- Image:Harry Belafonte Expo67.jpg used on 3 wikipedias, but free images availiable
- Image:Hockey Player Tim Horton - Toronto Maple Leafs.jpg (used on en,de,fr:wikis) (upl to en: 20May) (waiting)
- Image:Igor Gouzenko hooded small.jpg (used on multiple wikis) (upload to en:wiki 14May) (waiting)
- Image:Israeli Pavilion at night Expo 67 e000990944.jpg (used on en:wiki) (repl/w non-free on en: 11May) (waiting)
- Image:Jean Béliveau in 1963.jpg (used on de,fr:wikis)
- Image:Jean Béliveau of the Montreal Canadiens hockey team.jpg (used on de,en,fi,fr:wikis) (upload to en:wiki 14May) (waiting)
- Image:Jean Chretien head.jpg (used on en:wiki and fr:wiki)
- Image:Jean Chretien.jpg (used on en,ca,cs,de,fr,ps,pt:wikis)
- Image:JeanPaulLemieux.jpg (used on en:wiki, es:wiki and fr:wiki) (upl to en: 20May) (waiting)
- Image:Joe Clark at Progressive Conservative Convention 1976.jpg (used on multiple wikis)
- Image:John Diefenbaker Inuvik 21 July 1961.jpg (used on en & es:wiki) (upl to en: 20May) (waiting)
- Image:John Diefenbaker at the Flag Debate.jpg (used on en:wiki, es:wiki, fr:wiki)
- Image:John Diefenbaker holding Canadian Bill of Rights.jpg (used on en,fr,nl,es,cs:wikis)
- Image:John Diefenbaker with JFK 1961.jpg (upl to en: 20May) (waiting)
- Image:Johndiefenbaker.jpg (used on multiple wikis)
- Image:John Turner head.jpg (used on en)
- Image:John Napier Turner.jpg (used on en,de,fr,pl,pt,eo,cs)
K - Q
[edit]- Image:Kim Campbell.jpg (crop-vio, living-person photo has no FUR, no free img found)
- Image:Lennon Ono Trudeau 1969 b.jpg (used on multiple wikis - chk b vs bw vs orig img for mods)
- Image:Lennon_Ono_Trudeau_1969_bw.jpg (used on ru:wiki)
- Image:Man the Provider Pavilion at Expo 67 e000996018.jpg used on english wikipedia
- Image:Marlene Dietrich 1967.jpg used on 67 projects, other free images availiable to replace
- Image:Maurice Chevalier Helizapoppin Expo67.jpg used on 6 wikipedias, wikiquote (other images availiable but inferior)
- Image:Maurice Chevalier Labyrinth Expo67.jpg used on 16 wikipedias, bs.wikiquote, (other images availiable but inferior)
- Image:Mulroney.jpg (crop-vio) (working)
- Image:MulroneyTrudeau.jpg (used on en,fr:wiki,en:wikinews + possible cropvios to come)
- Image:Musical Ride Expo 67 Malak.jpg used on en. and nl. wikipedia
- Image:Nancy Greene 1969.jpg (used on 7 wikis)
- Image:Night view of American pavillion e001096692.jpg used on 7 wikipedias, 2 wikiquotes
- Image:Ontario pavilion at Expo 67 colour.jpg used 3x on en.wikipedia
- Image:Opening ceremony Expo 67 e001096646.jpg used 2x on en.wikipedia
- Image:Opening day Expo 67 with leaders e000990917.jpg (used 1x on en:wiki in FU article)
- Image:Ouellet approaches to sign the Constitution.jpg (used on multiple wikis)
- Image:PearsonPDphotoportrait.jpg (used on multiple wikis)
- Image:PearsonPeacePrize.jpg (used on multiple wikis)
- Image:Pearsonflag.jpg (used on en,de,fr,it:wikis)
- Image:Pierre dupuy.jpg used 1x on en.wikipedia
- Image:PierreTrudeau1980.jpg (used on multiple wikis)
- Image:Place des Nations flagpoles Expo 67 e000990934.jpg used 1x on fr.wikipedia
- Image:Place du Portage - View of Interior of Phase II - 4.jpg en.wp
- Image:Princess Irene chatting at Expo 67.jpg (en.wp, de.wp)
- Image:Princess Margatet Lord Snowden 2.jpg (used on multiple wikis)
- Image:Queen Elizabeth II Expo 67 1.jpg (used 2x on en:wiki)
R - W
[edit]- Image:RCMP officer Expo 67.jpg (used on 20+ wikis, replaceable for RCMP articles but not Expo 67)
- Image:Rene Levesque fording Korean stream with recorder.jpg (used on fr:wiki and sv:wiki)
- Image:René Lévesque election night Oct 1973.jpg (used on multiple wikis)
- Image:Robert_Wagner_Expo_67_1.jpg used on 10x wikipedias, 2 free screenshots availiable to replace +added
- Image:Robert_Wagner,_Senta_Berger_and_friend_Expo_67.jpg used on 2 x wikipedias, is the original of cropped versions of Robert Wagner & Senter Berger +added
- Image:RussJacksonRoughRiders.jpg (used 9x on en:, and on zh,pdc:wikis)
- Image:Sauvé.jpg (de,en,fr,ps) +added
- Image:Senta Berger Expo 67 1.jpg used on 5x wikipedias, no free image found yet +added
- Image:Steel Pavilion at Expo 67 e000990899.jpg (en.wp)
- Image:Superintendent Larsen RCMP.jpg (used on en, fr, pl, sv wps)
- Image:Trudeau at the 1968 Liberal convention.jpg (used on 6x wikis)
- Image:Trudeau crop from 1994 group shot.jpg (crop is vio) (working)
- Image:TrudeauCommentsOnCrossRelease1970.jpg (used on en,ja:wikis)
- Image:Trudeau-Turner-Campbell-Chretien-Clark.jpg
- Image:US pavillion with minirail at Expo 67 e000990869.jpg (used on 6x wikis)
- Image:USSR Pavilion Expo67 Aerial view.jpg (used on af:wiki, ru:wiki)
- Image:USSR Pavilion Expo67 Day.jpg (used on en,he,ru:wiki)
- Image:USSR Pavilion Expo67 Interieur.jpg (used on ru:wiki)
- Image:USSR Pavilion Expo67.jpg (used on en,ru:wikis)
- Image:Venezuela Pavilion at Expo 67 e000990936.jpg
Work on this issue is in progress at the en:wiki: status
Deleted
[edit]- Image:Aerial view of Ottawa, The Ottawa River and Hull.jpg (not used) speedy
- Image:Aerial view of Canada & Quebec pavillions Expo 67 e000990837.jpg (used 4x on en:wiki) (repl/w non-free 12May) (unused in article space=delete)
- Image:Building the Canadian Pavillion e000756920.jpg (used on en:/talk/archive == not used) +speedy
- Image:Expo 67 hostesses in front of Parliament in Ottawa.jpg unused speedy
- Image:FlorenceBird.jpg (not used) speedy
- Image:Grace Kelly visiting Expo67.jpg (not used) speedy
- Image:Grace Kelly crowd Expo67.jpg (not used) speedy
- Image:John Diefenbaker Inuvik 21 July 1961 crop.jpg (cropped image is clear violation of granted rights - used only on commons) +speedy
- Image:John Diefenbaker painting angled.jpg (not used) speedy
- Image:John Diefenbaker with JFK 1961 crop.jpg (crop = vio) (chgd articles, waiting for db to catch up) +speedy
- Image:NiagaraFallsFromSeagramTower.jpg (used only on commons) +speedy
- Image:Pearsonatdesk.jpg (not used) speedy
- Image:Place du Portage - Interior view of Phase I and Phase II.jpg (not used) speedy
- Image:Place du Portage - View of Interior of Phase I - 2.jpg not used speedy
- Image:Place du Portage - View of Interior of Phase I.jpg not used speedy
- Image:Place du Portage - View of Interior of Phase II - 2.jpg not used speedy
- Image:Place du Portage - View of Interior of Phase II - 3.jpg not used speedy
- Image:Place du Portage - View of Interior of Phase II - 5.jpg (not used) speedy
- Image:Place du Portage - View of Interior of Phase II.jpg (not used) speedy
- Image:Place du Portage - View of the exterior, Phase I.jpg (not used) speedy
- Image:Place du Portage - View of the interior - 2.jpg (not used) +speedy
- Image:Place du Portage - View of the interior - 3.jpg (not used) +speedy
- Image:Place du Portage - View of the interior - 4.jpg (not used) +speedy
- Image:Place du Portage - View of the interior - Phase I and II - 2.jpg (not used) +speedy
- Image:Place du Portage - View of the interior - Phase I and II.jpg (not used) +speedy
- Image:Place du Portage - View of the interior -1.jpg (not used) speedy
- Image:Place du Portage, Phase I and II exterior view.jpg (not used) +speedy
- Image:Place du Portage, Phase I and II viewed from Parliament.jpg (not used) +speedy
- Image:Place du Portage, Phase I and II, exterior view.jpg (not used) speedy
- Image:Place du Portage, Phase I exterior view.jpg (not used) speedy
- Image:Place du Portage, Phase I viewed from Parliament.jpg (not used) speedy
- Image:Princess Irene chatting at Expo 67 crop.JPG crop is violation of LAC permission (chgd to uncropped - many languages will be cursing me now:)) +speedy
- Image:Princess Irene examines a floorcase at Expo 67.jpg (not used) speedy
- Image:Princess Irene examines globes at Expo 67.jpg (not used) +speedy
- Image:Princess Margaret Lord Snowden 1.jpg (not used) speedy
- Image:Princess Margaret Lord Snowden 3.jpg (not used) speedy
- Image:Princess Margaret Lord Snowden 4.jpg (not used) +speedy
- Image:Queen Street West store window display containing mannequins wearing fur coats and fur merchandise.jpg (not used) +speedy
- Image:René Lévesque election night Oct 1973 (crop).JPG crop = vio +speedy
- Image:View of the CNE in Toronto.jpg (not used / free-replaceable) +speedy
- Image:Window of barbershop on College Street.jpg (not used) speedy
- Image:Expo 67 hostesses in front of Parliament in Ottawa.jpg unused speedy
- Image:Harry Belafonte Expo67 b.jpg unused speedy
- Image:Kim Campbell head.jpg (cropped image is vio, chgd on en:, upage only on fr:) speedy
- Image:Leonard Cohen Toronto.jpg (used on fr,pt,hr:wikis) (rmv from en:, nfy 4xwiki 14May) long enough=delete
- Image:Lester B Pearson at desk w pencil 1967.jpg (used on it,cs:wiki) (nfy 2xwiki 14May) long enough=delete
- Image:Nancy Greene Expo67 b.jpg unused +speedy
- Image:PearsonPeacePrizeA.jpg (unused on wp:article pgs 14May) speedy
- Image:Place du Portage - View of Stained Glass - Interior of Phase I.jpg (not used) speedy
- Image:Wagner,_Berger_survey_Expo_67.jpg unused speedy
PD Images
[edit]- Image:Coronation of Elizabeth II 1.jpg (chg to PD, revoke notice to wikis 21May)
- Image:Coronation of Elizabeth II 2.jpg (chg to PD, revoke notice to wikis 21May)
- Image:Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II 3.jpg (chg to PD license 21May)
- Image:Coronation_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II_4.jpg (chg to PD license 21May)
- Image:Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II 5.jpg (chg to PD license 21May)
- Image:Louisstlaurent.jpg (used on 10x wikis) image is PD
Discussion
[edit]These have all been tagged with "Copyrighted free use" due to text in the LAC catalogue of "restrictions on use: nil". However, this text refers the restrictions place on LAC by the original photographer, and is not a license. See an email from LAC and the copyright notice on the LAC website. My understanding of Canadian copyright law is that for photographs after 1949, life of creator + 70 years is required for PD, so I've nominated all the post-1949 images I found with a quick scan.
I know a lot of work has been put into uploading and cataloging these images, and we haven't received notice from LAC, but I think it's unfair to re-users to use images from Commons which they think are "free", but could ultimately land them a cease and desist notice from LAC. Some day these images will all be PD, and I suspect they will waiting for us in the LAC catalogue. --Padraic 14:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- All of these images were uploaded but a handful of users, so I left a catch-all notice on their userpages, instead of the standard single-image template. I hope that's alright. --Padraic 15:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete them all. Speedy, anyone? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whoah, or not. What's this about "they also seem to be asserting control over those images which are now PD"? Are such images listed here (if so, delist them)? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- No. As I said above, these are all post-1949 images, which mean they cannot be PD, as 70 years has not passed since the date of creation, never mind the death of the creator. I would hold off on the Speedy just in case any of the uploaders may have a reason to identify them as PD. --Padraic 18:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- And shouldn't that be 1939? *blinks* Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not according to Template:PD-Canada. My understanding is there was a legal change which affected everything after January 1, 1949, which is the reason why the creator death date is irrelevant for pre-1949 photos. --Padraic 18:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Disregard me, I misunderstood your point, wasn't thinking very hard and was doing 2009 minus 70... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not according to Template:PD-Canada. My understanding is there was a legal change which affected everything after January 1, 1949, which is the reason why the creator death date is irrelevant for pre-1949 photos. --Padraic 18:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- And shouldn't that be 1939? *blinks* Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- No. As I said above, these are all post-1949 images, which mean they cannot be PD, as 70 years has not passed since the date of creation, never mind the death of the creator. I would hold off on the Speedy just in case any of the uploaders may have a reason to identify them as PD. --Padraic 18:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whoah, or not. What's this about "they also seem to be asserting control over those images which are now PD"? Are such images listed here (if so, delist them)? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Am I right that we can upload these images to individual projects with a FUR? For instance, Image:Ben Johnson Seoul 1988.jpg given that LAC permits their re-use with copyright attribution and there is no longer an opportunity to make a free image of the same subject? Franamax 20:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- You could give a FUR, but I think it would be unrelated to the LAC permission, since one of their criteria is "You do not manipulate and/or modify the material reproduced". But yes, my main point is that these don't belong on Commons (although I am also generating a similiar list of mistagged images at en.wp - I'm sure some of them wil be saved by fair use). --Padraic 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I would suggest this nomination be ended, and the images relisted individually or in very small groups. Each image will have differing copyright/restriction statuses making a blanket nom unreasonable. i.e.: On Image:Trudeau-Turner-Campbell-Chretien-Clark.jpg, the copyright is held by the LOC itself, and it is clearly stated that no restrictions are placed on reproduction or use: [13]. Image:Hockey Player Tim Horton - Toronto Maple Leafs.jpg is a similar case: [14]. Resolute 20:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you want to break them up into smaller groups, feel free. However, I think your example is flawed: the copyright notice I linked to above applies to the entire catalogue, and makes it clear that commercial use is prohibit. The "reproductions on use" is not intended for external re-users; rather it is the limits imposed by the original photographer on LAC itself. These two parts of the catalogue are contradictory -- which is why I emailed them in the first place. I think their response is clear. --Padraic 20:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
To quote from their email:
The terms of re-use of material which appears on your website,specifically granting permission to modify or create derivative products,does not meet our criteria to ensure that the authenticity of the originalmaterial which comes from our collections is retained. Additionally, the terms of re-use on your website state that the material can be copied and distributed directly from your website. Library and Archives Canada requires that we be contacted for any re-use of our original material and we supply the copies of the material to ensure that the authenticity is retained. This is achieved by licensing on a "one-time" use only. Any subsequent use or re-use of our material is subject to a separate license.
--Padraic 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was just reading that email in response to your last message. My mistake, disregard my comments. Resolute 20:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Can we separate this list into images with no wikilinks, which can be speedied; and images used in projects, which we will need to look at individually to construct FUR's? Also, is there a method to notify the other projects that they will need to do this too? Also also, I'm not exactly clear on the process to put a non-free image onto en:wiki, will it get speedied because it duplicates a commons image (there are bots doing this)? Thanks! Franamax 21:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think the best way to do that would be on the talk page of the articles where it is being used, e.g. "This article uses xxxx.jpg, which will deleted from Commons May X, 2008. Should you wish to use it on your project under a fair-use rationale, be sure to make a local copy before May X." --Padraic 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK thanks, I'm relatively sure I'll be doing those efforts on en:wiki, people tend to either let things go as they are or rail against the horribility of actually having to justify using other people's property. I'll try it myself and I might be able to get other people to help. Now my further question is: is there an interwiki bot available which could place those notices in the relevant languages on the xx:wikis? I could generate those notices in English, but I don't have a crosswiki-login at the moment and English doesn't seem to be an appropriate language to use for all the various wikis. BTW, I'm running through the images to find the usages, if that's pointless, please let me know, this is my first try at preserving images across multiple languages. Thanks! Franamax 00:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think the best way to do that would be on the talk page of the articles where it is being used, e.g. "This article uses xxxx.jpg, which will deleted from Commons May X, 2008. Should you wish to use it on your project under a fair-use rationale, be sure to make a local copy before May X." --Padraic 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete the many unused images list above. They are copyvios and should be removed ASAP. Do they need to be tagged in order to be speedy deleted, or can an admin just do it? --Padraic 19:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse speedy's for the unused images. Plea for time on the others as I am still assessing use, changing crop-vio's, and organizing a response to preserve the image use. Franamax 22:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've completed (I think) the usage survey, changed/changing the crop-vio usage across various wikis, and the toolserver db needs some time to replicate now. I've asked for bot help on en:wiki and will shortly try to organize a mini-project to address these issues. I also plan to place speedy notations beside all the copyvios which can be removed at once. Thanks! Franamax 01:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your hard work. The ones that have been flagged for speedy deletion have been nuked. Keep going! Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, thanks a lot for all your work, Franamax. I can't spend any more time on this right now, but I'm happy to know it's being dealt with. --Padraic 12:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I made a list of en.wp-hosted LAC images at w:User:Padraic/LAC. Those will need to be FUR'd or deleted at some point. --Padraic 14:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, thanks a lot for all your work, Franamax. I can't spend any more time on this right now, but I'm happy to know it's being dealt with. --Padraic 12:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your hard work. The ones that have been flagged for speedy deletion have been nuked. Keep going! Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've completed (I think) the usage survey, changed/changing the crop-vio usage across various wikis, and the toolserver db needs some time to replicate now. I've asked for bot help on en:wiki and will shortly try to organize a mini-project to address these issues. I also plan to place speedy notations beside all the copyvios which can be removed at once. Thanks! Franamax 01:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I've identified all images that can be speedy'd without loss to any of the projects. Now comes the hard part - local uploads and FUR's, notifications to other projects, I can hear the en:wiki patrollers and image-bots sharpening their knives in anticipation :) I've copied the salvageable list to this page and I will try to organize some help (next two days) and start plugging through it on my own, starting with the cropvio's, and update the progress here. I understand these are all commons-ineligible and should probably be nuked immediately, but I'll ask for forebearance as long as we are showing progress. Is it reasonable to set a two-to-three week timeframe to clear this up? One week to en:upload and work out the issues, another week to notify the other projects and let them sort it out (or ignore), the last week for closeout? Anyway, I'll keep working on it, thanks! Franamax 23:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, you are dedicated. I was perfectly willing to let other wikis go back to the LAC catalogue themselves after these images were deleted from Commons, but you are certainly making this easier for everyone. Congrats on your spirit of co-operation. --Padraic 13:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- ^^ I'm Lewis Collard, and I endorse this message. ;) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 15:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Dicussion - copyright
[edit]- Canada is actually life+50, eh? WilyD 17:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Usually, but looking at Padraic's flowchart link, if the copyright has been assigned to LAC, does it now have a corporate owner, thus PD at creation + 50? Curiouser and curiouser. Franamax 21:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's not Crown Copyright if the Queen gets her mitts on the ownership, nor does it switch if a corp buys it. If a corp creates it, or the Queen (or her agents) create it, then it's a straight 50 years. Some of the "official portraits" then would be 50 years straight up - an authorised parlimentary photograph (for instance, I put up one of Trudeau) would be Crown, and thus 50 years (assuming LAC isn't licencing it freely, which I'm not convinced of in all cases, anyways.) WilyD 18:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- For instance, Image:Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II 5.jpg should be crown copyright, and hence expired anyhow.
- Oh curse the day I ever saw this page! :) Now if I'm seeing things right 1) the Trudeau pic you refer to is Image:PierreTrudeau1980.jpg which is on the delete list because it's not yet +50 (actually life+50, 'cause it is copyright by a person); 2) All the Coronation...QEII pics are PD now and I can change the tags to reflect that; 3) and I think I found another one for the list: Image:Her_Majesty_Queen_Elizabeth_II_with_Prime_Minister_The_Rt._Hon._Pierre_Elliott_Trudeau_signing_the_Constitution.jpg. Have I got all that right? Franamax 19:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Err, not sure about the context of that Trudeau pic, but it doesn't matter - it's always at least 50 years to PD'ing - but if it's an official portrait, it's likely Crown Copyright, which is a flat 50 years. The Coronation pics should've entered the public domain in Canada on January 1st, 2004 - bcopyright is 50 year post creation for photographs if the owner is a corporation (in this case, a crown corp, but fine ....), agree with the constitution signing to go on the list ... *sigh*. WilyD 20:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- It would be much simpler if we would all just run for Parliament in Canada and change the law... :) Franamax 22:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Err, not sure about the context of that Trudeau pic, but it doesn't matter - it's always at least 50 years to PD'ing - but if it's an official portrait, it's likely Crown Copyright, which is a flat 50 years. The Coronation pics should've entered the public domain in Canada on January 1st, 2004 - bcopyright is 50 year post creation for photographs if the owner is a corporation (in this case, a crown corp, but fine ....), agree with the constitution signing to go on the list ... *sigh*. WilyD 20:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh curse the day I ever saw this page! :) Now if I'm seeing things right 1) the Trudeau pic you refer to is Image:PierreTrudeau1980.jpg which is on the delete list because it's not yet +50 (actually life+50, 'cause it is copyright by a person); 2) All the Coronation...QEII pics are PD now and I can change the tags to reflect that; 3) and I think I found another one for the list: Image:Her_Majesty_Queen_Elizabeth_II_with_Prime_Minister_The_Rt._Hon._Pierre_Elliott_Trudeau_signing_the_Constitution.jpg. Have I got all that right? Franamax 19:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- For instance, Image:Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II 5.jpg should be crown copyright, and hence expired anyhow.
- No, it's not Crown Copyright if the Queen gets her mitts on the ownership, nor does it switch if a corp buys it. If a corp creates it, or the Queen (or her agents) create it, then it's a straight 50 years. Some of the "official portraits" then would be 50 years straight up - an authorised parlimentary photograph (for instance, I put up one of Trudeau) would be Crown, and thus 50 years (assuming LAC isn't licencing it freely, which I'm not convinced of in all cases, anyways.) WilyD 18:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Usually, but looking at Padraic's flowchart link, if the copyright has been assigned to LAC, does it now have a corporate owner, thus PD at creation + 50? Curiouser and curiouser. Franamax 21:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think these three expo 67 images of Robert Wagner also need to be deleted as well as this one Image:Senta Berger Expo 67 1.jpg. Gustav VH 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is actually a category for these images Category:Expo_1967 so presumably all of that needs to go (as well as some in the subcats). Gustav VH 18:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- There are some mis-licensed images on en:wiki also. Please list any problems you find in a sub-section above (preferably), or alternatively at my en:wiki user-page for progress on addressing this. Franamax 03:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Help - I've added two more Image:Glenn Gould 1974.jpg and Image:Glenn Gould 1959.jpg - can someone clarify for me: the subject of the photo is dead (so use can be claimed as fair-use for the image used on some wikis), however copyright is retained and usage restrictions still apply, so this is not allowed on commons. Have I got that right? Franamax 06:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think you are correct, yes. Only images that have no restrictions, at least in the U.S. can be placed on Commons. Gustav VH 10:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
PD Questions
[edit]- Question. I've uploaded a bunch of LAC images, but I'm pretty sure they all have "Copyright: Expired" on them. Am I affected?-Wafulz 16:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've just been looking into it and it seems to be a complete minefield. It depends on a number of factors; i.e. whether it was ever published, and if it was, where it was published and when- see here. I'm not sure how we are ever going to be able to work this out without a copyright lawyer :( Gustav VH 17:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that as long as all the images are in Category:Images from Library and Archives Canada, they are open to LAC scrutiny and comment. We are being diligent here and they are aware of the issue - if they wish to challenge on the margins, we have to wait to see what the specific arguments are. Franamax 08:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- This flow chart is helpful. --Padraic 14:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that as long as all the images are in Category:Images from Library and Archives Canada, they are open to LAC scrutiny and comment. We are being diligent here and they are aware of the issue - if they wish to challenge on the margins, we have to wait to see what the specific arguments are. Franamax 08:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've just been looking into it and it seems to be a complete minefield. It depends on a number of factors; i.e. whether it was ever published, and if it was, where it was published and when- see here. I'm not sure how we are ever going to be able to work this out without a copyright lawyer :( Gustav VH 17:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've written an incomplete set of instructions up at en:wiki, I'll finish it tomorrow and post to a noticeboard there asking for help. Scrutiny of my draft instructions is welcomed. Franamax 08:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Those instructions look good to me. --Padraic 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Several of these images are Public Domain. Notably, photographs whose first owner is a corporation have their copyright expire 50 years after production. [15] Crown Copyright is also 50 years.
- Image:Canadian Supreme Court justices circa 1950.jpg Photograph whose first owner was a corporation, copyright expires 50 years after production - i.e. Jan 1, 2001
- Image:ChurchillStLaurent1954.jpg Photograph whose first owner was a corporation, copyright expires 50 years after production - i.e. Jan 1, 2005
- Image:Louisstlaurent.jpg expired Jan 1, 2001 - Note that LAC says "Copyright expired" NOT "Restrictions on use:nil"
- Image:Coronation of Elizabeth II 1.jpg, Image:Coronation_of_Elizabeth_II_2.jpg, Image:Coronation_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II_3.jpg, Image:Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II 4.jpg and Image:Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II 5.jpg Taken by the National Film Board in 1953 = Public Domain'd January 1st, 2004.
These three are the only ones I've so identified, although one of Diefenbaker says "Circa 1958" - obviously we care whether it was '58+ or '57 or earlier, the latter meaning it would be PD. WilyD 18:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Great work! --Padraic 19:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't everything on commons need to be public domain in the United States? In that case don't we need to follow these rules? Gustav VH 18:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, right. I haven't come across a clear explanation of the rules on Canadian-American copyright on Commons -- maybe I'll write one. Based on that link, it looks like everything which was PD in Canada as of Jan 1, 1996 is fine, whereas everything else won't be PD untill 95 years after publication. Which means the above 4 images are no good (although if we ever start a Canadian Commons we can put them there). --Padraic 15:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't it also depend on whether the works were published or not? Quite how we would determine whether works were or were not published I have no idea... Gustav VH 15:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean "published", or "published in the US"? --Padraic 15:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I mean might some of this work come under the "Never Published, Never Registered Works" rules at the top? Gustav VH 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, that could be a gigantic headache, since LAC hosts a lot of unpublished private collections (e.g. Category:Photographs by William James Topley, although that passes the 70 years pma test). Something to watch for. --Padraic 14:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- The main point seems to be if a previously unpublished work created before 1978 was published between 1978-2002, in which case it is PD in life of author + 70 years or 31 December, 2047 (whichever is later). If created before 1978 but published in 2003 or after it is just life of author + 70 years. So how on earth can we check what has and what hasn't been published? Gustav VH 16:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have no freaking clue. It sucks for re-users, but I think this ends up being one of those situations wher we just host it untill/unless we get a takedown notice. --Padraic 16:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- The main point seems to be if a previously unpublished work created before 1978 was published between 1978-2002, in which case it is PD in life of author + 70 years or 31 December, 2047 (whichever is later). If created before 1978 but published in 2003 or after it is just life of author + 70 years. So how on earth can we check what has and what hasn't been published? Gustav VH 16:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, that could be a gigantic headache, since LAC hosts a lot of unpublished private collections (e.g. Category:Photographs by William James Topley, although that passes the 70 years pma test). Something to watch for. --Padraic 14:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I mean might some of this work come under the "Never Published, Never Registered Works" rules at the top? Gustav VH 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean "published", or "published in the US"? --Padraic 15:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't it also depend on whether the works were published or not? Quite how we would determine whether works were or were not published I have no idea... Gustav VH 15:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, right. I haven't come across a clear explanation of the rules on Canadian-American copyright on Commons -- maybe I'll write one. Based on that link, it looks like everything which was PD in Canada as of Jan 1, 1996 is fine, whereas everything else won't be PD untill 95 years after publication. Which means the above 4 images are no good (although if we ever start a Canadian Commons we can put them there). --Padraic 15:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't everything on commons need to be public domain in the United States? In that case don't we need to follow these rules? Gustav VH 18:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I started a thread on commons-l on the idea of a repository for PD-Canada works which are ineligible for Commons. --Padraic 18:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
A point that has been overlooked. Image:Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II 5.jpg is a British, not Canadian, work. Presumably the photographer was working for "The Crown" which as it was in the UK would mean the UK government. The British and Canadian crown are embodied in the same person, but they are different legal entities. It makes no difference to the free/non-free status - just means it should be PD-UKGov instead of PD-Canada. (addition)Actually, I'm not even sure of that, as looks like it is a Canadian worker who took the pictures, but UK copyright law would also apply on images taken in London (so now 3 countries matter?). Without detailed author info, I don't see how we can know which Crown the photographer was working for - they may have been working for them all simultaneously even.--Nilfanion 22:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
WHO Are these PEOPLE
[edit]Who are these people that have so much free time to delete everything on Wikipedia.
The Archives of Canada is a public organization, therefore all of their work is owned by the people of Canada. The archives of Canada is not going to be against not for profit redistribution of Canadian history.
Would you delete mongers get a freakin LIFE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.243.90 (talk • contribs) 09:59, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
- Everything on Commons has to be availiable for any use, including commercial use and free modification. Archives of Canada does not permit either of these. Gustav VH 14:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, if you think that LAC materials should be public domain, please write your MP! --Padraic 14:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I doubt that this particular anon user has the faintest idea what s/he's on about, or s/he wouldn't be using the words "get" and "life" in the same sentence. :-) From what I've heard, "get a life" was already a hoary old cliché, a substitute for debate rather than an aid to it, some 20 years ago. -- 217.171.129.74 00:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, if you think that LAC materials should be public domain, please write your MP! --Padraic 14:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, except for a few which are, in fact, PD; we can't go on hosting copyright violations indefinitely. A curse against the kind of irresponsibility that leads to messes like this. :\ Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 09:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I undeleted a few images which are either PD-Canada or PD-UKGov, in the public domain section above. These were clearly deleted by mistake. Yann (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photo of a Nazi leader, no information why PD-Japan should apply for a German photo. -- 88.134.141.54 14:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Keepノンノン。これは日本では既に著作権切れなりよ。だから保持。--El torero 12:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep because the image is old, older than 70 years, circa 1935-1937. Zarbon 06:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Being older than 70 years does not necessarily mean that the image is PD. --88.134.141.54 19:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
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) --Chaddy 15:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete Even as the previous closer, I now see that the evidence here is compelling. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because the image is rather old, older than PD, as ascribed. Zarbon 17:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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. Chaddy 04:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- KeepThis image needed most for Wikipedia. --El torero 09:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- That´s not a reason. Many images are needed for Wikipedia, but we can´t keep them, if they are not free. Chaddy 12:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Chaddy and Lewis Collard. --Kam Solusar 03:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
May 8
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not ineligible for copyright, fair use in english wikipedia.Code·is·poetry 05:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment cf. [16] ...Forrester 08:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
nonsense, out of scope --85.177.191.189 05:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope, unused. --GeorgHH • talk 11:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Remove Out of scope. ...Forrester 08:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, not used or useful. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
from a news service only completed deletion request --Svens Welt 14:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Given source of image only has "all rights reserved" as far as I can see. --Simonxag 23:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
it is horrifying and disturbs me in ways i cannot explain 198.236.0.23 19:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as speedy. This is a featured picture. Personal feelings about the event depicted are not valid reasons for deletion. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as above WayneRay 21:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
It is horrifying. It should disturb you. That's the whole point: it is total war taken to its logical conclusion, it is man's inhumanity to man at its basest, it is a mirror of ourselves when we allow the better angels of our nature to be silenced. Deleting a picture won't make history go away, and certainly won't make such a thing less likely to happen again. Or some shit. Kept. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not needed --אדמוןד ואודס自分の投稿記録 17:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep Usable image - no eason as yet given to delete it. --Simonxag 23:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not speedy since this is a user request. It's not currently used, but doesn't appear useful. And it's definitely not speedy delete, nominator. Rocket000 02:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe not. Looks like a personal photo. Rocket000 02:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not useful, personal photo. User request. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete pr Bryan Finn Rindahl 22:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Per bryan + personality right issues abf /talk to me/ 12:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
No Author. Status cannot be determined anymore. --Svens Welt 14:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC) --Svens Welt 14:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. per nom. Has never been revieved by a human user. abf /talk to me/ 12:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. →Christian.И 08:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
"Permission granted to use in Wikipedia" is not enough. Other versions: Image:Adrian Carmack cropped.jpg, Image:Adrian Carmack cropped without watermark.jpg 88.65.96.98 17:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The second image does not refer to Wikipedia only, but must be so limited as it is a derivative of the first. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please, before deleting very important image like that, requested a new permission, author can easily agree if he already do it. ~ bayo or talk 12:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Authorization incomplete, it exclude commercial uses. See OTRS 2008050710008214 --Jacopo 08:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, #2008050710008214. Kameraad Pjotr 19:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files by Fermio
[edit]- Image:Lamorsa.jpg
- Image:Egipcioegipcio.jpg
- Image:Pablokemao.jpg
- Image:Felixmano.jpg
- Image:Felixriendo.jpg
- Image:Felixcornuo.jpg
- Image:Pablocanovasdiaz.jpg
Private image gallery, out of scope --GeorgHH • talk 10:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Image:Egipcioegipcio.jpg is an obvious copyvio and the others are at best unused. --Simonxag 23:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Remove Out of scope. ...Forrester 08:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 12:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files by NkL
[edit]Private image gallery, out of scope. --GeorgHH • talk 11:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 12:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Celebrities
[edit]- Image:Jennifer Garner.jpg
- Image:Cyndi_Lauper.jpg
- Image:Hilary Swank 2008.jpg
- Image:Calista Flockhart.jpg
- Image:Diablo Cody.jpg
- Image:Wesley Snipes.jpg
- Image:Laura Linney.jpg
All uploaded at en-WP by en:User:Red Carpet 2008, who claimed "self-made". But the last four uploads of this user were found to be copyvios: [17], [18], [19], and [20]. It stands to reason that the above seven files therefore also are copyright violations from the same source. (Apparently that Yahoo slideshow mentioned in the deletion summaries is no longer available...) Delete Lupo 16:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete --Jarekt 17:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Soviet Souyz crew photographs
[edit]- Image:Hermaszewski Klimuk.jpg. No source given, if the photograph was made by a soviet person, it is not PD;
- Image:Soyuz 30 crew.jpg. Dupe of the previous;
- Image:Soyuz 36 crew salyut 6.jpg. No source given. Soviet/Russian government artworks are not PD and not covered by the exempt-licence.
--Panther 19:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. No source. Samulili (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a duplicate.
The file already exist in multiple part due to wikisource text format I II III IV V
Gya 12:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 08:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a duplicate.
The file already exist in multiple part due to wikisource text format I II III IV V
Gya 12:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 08:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Betty Ford.gif
May 9
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
je n'ai pas obtenu l'accord de l'impression Lambert JulienPeccoud 02:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Own work was properly licensed. Licenses cannot be withdrawn. Siebrand 07:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No own work as it is stated to be a postcard. No permission delivered, delete. --Svens Welt 11:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Effectively uploader is saying it's a copyvio. --Simonxag 00:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted.--- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
They didn´t agree to be on the internet! 213.98.163.223 09:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
but they are in public, it can be inferred that they have waived their right to privacy in that setting. --65.193.16.100 16:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
also, I very much doubt anyone but those pictured would recognise them - so they are effectively anonymous
Keep Not private, not embarrassing. --Simonxag 00:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep The original objector stated they did not agree to be on the internet. That is suposition. Unless he/she is in the pic there is no way of knowing that the subjects a) did not agree or b) would object to being posted
Kept. giggy (:O) 15:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image uploaded by a friend of an unknown minor to appreciate friendship in an (already deleted) article on de:. Author probably doesn't want to see it used anywhere else. --Matthäus Wander 23:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete unused & useless --Simonxag 00:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 10:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
je ne souhaite pas que mes photos soient exploitées par wikipédia JulienPeccoud 02:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Own work was properly licensed. Licenses cannot be withdrawn. Siebrand 07:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment There are a bunch of these. They all seem to have been uploaded about a month ago when the user was new to the Commons. If the user made a mistake and is trying to revert it, even though a month is along time, I think the moral thing to do would be to accept this. --Simonxag 00:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: In category Unknown as of 6 May 2008; no permission
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope? GeorgHH • talk 11:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Nothing to indicate this was in public & no permission from the subject. --Simonxag 00:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. copuld be used at :P abf /talk to me/ 16:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Bad tracing of a JPG; a better SVG drawing exists and this one should be removed as it is factually incorrect (The real writing looks nothing like this) --68.39.174.238 23:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Where's the other SVG? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 10:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- The "Better drawing". 68.39.174.238 18:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kay. I've tagged it as superseded; I'll delete it if anyone else agrees with me. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Delete as a temporary version of a work in progress. /Lokal_Profil 16:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- The "Better drawing". 68.39.174.238 18:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- delete-Burmese letters are all rounded, not awkward and angular as this one. 61.124.15.65 14:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the uploader hasn't raised any objections, so deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
je ne souhaite pas que mes photos soient exploitées par wikipédia JulienPeccoud 02:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Own work was properly licensed. Licenses cannot be withdrawn. Siebrand 07:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a reason for deletion, one can not change his mind 45 days after licensing, and blanking the page and the file is not a good faith request.--Vriullop 19:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, agree with Siebrand. Kameraad Pjotr 20:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
je ne souhaite pas que mes photos soient exploitées par wikipédia JulienPeccoud 02:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Own work was properly licensed. Licenses cannot be withdrawn. Siebrand 07:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a reason for deletion, one can not change his mind 45 days after licensing, and blanking the page and the file is not a good faith request.--Vriullop 19:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)--
Kept, agree with Siebrand. Kameraad Pjotr 20:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
je ne souhaite pas que mes photos soient exploitées par wikipédia JulienPeccoud 02:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Own work was properly licensed. Licenses cannot be withdrawn. Siebrand 07:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a reason for deletion, one can not change his mind 45 days after licensing, and blanking the page and the file is not a good faith request.--Vriullop 19:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, agree with Siebrand. Kameraad Pjotr 20:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
je ne souhaite pas que mes photos soient exploitées par wikipédia JulienPeccoud 02:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Own work was properly licensed. Licenses cannot be withdrawn. Siebrand 07:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a reason for deletion, one can not change his mind 45 days after licensing, and blanking the page and the file is not a good faith request.--Vriullop 19:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, agree with Siebrand. Kameraad Pjotr 20:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
je ne souhaite pas que mes photos soient exploitées par wikipédia JulienPeccoud 02:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Own work was properly licensed. Licenses cannot be withdrawn. Siebrand 07:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a reason for deletion, one can not change his mind 45 days after licensing, and blanking the page and the file is not a good faith request.--Vriullop 19:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, agree with Siebrand. Kameraad Pjotr 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
je ne souhaite pas que mes photos soient exploitées par wikipédia JulienPeccoud 02:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Own work was properly licensed. Licenses cannot be withdrawn. Siebrand 07:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a reason for deletion, one can not change his mind 45 days after licensing, and blanking the page and the file is not a good faith request.--Vriullop 19:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, agree with Siebrand. Kameraad Pjotr 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
je ne souhaite pas que mes photos soient exploitées par wikipédia JulienPeccoud 02:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Own work was properly licensed. Licenses cannot be withdrawn. Siebrand 07:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a reason for deletion, one can not change his mind 45 days after licensing, and blanking the page and the file is not a good faith request.--Vriullop 19:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, agree with Siebrand. Kameraad Pjotr 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
je ne souhaite pas que mes photos soient exploitées par wikipédia JulienPeccoud 02:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Own work was properly licensed. Licenses cannot be withdrawn. Siebrand 07:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a reason for deletion, one can not change his mind 45 days after licensing, and blanking the page and the file is not a good faith request.--Vriullop 19:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, agree with Siebrand. Kameraad Pjotr 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This picture does not seem like a GFDL work, but a screen shot from a film which was colorized. It was from one of that actor's films from the 1960s. --Yekrats 19:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to have been tagged GFDL by mistake at eo:wiki Finn Rindahl 15:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 20:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the one that here was renamed. --Ruioefj 03:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Yes it is, the reason why I rename the file is that someone asked to delete the file because the name of the file had an intention to refer to a cartoon character. So I changed the file name to avoid the possible ambiguancy, and keep the description focusing on introduce an once existed Japnese express train "Kaikyo" without mentioned the cartoon character at all. Please keep in mind that my arguement about following the exemption rule of copyrights has been ignored and unanswered before the file was deleted. I think this is a very rude action since I'm really willing to discuss about the boundary between fair use and GFDL, but someone only want to swap off all the things they don't like without a proper communication. BTW, if this file has to be deleted, why you keep photos such as Image:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg, Image:Le sceptre d' Ottokar.jpg, Image:Finnair_MD-11_EFHK.jpg, and many many examples for so long? If you think my photo is not proper for WikiCommons, fine, I can accept it, but only if you kill all the photos with cartoon characters inside first!--SElefant 04:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think we can Keep this. The primary subject is not the artwork on the train: it is the train itself. The functional parts of this train are more or less (Photoshop notwithstanding) inseparable from the artistic elements of the train. Those that would differ, should note that many train liveries (and not just "special" ones like this) are way above the threshold for copyright eligibility, and we could wave goodbye to nearly all our train photos if we were to apply this consistently (in before "WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS"). What's more, I think it passes the most important test: Would this photo be useful for illustrating an article about the Pokemon character, without reference to the train itself (i.e. "This Pokemon character was used on a train livery once")? I don't think it would. You may differ. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. Samulili (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Files by Darreldearth
[edit]Darreldearth (talk · contribs)
Private images, out of scope --GeorgHH • talk 09:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files by Benjamin112
[edit]Benjamin112 (talk • contribs)
Out of scope, logos, screenshots, low quality
- Image:MTY 2016.JPG
- Image:MTY 2016 4.JPG
- Image:MTY 2016 9.JPG
- Image:DSC00581.JPG
- Image:Estudio.JPG
- Image:DSC00588.JPG
- Image:DSC00587.JPG
- Image:DSC00593.JPG
- Image:MTY 2016 7.JPG
--GeorgHH • talk 11:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, all either derivative works or really poor quality. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:The Qing Dynasty Cixi Imperial Dowager Empress of China On Throne 7.PNG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Z-The Qing Dynasty Ci-Xi Imperial Dowager Empress of China on a Flat-Bottomed Boat in the Lake of the Middle Sea (3).JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:The Qing Dynasty Cixi Imperial Dowager Empress of China with Attendants.PNG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Jafar Ershadi Fard 24.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Many images of Gaynewyorker
[edit]- File:Stonewallchrisholdensm.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Stonewallchrisholdensm2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Ponyboyuse.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Viewphoto.jpg9999.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Standing_headscissor.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Viewphoto.jpg6.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Gay_Drag_Queen.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Wrestling.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bondagetrample.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Viewphoto.jpgga.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bondage.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CrossdresserCollage.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Facesitting.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:C6e7.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Smothered9.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Gaytrannieschrisrain.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Stonewallgaybrighter.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Hangaruse.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Maidservitude.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Neckbreaker.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Wrestling5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Wrestling3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Chriswrestling.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Wrestling2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Schoolgirlpin9.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Presessionpose.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mistressslavewiki.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Caged4larger.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Forcedfemuseedited.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Humanslavefurniture.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Self promotion Figure4 19:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Reason for deletion irrelevant. A bunch of good quality & very useful pictures documenting some aspects of human sexuality. --Simonxag 00:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Endorse speedy keep above. Although I wish I could unsee all that. ;\ Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 10:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)- Delete I believe this in fact a self deletion request- I am pretty sure User:Figure4 and User:Gaynewyorker are the same person. Gustav VH 10:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- From the evidence I've seen, this may well be the case. I wouldn't speedy keep or delete these. But it might be worth treating this as a self-nom. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Many of these show the face and full name of the person so unless permission has been sent to WM these should in fact have been deleted long ago. Gustav VH 11:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I am gaynewyorker, wish to delete for personal reasons. Sorry for the hassle. Thanks. -- User:figure4
- I say delete those which are not in use. Keep (for now) those that are until we can find suitable replacements. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- The person who uploaded them has asked they be deleted- I think we should honor their request. Gustav VH 16:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Mostly deleted I've been asked to review this request because I had previously deleted material by the same uploader. Several issues apply so I'll present my reasoning with bullet points.
- Is this a self-nomination? The nominator claims to be the same person as the uploader, but the nominator is on a different account and has offered no actual proof that he or she is the same person as the uploader. Therefore I haven't deleted anything as uploader request, although I may do so if this person provides confirmation: the simplest way would be to log into the uploading account and post here, "I confirm that I would like remaining material to be deleted."
- Are these legitimate uploads The vast majority of these images are of people indoors who have not confirmed their permission for modeling. Commons policy requires model permission for recognizable photographs of people indoors, and the particular circumstances here--highly compromising material--call for zealous interpretation. For the record, some of the photographs I've deleted included people whose faces were partially obscured. It is my opinion that they remained recognizable, and that trumps any interest this site may have in representations of human sexuality: the images shouldn't have been uploaded in this manner in the first place, and wikimedians who wish to provide material of this nature ought to be diligent about doing so in a way that respects our obligations.
- A few images do retain encyclopedic value without compromising anyone's privacy. The photographs of the Stonewall bar depict a notable historic site and are actually our best shots of its main business sign, so I will be cropping out the individual who stands next to the location and uploading under a new filename that doesn't suggest any person's identity. One of the intimate photographs cannot reasonably be interpreted as identifiable so I'm leaving that up, until or unless I receive confirmation that this is an uploader request. To the uploader: if you have lost the password to your previous account then please follow up and we'll consider other ways of confirming that.
With respect and thanks to the people who participated here, Durova 17:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cropped and renamed versions of the first two images on this list have been uploaded. Durova 17:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The flag is not in public domain and is usable only by permission.[22] --Eleassar (t/p) 16:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Is that restriction part of copyright law? It sounds like a separate use restriction more along the lines of trademark; these are fairly common and we mark those images with {{Insignia}}. We only delete the images if the copyright status is invalid; see Commons:Licensing#cite_note-0. Carl Lindberg 15:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep --Oren neu dag (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep --Avala (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please state reasons. The original mentioned reason is not grounds for deletion -- it is a non-copyright restriction -- however, per discussion on the associated deletion request, this particular version appears to be a copyright violation of the image from this page, and the site has an explicit copyright statement. Several images from that website have been uploaded, so we would need explicit permission from the website owner, or we need to delete them. So, I think, Delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 14:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Similar to en:Image:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg. --Seeteufel 15:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No reason to delete, even more since that image is en.wp only. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 09:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
May 10
[edit]
My bad. I thought I seen a shield by that name. I'll have to look it up. Thanks for correcting it. --Ltljltlj 21:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Flash animation screen shot file not in Commons Scope --WayneRay 14:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
RemoveFeel free to delete it, it hasn't got much use and indeed isn't in the Commons Scope. Thanks for notifying me! --Gwib 14:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, it was an unfree screenshot of Adobe Flash anyway. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Personal biography Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 05:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted --Kanonkas(talk) 07:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Kanonkas: Out of project scope: Text document. Private biography
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work. Adambro 20:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Herr Kriss 20:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Kolossos 20:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:DW --Kanonkas(talk) 14:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Download for free is not a licence compatible with GFDL or similar) --Lucien 20:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I fully agree. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
What is the subject of this image? Is it usefull for any wiki project? GeorgHH • talk 17:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Not only is this a totally baffling image (to me at any rate), it hasn't even got a proper name — "IM000443"?!?!
Nor does it have any description; to me this smells of an attempt to abuse Wikimedia as an image host. -- 92.40.94.95 11:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd be willing to take your concerns seriously if you weren't doing stupid things like this. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- The subject of this image is a beautiful ukulele isn't it ? If you don't like people that gives image of strange music instrument, just to inform people that it exist you have no place here, I'm really angry again't that kind of faschist attitude ; but also I'm sorry that I have not well named this Image and I will repair this mistake, I'm just a new user so I can make mistake, good bye and good luck mister kapo
Best regards John —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanbastiengmo (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: "The subject of this image is a beautiful ukulele isn't it ?"?! Is that indeed what it's supposed to be? — because I would question that description on both counts.
And to get back to the subject of this deletion debate, your response still doesn't address the second and most important of GeorgHH's qusetions: How is this image useful for any Wikimedia project? Because that is what Wikimedia Commons is for; merely being "beautiful" or "strange" is not qualification enough, especially since the uploader, in trying to "defend" his upload, has fallen into the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy. -- Korax1214 22:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, and per above. -- Korax1214 22:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It now has a description and a {{rename}} better than the one with which the IP above vandalised it. It's a photo of a home-made musical instrument that could be useful to someone, somewhere (maybe even a WMF project, who knows?). Also, I like it, which trumps everything else. That the uploader has fallen into the "reductio ad Hitlerum" error doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep it, merely give him a little education in logic. Please try not to bite his head off. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Never mind. It got renamed to Image:Improvised ukulele.jpg. It now has a description. Can we quit moaning now? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to this, the photo comes from Reuters, not Radio Surco. The image title seems to indicate this, also. Kelly 17:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kelly, most likely Surco acquired usage of the photo from Reuters. Either way it's usage would still be allowed based off of the sites disclaimer. How would it not be ? Redthoreau 17:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have changed the description to match the fact that Claudia Daut of Reuters is the photographer. Wouldn't this cover the issue? Redthoreau 18:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kelly, most likely Surco acquired usage of the photo from Reuters. Either way it's usage would still be allowed based off of the sites disclaimer. How would it not be ? Redthoreau 17:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not finding evidence at either of the source URLs given that this image is released under CC-BY-SA. Radio Surco may have permission to use this image, or they may have paid Reuters for it, or if challenged by Reuters they might claim fair use, but none of those things means Wikimedia Commons has the right to host it. So, delete unless there's evidence of free licensing I've overlooked. —Angr 20:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- This photograph was used by Radio Surco, a Cuban news agency. Their website states (at bottom): "Autorizamos la reproducción de trabajos de este sitio, siempre que sea de forma íntegra y se cite la fuente." = English translation: "We authorize the reproduction of works on this site, wherever and in full acknowledgement of the source." Site. You are saying that such a declaration is not sufficient? Redthoreau 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- If they don't own the copyright on a particular photo, I'm afraid they don't have the right to authorize its re-use. Kelly 00:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- It isn't clear who owns the copyright is it ? They very well could. What is clear however, is that they authorize reproduction as long as given credit. Wouldn't the liability be on them, if they are doing so illegally, not on Wikimedia for following their allowance? Redthoreau 00:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. Certainly they could be held liable for the action; but then every person who re-distributes the image could be too (that includes you, by the way). But is this really the point? Sure, if we could pass the buck upstream every time we suspect a copyright violation, we could upload hundreds, if not thousands, of very high quality, obvious copyright-violations-tagged-as-CC pictures from Flickr. In fact, if we're going to take this to its logical conclusion, we'd do a YouTube and not patrol copyright violations at all, and wait for the DMCA take-down notices to roll in.
- The difference here is that we actually care to ensure that images are free of certain restrictions. We owe it to our re-users, for one, and we have a reputation to build and keep. The day that someone gets hauled into court because they re-used a picture that they found on the Commons is the day our reputation goes down the pan.
- Back to the image itself (and back, indeed, to the point). Delete because I don't find it very plausible that radiosurco.cu has bought a license to the photo that allowed unlimited sub-licensing. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- It isn't clear who owns the copyright is it ? They very well could. What is clear however, is that they authorize reproduction as long as given credit. Wouldn't the liability be on them, if they are doing so illegally, not on Wikimedia for following their allowance? Redthoreau 00:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- If they don't own the copyright on a particular photo, I'm afraid they don't have the right to authorize its re-use. Kelly 00:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- This photograph was used by Radio Surco, a Cuban news agency. Their website states (at bottom): "Autorizamos la reproducción de trabajos de este sitio, siempre que sea de forma íntegra y se cite la fuente." = English translation: "We authorize the reproduction of works on this site, wherever and in full acknowledgement of the source." Site. You are saying that such a declaration is not sufficient? Redthoreau 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
We also have plenty of free images of Fidel Castro available in Category:Fidel Castro. Kelly 16:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Per Lewis' comment. abf /talk to me/ 14:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a derivative work of the copyrighted sculpture, for which no permission has been given. --Superm401 - Talk 03:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy kept, see COM:FOP#United Kingdom. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 10:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. You haven't provided any grounds for speedy keep. Let's see what everyone else thinks. Superm401 - Talk 02:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- In particular, note that the UK law says "permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public". The installation of this statue was not, and was not intended to be, permanent. Superm401 - Talk 02:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Per Collard; please prove the statue moves from day to day and you can have a full debate. giggy (:O) 03:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've unspeedied it again; speedy keep is for obvious cases, which this is not. Non-permanent does not mean "moves from day to day". It means that when it is installed, removal is planned. That is the case here. I can't prove something if no one is watching the debate (because it's already closed). Superm401 - Talk 03:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment (if I were logged-in this would be a vote): This photograph is of one of four temporary istallations to decide on the sculpture to occupy the previously-empty fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square. As Superm401 has pointed out, it was not (and was not intended to be, pending the competition results) a permanent installation (the last I heard, a sculpture of multiple layers of coloured glass was installed on that plinth), and I for one have never heard of this sculpture being installed anywhere else.
Perhaps someone could link to details of the competition, and of the relevant section of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988? -- 217.171.129.74 10:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Sorry, but it's not permanent. They keep putting different statues on this plinth. I think "temporary" and "permanent" may be rather fuzzy concepts and vary according to circumstances, but this is temporary like a painting in an exhibition not one in the main gallery of the museum. --Simonxag 01:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Picture of temporary installation, hence not covered by FoP. -- Korax1214 02:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The other photograph of this installation which used to be on Commons has recently been deleted as a "clear copyvio". Let's wrap this one up. -- 92.40.235.152 00:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yes, a confession: my earlier speedy keep was inappropriate. It was not permanently installed (as I errantly assumed it was), so UK freedom of panorama does not apply. It is clear to me, in retrospect, that this is indeed a "clear copyvio" case. My apologies to all. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The map was created after the WWII (not pd-old) and it has not been proven that it is in public domain by any other means. Works by the municipality of Ljubljana are not public domain per default. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- May be so. Though, it is meant to be in public use and 100% none will claim rights. This map is reproduced around the city x-times to describe historical fact and is not of great aesthetical/economical value. {{Copyrighted free use}} should be the right licence, but if it bothers you, change it or delete the image, as you please. Ziga 06:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately 'copyrighted free use' is not the right license, due to the second sentence of ZASP, paragraph 5. For the works in public places it prohibits the usage in the 3D form, usage for the same purpose as the original work, and usage for commercial purposes. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If you are certain, that this image cannot stay at wp/commons, then please
- move it to wp sl (change licence)
- delete it
thx., Ziga 16:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
copied to user:Sl-Ziga talk page
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deletion requests/Images of Cilit
[edit]- File:B 731 funkční vzorek B3 r.v. 1976.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:C1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Funkční vzorek B2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:B 731 prototyp B4 r.v. 1977.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:C2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:C5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Lc1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I think that User:Cilit's (User talk:Cilit) images are all copyvios because it seems like scans from czechoslovak journal Svět motorů or from Karosa's (czech bus producer) brochures from 70s. User:Aktron agrees with me (User talk:Aktron#Dotaz - in czech). Harold17 21:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete They do look rather like magazine scans. --Simonxag 23:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Image:C5.jpg is scan from this brochure (in pdf) - page 4, Image:Lc1.jpg is scan from this brochure (in pdf) - page 5. --Harold17 20:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 14:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
No source Multichill 16:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment use {{Nld}} for no source images. --Kanonkas(talk) 15:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This image appears at [23] from the information there the image dates from in August 1944, almost 64 years ago, copyright wise the image should be clear. KTo288 20:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. No license. Samulili (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
May 11
[edit]
|
|
|
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate at Image:Palestinian Refugees.jpg Relata refero 07:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Support. New version is of far more better quality. Ceedjee 09:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)- Comment The old version is used on 102 pages in 10 projects, while the new larger one is used only 2 pages in 2 projects. Maybe it would be wiser and cheaper if the larger picture is simply uploaded as a new version of the smaller one? --Spiritia 10:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea since Ceedjee uploaded the old version. --Timeshifter 00:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. The better image was uploaded as a new version. Image links were fixed (1, 2) and the duplicating Image:Palestinian Refugees.jpg has been deleted. --Spiritia 12:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. Good idea. Ceedjee 12:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
PD status of this image seems unclear. It's doubtful that {{PD-GermanGov}} applies here, as there's no proof that this photo was "part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment" (only very few photos become PD this way). And as it was taken in 1946, it can't be in the public domain due to age yet, even if the creator remained anonymous. --Kam Solusar 00:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Kam Solusar 00:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- The tag is clearly wrong. A more useful source link is [24], where this image is used. It shows the accused in the "Neuengamme" process before a British military tribunal in the Curio building in Hamburg, Germany, between March 3 (or 14, or 18; on-line sources differ) and June 18, 1946. It is entirely unclear who the photographer was: a German news reporter (working for an Allied newspaper; I don't think there were any German newspapers that shortly after the war), a British news reporter, or a member of the British army tasked to act as court photographer. Unless the image had been subject to UK Crown Copyright, it is still copyrighted. Delete Lupo 18:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 10:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete possible copyright violation. Even if the picture is available at Flickr, that doesn't prove that the screen shown in the picture is free from copyright concerns. People are told explicitly that they cannot take photos of many things which are shown on those screens at conventions. Comic-Con posts notices in that particular room saying, "Absolutely NO recording or photography of the images or video on the screens in this room." --Doczilla 06:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete The human figure at the centre of this picture is almost incidental. It is basically of the screen and as we've established time and again, that's a copyright violation. --Simonxag 01:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 10:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Why should this (picasa!) be free? Michael Reschke 11:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Source URL has no hint of free licensing. --Simonxag 01:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 10:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work, freedom of panorama does not apply. High on a tree 12:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 01:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 10:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photo of a copyrighted poster. Not covered by freedom of panorama as it's not displayed permanently. -- Kam Solusar 13:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag 01:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 10:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Because there is no longer use for this image and it's not good enough for what I thought it would be good for. completed only deletion request --Svens Welt 15:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 10:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I originally cropped and uploaded this image from NASA World Wind in 2008 for use in en:Mount_Pleasant_Caldera. However, I later found out that it is incorrect and in fact has nothing to do with the Mount Pleasant Caldera. Thus, the file name is incorrect. I am not sure what to rename the file as since it is an image of nothing specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volcanoguy (talk • contribs) 2015-08-04T09:49:27 (UTC)
- According to google these are the en:Chiputneticook Lakes.--Sanandros (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
as per COM:PS, unknown person, no description, bad quality, uploaded by single-upload user. --Túrelio 21:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Svens Welt 09:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 10:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Prisoner statement Text file not in Commons Scope --WayneRay 21:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This image is a cleaned-up modification of the source material: it has been pared down to the relevant pages and OCR'ed for searchability. It's used to substantiate this page. I'm a new wikimedia commons contributor. Where is the "commons scope" defined? I've read this page and I don't see how this is outside the definition. -Sorenr 00:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep but a military government pdf category or appropriate Commons category should be created for people to find the files WayneRay 23:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
Kept. Because it could easyly get encyclopedic value > inside scope. abf /talk to me/ 10:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Prisoner evidence Text file not in Commons Scope --WayneRay 21:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This image is a cleaned-up modification of the source material: it has been pared down to the relevant pages and OCR'ed for searchability. It's used to substantiate this page. I'm a new wikimedia commons contributor. Where is the "commons scope" defined? I've read this page and I don't see how this is outside the definition. -Sorenr 00:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- As per the three files, Commons is for images not text. If the scans were in .jpg etc then they would be images. As such they are just text which is on the page in wikisource you have shown. What is the need for a pdf file of the same? The pdf file is not linked to anything and no one would ever see it that way. Create a Commons gallery article page or Category and place them there and link it to an existing Commons higher order page and they will be ok for now. As they stand it is text and not a Commons Image in the scope of things. WayneRay 02:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
- Keep but a military government pdf category or appropriate Commons category should be created for people to find the files WayneRay 23:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Abdelaziz Kareem Salim al-Noofayee Summary o f Evidence for Combatant Status Review Tribunal 1 November 2004.pdf
[edit]Military tribunal Text file not in Commons Scope --WayneRay 22:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This image is a cleaned-up modification of the source material: it has been pared down to the relevant pages and OCR'ed for searchability. It's used to substantiate this page. I'm a new wikimedia commons contributor. Where is the "commons scope" defined? I've read this page and I don't see how this is outside the definition. -Sorenr 00:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep, source text used by a Wikimedia project. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep but a military government pdf category or appropriate Commons category should be created for people to find the files WayneRay 23:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a derivative work of the copyrighted sculpture, for which no permission has been given. --Superm401 - Talk 03:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy kept, see COM:FOP#United Kingdom. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 10:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. You haven't provided any grounds for speedy keep. Let's see what everyone else thinks. Superm401 - Talk 02:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- In particular, note that the UK law says "permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public". The installation of this statue was not, and was not intended to be, permanent. Superm401 - Talk 02:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Per Collard; please prove the statue moves from day to day and you can have a full debate. giggy (:O) 03:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've unspeedied it again; speedy keep is for obvious cases, which this is not. Non-permanent does not mean "moves from day to day". It means that when it is installed, removal is planned. That is the case here. I can't prove something if no one is watching the debate (because it's already closed). Superm401 - Talk 03:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment (if I were logged-in this would be a vote): This photograph is of one of four temporary istallations to decide on the sculpture to occupy the previously-empty fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square. As Superm401 has pointed out, it was not (and was not intended to be, pending the competition results) a permanent installation (the last I heard, a sculpture of multiple layers of coloured glass was installed on that plinth), and I for one have never heard of this sculpture being installed anywhere else.
Perhaps someone could link to details of the competition, and of the relevant section of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988? -- 217.171.129.74 10:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Sorry, but it's not permanent. They keep putting different statues on this plinth. I think "temporary" and "permanent" may be rather fuzzy concepts and vary according to circumstances, but this is temporary like a painting in an exhibition not one in the main gallery of the museum. --Simonxag 01:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Picture of temporary installation, hence not covered by FoP. -- Korax1214 02:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The other photograph of this installation which used to be on Commons has recently been deleted as a "clear copyvio". Let's wrap this one up. -- 92.40.235.152 00:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yes, a confession: my earlier speedy keep was inappropriate. It was not permanently installed (as I errantly assumed it was), so UK freedom of panorama does not apply. It is clear to me, in retrospect, that this is indeed a "clear copyvio" case. My apologies to all. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Image appears to be a copyright violation. I traced the source of the image back to the Flickr page, which does NOT release the image to the public domain, but contains a "© All rights reserved" marking. SchuminWeb 02:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Linky? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- This image is here at Flickr. The original uploader at en-WP was en:User:Emy111, who claimed PD-self. From this image alone, it cannot be verified that en:User:Emy111 is indeed Flickr user i like the weekend. However, another upload of that user is interesting: en:Image:Philadelphia skyline sunset.jpg was also uploaded by en:User:Emy111 with a size of 1680×1050 pixels. At Flickr, the largest available size of that image is 975×648 pixels... I would say Keep, but if you want to be absolutely sure, ask i like the weekend about this. Lupo 18:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- This image is here at Flickr. The original uploader at en-WP was en:User:Emy111, who claimed PD-self. From this image alone, it cannot be verified that en:User:Emy111 is indeed Flickr user i like the weekend. However, another upload of that user is interesting: en:Image:Philadelphia skyline sunset.jpg was also uploaded by en:User:Emy111 with a size of 1680×1050 pixels. At Flickr, the largest available size of that image is 975×648 pixels... I would say
- Week kept. It doesn't necessarily prove anything but the images were first uploaded on en.wiki. For example this and this Samulili (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This image has become a probable copyvio. The URL http://spain2you.pl appears to no longer work, so (1) the copyright status of this image can no longer be verified and (2) the stated licence (link to the source) cannot be complied with. 217.171.129.79 13:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. The author claims that they are the author. These images can't be found anywhere else on the Internet and it is very likely that the author for some reason misunderstood what one is supposed to write in the source field. Doesn't look like any typical copyvio case I have seen. Samulili (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The image is redundant, of poor quality and not used in any wiki. completed only deletion request --Svens Welt 15:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. Low quality, but we have nothing (from 21th century) to replace it. Samulili (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
motivos internos completed only deletion request --Svens Welt 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. No license. Samulili (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The web site http://pro.corbis.com says the photo was taken on May 24, 1973 by Ron Sachs and is copyrighted to Corbis Sygma (ID number 0000360771-012). And, the Associated Press web site http://www.apimages.com gives this photo ID number 730914043.Ferrylodge 04:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Howcheng: per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Nixon_greets_POW_McCain.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
RENAME: the current name (P1080023) doesn't give any clue as to where this building is, what it is, or why it should be chosen for a page. 217.171.129.74 09:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nomination withdrawn. Rename would be more appropriate, and this has been requested. -- 217.171.129.79 13:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images uploaded by user Gorthaur
[edit]- File:Goldberry.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Gothmog - (lord of the balrogs) - and Fingon (Elf King).JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Uinen - the maia of silent water.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Ossë - the maia of sea waves.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Arien - the maia of sunlight.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Eönwë - the herald maia.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Sauron - Gorthaur.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
These images should be deleted as likely copyright violations. Seven of the user’s 14 images have already been removed as infringing or not improperly attributed. A quick review of the remaining seven shows very different styles; they were surely executed on different media originally as well. It is inconceivable that the same individual created them all. Gorthaur claims he created them but he also claimed authorship of the seven copyrighted files already removed (including a sketch by Leonardo daVinci). In addition, after becoming aware that copyrighted material would be removed, he actively sought to conceal the true origins of at least two images he had previously uploaded. Details here. Given this history, the remaining images are highly suspect and in the absence of evidence to the contrary should be presumed to be copyrighted works, improperly uploaded.
- Delete I am totally unconvinced that this user is able to give valid licensing to these images --Herby talk thyme 11:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is a plethora of styles that even Dali would have been jealous of. Chances that they were produced by one and the same user are infinitesimal small IMO. Given licenses are therefore very dubious. Lycaon 11:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete it is very small to be user created
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 10:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Images with "source: spain2you.pl
[edit]These images have been uploaded in apparent good faith by at least one user; unfortunately the website http://spain2you.pl/ is no longer reachable, hence the copyright condition stated for these images (link to the source) can no longer be complied with, nor can the copyright be verified. Hence this deletion is proposed as a safety precaution.
- Kept. The author claims that they are the author. These images can't be found anywhere else on the Internet and it is very likely that the author for some reason misunderstood what one is supposed to write in the source field. Doesn't look like any typical copyvio case I have seen. Samulili (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete as this image has become a probable copyvio. The URL http://spain2you.pl appears to no longer work, so (1) the copyright status of this image can no longer be verified and (2) the stated licence (link to the source) cannot be complied with. -- 217.171.129.79 13:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
apperently already done --ALE! ¿…? 21:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The image was first published in 2007, and is thus not in the public domain as the tag states --Jeff3000 15:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- This image was first published in 2007? How you understand this? As the Author emphasis that thse are (image of book) old published and he used in his book. Face of image show that the first publishing is'nt in 2007 • Rohan T 16:00, 11 May 2008
- Where was this image published before 2007? Regards, -- Jeff3000 16:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Giggy (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
May 12
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
gfdl/cc does not require the link to a certian website as its wanted in the description abf /talk to me/ 09:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - and you took this to RFD why? Anyway, I changed it to that CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat tag. ViperSnake151 12:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep, non-admin closure. Obviously this person is new and did not find the CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat template, generically using the GFDL/CC-BY-SA template instead. He asked ABF if there was a specific template that could do this. ViperSnake151 15:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
self created artwork, not used, unidentified Avron 17:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image was donated to us from Pearson Scott Foresman (see Commons:Pearson Scott Foresman for the project). It's not "self-created artwork" but public domain. If it's not identified, then feel free to attempt to identify it. (It's an example of a coloid shape.) Bastique demandez 17:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not self created and not unidentified. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's not self created, or unidentified --Kanonkas(talk) 19:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Speedy kept, this is silly. Neither self-created (and it wouldn't matter if it was if it's useful), unidentified, or useless. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Will not be used by uploader (me) due to possible copyright issues. Charlie42 11:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This looks like a perfect case for {{PD-ineligible}} to me. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Lestath: copyright violation
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a UK work and the author died in 1939. Therefore, the picture in not PD in the country of origin. It will be PD in 2010, but not yet. Botev 12:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Ring47.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Web resolution - no exif - sourced from an en user with about 15 contributions. Seems likely to be a copyvio. Megapixie 01:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No hard evidence against this picture. - SuperTank17 20:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh if you insist it's from flickr (hence the lack of metadata) and not under a free license. See here.Geni 16:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- The Flickr user copied this image, not the other way around (see upload dates). Kelvinc 19:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh if you insist it's from flickr (hence the lack of metadata) and not under a free license. See here.Geni 16:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio. --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a UK work and the author died in 1939. Therefore, the picture in not PD in the country of origin. It will be PD in 2010, but not yet. Botev 13:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept as per MichaelMaggs' commentary. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No reason to assume that the author died more than 50 years ago and even then - it may not be PD in the country of origin (Croatia?). Botev 16:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you suspect it is "no reason to assume"? Author is unknown, i.e. {{Anonymous work}}.
Berne convention was ratified by Yugoslavia, i.e. is now valid in Croatia, too. Change license andJulo 16:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Keep - The mere fact that one has not found out who the author is doesn't mean it was published anonymously. This has been discussed on Template talk:Anonymous work. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- It has been discussed but discussion was not closed. Unknown author is anonymous (or pseudoanonymous) IMHO Julo 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was merely reading the tag and it says the author died 50 years ago. I don't think you can safely assume that from the date of publication (and even if you could, it wouldn't necessarily mean PD in Croatia). But if the author is indeed unknown, then change the tag to {{anonymous work}} and keep, otherwise - delete. --Botev 18:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I just read here that the copyright protection for an anonymous work in Croatia last for 70 years after publication (otherwise 70 years pma). So, even if the work is anonymous, we can't keep it. Speedy delete. --Botev 19:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- If Croatia decided 70 years after publication or 70 ypma - no doubt, Delete Julo 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Retagged to {{PD-Croatia}}. --Botev 04:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Does Croatian copyright law depend on the author being unknown to the person reusing the image or on whether or not the work was published anonymously? I'm guessing the latter, in which case (a) {{PD-Croatia}} is worded incorrectly and (b) this image is missing evidence that it was published anonymously. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- As to a) - I've reworded the tag. --Botev 06:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Does Croatian copyright law depend on the author being unknown to the person reusing the image or on whether or not the work was published anonymously? I'm guessing the latter, in which case (a) {{PD-Croatia}} is worded incorrectly and (b) this image is missing evidence that it was published anonymously. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- The mere fact that one has not found out who the author is doesn't mean it was published anonymously. This has been discussed on Template talk:Anonymous work. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free in the country of origin. Author died 1940, Croatia has a copyright term of 70 years pma [28] Botev 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Botev, you obviously don't have enough knowledge about Croatian law to make judgment is some pic (or other work of art) PD or not. Check (if you know Croatian): Javno vlasništvo, in short, before 27 of July 1999 span of author rights in Croatia extended 50 years after authors death, after that date Croatia accepted EU laws (70 years of author rights after authors death).
- So works of anybody who died before 31st of December 1948 (or on that day) are in PD.
- Would you be so kind and remove your deletion requests on all my pics you tagged without proper reason? Thanks in advance! SpeedyGonsales 21:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK - just as I wrote in your talk page, I am waiting for the proper PD-Croatia tag and I will retag all the images. --Botev 23:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've just retagged it to {{PD-Croatia}}. --Botev 05:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK - just as I wrote in your talk page, I am waiting for the proper PD-Croatia tag and I will retag all the images. --Botev 23:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, all good now.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free in the country of origin. Author died 1940, Croatia has a copyright term of 70 years pma [29] Botev 19:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - retagged to {{PD-Croatia}}. --Botev 05:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, all good now. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free in the country of origin. Author died 1940, Croatia has a copyright term of 70 years pma [30] Botev 19:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - retagged to {{PD-Croatia}}. --Botev 05:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free in the country of origin. Author died 1940, Croatia has a copyright term of 70 years pma [31] Botev 19:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - retagged to {{PD-Croatia}}. --Botev 05:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free in the country of origin. Author died 1940, Croatia has a copyright term of 70 years pma [32] Botev 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - retagged to {{PD-Croatia}}. --Botev 05:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free in the country of origin. Author died 1940, Croatia has a copyright term of 70 years pma [33] Botev 19:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - retagged to {{PD-Croatia}}. --Botev 04:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free in the country of origin. Author died 1940, Croatia has a copyright term of 70 years pma [34] Botev 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - retagged to {{PD-Croatia}}. --Botev 04:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Suspected Sony stock photo. Similar angle to Image:Dualshockbranco.jpg. Similar image in Holiday 2007 edition of US PlayStation: The Official Magazine. See table of contents and rotated image of controller. --Kelvinc 22:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah! They are totally equal. Adobe Photoshop makes miracles fixing the graphics, background even changing the angle a bit. I love this software. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 15:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am confused as to whether you are saying that they used your graphic (which was used before your upload), or whether you are saying that you edited the photo in the magazine or a photo from the same source (which means it shouldn't be on Commons if copyrighted). Kelvinc 07:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- None of the options! I was being sarcastic. I think you know what is that, don't you? I know perfectly Commons rules, that's why every photo that don't belong to me I get an OTRS permission. So, if this doesn't have a OTRS ticket I suppose that I took it :) Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 17:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- The sarcasm doesn't go through written text very well. Here's what I can tell:
- The angle and lighting of the photo is unusual. The front, top, and bottom of the controller appear to receive at least some lighting.
- The quality is much better than your other uploads, such as Image:Canudo².JPG
- A nearly identical image exists on a publication before the stated creation date.
- The camera model in the metadata (Finepix E5120) doesn't exist.
- It all makes me very skeptical on your claim that you took the photo. Kelvinc 01:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. False EXIF info. Lighting is identical to the photo given by Kelvinc. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Suspected Sony stock photo. Similar angle to Image:Dualshock3preto.jpg. Similar image of black controller in Holiday 2007 edition of US PlayStation: The Official Magazine. See table of contents and rotated image of controller. --Kelvinc 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Gosh, they discovered the magic I did changing the controller's color, changing the background, angle, etc. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 15:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- But the magazine photo appeared before you uploaded your photo, so they couldn't have copied your photo. Kelvinc 07:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Its obvious that the magazine's photo appeared before mine, I don't work for Sony to get everything first before media. And this doens't explain your arguments, it's easy to see it's not the same photo. And similar it's different from equalMizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 17:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- You don't have to work for Sony to receive press stock photos. And I agree that this image is a different one than the sample I showed, but that image is almost the same as Image:Dualshock3preto.jpg, and I am very skeptical on whether you took that photo. It's probable that both photos were taken from stock photos, or perhaps you took both photos yourself, but it's unlikely that one is a Sony copyrighted stock photo and the other is taken by you with almost exactly same lighting and position. Kelvinc 01:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, false EXIF info, almost certainly a copyright violation (as the other upload of a picture of this kind was). I'm very disappointed. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not used anywhere. Siddharth Patil 14:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep “Not used” is no reason for deletion. --Herbert Ortner 16:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio from [35], original on en: has already been deleted for that reason. High on a tree 05:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Worse quality, lower resolution crop of Image:Portrait baskerville.jpg Mormegil 09:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Awful quality, has no reasonable use. Samulili (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
It's from a newspaper: Al-Watan Newspaper No.(2660) - 11 Jan 2008. Why should it be GFDL? No permission available in OTRS. Svens Welt 10:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. No permission. Samulili (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Not in the public domain in the country of origin (less than 70 years since the author's death). The {{PD-old-50}} tag is ill-placed here. Botev 11:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. No valid license. Samulili (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
exact duplicate of „Image:Eastern Siqhuan eartquake 2008-05-12.GIF“ --Wolf-Dieter 12:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. Apparently the other one was deleted as a duplicate. Samulili (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Not PD in the country of origin. First published in the UK. The author (M. A. Orr = John Evershed) died in 1956. It will be PD in 2027, but not yet. Botev 12:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Is it copyrightable? // Liftarn
- Hmm, good question. Do you think we could use the {{PD-ineligible}} tag here? --Botev 22:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it's hardly an outstanding artistic work. // Liftarn (talk)
- OK, then Keep. --Botev (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK, then
- Yes, it's hardly an outstanding artistic work. // Liftarn (talk)
- Hmm, good question. Do you think we could use the {{PD-ineligible}} tag here? --Botev 22:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. Samulili (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Not PD in the country of origin. The author was a French painter who died in 1955. Botev 14:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies, I uploaded the image. I agree it should be deleted, as French copyright is normally 70 years after death. Papa November 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a Serbian work by Paja Jovanović, who died in 1957. Not PD in the country of origin. Serbia has a copyright term of 70 years after the author's death [36]. Botev 14:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a Serbian work by Paja Jovanović, who died in 1957. Not PD in the country of origin. Serbia has a copyright term of 70 years after the author's death [37]. Botev 14:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
unusable / maybe flame abf /talk to me/ 14:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Not PD in the country of origin. The author was a French painter who died in 1955. Botev 14:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is correct, I have made a mistake by not verifying the date of death of Utrillo. OK to delete. Moez talk 22:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
No reason to assume that the author died more than 50 years ago and even then - it may not be PD in the country of origin (Croatia?). Botev 15:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you suspect it is "no reason to assume"? Author is unknown, i.e. {{Anonymous work}}.
Berne convention was ratified by Yugoslavia, i.e. is now valid in Croatia, too. Change license andJulo 16:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Keep
- I was merely reading the tag and it says the author died 50 years ago. I don't think you can safely assume that from the date of publication (and even if you could, it wouldn't necessarily mean PD in Croatia). But if the author is indeed unknown, then change the tag to {{Anonymous work}} and keep, otherwise - delete. --Botev 18:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I just read here that the copyright protection for an anonymous work in Croatia last for 70 years after publication (otherwise 70 years pma). So, even if the work is anonymous, we can't keep it. Speedy delete. --Botev 19:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- If Croatia decided 70 years after publication or 70 ypma - no doubt, Delete Julo 19:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The law you read is from 1999 and yes, it says author's life + 70 years. It should be applied to works made on or after July 27th 1999. Old law from 1991. (NN 53/91. and 58/93.), which should be applied in this case says authors life + 50 years. According to that law rights to anonymous author's work is transfered to its publisher and it lasts for 50 years (chapter V., article 84.) --MayaSimFan 21:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Retagged to {{PD-Croatia}}. --Botev 04:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- If Croatia decided 70 years after publication or 70 ypma - no doubt,
- I just read here that the copyright protection for an anonymous work in Croatia last for 70 years after publication (otherwise 70 years pma). So, even if the work is anonymous, we can't keep it. Speedy delete. --Botev 19:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was merely reading the tag and it says the author died 50 years ago. I don't think you can safely assume that from the date of publication (and even if you could, it wouldn't necessarily mean PD in Croatia). But if the author is indeed unknown, then change the tag to {{Anonymous work}} and keep, otherwise - delete. --Botev 18:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. Samulili (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The source information is very dubious. Blogs are generally not reliable sources, and the date and author info seems like a joke. Andrew c 15:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is one of the millions of pious Catholic images of saints of which you will never be able to find an author, and which have never been subject of any copyright claims in the last 1000 years and are not likely to become that in the next 1000 years. It may be around 100 years old, maybe not, nobody knows and nobody will be able to find out. In any case, this image will not do any harm, and should be kept as quasi PD like many other images of holy or not so holy folklore. --AndreasPraefcke 07:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As per above. Highly important image which is very old. Dismissing the request as bad faith deletionism. - Yorkshirian 22:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. Samulili (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
It is doubtful whether the logo of Erciyes would be GFDL/cc-by-3.0. Mormegil 17:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
"Use [...] for copy or quotation" is not free enough. No mention of derivative works or commercial use. Source website seems to be offline. -- Kam Solusar 17:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Artist died in 1975. I guess 70 years pma applies in Belgium too. -- Kam Solusar 18:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Author died in 1958. It's not pd in the country of origin (Finland) and not even in the USA yet. Botev 20:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I have taken the picture of the painting by selves and therefore I have marked myselves as the copyright holder. Hsehm
- Sorry, you cannot do this. See here and here. Furthermore, you cannot remove the deletion tag from the picture until this debate is closed. I have reverted your changes. --Botev 07:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
No reason to believe it was first published in the US or another country with copyright term 50 years pma. Botev 14:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Likely so. Perhpas the original description of the picture in english Wikipedia was wrong, and I didn't check the facts (Meyerhold never was in the States?). Could someone check if the picture is public domain due to copyright law of Soviet Union? I'm not familiar with law things. --QWerk 15:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- First thing is that we don't know the author. If the author of this image died before Jun 22, 1941, we could use {{PD-Russia-2008}}. Otherwise, {{PD-old}} if the author died more than 70 years ago. --Botev 15:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not at all clear that this is PD. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Erreur de chargement Jo2b 2007 22:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. User request. Yann (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
execrable quality, not even sure what it's to be a recording of... NielsF ? (en, nl, fr, it) 14:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cecil (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Is not in PD, since Artist has died 1953. Codeispoetry 06:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not PD in the country of origin. Serbia has a copyright term of 70 years after the author's death [38]. Botev 18:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK then, delete it. --BokicaK 18:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
deleted again Julo 21:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Bad name, bad layout, not used --BjørnN 11:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - what kind of name is that? Doesn't seem to serve a fathomable purpose and is orphaned. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Most probably non-US work and person depicted died in 1917. No explicite reason to believe that it is PD in the country of origin (probably Germany). Botev 11:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 22:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The photographs are protected by copyright of Marie Šechtlová. on the source page. Not PD in the country of origin. Botev 20:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 22:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
May 13
[edit]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
and:
- Image:BhLetter.jpg
- Image:IAAtruckRadioPRsheet5x6.jpg
- Image:ACMbalts.jpg
- Image:RadioEuroHurtz4x5A.jpg
- Image:CologPg1.jpg
Dubious copyrights claim. EugeneZelenko 15:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted magazine images --Kanonkas(talk) 16:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, I find it implausible that the uploader holds the copyright to everything depicted. But who knows. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 18:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Is there something new in comparing with Category:Penis? EugeneZelenko 15:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Enough camera phone penis photos. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 18:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate Aviceda 08:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep not really... abf /talk to me/ 08:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Not an exact dupe, but if there is another image which is close enough, please use {{dupe}}. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. It has been loaded for programmers who are engaged in this product. Selection of fragments of AutoWikiBrowser has been executed by me.--Mariluna 04:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
No proper source (on findagrave people can upload pictures without naming author, source or licence). Still contains the fair use rationale in the description, the fair use licence it had on en.WP (see upload-log) got lost during the transfer to Commons. -- Cecil 19:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Have you asked the original uploader en:User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )? // Liftarn
- Keep seems legit. -Nard 01:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, PD-old not assured. Code·is·poetry 12:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
as all other images from this user, no reason for the license; hence not verifiable and highly doubtful AndreasPraefcke 12:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This image is from the website of my city, I know the person who took the picture and there is no problem with the use of it in wikipedia. Toto3371 23:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is to say it was not you to take this picture and you do not hold the copyright. Then the claim “I, the copyright holder of this work, ...” written in the license tag is false. Delete --Rotkraut 17:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
as all other images from this user, no reason for the license; hence not verifiable and highly doubtful AndreasPraefcke 12:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This image is from the website of my city, I know the person who took the picture and there is no problem with the use of it in wikipedia. Toto3371 23:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is to say it was not you to take this picture and you do not hold the copyright. Then the claim “I, the copyright holder of this work, ...” written in the license tag is false. Delete --Rotkraut 17:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Bad quality: out of focus EugeneZelenko 15:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Bad quality: out of focus/noise EugeneZelenko 15:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
and Image:Oregon VBM ballot May 2008 2.jpg, Image:Oregon VBM ballot May 2008 3.jpg
Are works of Oregon government in public domain? EugeneZelenko 15:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't absolutely positive, myself. But I made an educated guess based on my understanding that works by the US government are in public domain. Athelwulf 20:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- With a very few exceptions, only works of the US federal government are PD by default. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Also for Image:Universidad de La Rioja.jpg.
fake license, an institution cannot give a self license. Permision through OTRS is required. ----jynus (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The actress asked me kindly to delete this picture, because she don't like it.--Kuebi 06:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC) --84.59.233.207 21:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- No objection. Perhaps she could provide us with a better one? Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 commons es 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, she doesn't want to have any picture of her published. Could please delete it? Thank you. --Kuebi 15:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Panathinaikos mural
[edit]- Image:Leoforos Panathinaikos Ajax 1996.JPG
- Image:Leoforos Panathinaikos Juventus 1987.JPG
- Image:Leoforos Panathinaikos retro.JPG
- Image:Leoforos Zaec.JPG
- Image:Leoforos Panathinaikos Ajax 1971.JPG
- Image:Leoforos Wachyha Ajax 1996.JPG
- Image:Leoforos Rocha.JPG"
- Image:Leoforos Panathinaikos.JPG
- Image:Leoforos Panathinaikos Webley 1971.JPG
- Image:Leoforos Panathinaikos Sampdoria 1991.JPG
- Image:Leoforos Linoxilakis.JPG
- Image:Leoforos Kyrastas Liverpool 1985.JPG
Derivative works. Images are used to depict subjects of the photographs in the display, rather than the display itself. As they are used, freedom of panorama does not apply. --Ytoyoda 04:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. as obvious copyvios MichaelMaggs 06:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All Logos
[edit]On Commons Logos are normally not permitted, but there are some exempts about textlogos or really, really simple design-logos. In my oppinnion COM:SCOPE wants ALL our files to be free for everyone and for every purpose and trademark is not compatible with this, so I request herefore the deletion of ALL LOGOS under trademark. Regards, --abf /talk to me/ 11:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Requesting a significant change to Commons policy (disallowing trademarks) is something that shouldn't be discussed at an out of the way deletion request. giggy (:O) 11:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Commons:Project scope#Wikimedia Commons is a common central media repository of all Wikimedia projects. Logos more than qualify. -- Cat ちぃ？ 11:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. Just about everything can be trademarked within some limited context. The primary purpose of trademark law, is to protect the holders of the trademark against disparaging use of their company/brand/etc identity. If we are to ensure that all pictures are suitable for unlimited use in any context, then we'd have to:
- Delete all pictures of living people, because of personality rights;
- Delete all works first published in a country that recognises the legal doctrine of moral rights (this, as I see it, is a somewhat close analogue to trademark law);
- Delete all pictures of swastikas, Hitler and chums, etc, or at least those that originate in countries that forbid their use in certain contexts.
- The list goes on. There are all sorts of non-copyright restrictions on what you can do with certain works. If we were to hold to it consistently, a few years down the line we'd find ourselves with about four pictures on Commons. TL;DR: Keep. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Its completly different with personallity rights, because there are clear restrictions. The Images we keep even if there are people are free to use, Trademark is not. abf /talk to me/ 12:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not. Trademark law forbids using a certain image in a context that could cause people to confuse the person authoring a work with the trademark holder. I could, for example, publish a book about Microsoft and reprint the logo within without relying on a fair use defense. I couldn't use the word Microsoft (let alone the logo of such) to brand my own software product. The law is pretty clear about that sort of thing. Meanwhile, what is considered "disparaging" as far as personality rights go, is a lot more unclear and subjective IMO... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Its completly different with personallity rights, because there are clear restrictions. The Images we keep even if there are people are free to use, Trademark is not. abf /talk to me/ 12:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Almost any image is in some way restricted. Images of living people are restricted by personality rights. Coat of arms are restricted by relevant laws. Money is restricted by counterfeiting laws. Images I take are restricted by unwaivable moral rights. And simple text logos are equally restricted by trademarks. We must draw a line somewhere. And that line is that we shall not look further than copyright. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not just money that's restricted by counterfeiting laws. In almost any jurisdiction you couldn't print out, say, the Mona Lisa and go and sell it as the original and genuine Mona Lisa. And you couldn't paper over the windows of someone else's house with a random image of a flower without their consent, or blast out a pronunciation file at full volume at 2am in a residential area, etc. I'll take back my comment above about "we'd find ourselves with about four pictures on Commons". If we held consistently to it, we would have to delete everything, because if you're creative enough you can think of a way in which just about every picture, video, and sound file on Commons could be used in a way that violated laws in pretty much every jurisdiction in the world. This is why we concern ourselves with copyright alone... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 15:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Commons cannot provide more than copyright-free pictures in most jurisdictions. We would have to shut down the site for good if we want more. Maybe we should do this and start multiple Commons sites for different countries, with some sort of non-redundant file system. But that's another question. --AndreasPraefcke 12:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. This really is not the place to propose fundamental changes to Commons policies. Please open a debate on the Village Pump. MichaelMaggs 18:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Tagged PG-old, but does not say when the author died or any support information for the tag. 79.100.3.65 17:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The author, en:Edward Stanford died in 1904. The fact that it was published posthumously is not surprising, since his company remained in the family until 1947. -Nard 22:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep From the same reason as mentioned above. --Olahus 20:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, see below. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no proof George Soteriadis died more than 70 years ago Movieevery 17:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- The first search result for "George Soteriadis" on JSTOR is a 1942 paper (Eugene Vanderpool, "An Archaic Inscribed Stele from Marathon") which says in part "... Professor George Soteriadis, who was then doing archaeological work... . In the spring of 1940, at Professor Soteriadis's request, the Ministry of Education ordered the stone to be brought to Athens". Assuming it's the same person (which seems likely), then he has not been dead 70 years. --dave pape 23:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
derivative work abf /talk to me/ 08:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Its not an essential part of the image. So keep as a "Beiwerk" --Jodo 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as Beiwerk --ALE! ¿…? 21:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept as Beiwerk. →Christian.И 14:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Because there is no longer use for this image and it's not good enough for what I thought it would be good for. completed only deletion request --Svens Welt 09:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Not a valid reason for deletion. Giggy (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Excuse me but I'm the one that upload this image and I'm the one that what's it deleted. Common sense. Black Tusk (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
This is not a "mere fact or happening". Honestly, I believe the Chinese law is not applicable to photographs. Botev 09:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Why was this page deleted???
- It hasn't been deleted yet but I think it should be. I am reading the reason for the public domain claim in the tag {{PD-PRC-exempt}} and it says that a work is in the public domain if it falls under one of the following categories:
- (1) laws; regulations; resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs; other documents of legislative, administrative and judicial nature; and their official translations;
- (2) news on current affairs;
- (3) calendars, numerical tables, forms of general use and formulas.
- Can you tell me which of the three reasons applies here? I don't even think you can apply this law to any photograph. It seems to me you can apply it to some official documents (like laws and statutes), you can also apply it to copy a text from the newspaper that is a mere report of current events (even scans of newspapers would be problematic due to their design elements that might be copyrightable). And you cannot claim copyright on a mere calendar page that shows a list of the days in a month and their corresponding days of the week (though some other design elements could be copyrightable). But what is really relevant here - I don't see a reason why you could claim that this particular image is in the public domain under this law. --Botev 03:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 08:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to request this image for deletion per COM:DW Kanonkas(talk) 15:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please do what you should with this image - I don't know anything about licenses. It was the only picture connected with Cruyff on flickr and licensed under creative commons. Imerros 17:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would add out of scope, I don't see any illustrative value. Spiritia 11:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- IMHO it's valuable image - it's good for the section about Cruijff's popularity and glory. Imerros 14:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Giggy (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
see Commons:Derivative works MichaelMaggs 20:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Derivative work because of what? Tamya does not have a copyright for a Tiger I. --Denniss 21:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Utilitarian object (for the army), replicas of utilitarian objects attract no new copyright.--kogo 21:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Giggy (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
May 14
[edit]
|
|
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Most likely manga/anime screenshot. EugeneZelenko 15:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted image, which I do belive belongs to the creators of "Pokémon". The site also says "All rights reserved" --Kanonkas(talk) 17:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
CC-BY-NC-SA Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam 17:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not a compatible license to Wikimedia Commons --Kanonkas(talk) 17:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, nominated by uploader mere hours after upload. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Based purely on information now described as spurious at http://flagspot.net/flags/mf.html The Tom 02:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see why the image has to be deleted. There is one report of possible being a fake... but even if it's a fake, I don't see why it has to be deleted. It may be used in different Wikimedia proyects and shown as a "fake flag used sometimes to represent the island" or something like that. --B1mbo 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Except the Commons is not some indiscriminate aggregator of information--if I want to make up fake flags for every country in the world, I shouldn't get to store them here just because they could the thereafter be truthfully labeled "fake flag used sometimes to represent the country".
- While one person supplying a report is good enough for the FOTW listserv networks, it simply doesn't cut it for Wikimedia's rules of notability. This graphic's only citable source is a report from one individual on the FOTW site from 1998, which has since been refuted by at least three other posters. By holding down the namespace of Flag_of_Saint-Martin_(local) we are in effect corroborating that initial report, and it means all other Wikimedia projects are grabbing it using the standard (local) template syntax without providing context such as you've suggested like "fake flag ascribed to the island on one website."
- I might favour moving the image to "Flag_of_Saint-Martin_(as_reported_once_on_listserv)" if we're going to be particular about keeping it. :) The Tom 16:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep This image is used a lot. Commons has no such rule on notability. Or anything about verifiability either. Nothing against a rename, but this isn't the place to request that. Rocket000 18:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons". By violating notability guidelines of all the various Wikipediae which it appears, there is no justification for it being here, surely? The Tom 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- “Flag_of_Saint-Martin_(local).svg is used on 226 pages in 37 projects” [42]. Obviously, quite a lot of Wikimedia projects consider this image to be useful. Keep --Rotkraut 19:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- “Flag_of_Saint-Martin_(local).svg is used on 226 pages in 37 projects” [42]. Obviously, quite a lot of Wikimedia projects consider this image to be useful.
- "Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons". By violating notability guidelines of all the various Wikipediae which it appears, there is no justification for it being here, surely? The Tom 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, concerns about the authenticity of the flag are not our business. This is an editorial decision for local wikis; fix it if it bothers you so much. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I live on the french side of this island since 30 years. The only official flag we have here is the french flag from France. That supposed flag of Saint-Martin shown here is nowhere seen on the island, not either at our 3 borders with the dutch side. The other most exhibited flag after the french one is the Heineken logo one. If you accept to keep this fake flag here then why not creating also a fake american flag ? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.78.49.221 (talk) 07:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
On "Metadata" section it's reported "GIUSEPPE CAROTENUTO" as author, a Roman professional fotoreporter Trixt 02:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Flickr copyviol. Looks like same Flickr user has uploaded other copyvios from Italian news media. -- Infrogmation 02:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I did upload the image. I am sorry: I think it is a Flickr copyviol, too. --Wappi76 08:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, Flickrvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Because there is no longer use for this image and it's not good enough for what I thought it would be good for. completed only deletion request --Svens Welt 08:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete speedy as copyvio (from here?). The site claims author is John Baldwin - does not match Graeme Bartlett (Flickr user). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Thanks, ЭLСОВВОLД. I believe this is a case of FlickrWashing. Rocket000 05:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As the photographer (Daniel D. Baleckaitis) I fear the ability for someone to manipulate this image for personal gain. This request stems from a visit to a flea market when I found a person walking around with this image in a rather large frame (matted). When asked where it was purchase they "could not recall which vendor" sold them the picture and frame. In all, I find it rather frustrating to see my work being used/sold (of course with no credit) with disregard of the CC license and never plan to make that mistake again. --128.135.104.35 15:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
KeepThat is one of the purposes of uploading files to Commons. Photographers are usually crefitied for any commercial use. I have done so with my Postcard Series I am producing WayneRay 11:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
Keep If you don't like others to manipulate your images, then you should not publish in PLoS or any jounal that uses a CC license. It's as simple as this. --Rotkraut 19:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep per link provided by Lewis Collard. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- kept,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 19:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no proof Armando Reverón licensed it as GFDL, and he died in 1954 -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 commons es 07:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- “no proof” is quite an euphemism: if the author died in 1954, its impossible that he might have it licensed as GFDL. The very first version of GFDL is from 1999. Delete --Rotkraut 16:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Undeleted Became public domain in Venezuela in 2015. Abzeronow (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Personal request by Kirill Samursky. All right to this image belong to Samursky and National Geographic Society completed only deletion request --Svens Welt 08:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep artwork is pd-old --Leafnode 09:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- But the artwork is not entirely two-dimensional. I'd say, a borderline case. --Rotkraut 20:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: {{PD-Art}} (the current license) applies only to faithful photographic reproductions. This is not a mere full-frame, technical reproduction. There appears to have been, among others, framing, angle and lighting choices (note, for example, shadowing in the hands/arms). I think the relief is significant enough to consider this a 3D object. The aforementioned artistic choices are, then, sufficient for the image to pass the threshold of originality (i.e. Samursky retains rights). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, PD-Art does not apply here. Borderline case, but let's err on the side of caution here. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photo was taken during the performance of a Broadway show, which is illegal under NYC local law 383A, which forbids the use of recording devices during motion pictures and live performances. Copyright of the performance in its entirety is held by the producer and/or author, and therefore any unauthorized photograph is automatically a violation of copyright. --SixFourThree 19:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It's a derivative work, but not because of 383A. Whether a photo was legally taken or not is entirely irrelevant to the copyright status of the work and, therefore, to us. But the fact remains that such a photograph is a derivative work of the performance, and would be even if there was no law that forbade people from using cameras during a performance. Please don't confuse these issues, because they're different. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't mean to confuse them. I addressed the derivative nature in my post above - the copyright of a performance (including all recordings) resides entirely with the producer and/or author, depending on their licensing agreement. The fact that it may have been taken illegally only adds to the inappropriateness of hosting it here. SixFourThree 17:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
- Sorry, I misunderstood you. :) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't mean to confuse them. I addressed the derivative nature in my post above - the copyright of a performance (including all recordings) resides entirely with the producer and/or author, depending on their licensing agreement. The fact that it may have been taken illegally only adds to the inappropriateness of hosting it here. SixFourThree 17:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
And deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The source website has in turn gotten the image from clipart.com which states "You may not redistribute or sell the content." Hence unfree Lokal_Profil 00:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Also affected is the derivative Image:Alienss.svg. /Lokal_Profil 00:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Even the source site itself claims "all rights reserved" - double whammy. No support for the {{NoRightsReserved}} claim is provided. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Bad quality: out of focus EugeneZelenko 15:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep In use on es-wiki. Carl Lindberg 14:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. In use MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
According to en:Arthropleura, these are photographs of a model displayed in the Field Museum. The model is almost certainly copyrighted, meaning photographs of it would violate the modeler's copyright.
N.B. the uploader to Wikipedia has requested to not be notified when his/her images are tagged for deletion. --Lyrl 02:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete derivative work of a 3D object ("sculpture"); image taken in Chicago - no such FoP in United States. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Why the hell did no one tell me this?? How would I know this? I didn't know... --Mitternacht90 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Anonymous101 talk 11:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
permission is not documented correctly abf /talk to me/ 13:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean by not documented correctly? This was an picture by Nikola Gruev. Discussion on his permission to use his pictures under GFDL is documented at Bulgarian Wikipedia and at Template talk:NGruev. I can't draw a clear conclusion from the discussion as to whether Gruev agrees to commercial use of his pictures or not. He seemed to favor non-commercial use on Wikipedia only, but Google Translation is not good enough to learn whether he finally agreed to commercial use in the Bulgarian portions of the discussion or not. So I don't know whether the pictures are to be deleted or not. But whatever the answer may be: It should be applied to all of Gruevs pictures. Delete them all or keep them all. --Slomox (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- I can't draw a clear conclusion from the discussion as to whether Gruev agrees to commercial use of his pictures or not. He seemed to favor non-commercial use on Wikipedia only, but Google Translation is not good enough to learn whether he finally agreed to commercial use in the Bulgarian portions of the discussion or not. - Not appropriate for this project. Cirt (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- I mainly want to secure that all pictures are treated the same. If this image is to be deleted, all NGruev images have to be deleted. If the other NGruev images are kept, this has to be kept too.
- Do you understand Bulgarian? Are you sure about your asessment? --Slomox (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please, pay attention to Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Image:Cafe_Lipstick.jpg (difflink). →Spiritia 20:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Biography Text file not in Commons Scope --WayneRay 13:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Without license. Geograv 13:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Not free, only infomational purposes, according to OTRS ticket 2008041910007445. .Koen 14:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This image is in the public domain in the United States but not in its country of origin. Wikimedia Commons only accepts files that are public domain in both country of origin and the United States. The image is copied from en:Image:Aasgaardreien peter nicolai arbo mindre.jpg. It's public domain in the US but not in Norway. Multichill 08:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- How can a painting from 1872 not be in PD? GijsvdL 11:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- The painting itself is PD, but this is a reproduction. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Nordic. If you would go to Norway. Take a picture yourself and post it here it wont be a problem. I found the original deletion request. Multichill 12:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links, this clarifies the case to me. GijsvdL 18:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- The painting itself is PD, but this is a reproduction. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Nordic. If you would go to Norway. Take a picture yourself and post it here it wont be a problem. I found the original deletion request. Multichill 12:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Already deleted on nl (source). Ciell 19:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This reproduction adds nothing artistic, therefore there is no new copyright. -Nard 20:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. PD-Art Yann (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Badname: The source [43] uses this pic to give an impression of the author of the article (=art critic Jappe Nilsson). No evidence that the photographer is Aksel Waldemar Johannessen. --Mutter Erde 09:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. PD-old, AGF Yann (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
self-nom; rendering incorrectly so replaced with png version EyeSerene 15:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep mark it with Category:pictures showing a librsvg bug to help developers track down software-errors and it might be still helpful for editors who want to create derivative works or new maps with a consistent theme, even if they have to upload both PNG and SVG. --Matt 14:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. as per Matt Yann (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work of sculpture 88.65.104.156 20:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cecil (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
No panorama of freedom of panorama in Belarus. Statue is main subject of image and is definitely less then 50 years old. EugeneZelenko 14:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Я загрузил это изображение и полностью согласен с указанной причиной удаления. Если можно, два вопроса на будущее: а) если бы статуя занимала, скажем, половину снимка, подлежал ли в этом случае снимок удалению? б) я загрузил еще фотографию - Image:Pinsk Saint-Feodor-Cathedral.jpg, похоже она также подпадает под это же ограничение, поскольку собору всего несколько лет. Так ли это? Спасибо. yay 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- а) К сожалению, закон не определяет количественных критериев. Но думаю, что если сфотографировать въезд так, чтобы главным объектом была дорога, а монумент был с краю, то всё будет в порядке.
- б) Я задавал в 2006 году подобный вопрос на форуме http://praunik.org (к сожалению, форум сейчас недоступен). На тот момент времени в белорусском законодательстве отсутствовало определение произведения архитектуры. Например, на Украине это и само здание, в Казахстане - только проекты, эскизы и документация. К сожалению, не знаю, изменилось ли что-то за прошедшее время.
- EugeneZelenko 15:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Спасибо за ответ. Как Вы считаете, нужно ли убрать упомянутый выше снимок собора или до разъяснений считать его легитимным? yay 18:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Думаю, что имеет смысл не удалять, пока закон не изменится в худшую сторону. А лучше попробовать повлиять не его изменение в лучшую (полная свобода панорамы, как в Германии, Польше, Чехии и т.д., или хотя бы для зданий (США)). --EugeneZelenko 13:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Спасибо за ответ. Как Вы считаете, нужно ли убрать упомянутый выше снимок собора или до разъяснений считать его легитимным? yay 18:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Giggy (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
May 15
[edit]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
private image with no use on wikimedia projects Geraki TLG 07:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- it's use could be about anthropological subjects/faces/youth/skin etc.. which means as much use as these pics http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Faces if not more.CuteHappyBrute 08:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Free licensed image, categorized, used in uploader's user page. Leave it. -- Infrogmation 16:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, leave it. Tagged and categorized. Might be useful --Kimse 04:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Commons:Project scope: "Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted. 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. However, uploading images of yourself and others in small quantity is allowed as long as they are useful for some Wikimedia project". Where can it be useful? Not counting that to take a pic of his brother at that age, the uploader should know how to use a camera at the age of three... Geraki TLG 14:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, in use by a good contributor. What's with picking on this guy anyway? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
private image with no use on wikimedia projects Geraki TLG 07:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- i thought it might have some use in some kind of "feelings" subject considering it really sends a feeling of comfort. as for the private part, his face isn't really showed with his grimace. there are some examples of really private pics there> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_in_bed if it's not useful, it sure does not belong here.CuteHappyBrute 07:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Free licensed photo in 3 appropriate categories; I see nothing objectionable. -- Infrogmation 18:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Obviously outside of project scope. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's properly tagged and placed in categories. --Kimse 04:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, why not? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As I understand this, the data was extracted from the game (Grand Theft Auto) and should still fall under the copyright of Rockstar North. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Remove: Yes it was extracted from the gamefiles and is copyrighted. Wikipedia:en:GTA1 Liberty City map.png has a local fair-use copy so this can be savely removed. --Matt 13:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation 18:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Clearly a design involving creative decision-making. Image:GTAIII Liberty City map.png should also be deleted for the same reason. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
licensial information was added by an ip abf /talk to me/ 18:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I've no idea what "licensial information was added by an ip" means. I took the photo. I added the copyright info. I thought I'd post it to accompany an article. This is more trouble than it's worth. Delete the photo if you want. TonyKnaff|talk
- He meant that the {{PD-self}} license was not added by TonyKnaff but by the IP 207.181.226.201 in this edit. Until now, there was no indication that 207.181.226.201 was you. But since you've now confirmed this: Keep. Lupo 05:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, all fine now. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photo from 1980/81; Remko Hoving (born 1972) isn't author of this photo. Szwedzki 12:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The photo is clearly a scan of a rasterised printed photo: [44]. I find it unlikely that the original photographer would upload the rasterised version. In addition, Remko Hoving is very unlikely to have taken such photograph at the tender age of eight. --MPorciusCato 10:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 19:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not US Federal Government work as tagged --Infrogmation 18:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. A textbook example of a work by a municipal government. Not eligible for US-Gov tags. --MPorciusCato 10:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 06:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
nld discussion made a del-req necessary abf /talk to me/ 12:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- same with Image:KChernenko1.jpg. abf /talk to me/ 12:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Government images are not explicitly excluded from Copyrights in Russia. And both images were already deleted several times (may be under different names). --EugeneZelenko 15:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Agree with ABF and Eugene. →Spiritia 16:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a non-free screenshot of proprietary software so a self-chosen license is invalid, Commons:Screenshots. There is also the protected Windows Logo in the lower left corner. Matt 20:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Matt, your are right, this is proprietary software, however it is me, who has built the software, so I can upload this file on wikipedia. You can check this on my homepage: http://www.marmulla.com/softengl.htm and you can check my personal data and the owner of this homepage here: http://www.marmulla.com/haftung.htm What I did not consider was the small Windows-Logo on the start-group - I have corrected this in a new upload of the file. Best regards, Rüdiger
- Keep. Screen grab generated by software author, so license is valid. -- Korax1214 17:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, sorry for the false accusation. I suggest to send an e-Mail to Commons:OTRS to prove your identity and mark the screenshot with an OTRS-template, then remove this deletion request. --Matt 21:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Matt, dear Korax1214, is there anything left for me to do right now? Best regards, Rüdiger
- Yes, e-Mail to Commons:OTRS to prove your identity and the permission. --Matt 06:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yesterday, I have emailed to Commons:OTRS, however nothing happened. What is to do now? Just waiting?
- Waiting is a good option. Not much here happens fast. --Jarekt 02:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yesterday, I have emailed to Commons:OTRS, however nothing happened. What is to do now? Just waiting?
- Yes, e-Mail to Commons:OTRS to prove your identity and the permission. --Matt 06:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Matt, dear Korax1214, is there anything left for me to do right now? Best regards, Rüdiger
- Okay, sorry for the false accusation. I suggest to send an e-Mail to Commons:OTRS to prove your identity and mark the screenshot with an OTRS-template, then remove this deletion request. --Matt 21:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Per discussion above. --Jarekt 02:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
There is an OTRS-Ticket (2008051610014664) which proves the identity - so I removed the Template C-M 20:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Somebody marked this as derivative. Why? This is just a shampoo bottle, not art work. I changed the speedy to normal nomination. GijsvdL 11:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- What is copyrights sign on bottle? AFAIK Pixar's Cars toys and shampoo bottles are marked with Pixar/Disney copyrights. --EugeneZelenko 15:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, in that case I understand the nomination. I don't have such a bottle, so I can't verify this. GijsvdL 15:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Star Wars is/was distributed by 20th century fox (and made by Lucasfilm); so Pixar/Disney has nothing to do with it. Kameraad Pjotr 16:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, in that case I understand the nomination. I don't have such a bottle, so I can't verify this. GijsvdL 15:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. If it is a shampoo bottle, then this is right on the borderline of what is a depiction of a functional item and a derivative work. Deleting it is playing it safe. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of another work. This photo is not free, unless the picture of Rios is free as well. No info was provided to prove that. --DStoykov 21:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't know myself. Gotta ask the original uploader. Just transfered it to Commons from BG:W. It seems suspicious to me too. --Chech Explorer 23:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is a picture of a part of the wall of fame (all winners of the men's German Open and the women's tournament held in Hamburg), which, itself, is a part of a wall of the center court of the Rothenbaum tennis venue and therefore a part of a public building. --HSV25 18:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that the picture has been hanged on a building wall doesn't affect it's copyright status. It's like a poster. There are posters all over the streets - they are copyrighted and photos of them can't be uploaded here. --DStoykov 20:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Really?! Did the designers at Audi design this car under the GNU licence? What about this one - no copyright? Is it just me or there is in fact a © next to the 6 here? Seems like the guy that approved this one doesn't know the rules? But... Go ahead, request the deletion of 80-90% of all wikimedia images... --HSV25 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- From w:Wikipedia:Public domain. Photographic reproductions, as a form of derivative work, may inherit the copyright of the original work. If that artwork is in the public domain, then so is the photograph. If, however, the depicted work is copyright protected, then, although there is no independent copyright on the photo itself, it cannot be considered to be in the public domain as the original rights holder still has the authority to control how reproductions of his work, including photographs, are made and distributed. The same applies to digitized images. --DStoykov 12:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your analogies are poor. Design of 3D objects such as a car or a wax figure is much less strictly protected than 2D artworks. The copyrghted works in the other 2 examples are parts of a bigger landscape, your photo is an almost exact representation of a copyrighted work of art. As for the amount of deletion requests, please, don't blame ME for your incompetence in the area of copyright. --DStoykov 12:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Really?! Did the designers at Audi design this car under the GNU licence? What about this one - no copyright? Is it just me or there is in fact a © next to the 6 here? Seems like the guy that approved this one doesn't know the rules? But... Go ahead, request the deletion of 80-90% of all wikimedia images... --HSV25 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that the picture has been hanged on a building wall doesn't affect it's copyright status. It's like a poster. There are posters all over the streets - they are copyrighted and photos of them can't be uploaded here. --DStoykov 20:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is a picture of a part of the wall of fame (all winners of the men's German Open and the women's tournament held in Hamburg), which, itself, is a part of a wall of the center court of the Rothenbaum tennis venue and therefore a part of a public building. --HSV25 18:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- DStoykov, I think the original uploader has the right. This deletion request is ridiculous. --Chech Explorer 13:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Is it? How about spending some time to learn about how copyright actually works? --DStoykov 12:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
How about someone more experienced with deletion requests, deletions and copyright stuff on wikimedia than DStoykov saying who's write and who's wrong? If someone who's more competent says "delete it", then go ahead and do it. Because, no offence intended, you might be more competent than me but are by far not among the competent guys here. I'm still wondering where all those guys are, anyway... By the way, what you quoted is nice but I really can't find the part where it says something like "copyrighted works that are parts of bigger landscapes are considered to be in the public domain". --HSV25 15:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- That would be me! And DStoykov is plenty clueful enough. Everything he has said so far is completely true. The real question here is if the uploader drew the work depicted, or if it is public domain for other reasons. If he didn't, and it isn't, then the photograph is a copyright violation. Cases like this are nowhere near the legal grey areas. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Finally, Lewis! No, I didn't draw it, if I did, the whole talk would have been useless. So, is it in the pd for other reasons? I don't really get the point why copyrighted works such as those stuff [49] Image:P7120012.JPG appear to be in the pd just by being "parts of a bigger landscape" as DStoykov previously stated. It turns out that there is no problem if I take a pic of the whole wall of fame, upload it here, then use it in the Marcelo Rios article, pointing out that Rios is "the 15th guy with the goatee on the bottom row" but it is not allowed to crop the image just in order to see the object of interest better?
- Generally, the clever heads at the Bulgarian wikipedia decided that local fair use is no more allowed so all logos and other stuff will be gone. Is it or is it not allowed to crop for example the Mitsubishi logo from the second pic (logo is copyrighted but pic isn't and is uploaded in wikimedia) and use it for the Mitsubishi article? Because apparantly it is allowed to use the whole pic and to say that the Mitsubishi logo is "this little red thing that can be seen on the big billboard in the middle of the picture, on the right of the new Pajero" - something everyone would agree is kinda stupid... Almost as stupid as putting a link to the logo "Click here if you want to see the Mitsubishi logo"... So, what is your opinion? --HSV25 17:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- The difference is incidental vs central inclusion. In this case, it's quite clear that the drawing is not merely incidentally included in your photo, as a logo on a car would be. Again, this is not a legal grey area at all and not something a court would even need to think about. By the way, a photograph of the whole wall of fame would be a derivative work as well. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, delete it then. --HSV25 20:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- The difference is incidental vs central inclusion. In this case, it's quite clear that the drawing is not merely incidentally included in your photo, as a logo on a car would be. Again, this is not a legal grey area at all and not something a court would even need to think about. By the way, a photograph of the whole wall of fame would be a derivative work as well. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay then. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
marked as npd, but i cant see the reason abf /talk to me/ 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. There is no reason to believe that the uploader were not the author of this work. --MPorciusCato 10:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree with MPorciusCato this is high resolution data with EXIF data of the digital camera. Unlikely to come from the web. --Jarekt 02:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Look at the rest of his uploads : the own work claims go with name Tomek Zakrzewski (in accord with his username Tomosatomos). However, Image:DSC01106.jpg claims own work but the name provided is different: Piotr Kowalski. I suppose this was the reason of tagging it with npd. →Spiritia 17:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Used on several Wikipedias but still a blatant copyright violation. Permission is from the producer/owner of the photograph, but the book cover is copyright by Meccano Limited. It even says it on the bottom right corner. This is a derivative work with no permission from the copyright holder of the original work. It should be returned to the English Wikipedia as a fair use image if that seems reasonable. Apart from that it should be deleted. --Simonxag 19:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Is Meccano Ltd still the copyright holder considering they folded in 1964? I originally uploaded this image on the English Wikipedia but it was copied here by someone else. If this image is deleted here, I'll return it to the English Wikipedia as a fair use image, but keep in mind it is also used on four other Wikipedias. --Bruce1eetalk 06:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Meccano Ltd didn't totally fold. They were bought up by a succession of companies. Even if they had folded, their assets including intellectual property such as copyrights would have been bought up by somebody. Corporate copyright lasts 70 years from publication in the UK. --Simonxag 22:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work, marked as fair use at en wikipedia. Multichill (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
This was tagged as copyvio, but I'm not sure it is original enough to be deleted, so I'm opening a deletion request to allow some debate. Patrícia msg 19:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- From valves website: © 1995-2005 Valve Corporation, all rights reserved. Valve, the Valve logo, Half-Life, the Half-Life logo, the Lambda logo, Steam, the Steam logo, Team Fortress, the Team Fortress logo, Opposing Force, Day of Defeat, the Day of Defeat logo, Counter-Strike, the Counter-Strike logo, Source, the Source logo, Valve Source and Counter-Strike: Condition Zero are trademarks and/or registered trademarks of Valve Corporation. - just noting that trademark != copyright. --ShakataGaNai Talk 19:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I upload Image:Orange lambda.svg few day ago ; but for this stencil its maybe not too simple than a lambda in a circle, but i dont know about eligiblity. Any way, if we can create the same image in a free license, delete this bad image for a nice vectorial version :D ~ bayo or talk 19:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with deleting, because this image is too trivial for a copyright. Please keep it as long as we don't have any better one.--Matysik (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. the tag is PD-ineligible. Yann (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Replaced with Image:Windows Vista Upgrade Paths.svg. This file has never been used because some portions of it is not visible, therefore it is broken and cannot be used." --Majestic 00:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Replaced by proper file Leafnode 09:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
replaced with Image:Vista Upgrade Paths.png --Majestic 12:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you want to replace a SVG by a PNG? --ALE! ¿…? 10:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm surprised this file still hasn't been deleted. Why to replace SVG by a PNG? Because I could not successfully create a good SVG version with GraphViz. Not all of the stuff is visible in this svg version, so I created a PNG version. Can't you see it is not what it's supposed to be? The file is broken. --Majestic 23:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 20:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
FDF press release photos
[edit]The following images is a press release photo from the Finnish Defence Forces website. It is not a "part of a decision or a statement by an authority or a public body of Finland." Thus it cannot be used with template {{PD-FinlandGov}} and should be deleted. A relevant discussion was made when deprecating {{FinnishDefenceForces}}.
This deletion request covers
- File:TELAR of 9K37 Buk launches a missile.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:TELAR of 9K37 Buk 04.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:TELAR of 9K37 Buk 03.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:TELAR of 9K37 Buk 02.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:TELAR of 9K37 Buk 01.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Sniper team.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Sako TRG displayed by a FDF sniper.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Porvoo1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:FNS Tornio.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:7.62 TKIV 85.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:7.62 TKIV 85-3.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:7.62 TKIV 85-2.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)a
- File:3Rauma.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:331 press.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
--MPorciusCato 07:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Query - surely a press release is an official statement, and the military would qualify as a source of authority. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, the category "official statement" is rather narrowly defined. For example, we have held before that a speech made by the Finnish president on the radio, announcing the start of a war, is not an "official statement" but just an informational release. According to the decision KKO:56:2000 by the Supreme Court of Finland, only such documents are in public domain which relate to use of public authority (julkisen vallan käyttöön). Then, the question is whether issuing press releases is use of public authority. In fact, you can make a case for this. According to the § 20 of the Act on the openness of the actions of public authorities (Laki viranomaisten toiminnan julkisuudesta 621/1999), it is the duty of the authorities to produce informational guides, booklets, statistics and other publications. However, usually, the category is interpreted more narrowly. --MPorciusCato 06:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I concur with MPorciusCato. According to Finnish law a "official statement" is something a governmental body or person holding a governmental office issues based on it's authority. Examples of these are, for example, laws and acts, minutes of different councils etc. A press statement is not an "official statement".--Joonasl 06:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I concur, too. Samulili 08:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This is what the FDF website says regarding copyright in English (I did not alter it in any way): Material featured on this site is subject to the Finnish Defence Forces copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Finnish Defence Forces copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge but the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. Finnish speaking Wikipedians could introduce a Finnish Defence Forces PD according to the FDF copyright message. I presume the FDF translated their original Finnish copyright message correctly into English. In my view this FDF text does qualify for the {attribution} tag. For good measure an additional notice containing the original FDF copyright text can be attached.--Francis Flinch 12:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- This issue was discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FinnishDefenceForces at some length. I actually concur with you, but the template {{FinnishDefenceForces}} was deprecated. If we decide to keep these photos, then I suggest undeleting the template and the ca. 600 photos that were deleted when the template was deprecated. --MPorciusCato 16:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- If the copyright template is not exactly correct one, that is not a reason to delete the pictures. Only the copyright message should be changed. The pictures should be undeleted. Deleting all these pictures has caused lots of damage to Wikipedia, and enormous amount of work done by many volunteers have been thrown to toilet. It seems that the problem is that the pictures were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. From now on, I strongly suggest that nobody uploads anything to Commons, it only causes problems. --PauliKL (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
That discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FinnishDefenceForces does not strike me as a discussion amongst lawyers, let alone Finnish legal professionals who probably are the most qualified people for a exegesis including the relevant conclusive arguments regarding current Finnish law. I will solve it by marking the few images I uploaded with a standard attribution tag and an additional notice containing the original FDF copyright notice.--Francis Flinch 18:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. The "attribution license" is the same as on {{FinnishDefenceForces}} which was not deemed OK. Samulili (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
non two-dimensional work of art
[edit]Images Not two-dimensional work of art, Not PD-art:
--Shizhao 08:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. These are clearly copyrighted photos of 3-D objects, and the uploader is not the author of the photos. --MPorciusCato 09:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Obviously not self-made, as claimed. →Spiritia 06:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. Photos like this are usually taken by professional photographers who are in connection with the army. If the uploader appears in the picture as he states, then he is probably not the copyright holder. Geraki TLG 07:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Or a self-timer... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have served in the same army, and I assure you that you are not allowed to go around with a camera and tripod! Usually the photographers who get special permission to take these pictures are giving money under the table to the officers. Soldiers are buying the photos, they are not free. Geraki TLG 23:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, ok you're full of hot air. Want me to upload all the pics I snaped while on guard duty in 124 Combat Wing? or 116 Combat Wing in ? or 128 SETI in ? I was going left and right with a cam and nobody was the wiser. Project2501a 16:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have served in the same army, and I assure you that you are not allowed to go around with a camera and tripod! Usually the photographers who get special permission to take these pictures are giving money under the table to the officers. Soldiers are buying the photos, they are not free. Geraki TLG 23:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, look. it's Geraki all over again. Dude, seriously, what's wrong with you? I know you're a conscription in Greece advocate, but I didn't know you are trying to "uphold the image" of the Greek Army/airforce. I AM the copyright holder. I *paid* for that pic. So, it belongs to *ME*. wtf? Project2501a 16:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am not a conscription advocate, and it has nothing to do with the matter.
- I don't care about pictures you snaped while on guard duty. Please upload them if the are useful/encyclopedic according to project scope.
- The question is about THIS picture:
- You say that you are the copyright holder because you paid for that pic. I am sorry but that's the case with most of your platoon comrades pictured here, are they the copyright holders too?
- According to copyright law (Ν. 2121/93) the copyright holder is still the photographer even if you paid for getting a copy (on the same way that you don't own copyright of a magazine when you buy a copy). Geraki TLG 16:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Owning the image isn't the same as owning the copyright. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
.svg)
- Concur - there's no real need for this image, since the other version is larger, except that this one is pink rather than grey. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, the image linked to above is a duplicate, not great for the colour blind, and is not an svg. Stick with the other one. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Giggy (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. Banknotes are not exempted from copyright in Greece. Geraki TLG 07:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Rien à dire. Puisque vous êtes el:User:Geraki admin/beaurocrat, vous connaissez sans doute ce sujet mieux que moi.
Nada que decir. Como usted es el:User:Geraki admin/beaurocrat, conocerá sin duda ese tema mejor que yo.
--trisku 10:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Giggy (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Original was evidently scanned out of a book and uploaded to Esperanto Wikipedia with the wrong template. A robot uploaded it from the Esperanto Wikipedia to here erroneously. --Yekrats 23:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- What is the original source? Yann (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 08:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The photo is a press release photo by the Finnish Navy. It is not a part of "official statement or decision", so the current template is unapplicable. Thus, the photo should be deleted MPorciusCato 06:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Query - Surely a press release is by definition an official statement. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Mattbuck. Giggy (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 19:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- later deleted because of Commons:Deletion requests/FDF press release photos and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FinnishDefenceForces. --Martin H. (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
This image is probably a press release photo from the Finnish Defence Forces website, modified at defencetalk.com. There is no evidence that the file has been freely licenced or that it would be part of official statement or decision. Thus, the current copyright template {{PD-FinlandGov}} is unapplicable and the file should be deleted. --MPorciusCato 07:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Mattbuck at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pohjanmaa.jpg. Giggy (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 19:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
was marked as npd, but there is no real reason for it... abf /talk to me/ 18:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure I understand the deletion motivation. /Lokal_Profil 18:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The uploader, Kejsardöme, has uploaded also Image:Räfsttabell.jpg with faulty authorship information. He may be doing this in good faith, not understanding that uploader of the file is not the author. So, I do not think he is Espen Andresen. Thus he cannot licence the file with GFDL. I'd like to put this file under government work licence, but I'm afraid that the original work is not a "statement or decision" by a Swedish authority. So, delete. --MPorciusCato 10:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Seems to be not copyrightable to me >>> no permission needed.Forrester 18:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
May 16
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Sorry, this image just doesn't seem to be working Korax1214 03:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deletion reason changed to a much stronger one. It now reads: "The image on which this one is based is inaccurate, the percentages don't add up to 100; and a better image, apparently of the same subject, is at Image:1999_TC_Milletvekili_Genel_Se%C3%A7imleri_1.jpg". So this image cannot be got working without considerable editing. -- Korax1214 14:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested: "I've now uploaded a version which actually works, at Image:1999 TC Milletvekili Genel Seçimleri.svg". -- Korax1214 14:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not ineligible for copyright.Code·is·poetry 09:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 06:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicate upload Modation 13:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image was previously deleted from en.wikipedia.org if i remember correctly as being a copyvio/non-free image. I did a little bit of digging and it seems the image is from "Amateur photographer Jason Hutchinson made the photo in north Dallas. AP Photo/Jason Hutchinson". As stated on this page. TheDJ 14:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Svens Welt 20:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, AP != NASA. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
was tagged as copyvio, but it seems to be okay. is anyone of you able to see the problem? abf /talk to me/ 14:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Non admin closure Deleted by ABF. Reason: uploaders request. --Kanonkas(talk) 18:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong file name --Kaihsu Tai 15:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Use {{badname}} next time --Kanonkas(talk) 15:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 14:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence the uploader holds the copyright of this promotional photograph Polly 17:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, all user's uploads have been under false pretenses ("I work for the company"). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence the uploader holds the copyright of this promotional photograph Polly 17:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, all user's uploads have been under false pretenses ("I work for the company"). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence the uploader holds the copyright of this promotional photograph Polly 17:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, all user's uploads have been under false pretenses ("I work for the company"). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence the uploader holds the copyright of this promotional photograph Polly 17:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, all user's uploads have been under false pretenses ("I work for the company"). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence the uploader holds the copyright of this promotional photograph Polly 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, all user's uploads have been under false pretenses ("I work for the company"). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence the uploader holds the copyright of this promotional photograph Polly 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, all user's uploads have been under false pretenses ("I work for the company"). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence the uploader holds the copyright of this promotional photograph Polly 17:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, all user's uploads have been under false pretenses ("I work for the company", which is evidently quite a few companies). Also, do a mass deletion request next time you come across an uploader like this, Polly. :) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence the uploader holds the copyright of this promotional photograph Polly 17:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, all user's uploads have been under false pretenses ("I work for the company"). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Why should this cover be free or in the public domain? Michael Reschke 17:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 20:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Why should this cover be free? Why should it be in the public domain? Michael Reschke 17:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 20:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I fixed the SVG version - links on wikipedia updated. Fool 18:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, since this was only a temporary rasterisation (I'm guessing to work around an SVG rendering bug). Have a nice day. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
author and source missing --Fransvannes 20:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
author and source missing --Fransvannes 20:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyrighted book cover Apalsola t • c 22:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted, book is from 1994[50]
Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 01:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
it's mine and i'm uploading it again with some fixes (including title) Adoniscik(t, c) 23:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 01:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Now we French-speaking use this map Image:Same-Sex-Unions-North-America.svg with an external legend. Anyway, California is now false. Barraki 13:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It has superseded, but from what I gather that isn't a reason for deletion. The image quality isn't so poor that it warrants deletion yet. I'm not nuts about this one, so this is a weak keep. This deletion request was initially missing a reason on image talk page, and uploaders were not notified, I've completed those two. Finally California only recently became incorrect and that is only tentative, as the many opponents rush to block it, and it is not legal until 30 days after the court decision. -Optigan13 06:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not because it's superseded, incorrect, outdated, or poor quality, but because of all those reasons together it no longer is of much use. Thanks goes it Optigan13 for informing the uploaders. Rocket000 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a blatant copyvio. The source page is nonexistent, the audio file is offered as a downloadable ringtone only [51] from another page. The composer of the anthem is Giorgos Mouzakis who died in 2005 thus this is under full copyright protection --Badseed talk 01:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Why should this image be in the PD? The author is unknown, so we also can´t know when he died. But an image can only be in the PD, if the author has died more than 70 years ago. So "Public Domain because of age" is impossible. --Chaddy 13:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- of course possible, if beginning 20th century is true. It is no reason do suspect user:Slav breaks onebody's rights - see his contributions in Commons and in Polish Wikipedia
For that caseses we can use {{Anonymous-EU}}
Julo 14:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- {{Anonymous-EU}} should only be used if the author really remained anonymous, not in cases where we just don't know the author. Is there any proof that the author's name was never known by anyone, even the publisher? In which books, databases, collections did you try to find the author? --Kam Solusar 22:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Postcards authors very often are anonymous or pseudoanonymous. Anonymous is a person, whom nobody knows now, even if somebody knew him time ago. Proofs... where we are, in a court? investigation? Do you have any proof I am who I am? Maybe I am longhair blondi from Paraguay? or from Yakutsia? Read avoid copyright paranoia... Julo 23:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think every image on Commons should have information as to why we think that the stated license tag applies (=the reason why we can use it). So to be able to use this image, we should have some information as to why we think the author is anonymous. There are so many copyvios and images with dubious licenses uploaded every day on this project - most users just want to use an image on their article and only care how they can get it there, but don't care about copyrights. And many people don't know the difference between anonymous works and old works where there's just no mention of the author on the webpage they copied it from. So we need something to verify the stated licenses. See Image:Baby-hitler.jpg for example, which was tagged as anonymous. A short Google search later, the author's not anonymous anymore. So if someone uploads or tags an image, claiming that it's an anonymous work, he should provide some information why he thinks so. This is not copyright paranoia, it's about Commons being a repository of free image, not just of stuff we can get away with... --Kam Solusar 21:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. PD-old neither assured nor extraordinarily probable. Code·is·poetry 13:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This image is in question in en.wikipedia Vinhtantran 11:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as it has been deleted on Wikipedia as "Blatant copyright infringement". →Christian.И 08:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
unknown-discussion makes a del-req necessary abf /talk to me/ 14:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Soviet government artworks are not PD. --Panther 07:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Soviet government artworks are not PD. What? Could you please read the license? 201.17.78.106 08:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- And you? --Panther 15:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I did it, you know what an oficial document (that portrait) of the government of Russia means? 201.17.78.106 06:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please read Commons:Copyright_tags#Russia_and_former_Soviet_Union. "Including laws, other legal texts, judicial decisions, other materials of legislative, administrative and judicial character" means "only listed", but not "for example". --Panther 06:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I did it, you know what an oficial document (that portrait) of the government of Russia means? 201.17.78.106 06:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- And you? --Panther 15:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto.Business ad Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 11:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
out of scope, deleted Julo 13:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Julo: out of scope
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of a copyrighted design on a swedish 100SEK bill Lokal_Profil 22:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative Lokal_Profil 13:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
imho derivative, but maybe i understand this wrong abf /talk to me/ 15:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific? Is the photograph derivative or the sculpture? There are two copyrights 1) the photo 2) the sculpture. Tyrenius 03:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The sculpture is a work of art by living artists evidently on display in a gallery (i.e. freedom of panorama does not apply). Man vyi 11:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I originally uploaded this on en.wikipedia to be on the safe side and a bot copied it here. However, this issue might as well be resolved. The original permission on stuckism.com says: "Exhibited in The Turner Prize 2003. Photo taken at the official press launch. No restriction specified on use of images." It seems then to be an authorised photo cleared for re-use. Tyrenius 01:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete & now I have to think why... On a personal basis I think it is unnecessary I guess. Not certain the license is ok - if it is a "work of art" then I would have thought it unlikely that it would be free. --Herby talk thyme 11:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- That argument doesn't make sense - "unnecessary" - what does that mean, apart from IDONTLIKEIT? If a photo is taken at an official press launch, I would have thought it was likely that it would be free. Tyrenius (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- keep it unnecessary is pov, and there is no reason for deletation named Bunnyfrosch (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete derivative work. BJTalk 20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright protection subsists in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression. The subject is obviously a sculptural work exhibiting deliberate and original artistic input in, among others, selection of elements and the composition thereof. The image is a derivative work. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
tagged as copyvio by an ip without any reason abf /talk to me/ 14:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept since no reason to delete is given. →Christian.И 12:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Similar exists as ISR-HW444.png --Ori~ 17:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- No reason given, no need to delete. Keep --Svens Welt 20:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- And wrong font... Ori~ 21:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm the creator of the file. On firefox it renders with the right font. I wonder how this can be fixed. Regarding the "png exists" - generally SVG is superior to PNG so the png can be deleted. Benherz (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This image is inaccurate, the percentages don't add up to 100; an accurate image, apparently of the same subject, is at Image:1999_TC_Milletvekili_Genel_Seçimleri_1.jpg. Korax1214 14:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete This image was probably taken in the UK by someone other than the uploader, and we have no licence from the photographer. {{PD-art}} cannot be used in the UK: see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#UK. If it can be shown that the original painting is held in a non-UK museum where {{PD-art}} is allowed, the relevant information should be added. Absent that, there's a high probability that this file is a copyvio of the work of a UK photographer and should be deleted. --MichaelMaggs 06:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC) MichaelMaggs 06:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely no proof exists that this is a photograph or that it was taken in the UK or by a UK photographer. Uploader appears to be Dutch. 64.216.46.236 05:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Anonymous101 talk 11:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete This image was probably taken in the UK by someone other than the uploader, and we have no licence from the photographer. {{PD-art}} cannot be used in the UK: see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#UK. If it can be shown that the original painting is held in a non-UK museum where {{PD-art}} is allowed, the relevant information should be added. Absent that, there's a high probability that this file is a copyvio of the work of a UK photographer and should be deleted. MichaelMaggs 06:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- huh? I thought since the server is located in the U.S. it doesn't matter, the image looks pd-art legit to me. Gryffindor 13:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. The image must be free not only in the US but also in the originating country. See Commons:Licensing#Interaction of United States copyright law and foreign copyright law. --MichaelMaggs 17:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Anonymous101 talk 11:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete This image was probably taken in the UK by someone other than the uploader, and we have no licence from the photographer. {{PD-art}} cannot be used in the UK: see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#UK. If it can be shown that the original painting is held in a non-UK museum where {{PD-art}} is allowed, the relevant information should be added. Absent that, there's a high probability that this file is a copyvio of the work of a UK photographer and should be deleted. MichaelMaggs 06:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Info The uploader took the image from the internet from here. The original is indeed in the UK museum, in the Royal Collection: see here. --MichaelMaggs 19:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Anonymous101 talk 11:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Image is tagged as {{Anonymous-EU}}. However this site shows the full image, with the name "J. F. Klinger" on it. And en:Wislawa Szymborska's poem "Hitler's first photograph" mentions a "Klinger Atelier, Grabenstrasse, Braunau". This site lists a photographer named Josef Franz Klinger who lived in Braunau. It seems to indicate that Klinger already lived as early as 1827, which probably means that the image is in the public domain due to age. But it would be nice to have a reliable source of his date of death to change the {{Anonymous-EU}} tag to {{PD-old}}. -- Kam Solusar 22:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, as if it matters. I do think it's great that you're willing to put such thought into such trivial things, but really, what's the point in threatening a rare photo of a major historic figure with deletion? Who d'you think you're going to benefit? You're missing something - that same fascination you felt when you looked into the subject is the exact same fasciation that I felt when I saw the picture of babyhitler. Why threaten to rob me, and everyone else, of that? It's this sort of deletist behavior that spoils the wikipedia. The tag is without merit, and I'll remove it now. - unreadablecharacters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.116.134 (talk • contribs) Kam Solusar (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC) (UTC)
- This is not about what or who is on the photo, it's only about its copyright status. Commons is a repository of free media, so if the image is not in the public domain it has to go, no matter how fascinating the photo might be for some people. --Kam Solusar (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Klinger had his own shop in 1827, thus it's certain that he died early enough. There is absolutely no reason for a deletion request. --88.77.106.145 20:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep due to old age. Yann (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep copyright expired (unless author lived > 120 years). A.J. (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and fix the template. "Anonymous" is not an excuse to be lazy doing research, it has to be proved. Rama (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- „1827“ is not the beginning of Mr. Klinger’s work period, it’s a unique signature for this photographer in the cited database. I think we can assume this work is in the public domain, but we have to do as much as research work as possible to provide further information on our media. For myself I looked up various databases on Mr. Klinger – without results. Keep the image because of its age if no contradictory information on the author can be found. --Polarlys (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
image inside a building --> no fop --> unfree abf /talk to me/ 17:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the glass roof is a work (it fullfills the level of creativity) and the image is therefore violating the architects copyrights due to it can not refer to freedom of panorama. Geo-Loge 12:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
tagged as fairuse, but has not got any originallity, imho abf /talk to me/ 15:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. not enough originality in the original. Yann (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
unfree logotype, not own work, only derivative recreation abf /talk to me/ 17:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- As I am the creator of the logo and responsible of the corporate Idendity of Kanal Ratte I approve hereby that the licensing is correct. --Manuel Schneider(bla) (+/-) 09:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I can confirm that User:80686 is Manuel Schneider and affiliated to Kanal Ratte. --Thogo (Disk.) 15:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Could you send the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org please? See COM:OTRS for details. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- ..not to mention, that the image has not enough originality to be copyrighted... see for more examples like this. --TheK (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. as per Thogo and Manuel Schneider. Yann (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Map is unused. Also, NPOV violation (uses Israel's term "disputed territories" for the West Bank + Gaza). MeteorMaker 10:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. MeteorMaker 18:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Sure, the image has a bad name. So rename it. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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. MeteorMaker 18:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- Kept. This map is "potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project" (Commons:Deletion guidelines) Thuresson 18:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
was in copyvio-cat, but it does not seem to be obvious to me. abf /talk to me/ 14:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep License is correct, no reason to delete. TimVickers (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Can't find the original source, as the user doesn't exit on Flickr any more. Yann (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept, the source link is valid. No reason to delete. →Christian.И 14:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Was marked as a copyvio, but imho it has no originallity abf /talk to me/ 16:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I'm inclined to agree; the Windows elements are ineligible, and isn't the whole Java environment GPLed now? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think so... – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per http://java.sun.com/logos/ and http://www.sun.com/policies/trademarks/. The software seems to be GPLed, but not the logo. →Christian.И 14:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
See: Commons:Licenciamento, in Mexico is forbidden taking photos of buildings --guerreritoboy 00:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I find it a bit implausible, and I haven't been able to find anything of the sort in the full text of the Mexican copyright law. Do you have any reliable reference? --Itub 12:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. See COM:FOP#Mexico. Giggy (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Image of non-free currency. Kelly 01:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Giggy (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The Ukraine copyright law terms does not operate in Europe and Canada where this society was established and works. --Nickpo 22:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I can't find this image on the US site of The Shevchenko Scientific Society. And there is information about participation of the American and Canadian Shevchenko Scientific Societies at Council of the Shevchenko Scientific Society in Ukraine on that site. It means there are several societies in several countries. Are you sure, this image ovned by the society outside The Ukraine copyright law operating area? (I'm sorry for my bad english) --Vd437 (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ukraine copyright laws don't use in USA.Ahonc (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
May 17
[edit]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Personal resume Text file not in Commons Scope --WayneRay 00:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No image, or any use of it either. See our project scope for more information. --Kanonkas(talk) 07:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. Durova 09:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Falls outside of Commons:Project Scope random "personal" picture --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, in use on his user page, good contributor as far as I can tell. Let's not try to alienate people, mmkay? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept per Lewis Collard. Durova 09:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Falls outside of Commons:Project Scope. Low quality "personal" picture. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, in use on his user page, good contributor as far as I can tell. Let's not try to alienate people, mmkay? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept per Lewis Collard. Durova 09:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source? Sterkebak 10:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Ich habe bisher ungefähr 500 Bilder mit der Quellenangabe „Spurzem“ hochgeladen, ohne dass jemand Anstoß daran nahm. Was soll jetzt falsch oder unzureichend sein? Oder traut man mir plötzlich nicht mehr zu, dass ich als 23-Jähriger schon in der Lage war, ein fahrendes Auto zu fotografieren? – Ich erwarte, dass der Löschantrag zurückgezogen wird. -- Spurzem 10:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Spurzem writes on User:Spurzem that he has been taking pictures since 1956, many of them at the Nürburgring circuit. It says in the image description that this is Spurzem's own work. There is nothing to suggest that his claim to authorship is wrong. --Wikipeder 15:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 15:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The rendering may be CC but the source XML doesn't appear to be. Uploader may not have the authority to release it. --Stifle 13:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Actually, it IS cc-by-sa. ViperSnake151 17:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, no licensing issues. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work belonging to Ford Motor Company, uploader claims to be copyright holder of Ford vehicles and released it PD,--Angela2109 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- DELETE This is an image focused on a vehicle. The purpose of the image is the Automobile,which qualifies as a Derivative work, copyright owned by Ford Motor Company. Vehicles, or other works of copyright art can not be reproduced just because the uploader photographed the art (in this cas an automobile) themself and claim to own the copyright. The art is not theirs to release into the Public Domain--Angela2109 14:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Cars are not subject to copyright - they are not works of art, they are utility articles. See Commons:Derivative works. --Kam Solusar 14:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Speedy kept. This doesn't even merit discussion. Nowhere did the uploader claim to be the copyright holder of Ford vehicles. Neither does the uploader need to be. Don't waste our time. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 15:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like an obvious promo shot. Brynn 17:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copvyio from a promo shot. I found another picture on Google about the guy, take a look. It's not the same but it just shows that those images were probably taken in same promo shot. --Kanonkas(talk) 17:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, see also the user's other uploads: Google Earth/Maps screenshot, an obvious derivative work (at best), unlikely self-made claim... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. All of the user's uploads to date have been obvious copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong title --Laurom 12:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment use {{badname}} next time. --Kanonkas(talk) 20:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 23:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence uploader is copyright holder of this work. Kelly 23:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep with haste, this is not implausible at all. According to the Wikipedia article about the factory where this engine resides,
- The Sudanese government wants the plant preserved in its destroyed condition as a reminder of the American attack
- Which implies that the factory is still in its destroyed state, and likely still accessible; we can safely assume that the cruise missile engines are still there as well. In fact, given that the EXIF says this photo was taken in 2005 on a digital camera that did not exist at the time of the original bombing, this is almost a certainty. The plausibility, therefore, of the uploader having taken this photo is exactly the same as the plausibility of him having gone to Sudan. I don't think this is entirely unlikely. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 10:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good point, Lewis. If someone wants to close this nom, I have no problem with that. Kelly 14:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Kay! Kept. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work. Kelly 00:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is probably one of the few times when deletion based on image quality might be warrented as well. If nothing else the quality of the image is so bad that it puts it out of the scope of the project (unless possibly to illustrate blurred images). /Lokal_Profil 02:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image fails scope, which requires "files uploaded to the Commons have to be useful for some Wikimedia project". This image is only being "used" in the uploader's personal gallery of uploaded images. It does not seem reasonable to expect this will be useful, as it is unencyclopedic and, as mentioned, of quite poor quality (blurry, etc.) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 23:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source Sterkebak 18:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Use {{nld}} for no source images. --Kanonkas(talk) 20:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Close What Kanonkas said. Image is already tagged as having no source so there's no need to keep this open. Rocket000 07:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possible derivative works --Kanonkas(talk) 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Wait, this might be OpenStreetMap data, which is under a free license. By the way, I can take part responsibility for this nomination. Kanonkas asked me on IRC what he should do about this. I didn't notice the "Osm" part of the filename and just saw what looked like copyrighted software running on screen. Anyway, OSM is freely licensed, so I don't think there's a problem, but don't blame Kanonkas for this. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then we should tag it with the license OSM uses, I guess. This image is tagged cc-by-sa 3.0 with a self-template by User:Emesee, while the original image on Wikibooks was tagged as cc-by-sa 2.5 with a self-template by b:en:User:In7ane. And en:OpenStreetMap says the OSM releases its maps as cc-by-sa 2.0. --Kam Solusar 00:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I tagged it as cc-by-sa 2.5. by-sa-2.0 explicitly (section 4, item B) allows relicensing under a later version of the license, so I used the 2.5 tag from the English Wikibooks. Is everyone okay now? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 09:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then we should tag it with the license OSM uses, I guess. This image is tagged cc-by-sa 3.0 with a self-template by User:Emesee, while the original image on Wikibooks was tagged as cc-by-sa 2.5 with a self-template by b:en:User:In7ane. And en:OpenStreetMap says the OSM releases its maps as cc-by-sa 2.0. --Kam Solusar 00:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Yep. Rocket000 07:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A mere reproduction of the poster, hence the copyright for the image lies not with the photographer. Gabbe 09:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Derivative work, not permanently installed. Lupo 18:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Doesn't violate any copytight laws, specially in England. --سندباد 19:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- You took a photograph of a poster. That makes your photo a reproduction of that poster. The copyright for the picture still belongs to the creators of the poster, not with the photographer (you). Please reread this section of the Derivative works-guideline or this paragraph on freedom of panorama in the UK if this is still somehow unclear to you. —Gabbe 21:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a renomination due to the diversity of comments at the undeletion request (and perhaps above as well). Please note that I do not care about the fate of this image. --O (谈 • висчвын) 00:40, 05 June 2008 (GMT)
- Hooray! Here we go again! Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The model has not provided any permission to OTRS per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. There can be no question that this is a private place, and her consent cannot be assumed. Don't bother with the usual argument that "she gave permission for the photo as she knew it was being taken": that's not the point. The point is whether she gave consent for the image to be publicly released under cc-by-sa-2.0 and posted here. Where is the evidence for that? --MichaelMaggs 05:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep we refused Ribi's DR about Klashorst's pictures as for the "privacy" argument. So I wonder if that rule makes sense! Plus it had been posted on Flickr so I would assume that she gave her consent to be published there, so why not here? The rest is no subject of discussion: even if the picture is not artistic, there's no reason to delete this "erotic" nude and not all the other nudes we have. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it is not good rely on the precedent of one wrong decision to make another. The requirement for consent in such cases is clear from Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, and we have no evidence at all that she consented either to the publication under cc-by-sa-2.0 or to the uploading here or to Flikr. --MichaelMaggs 06:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete That is too rude to be on here. Tharnton345 06:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a valid reason. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No model release. Lupo 07:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- YEP, that seems to be fair. Who has an fickr-adult-account to ask her for the permission? Mutter Erde 07:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Do you really think she didn't gave her consent? On her Flickr profile, there's this link (caution, porn and erotic content). So? Isn't it possible sometimes to assume good faith about the consent? It's actually because of an equivalent reason that we kept Klashorst's pictures even if some look private: because he's a known artist/photographer so we assumed that he asked consent from his models. Well, since there's a website of this lady, I think we may assume that she gave consent. A bit like Image:Keeani Lei 6.jpg, which is a photograph of a porn actress on a bed (intimacy, right?) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I have no flickr-ID. But if this permission is necessary to end this discussion, so give her a note. She might be interested too, what some young guys are thinking about an "old" woman. @ Susan: For me, you are looking very good. And I love your pose. Greetings from good old Germany. Mutter Erde 10:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with her age; quit raising this red herring. As Rama put it, "the photograph is technically naive and crude [and] the model assumes a vulgar position akin to pornographic clichés [...] I see very well why we would distinguish between the numerous nudes we have in store and this one." With that said, if Mutter Erde wants to keep this around so badly (and the crusade he's gone on to keep this is quite startling; one can only presume he needs a little "happy time" every now and then and Commons is the only site with "MILF" pictures that gets past parental filtering ;)), then Keep it. If only because I want to see this discussion killed for good. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 10:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. Our western world gets elder and elder and on the other hand the male part is more and more bored by these young chicks with and without their fake tits. The MILFs are comming, but a repository as commons has no pics (and currently no Category:MILFs for them). This is really bad. Regards Mutter Erde 09:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with her age; quit raising this red herring. As Rama put it, "the photograph is technically naive and crude [and] the model assumes a vulgar position akin to pornographic clichés [...] I see very well why we would distinguish between the numerous nudes we have in store and this one." With that said, if Mutter Erde wants to keep this around so badly (and the crusade he's gone on to keep this is quite startling; one can only presume he needs a little "happy time" every now and then and Commons is the only site with "MILF" pictures that gets past parental filtering ;)), then
- Hi, I have no flickr-ID. But if this permission is necessary to end this discussion, so give her a note. She might be interested too, what some young guys are thinking about an "old" woman. @ Susan: For me, you are looking very good. And I love your pose. Greetings from good old Germany. Mutter Erde 10:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per comments in the previous deletion request. Despite assertions at the undeletion request, this is a matter of scope. Commons is here to host images that may be useful for some project. Both pornographic and anatomical aspects have representation in alternative, technically superior (composition, lighting, etc) images. There is no reasonably expected present or future use. The issue of personality rights is also a concern. We should not be assuming or speculating on the model’s permission. The quality of this image is decidedly unprofessional and AGF, by definition, does not apply and is not extended outside of Wiki. What has happened with past images up for deletion is irrelevant; we’re reviewing/discussing this image against policies/guidelines; it needs to stand or fall on its own merit, or lack thereof. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Both pornographic and anatomical aspects have representation in alternative, technically superior (composition, lighting, etc) images > do we have other MILF erotic nudes? I don't think so. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Age has nothing to do with it. This is a nude woman, nothing more. Go ahead and add this image to a MILF article on any Wiki project and see how long it stays. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Both pornographic and anatomical aspects have representation in alternative, technically superior (composition, lighting, etc) images > do we have other MILF erotic nudes? I don't think so. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No model release. Personality and privacy rights issues. Questionable usefulness and what I subjectively consider outside our scope. Rocket000 18:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete why the second bite at the apple in such a short time. The first DR was perfectly fine and consensus seems clear. Please close this as "remain deleted" or explain satisfactorily why this matter was brought up again. For the record I think we improperly closed some of the Klashorst images. ++Lar: t/c 11:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think some may misunderstant what I write. I personally don't care about that picture. I'm trying to be the most objective I can and I'm also trying to find any coherence about nude pictures on Commons - which I don't see at all! Delete it (or keep it deleted, may I say?) if you think it's better, I won't be mad about it. But it may be time to have a better and more general discussion about nudity and sexuality on Commons. Because we might all be able to see there's a big problem of coherence! I would understand arguments like those used here when we'd find a better coherence. That's my main concern. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Lets be absolutely clear: nudity is no reason to delete from the Commons. We have to obey US criminal law, but that doesn't seem at all relevant here. However we have our own rule that a photo of a person in a private situation (especially if intimate or embarrassing) must be consented to by that person. We are accepting photos by recognized artists like Klashorst because these are posed with models, not private shots. I would have voted to delete this picture but [52] (found by following the link to Flickr) shows that it is no private moment but this woman's hobby. --Simonxag 13:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well that's exaclty what I said: privacy is not concerned here so if we're coherent we may not delete it. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks to Simonxag for this nice site. Probably she would donate some more of her pics? As this, a soft one, or this, with a contented smile, or this , following Marilyn's example Mutter Erde 14:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Mutter Erde, that kind of comment won't help your cause! Try to be less provocative and more constructive if you want your opinion to be more respected. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC) (BTW I gave the same link before Simonxag!)
- Cool it. There's only one good argument in the air - she's lying on her private bed - so ask her for a permission and close the debate. No reason to get exited.
- Btw:I just have noticed, that the links I have chosen are not working. That really was not my intention. Shame on me. Sorry Mutter Erde 19:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Elcobbola's comments and per existing consensus of the previous deletion discussion and the undeletion discussion. The keep arguments, in the instances where there actually are arguments, appear to ignore the concerns raised (missing model consent form and what use in a Wikimedia project the image is supposed to serve), instead responding with with counter-arguments to arguments which have not actually been made, or with other stuff exists-based arguments. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per personality rights. If the person would like to release this image to commons, it would be best if she contact OTRS due to legal issues. miranda 21:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Per Lar, this was plenty clear previously. Delete again. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We should be very careful about such images, but per Simonxag's reasoning it is quite clear that this woman has given consent to put this on the web. And she is definitely adult. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I stand by my word as on the other DR about this image. I've also read this DR and see other issues raised here about this image. Lar and Rocket pretty much said it too. --Kanonkas(talk) 18:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
comment For a best definition I propose that subjective details like beauty,including utility,that "I think" can be a personal concept,are not neutral.The problem is now,exactly, what is missing on this image to be here on commons.An OTRS permission?or meaby something more easy to find?Confidentially,I want to say that I like this image that I think ЭLСОВВОLД can't be find any other like this on commons.Do you know another one here? Vicond
- There's no impetus on me to provide anything; I trust you know how categories work. Scope requires images be useful for a project; what article in what project would you expect this to be useful now or in the future? MILF has been suggested, but no consideration appears to have been given to the fact that, although Wiki is not censored, projects generally do not use images which are more explicit than absolutely necessary. As I said above, go ahead and add this image to a MILF article and see whether it sticks. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I can understand your wievpoint but I want to say that commons have a lot of images that seemingly don't have any utility, but maybe can help to complement the main information of an specific article.I'm propposed ,in the other DR,a new category for old womens.So,I believe that it can be a commons's objective too.
PD:I don't know what means MILF.Could you explain me,please? Vicond
- @Vicond: 8 MILF-interwikis: da:Milf, de:Mom I’d Like to Fuck, es:MILF, fr:MILF, it:MILF, no:MILF, sv:Milf + en:MILF with other meanings :-)
- There seems to be a little misunderstanding of the function of commons. Commons is not only a repository for around 750 wikipedia projects, but especially a gallery for print houses. Otherwise this policy would make no sense: "Generally speaking, image quality and resolution should be as high as possible so images can be used in high-quality printouts, for example" (Source: Commons:First_steps/Quality_and_description#Images) Mutter Erde 22:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Commons having a lot of images with seemingly no utility is not a reason to keep any particular one that has no utility... see w:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... that's from en:wp but the principle applies here. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Just for the record: Something like this ("This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it...", no interwikis) would be deleted on German wikipedia within 5 minutes. Mutter Erde (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Commons having a lot of images with seemingly no utility is not a reason to keep any particular one that has no utility... see w:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... that's from en:wp but the principle applies here. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Pr ADs previous close and a lot of comments in this and the previous DR. Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. For real. Please ask me if you want some reasoning. --O (谈 • висчвын) 17:37, 18 June 2008 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Really poor quality picture. It isn't used in any project. Very light description. For me, it's out of scope. Pymouss Tchatcher - 18:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't see that it was the 3rd that this image is nominated for deletion. But, perhaps, it was not the same before. --Pymouss Tchatcher - 18:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, this is not the same image. Эlcobbola talk 19:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep them both Mutter Erde (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless some use is found. -Nard the Bard 21:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
see file info, copyright holder and author are someone else, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 22:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Source site (http://www.photosmaville.com) says "Toute reproduction interdite" (All Rights Reserved). Image page has no license or any assertion whatsoever supporting a wiki-compatible license. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. giggy (:O) 01:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence that uploader is copyright holder. Kelly 21:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Was also tagged as possibly unfree image on the source page on en.wiki. Samulili (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrightable license plate. If Canadian license plates are PD then change the license, otherwise delete. /Lokal_Profil 00:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The same copyright status is in effect for USA licence plates aswell--24.57.90.162 14:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: information here suggests image would indeed be a derivative (and thus under copyright). I'm not familiar enough with Canadian law to vote delete or keep, however. Note that U.S. license plates are issued at the state, not federal, level and would thus not be PD (i.e. PD-Gov). Is the same concept true for Canada? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: The government of Canada, and its provincial counterparts, have "crown copyright" on all their works unless otherwise stated. Crown Copyright is basically "non-commercial use when attributed to author". A New Brunswick employee told me, although I still don't see it as true that:
I would say that in general, any images available on our website or directly from most government sources are Crown Copyright and not free use as you would require it to be. However, since the image of the NB sample plate is freely available through different licence plate collector sites, I am trying to determine if an image of a sample plate would be considered fully public domain, which I could then share with you and your foundation. As I indicated before, you should be able to obtain an existing NB sample plate image from a number of collector sites and other sources on the Internet as an alternative. ~Craig Chouinard, Feb. 15, 2007(
It is in fact a derrivative work of a crown copyrighted work. Especially as it looks like it could be an official work from the gouvernment, I believe it's violating copyright law and Wikimedia policy. Cavenbatalk to me 03:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like the same story for a ton of uploads by User:SAM-123. Images like image:CT Caring For Pets Sample.jpg, image:WA 1991 SAMPLE.jpg, image:SC_1991_SAMPLE.jpg, image:WY_1992_SAMPLE.jpg, image:RI_1992_SAMPLE.jpg, image:YT 1985 SAMPLE.jpg and image:VI 1999 BLANK.jpg are clearly the product of creativity and no proof has been presented for why state / crown copyright should have been waivered. Besides, the average resolution of many of these is so low that they've very likely been taken from somewhere on the net, rather than imagining that the same person should be the owner of a ton of "blank" license plates all in pristine quality. Somebody needs to go through Sam's upload log. 83.89.43.14 21:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- as the proper copyright status cannot be obtained (or left undisputed), the images should be deleted and moved to the projects (such as Wikipedia) where copyrighted material is allowed under fair-use. Cavenbatalk to me 01:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- As a late reply to Elcobbola, no. The provincial and federal governments licence their works under the same crown copyright. Cavenbatalk to me 01:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
mogelijke copyvio graag bronnen van matriaal geven Sterkebak 18:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
possible copyvio, please give more sources
Oppose - User uploaded many maps of this type, I'm very sure he is the author (on earlier maps, his name was mentioned). So, don't delete. Kameraad Pjotr 19:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)- Oppose - I agree with Kameraad Pjotr - GijsvdL 20:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Neutral - I asked the user on nl for additional information, this is not sufficient imho. Ciell 21:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. It was just a problem of the way some people transfer images from local projects. Samulili (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
mogelijke copyvio graag bronnen van matriaal geven Sterkebak 18:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
possible copyvio, please give more sources
- Oppose - User uploaded many maps of this type, I'm very sure he is the author (on earlier maps, his name was mentioned). So, don't delete. Kameraad Pjotr 19:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree with Kameraad Pjotr - GijsvdL 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - I asked the user on nl for additional information, this is not sufficient imho. Ciell 20:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. It was just a problem of the way some people transfer images from local projects. Samulili (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
mogelijke copyvio graag bronnen van matriaal geven Sterkebak 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
possible copyvio, please give more sources
- Oppose - User uploaded many maps of this type, I'm very sure he is the author (on earlier maps, his name was mentioned). So, don't delete. Kameraad Pjotr 19:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree with Kameraad Pjotr - GijsvdL 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - I asked the user on nl for additional information, this is not sufficient imho. Ciell 21:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. It was just a problem of the way some people transfer images from local projects. Samulili (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
mogelijke copyvio graag bronnen van matriaal geven Sterkebak 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
possible copyvio, please give more sources
- Oppose - User uploaded many maps of this type, I'm very sure he is the author (on earlier maps, his name was mentioned). So, don't delete. Kameraad Pjotr 19:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree with Kameraad Pjotr - GijsvdL 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - I asked the user on nl for additional information, this is not sufficient imho. Ciell 21:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. It was just a problem of the way some people transfer images from local projects. Samulili (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
mogelijke copyvio graag bronnen van matriaal geven Sterkebak 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
possible copyvio, please give more sources
- Oppose - User uploaded many maps of this type, I'm very sure he is the author (on earlier maps, his name was mentioned). So, don't delete. Kameraad Pjotr 19:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree with Kameraad Pjotr - GijsvdL 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - I asked the user on nl for additional information, this is not sufficient imho. Can someone confirm that the little police sign in the top rightcorner is under a free license as well? Ciell 20:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. It was just a problem of the way some people transfer images from local projects. Samulili (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
mogelijke copyvio graag bronnen van matriaal geven Sterkebak 18:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
possible copyvio, please give more sources
- Oppose - User uploaded many maps of this type, I'm very sure he is the author (on earlier maps, his name was mentioned). So, don't delete. Kameraad Pjotr 19:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree with Kameraad Pjotr - GijsvdL 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - I asked the user on nl for additional information, this is not sufficient imho. Ciell 20:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. It was just a problem of the way some people transfer images from local projects. Samulili (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
mogelijke copyvio graag bronnen van matriaal geven Sterkebak 18:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
possible copyvio, please give more sources
- Oppose - User uploaded many maps of this type, I'm very sure he is the author (on earlier maps, his name was mentioned). So, don't delete. Kameraad Pjotr 19:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree with Kameraad Pjotr - GijsvdL 20:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - I asked the user on nl for additional information, this is not sufficient imho. Ciell 20:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. It was just a problem of the way some people transfer images from local projects. Samulili (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Spain does not allow PD-Art and this image comes from a Madrid Museum Lokal_Profil 20:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with that. Yes, Commons says that PD-Art does not apply for Spain, but that is not correct. What the law actually says about "mere photographies" is that they are protected for 25 years if they do not fit the category of protected works detailed in book 1. Going backwards, book 1 mentions such works wich are protected, wich are the usual: music pieces, movies, books... and, of course, paintings like the one portraited here. Wich is currently free, but not because of being ineligible for copyright, but because t's copyright has expired.
- In clear terms, what the law says is that if I took a photo of an object wich is ineligible for copyright, such as a bird or a tree in the forest, it wold be granted copyright for 25 years. A painting is not such case, and a photo that adds no original work is ot enough to generate new copyright Thialfi 01:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. PD-Art Yann (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Perulero
[edit]- File:Agpmedalla.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Fmbc.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Agpbandaa.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I believe that User:Perulero's images are all copyvios because several of them have been taken from various websites, and were even deleted before. The user also claims to be the author or the copyright holder which is hardly unprobably. Aucahuasi 04:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Slett all three, images are ugly cropped, doubtfully taken by him. I guess he thinks they are his work because he cropped the background with some program. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 22:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of PD release by copyright holder. Kelly 06:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Permission
[edit]As I am the webmaster of the image source website, Jade Online, I would like to inform that this image has been granted from the copyright holder, Jade Kwan, to be freely published in Wikipedia. Vincentkhm 17 May 2008
- That is not sufficient to be uploaded to Commons, or, for that matter, to be used on Wikipedia. It must be released under a free license. Stifle 13:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I'm concerned about the assertion that Jade Kwan has released the copyright. The photographer, not Jade Kwan (the subject being photographed!), would be expected to be the copyright holder. Where is evidence that Kwan, and not the photographer, holds copyright? Where is evidence that Kwan released it as PD (I can't find that assertion on the Jade Online site)? Saying the photo may be "freely published in Wikipedia" is not the same a releasing to PD; can anyone else use the image? Are derivatives and commercial usage allowed? There is too much uncertainty here; an OTRS ticket is needed to verify these claims. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. →Christian.И 15:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Questionable PD assertion. Image claims PD as work of U.S. federal government; the only reference to a federal entity, however, is to the Library of Congress. Hosting by LoC does not mean the photo was authored thereby; indeed, it does not appear reasonable to expect an LoC employee took this image in the course of their duties, which would need to be the case to satisfy the PD-Gov claim. LoC serves an archival role and hosts numerous images still under copyright (e.g. w:Image:Old CBOT.jpg, w:Image:Rush Street Bridge traffic.jpg, etc.) Source links only to image itself, not a page on which it is used containing author, licensing, or other information necessary to validate the claim. No author information is provided and, as image is dated 1936, it was not published before 1.1.1923. --ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps we can keep it as {{PD-ItalyGov}}? In any case the author is not given (image is linked from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/ettoc.html then click "Ethiopia in World War II") -Nard 23:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's perhaps "closer", but I don't think it's appropriate to make that claim without knowing the author. This, after all, could have been taken by a civilian bystander, which would make {{PD-ItalyGov}} false. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- If the image had a link to the LOC info page, we could check whether it is likely that the image qualifies as {{Anonymous-EU}}. Samulili (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. A lot could be done if we knew the author, but we don't. If anyone finds out who the author is, they can request undeletion. Giggy (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
May 18
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Imagen duplicada, ya existe archivo con el nombre correcto. Denix19 14:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- borrado,
un saludo, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Imagen duplicada, ya existe archivo con el nombre correcto. Denix19 14:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- borrado,
saludos, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
accidentally uploaded the wrong photo --Marc Averette 01:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 03:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. If not taken from the porn site listed 'on' the photo, it is at best an attempt to promote said porn site. Brynn 04:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 04:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio and/or advertising and/or no permission from subject. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work. Kelly 05:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 07:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. Photo extracted from sherdog.com, where 'all rights are reserved'. Brynn 05:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted, [53]
thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 11:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this page has an incorrect name, and a page with a correct name exists --Laurom 05:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
please use {{badname}} the next time, thanks,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 11:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this page has an incorrect name, and a page with a correct name exists --Laurom 05:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
please use {{badname}} the next time, thanks,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 11:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this page has an incorrect name, and a page with a correct name exists --Laurom 05:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
please use {{badname}} the next time, thanks,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 11:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Typo in the name, I've uploaded a correctly named version. Sorry! --Rootology 06:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 11:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong title, the exactly same file was upload by me with the name Image:Paris plan ligne T3 concis.svg --Otourly 07:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted
mes amitiés, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 11:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The English Wikipedia uploader habitually violates copyright laws. No information at English Wikipedia to support the claim that the uploader there is the author (only a doubtful claim that they are the copyright holder). —LX (talk, contribs) 12:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete speedy as copyvio ([54]). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio of Rockstar North; description blatantly admits that it's a derivative work and the license claimed is thus invalid 217.171.129.73 13:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I deleted this earlier while it was in the copyvio queue. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Imagen duplicada, ya existe un archivo con el nombre correcto. Denix19 14:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- borrado,
saludos, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Imagen duplicada, ya existe un archivo con el nombre correcto. Denix19 14:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- borrado,
saludos, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Imagen duplicada, ya existe un archivo con el nombre correcto. Denix19 14:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- borrado,
saludos, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Imagen duplicada, ya existe un archivo con el nombre correcto. Denix19 14:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- borrado,
un saludo, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Imagen duplicada, ya existe un archivo con el nombre correcto. Denix19 15:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- borrado,
un saludo, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Imagen duplicada, ya existe un archivo con el nombre correcto. Denix19 15:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- borrado,
un saludo, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Imagen duplicada, ya existe un nombre con el nombre correcto. Denix19 15:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- borrado,
saludos, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Imagen duplicada, existe una versión mejor de este archivo. Denix19 15:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- borrado,°
un saludo, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Imagen duplicada, existe una versión mejor de este archivo. Denix19 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- borrado,°
saludos, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 16:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Imagen duplicada, ya existe una versión mejor de este archivo. Denix19 15:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- borrado,
saludos, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 17:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Imagen duplicada, existe una versión mejor de este archivo. Denix19 16:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- borrado,
saludos, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 17:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's a derivative work and copyrighted. Incola 16:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, sure is. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong neme, I already sent the same picture in right name. Adalbertus 18:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. 06:51, 19 May 2008 Siebrand (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Wroclaw krasnal Puszczajacy Stateczki.JPG.JPG" (Dupe of Image:Wroclaw krasnal Puszczajacy Stateczki.JPG) Rocket000 07:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source possible copy violation Sterkebak 18:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Nuked by Drini: 19:41, 18 May 2008 Drini (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Michael Jackson 1984(2).png" (copyvio) (restore) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possiible copyvio Sterkebak 19:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Polish President website contains photographs in GFDL License, we can use template:PolishPresidentCopyright here. See also: http://www.prezydent.pl/x.node?id=1011893 (in Polish). Julo 18:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Above confirmed
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio Sterkebaktalk 19:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 20:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicate of Image:Mike Doughty.jpg, I'm uploading the bigger size version there, making this one redundant. --rootology (T) 22:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 02:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copied from norwegian mapservice --Flums 23:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like an old image copied from www.finn.no -- Candyman777 23:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted image from a mapservice --Kanonkas(talk) 18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copied from norwegian mapservice --Flums 23:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like an old image copied from www.finn.no -- Candyman777 23:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted image from a mapservice --Kanonkas(talk) 18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image is a derivative work of the FIFA World Cup, the rights to which are held by FIFA, making this image a breach of copyright. PeeJay 12:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a breach of copyright, there were already discussions on this subject months ago ([55])Jcer80 23:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)--
- I'm sorry, but I can't understand Italian, so I have no idea what that discussion says. Could you please translate it into English? PeeJay 05:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. Derivative work, the FIFA World Cup trophy is a copyrighted work of art.Trixt 00:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is a derivative work of the Jules Rimet Trophy, the rights to which are held by FIFA, making this image a breach of copyright. PeeJay 12:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a breach of copyright, there were already discussions on this subject months ago ([56])--Jcer80 23:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. Derivative work, the Jules Rimet trophy is a copyrighted work of art. Trixt 00:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Poor quality, error of the owner : inutilisable .Jaujo 12:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 19:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong size, unusable, this photo is an error of the owner .Jaujo 13:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 19:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The owner of the photo did not know it was uploaded to wikimedia, and having now realized it is, does not wish for this private photo to be released onto wikimedia and in public domain. Muckyfingers 02:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Not pd-self; copy (derivative) of a flag of unknown ultimate source and copyright status on the "Flags of the World" website and various other sites on the web. Most probably not an authentic ancient design, very likely non-free. Original upload on en-wiki was deleted as non-free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Most likely this flag has never existed, given the timeframe of the Seljuk state(s). If no independent reliable reference is found, I agree with deletion. Sv1xv 17:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 20:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
publication not specified Vojtech.dostal 12:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- The uploader has admitted that the picture is really from the book "Deyl, Hísek (1980): Naše Květiny". Please delete it. --Vojtech.dostal 16:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
oh my god, what are we waiting for? This is sooo slow. --Vojtech.dostal 17:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Lack and overloading of people I suppose, there is currently one admin for each 1250 people on Commons if I remember the figures well. Just my five cents... BTW thanks for the image of EOP. --Miaow Miaow 12:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- But when is it likely to be deleted? It is almost two months since it has been nominated. --Vojtech.dostal (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Lack and overloading of people I suppose, there is currently one admin for each 1250 people on Commons if I remember the figures well. Just my five cents... BTW thanks for the image of EOP. --Miaow Miaow 12:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, from a book. Kameraad Pjotr 19:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
No Source Sterkebak 19:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It's in the description, read it pls. Kameraad Pjotr 19:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're an admin and you didn't find anything wrong with the line "permission for use of images on Wikipedia"!? {{PD-Art}} may be the case here, but still.. Rocket000 07:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This line is nonsense indeed. But just take a closer look: [57] Just take PD-art and everything will be allright... --Herbert Ortner 15:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're an admin and you didn't find anything wrong with the line "permission for use of images on Wikipedia"!? {{PD-Art}} may be the case here, but still.. Rocket000 07:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, changed to PD-Art. Kameraad Pjotr 19:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
No source Sterkebak 19:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is the source: [58] And the location is Germany. Therefore PD-art applies! --Herbert Ortner 15:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, PD-art does apply. Kameraad Pjotr 19:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
REASON(copyright violation: this is not a stamp, and the artist died few years ago - it will be copyrighted for the next 60 years) --David Shay 19:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 19:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No such source, other source from this event ( [59] ) states, that images are copyrighted Andrius Vanagas 10:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a map from Encarta Kameraad Pjotr 19:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well its not! I got the map from a website with the website's permission. This is stated on the page. You are gonna delete a valuable peace of information cuz you think it LOOKS like something you MAY have seen in encarta. I came here with an open mind that maybe I didn't dot an i or cross a t, but this is just nonsense. Leave the image alone.4shizzal 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Changed to {{Npd}}. Waiting one week for permission. Samulili (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
CC-by 2.5 and http://www.worldpapermoney.org as Author. Ich want to belive, but I cannot. 213.168.120.105 21:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Imgen duplicada, existe una versión mejor de este archivo. Denix19 15:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Pregunta: duplicado de qué imagen? Necesito saberlo antes de borrar porque tenemos que reemplazarla en de:Miou, gracias, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 16:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
De esta imagen Image:Pozo inselmo.jpg.--Denix19 22:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Worse-quality duplicate of Image:Pozo inselmo.jpg, requested by uploader of both files. Mormegil (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work. dave pape 02:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Also Image:Dinosaur_collection_history_at_CMHN_-_01.JPG and Image:Dinosaur_collection_history_at_CMHN_-_02.JPG. --dave pape 02:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Lestat 09:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking at en:User talk:Dionysius321, the uploader's authorship claims are probably false. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Too many images (shold be pdf); does not fall within scope - I am the uploader - please also delete the images in the category --diego_pmc 13:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Having images is convenient for some people. We can make them into a PDF later if we need to, because that's also convenient for other people. No reason not to have both. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, but most are just text. Rocket000 13:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Cirt (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Old rongorongo photos
[edit]- File:Rongorongo A-b Tahua right.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Rongorongo C-a Mamari.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Rongorongo D-a Échancrée (natural).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Rongorongo D-b Échancrée (natural).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Rongorongo G-r Small Santiago.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Rongorongo G-v Small Santiago.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Rongorongo R-b Atua-Mata-Riri.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
not 2D objects, 1935 photos Mangostar 14:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- These are 1935 reproduction of even older photos. (c) is expired; I changed the tag. Kwamikagami 07:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- When and where were they first published? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's not a question that's possible to answer. Kwamikagami 06:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is no indication in Chauvet of when the images were taken or if they had been previously published, though it would appear that they had been. None of them were by him. A few are attributed to museums, but there is no copyright information. Thus they would appear to be anonymous, and in that case I believe copyright expires 70 yrs from publication in such cases. It is at least that long. Kwamikagami 08:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- When and where were they first published? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- File:Rongorongo E-r Keiti raw.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Rongorongo E-r Keiti.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Rongorongo E-v Keiti.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
not a 2D object, recent photo Mangostar 14:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- The object was destroyed during WWI in 1914, so all photos must predate that. Hardly recent. Changed the tag. Kwamikagami 07:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Was this really first published in the US, though? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't know. Kwamikagami 06:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Was this really first published in the US, though? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- File:Rongorongo O Boomerang.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
not a 2D object, recent photo Mangostar 14:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- A very old photo. Changed the tag. Kwamikagami 22:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- How old? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Undated, approximately contemporaneous with the above. Certainly within the date range of the (c) tag. Kwamikagami 06:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- How old? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I got the copyright owners of the book these pix were published in to grant GFDL, so the images if not already PD can be released. Do I need to file or something? Kwamikagami 02:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. These have been the subject of other separate DRs, and have been dealt with there. OTRS 2008061210011949 MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hanini.org, a personal website, appears to play "fast and loose" with copyright, and likely does not have the authority to license what appear to be news agency photos. I have tagged one egregious violation, a very famous AP wire photo, as a speedy candidate already. Note that the old 1948 images have not been tagged, because the term of copyright in Israel is 50 years after creation. --Eleland 02:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The remaining images should also be seen through because many of the them seem to be licensed wrong. --Svens Welt 08:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, right. They would all need to be retagged as Template:PD-Israel I guess? Or do we delete them, too, since we don't know the details of their authorship? It would be a shame... Eleland 10:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. It has been reliably shown that the OTRS permission can not be trusted. Samulili (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Archivo duplicado, ya existe archivo correctamente nombrado. Denix19 16:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Imagen duplicada, nombre incorrecto. Denix19 14:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- borrado,
un saludo, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Imagen duplicada, ya existe una imagen con el nombre correcto. Denix19 15:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Imagen duplicada, ya existe una imagen con el nombre correcto. --Denix19 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- borrado,
un saludo, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Nombre erróneo, ya está subida con el nombre correcto. Denix19 12:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Imagen subida con el nombre incorrecto. Denix19 15:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- borrado,°
saludos, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that this photograph is copyright violation of the sentence. --KENPEI 09:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. See also COM:FOP#Japan. Giggy (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
May 19
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Specific page does not have a CC-license, furthermore it is very unlikely that this photograph is CC-licensed, given that it is a television series from a public broadcaster --
Husky (talk to me) 21:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious fairuse. →Spiritia 22:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Extremely small image that is available under other names in much higher resolutions. Siebrand 22:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 07:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- I do hope I'd succesfully argue that Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia supersedes this image infinately. Cheers! Siebrand 09:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Siebrand for your excellent hint! Here I would easily find a good replacement if my image will be deleted in the end.
- Keep anyway please, for recognition of thhis image on my Internet homepage. Thanks! (see also User_talk:Wikihawk) -- Wikihawk 03:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I do hope I'd succesfully argue that Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia supersedes this image infinately. Cheers! Siebrand 09:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per - bad quality and not used --Ntrno 11:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete small image and too small resolution. Delete. --Bangin@de@ku ¤ ρø$τ 19:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Used. Rocket000 08:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no indication flickr license is correct 64.178.97.27 00:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Flickr user appears to have taken a photo of a photo at the de Young Museum (see [60]). --dave pape 14:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Image from 1955, fails project scope ~Kylu (u|t) 05:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No Source Sterkebakoverleg 18:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep and try to clarify with en:User:Tarun2k, as far as I could see, the original uploader classified the image as his own work, however, that got lost during transfer to commons. See also en:Image:Claire Forlani.JPG. Dr. Shaggeman 08:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Dr. Shaggeman. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose going to extraordinary lengths to keep this. The uploader's upload log on en.wp has Blogger and Feedburner screenshots which he's called his "own work". The low resolution of and compression artifacts in this image make me wonder if it's a video screenshot -- again, this would be his "own work" by the logic he's applied elsewhere. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 09:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that argument about screenshots is kinda funny, I know a lot of people who do not know how to license them correctly (some of them became commons admins later, but I wont tell who). So far we just have the users statement on his talk page saying clearly that he took the photo. So as good wikimedians we should assume good faith as long as we do not find any evidence for a copy vio, which I do not see at the moment. Anyway, a copy vio would be a completely different story and should surely cause deletion. -- ShaggeDoc talk? 09:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
too ugly.I wonder, why the uploader - probably taken from an old Super 8 movie - has uploaded this. Has he a controversy with good old Vivi ???? But please not on commons. Thank you --Mutter Erde 11:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Probably libelous, and in 1978 she was 17 years old.--Vriullop 19:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as per Vriullop. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 09:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Conversion from a speedy deletion request. Was tagged {{PD-Old}}. Someone added the life dates of the photographer (died 1970). Image taken in 1920. When was it published? Lupo 16:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete More information about this particular image can be found here and here. Copyright information for this particular image state: "Copyright restrictions applying to use or reproduction of this image available from the Western History/Genealogy Dept., Denver Public Library". And the Permission and Policy for Use of the Denver Public Library state: "All images from the Denver Public Library collection are copyright © 1995-2007 and may not be reproduced in any way without permission from the Denver Public Library. Commercial use of images is subject to service fees. We require that all images be credited to the Denver Public Library, Western History Collection". {{PD-Old}} is kinda vague, {{PD-US}} can suit better, but we can't be sure when the image in question was first published. I think the best here is to delete the image until it's publishing situation is cleared. And then, if it was published prior January 1 1923 re-upload it under {{PD-US}}. Cheers, --KveD (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete as uploader; I believe I misunderstood the publication requirement of US copyright law at the time. This may have been published pre-1923, but I have no evidence proving it either way. Morven 01:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 09:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
On English Wikipedia same image is copyrighted Ahonc (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Ahonc: Universally replaced by Image:Symbol_of_Kyoto_Prefecture.svg. Reason was "Was in category "Duplicate", exact duplicate"
OTRS Permission needed from Dutchmetal --Erik1980 21:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. →Christian.И 15:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Does this image contain anything new in comparing with Category:Penis? EugeneZelenko 15:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep Well yes I don't think we have any illustration of pre-ejaculation semen. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment yes we have that picture but that doesn't mean that the other one is useless. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep There is only one other picture of this phenomenon. Category:Penis is fine now, no need to remove any more. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete it's joke? amateur pr0n. Szwedzki (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete Useless. This page falls outside of Commons' scope. - Basilicofresco (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete Looks like homemade porn, not an impressive image either.--Paloma Walker (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lennert B (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Lennert B: "If you upload a home-made photo of your penis, do not be surprised if it gets deleted."
Incorrectly named, Incorrectly Attributed, Inferior version of older image Image:KCR-East-1stC3Gen.JPG Mailer diablo 02:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete low res duplicate. --Vriullop 16:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted (per Mailer diablo). Kameraad Pjotr 19:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
worthless --Peccafly 16:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, this is claerly not pronouced by native speaker of Japanese language, and is not standard accent. hence is useless as a sample of pronounciation of Japanese language. Secondly, the sentence means that "I ate my cat", is definitely worthless, and not a good sentence as a sample. I cannot see any reason for this file to exist here.--Peccafly 16:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Original was evidently taken from the web and uploaded to Esperanto Wikipedia with the wrong template. (GFDL is very doubtful, and this is being corrected at the Esperanto Wikipedia. Note the lack of EXIF data.) Because of the improper tag, it was copied from the Esperanto Wikipedia to here erroneously. --Yekrats 19:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Original was evidently taken from the web and uploaded to Esperanto Wikipedia with the wrong template. (GFDL is very doubtful, and this is being corrected at the Esperanto Wikipedia. Note the lack of EXIF data.) Because of the improper tag, it was copied from the Esperanto Wikipedia to here erroneously. --Yekrats 19:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I apparently made a mistake transferring it to commons. I apologise for this, can you please resolve it? --Vojtech.dostal 16:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- + And have a look at Image:Boubín2.jpg it that ok? --Vojtech.dostal 16:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Original was evidently taken from the web and uploaded to Esperanto Wikipedia with the wrong template. (GFDL is very doubtful, and this is being corrected at the Esperanto Wikipedia. Note the lack of EXIF data.) Because of the improper tag, it was copied from the Esperanto Wikipedia to here erroneously. --Yekrats 19:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Original was evidently taken from the web and uploaded to Esperanto Wikipedia with the wrong template. (GFDL is very doubtful, and this is being corrected at the Esperanto Wikipedia. Note the lack of EXIF data.) Because of the improper tag, it was copied from the Esperanto Wikipedia to here erroneously. --Yekrats 19:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work: The drawing clearly shows Coltrane as depicted on the cover of "en:A Love Supreme" (1964), photographer was en:Bob Thiele (1922-1996) Dr. Shaggeman 17:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes. I used the photograph as a model. This drawing is a new product which in no way is accurate when compared to the photograph. What about Andy Warholl? --Jisis 19:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, at least it is good enough to be identify and by that it is a reproduction of a copyrighted work which requires the permission of the copyright holder (maybe Impulse/Verve Music Group or Teresa Brewer). I am pretty sure it is not in the public domain. I am really sorry about that cause it is actually a nice drawing showing the essence of Thieles photography, which is maybe the best Coltrane photo ever, pretty well. Andy Warholl? -- ShaggeDoc talk? 20:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was referring to Warhol's works which were copies basically, but still original. You say it's a reproduction, I disagree. But I am not really expert on these legal issues. Any comments by others? --Jisis 21:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- First, maybe Warhol had the permission (which I don't know), second, you are not Andy Warhol, third, Commons:Derivative work#What is a derivative work?: "A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works", which is exactly what you said above "I used the photograph as a model." And in case of this (actually any) photo we have no exemption like freedom of panorama and the threshold of originality is surely high enough to be protected and it is not in the public domain. -- ShaggeDoc talk? 22:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe you should also read Commons:Fan art. -- ShaggeDoc talk? 22:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was referring to Warhol's works which were copies basically, but still original. You say it's a reproduction, I disagree. But I am not really expert on these legal issues. Any comments by others? --Jisis 21:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Take it easy, Shaggy. I was mentioning Warhol as an example - I'm not pretending to be him nor any other brilliant artist. But you are probably right about the derivative work part, even though I still disagree that this would be a reproduction, just like photographs of statues are not called reproductions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jisis (talk • contribs) (UTC)
- I might add, that any artist (I am not willing to include myself to them) is getting inspiration from copyrighted material, and with the same reason a massive amount of creative work should be deleted from Commons. What if I modify the picture a little, use a different angle etc... --Jisis 16:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- What if I add an additional element to the picture. A saxophone? Will It do then? Where is the line?--Jisis 16:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Having thought about the issue, I say that this is derivative work on John Coltrane, not Thiele's photograph. Thiele's contribution on the composition, exposure etc. is not violated. --Jisis 21:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. A face, a facial expression, a haircut (at least this one) etc. can't be copyrighted. The photograph and what was original and copyright-able in it has not been reproduced. Samulili (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
URV, copy from the cover album, see [61]. Request by Curtis Newton (see [62]) finished nomination process --Cecil (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I can't follow the argument by Samulili above. That is clearly a derivative work, and that does not change just because it was minimalized. A drawing bases on a person is ok, but a drawing based on the fotography of a person is and always will be derivative, no matter how much personal artistic creativity the person who copys it put into it. And in a case like that where people still can recognize from were it was taken that easily means there was not much own creativity included. The composition, the face expression, the whole style of the image is still Thiele. -- Cecil (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I cannot follow you completely either. At first you say the amount of creativity put into the picture doesn't matter, but then you feel it's necessary to undermine the amount of creativity that was put into this drawing. There are paintings like this:[63]. People still recognize it's the Campbell's tomato soup can, but I hope nobody questions the originality of the painting. Anyway, I don't feel like highlighting the originality of the drawing. IMO, it's a caricature, which doesn't reproduce the subtle lighting in Thiele's photograph. The nice composition (lots of air on the left side) is absent here as well. What is left, is the face and the expression, which cannot be copyrighted. --Jisis (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. There is no question that this is a direct infringing copy of the photo. The shirt collar, jacket, exact profile, expression, hairline, are all identical. I made a copy of the drawing and overlaid it on the photo in Photoshop and the correspondence is pretty well exact. Of course the person cannot be copyrighted, but the photographic capture of this particular expression, from this particular angle, with those particular clothes, at that particular time, are copyright-protected and have been copied. The fact that one or two elements are different (eg amount of space on the left, background not used, etc) does not change that conclusion. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Original was evidently taken from the web and uploaded to Esperanto Wikipedia with the wrong template. (GFDL is very doubtful, and this is being corrected at the Esperanto Wikipedia. Note the lack of EXIF data.) Because of the improper tag, it was copied from the Esperanto Wikipedia to here erroneously. --Yekrats 18:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Probably a copyright violation of [64] Mormegil (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Image:Philip Alexius de Laszlo-Princess Elizabeth of York, Currently Queen Elizabeth II of England,1933.jpg
[edit]It's not verifiably public domain in the US; if it was published in 1933, it'll still be under copyright until 2028, as life+70 rules didn't kick in until 1978, and weren't retroactive.--Prosfilaes 03:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- You have sent me an "Incomplete deletion request". Why? Mutter Erde 08:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- He just forgot to state the reason he gave here in the {{Delete}} tag on the image page. In any case, this indeed looks like a clear case of {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} (copyrighted in the UK in 1996; Laszlo moved to England in 1907 and became a British citizen in 1914). Furthermore, the immediate image source www.jssgallery.org explicitly says "Copyright 1998-2005 Natasha Wallace, All rights reserved. Rights of images retained by original source" (emphasis mine) and claims to have taken the image from www.churchhouse.org The latter is a UK website, so the image also fails COM:ART#United Kingdom. Sadly, Delete. Lupo 08:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm no lawywer, you are no lawyer. But I can assure you, that no court house in whole wide world would make one single thought, when they would get such a request. Regards Mutter Erde 08:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I see no reason why an American court would support Wikimedia here. Again, we fail to have sufficient publishing information to make the law clear, but if it was first published in 1933-1977 in a country with life+70 terms in 1996 and not published within 30 days in the US, then the w:Uruguay Round Agreements Act returned it to copyright in the US, with a duration equal to that of the publishing date + 95 years, like any American publication. Thus it would still be under copyright in the US. If it was first published after 1977, the rules change, and I don't know exactly how that affects us. IANAL, but if you are not a lawyer, I see no reason to take your assurances on how a US court would rule this.--Prosfilaes 15:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm no lawywer, you are no lawyer. But I can assure you, that no court house in whole wide world would make one single thought, when they would get such a request. Regards Mutter Erde 08:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- He just forgot to state the reason he gave here in the {{Delete}} tag on the image page. In any case, this indeed looks like a clear case of {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} (copyrighted in the UK in 1996; Laszlo moved to England in 1907 and became a British citizen in 1914). Furthermore, the immediate image source www.jssgallery.org explicitly says "Copyright 1998-2005 Natasha Wallace, All rights reserved. Rights of images retained by original source" (emphasis mine) and claims to have taken the image from www.churchhouse.org The latter is a UK website, so the image also fails COM:ART#United Kingdom. Sadly,
- First: Natasha Wallace is only a webmaster from the JSS Gallery (probably an US site), no copyright owner ....On the other hand the JSS Virtual Gallery is a loosely associated group of people "Contributing Members" who care enough to participate in helping me in this endeavor. [65]. You can see it, because Natasha normally doesn't know the size or the current location of Laszlo's paintings. "Thanks to Jimmy", "thanks to Sloan for this founding" etc. are her normal comments. This little girl is the future Queen , so I think, this painting was first published after the color has dried. Or do you know it better? Then tell us. And btw: Who might be the copyright holder of Laszlo's works since January 1, 2008? Regards Mutter Erde 12:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- The copyright holder in the US since January 1, 2008 is almost certainly the same copyright holder as in the US before January 1, 2008. That date didn't change a darn thing under US law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Laslow is more then 70 years dead. Thats definite all other arguments are just speculations. PD-old rules --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- See Template:PD-Old, which says "Even works published from 1923 to 1977 are copyrighted in the USA for up to 95 years since publication rather than life + 70 years, rendering this tag not fully clear."--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. PD-old, portrait's author died more than 70 years ago. Yann (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Original was evidently taken from the web and uploaded to Esperanto Wikipedia with the wrong template. (GFDL is very doubtful, and this is being corrected at the Esperanto Wikipedia. Note the lack of EXIF data.) Because of the improper tag, it was copied from the Esperanto Wikipedia to here erroneously. --Yekrats 19:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, I took it from the Esperanto Wikipedia. If it's copyvio, delete. --Botev 19:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment As with all the other files you've nominated, if it was taken from the web, where? Is there any evidence besides the lack of EXIF data (and if this alone is evidence, then the screaming you'll here is the sound of me getting blocked for copyright violations)? It doesn't seem so implausible that the original uploader took these. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 09:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep this one. "Evidently taken" is nonsense without any evidence. At least a weblink would be great. This one is way too large for typical website resolution and the lack of Exif data means nothing. Some software don't keep Exif by default. --Herbert Ortner 15:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Well, maybe I shouldn't have used the word "evidently", however there are a number of pictures in the Esperanto Wikipedia "disputed copyright assertion" queue which Petr claimed GFDL or his own work, but they turned out to be scans, screenshots, and pictures he got off the web and then doctored. That makes me question the source of his assertion. When we were talking about the consequences of all of the copyrighted stuff in our Wikipedia, he then put a delete-template on his user and discussion page, and hasn't been seen since. I would be doubtful, but pleasantly surprised if Petro took the photograph himself. -- Yekrats 13:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment I found the picture on the Internet at here
Deleted. copied from http://www.quido.cz/priroda/moravsky_kras.html Yann (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Original was evidently taken from the web and uploaded to Esperanto Wikipedia with the wrong template. (GFDL is very doubtful, and this is being corrected at the Esperanto Wikipedia. Note the lack of EXIF data.) Because of the improper tag, it was copied from the Esperanto Wikipedia to here erroneously. --Yekrats 19:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm the uploader from eo wikipedia and I understand and agree with deletion request.--Diligent 16:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep On second thought, I'd like to withdraw this particular request to delete. I think it is possible Petro made this image, as he claimed. There are several images which he did copy off the Internet and claim as his own. However, Petro is a published historian from Czech Republic, and he very well might have taken this himself. Without evidence to the contrary, we should probably keep it. -- Yekrats 13:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. license ok, AGF Yann (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Image:Copper.svg and other images from category SVG — Periodic table
[edit]Licence of derivative work is different as the licence of original. Ahonc (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, why not fix it? Actually, this is ineligible anyway. Rocket000 01:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. PD-ineligible. Samulili (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
May 20
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyrighted poster -- Prince Kassad 04:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Duplicate from fair use image in English Wikipedia. Description page here. Already requested speedy delete. Cheers. KveD (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 08:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyrighted -- Prince Kassad 04:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio from here. Already placed {{copyvio}} in the image. Cheers. --KveD (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 08:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyrighted logo Paul_012 (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted logo by Faculty of Medicine Chulalongkorn University. --Kanonkas(talk) 17:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 17:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON(non-free image) --Gribeco 03:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC) The image is a dupe of an Apple iPhoto logo, see http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=iphoto+icon
Delete per nom --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, this could have been speedied. No fault of the uploader, though; the theme he took it from likely was "GPLed". Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 09:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
self-made by the en-user is claimed, but it loocks a bit like a copyvio. More oppinnions? abf /talk to me/ 12:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete it seems that you're right. That kind of low resolution pic is typical of pcitures found on the web. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, seems so. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 09:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm doubtful that the uploader owns the copyright of this work. There should either be some other template (for Canadian Archives?) or it should be deleted. --Yekrats 13:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete As per
en:WP:PD#Canadian images: Yousuf Karsh andthe LAC-page here, this pic is from 1958 and hence not public domain in the US or in Canada. —Gabbe 20:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)- Correction: Not a Karsh pic, but still not PD. Delete.—Gabbe 20:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete As stated here: "Copyright assigned to Library and Archives Canada by copyright owner the Estate of Roloff Beny." The image is not in PD. Delete. --KveD (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as per previous previous discussions about images from this source. This is not PD. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
PD not aplicable. Casus of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bismarck h59671.jpg, which was deleted. I've just found those two which were linked with that del. req. --Masur 18:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It is public domain according to the US govt, and freely available on Naval Historical Center page and therefore I don't believe, that 1) the author will be found and 2) he will cause problems to Wikipedia. Pibwl 23:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bismarck h59671.jpg. No proof that the image is in the public domain. Being displayed on a Navy website isn't enough to prove its copyright status. --Kam Solusar 03:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Other speedy deletions; no license
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
PD not aplicable? Casus of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bismarck h59671.jpg, which was deleted. I've just found those two which were linked with that del. req. --Masur 18:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It is public domain according to the US govt, and freely available on Naval Historical Center page and therefore I don't believe, that 1) the author will be found and 2) he will cause problems to Wikipedia. Pibwl 23:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bismarck h59671.jpg. No proof that the image is in the public domain. Being displayed on a Navy website isn't enough to prove its copyright status. --Kam Solusar 03:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Other speedy deletions; no license
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
obvious copyvio; see other contributions. --JD {æ} 12:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete it seems that you're right. So we should delete all his contributions (unfortunately because some were really good!) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Commentこれはもう不必要だから削除には賛成しますが、明確な根拠も無い削除依頼にはいささか疑問を感じます。--Gazomo 08:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 11:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
obvious copyvio; see other contributions. --JD {æ} 12:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete it seems that you're right. So we should delete all his contributions (unfortunately because some were really good!) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Commentこれはもう不必要だから削除には賛成しますが、明確な根拠も無い削除依頼にはいささか疑問を感じます。--Gazomo 08:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 11:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
obvious copyvio; see other contributions. JD {æ} 12:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete it seems that you're right. So we should delete all his contributions (unfortunately because some were really good!) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Commentこれはもう不必要だから削除には賛成しますが、明確な根拠も無い削除依頼にはいささか疑問を感じます。--Gazomo 08:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, right! ;-) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 11:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"the use except Wikipedia is prohibited" doesn't work. JD {æ} 12:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment削除には賛意を示しますが、根拠が曖昧です。明白な証拠を示してほしい。--Gazomo 08:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 11:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
obvious copyvio; see other contributions. JD {æ} 12:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete it seems that you're right. So we should delete all his contributions (unfortunately because some were really good!) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment根拠が曖昧すぎる。明白な証拠を示してほしい。--Gazomo 08:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete My Japaneses isn't good enough to understand Gazomo - anyone translate? Regardless, I do agree that most of the images are suspect. --ShakataGaNai Talk 03:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Justification is too vague. I want to show tangible evidence", sez Google Translate. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 11:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
and
Only value for dutch wikipedia. I don't intend separate manuals for each and every project in the dutch language, so these images are only ever gonna be used on dutch wikipedia. No value for commons. Let's keep them locally. --Zanaq 13:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - there is no reason to keep them away from Commons. We are doing a complete cleanup at NL.wikipedia, to trap old copyvios and other problems and also to make everything available for every Wikimedia-project. Leaving some images local for just fuzzy reasons makes this cleanup unnecessary difficult and time consuming - GijsvdL 13:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Aside: Regardless of the outcome of this request, I will try to keep these images locally, even if it means duplicating them on commons, see also the dutch image deletion page Zanaq 14:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- If that attempt would be succesfull, it would be the first time, because all local duplicates at NL.wikipedia get always deleted. GijsvdL 14:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's why it would be better to delete these ones, as a precaution. When I created the images I made a conscious decision to upload them locally: I only upload images which have cross-project relevancy on commons. These images are non-encyclopedic, and will not be used outside the dutch wikipedia. Therefor they have no place on commons. Zanaq 14:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is no problem at all at Commons with images which are just in use within one Wikimedia-project, there are hundreds of files at Commons which will never be used outside NL.wikipedia. GijsvdL 14:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- And what would be the use of having those on commons? If everything gets transferred we might as wel disable local uploads. Zanaq 14:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would not oppose disabling of local uploads as soon as sufficient parts of Commons are available in a Dutch translation. GijsvdL 14:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- And what would be the use of having those on commons? If everything gets transferred we might as wel disable local uploads. Zanaq 14:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is no problem at all at Commons with images which are just in use within one Wikimedia-project, there are hundreds of files at Commons which will never be used outside NL.wikipedia. GijsvdL 14:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's why it would be better to delete these ones, as a precaution. When I created the images I made a conscious decision to upload them locally: I only upload images which have cross-project relevancy on commons. These images are non-encyclopedic, and will not be used outside the dutch wikipedia. Therefor they have no place on commons. Zanaq 14:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- If that attempt would be succesfull, it would be the first time, because all local duplicates at NL.wikipedia get always deleted. GijsvdL 14:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Aside: Regardless of the outcome of this request, I will try to keep these images locally, even if it means duplicating them on commons, see also the dutch image deletion page Zanaq 14:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep In scope, in use, licence seems ok. Multichill 23:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not in use: the copy on :nl is in use. I will delete all pages where it is used if the local versions disappear. Zanaq 08:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop your personal war to Commons. GijsvdL 15:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is no personal war, and I have already deleted the pages where the images are used. Zanaq 15:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop your personal war to Commons. GijsvdL 15:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not in use: the copy on :nl is in use. I will delete all pages where it is used if the local versions disappear. Zanaq 08:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This needs the model's permission per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. MichaelMaggs 21:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is not accidental shot on the street or wherever, it is the photo of female model in photographic studio. The model makes her job, and she knows her picture will be publicly displayed. If flickr license is OK - Keep. Julo 07:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- No-one is questioning that the model has consented to having her photograph taken (privately), but there is no indication that she was aware that the picture would be uploaded and released under a CC licence. Given the distracting towel, and not very good lighting I don't think this is a professional image: more likely a private home photo-shoot. --MichaelMaggs 16:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The above remarks are merely speculations. The picture is not very relevant for Wikipedia, and as a nude picture it does not keep up to common standards. --Frode Inge Helland 21:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep "The answer: Wikimedia Commons isn't a "picture resource for illustrating articles in Wikipedia. --Aqwis 09:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)" --Econt 12:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PS artwork without educational purpose. --Vriullop 19:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as Vriullop reason COM:PS • Rohan T 20:36, 24 May 2008
- Delete Too extreme for some people Mrmariokartguy 00:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 11:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
If image below the red cross was deleted for copyvio, the derivate also must be deleted Theklan 22:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, was the copyvio for the photo or for the "logo"? In the latter case, can a terror organisation legally acquire/own copyright? --08:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- The logo was removed due to copyvio, despite the organization is illegal, because the creator didn't left it in PD. If the image below is deleted it can't have non-deleted derivatives. ([69]) -Theklan 18:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
ETA's logo is present in many places of Wikipedia (e.g. ETAlogo.jpg), apart from the articles related to the organisation. The copyright conditions in those pictures specify that it's possible to use it in such sizes. This means that this use is valid as well. Escorial82 17:34 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- The logo is in English Wikipedia, but not in the other as it was deleted from commons for copyvio. As you can see in ETAlogo.jpg this image appears as copyrightes, so it can be used on English Wikipedia but not in others, and specially not in commons. -Theklan 00:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete on WP it is being fair use'd - can't do that here. Regardless, I believe that more than enough of the original logo is still in tact that this isn't enough of a derivative work to warrant staying. --ShakataGaNai Talk 06:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Under fair use on the English Wikipedia, only change is the red cross over the image, but it's still a copyvio. --Kanonkas(talk) 11:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 09:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:AcademiaMilitaraBc.JPG is the same, but cropped. --Biruitorul 22:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep no reason to delete. --Svens Welt 11:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept per Svens Welt. →Christian.И 15:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm dubious that the uploader has rights to it. It seems to be a stock photograph that I have found using Google Images. That page was around with that image since 2004 or before (according to Internet Archive.) So it seems like the uploader does not have {{PD-self}} rights. --Yekrats 13:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously not created by "one single user", perhaps a NASA image, which should be properly credited or deleted per USA Copyright laws. --CyclePat 18:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- This image was created from this 2MASS public domain image [70] and then postprocessed using some software from me. So it should not be a problem for commons. Alain r 20:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Alain_r is a professional astrophysicist at the Paris Institute of Astrophysics. His job includes the creation of such images. There is obvious creative work involved, so he can copyright them, and then release them under a free license. So, this is a keep. David.Monniaux 20:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I see that is creative work and derivative work of an image from 2MASS Catalogs. 2Mass appears to be a collaboration project between The Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/Caltech & the University of massachusetts. Their website alleged that funding is provided from NASA and the NSF. However I fail to see anything that states that this image was taken during a NASA project or government project. And even if it was, the current copyright status should clearly reflect this "NASA PROJECT". Unfortunatelly, Alain_r, as you indicated, is not, to my current knowlege an employee of NASA, therefore I believe release this image for free under the NASA "clause" would not fonction. Argumentativelly, there may be nothing wrong with Alain_r release his image for "free" however, he appear to have utilize an image that may be copyrighted. I believe we should assume that the original image used to creat his derivative work was or is copyrighted and is not free. This is because there are no indications from "2Mass" that the original image was or was not released of its copyrights. This voids any derivative works. Therefore I ask that you please prove your case. Currently there I concede that the original image is hosted by "Caltech" at the aforementioned website you guys provide. I disagree that the image is release into the public domain. This is because WHOIS states: ( http://whois.domaintools.com/caltech.edu) That that website belongs to the “California Institute of Technology”. Our Wikipedia article indicates that this is a “Private” Institute.[71] The work of done by someone for the institute (specially while they are beeing paid for it) (I know in Canada and most likely the US) constitutes grounds for that creative work, including the copyrights, (in this case an image most likely taken with a powerful telescope belonging to NASA or Caltech, perhaps even the Hubble Telescope, should remain the property of the institute unless explicitly stated within the contract). However the article does go on to say that they collaborate with NASA. (no references are provided for these statements in our Wikipedia article). If you can prove that this image was taken during the course of a USA NASA funded project then it is most likely that the image may be free. Nevertheless and finally, the main website for Caltech claims copyright status on it’s content.[72] I therefore claim that this image is copyrighted and should be deleted unless strictly proven otherwise. --CyclePat 21:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- No one said it was a NASA image. 2MASS images are public domain - see {{2MASS}} and [73] (last paragraph). Of course, Alain_r ought to provide a citation of the original source on the image description. --dave pape 16:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. Samulili (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
tagged as nsd by a user who is an expert, imho, but i cant see the reason :S abf /talk to me/ 11:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment As nsd tagger, I can explain the reason: the source of the given image is not provided (probably a website, but which one?). Without source it is not possible to ensure the legality of the PD-Art claim: this image could come from England or any other country where PD-Art is not authorized. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 12:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ask the uploader about the website. The uploader was User:Bibi Saint-Pol, according to the file history :-) Lupo 14:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
courtesy of the National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne Marcus Cyron 22:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Their copyright statement... Lupo 07:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I just renamed this image in the past, so I'm not the “original” uploader. Nevertheless it seems I lack of good sense. Image should be speedy deleted according to Lupo's link. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 08:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think so. They can say what they want - but that must not be correct. There are al lot of sites who use false "Copyrights" (in Germany a thing like "Copyright" don's exist for example). A 2-dimensional Image of a work made by an artist who is dead since more than 70 years is PD-old. That's the philosophy of Wikimedia. Marcus Cyron 10:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Things are not that easy: first, the law depends on the country (see Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Country-specific_rules), but a photo of a 2D artwork in the DP could perfectly be prohibited for reproduction (England or Nordic countries for instance; Australia law is unknown). Then, Commons is based on the respect of explicit rules, and the claim of the National Gallery of Victoria is explicit. So unless someone can prove that Australia has a kind of Bridgeman thing or Germany-like law (so that the claim of the NGV can be overridden), I consider this image to be deleted. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 18:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think so. They can say what they want - but that must not be correct. There are al lot of sites who use false "Copyrights" (in Germany a thing like "Copyright" don's exist for example). A 2-dimensional Image of a work made by an artist who is dead since more than 70 years is PD-old. That's the philosophy of Wikimedia. Marcus Cyron 10:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I just renamed this image in the past, so I'm not the “original” uploader. Nevertheless it seems I lack of good sense. Image should be speedy deleted according to Lupo's link. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 08:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This image can be found in many places. (Search with Google: [74]) I have updated the provenance of the image to address the "no source" reason for deletion. The copyright asserted by one individual source is not relevant if there are multiple sources for art that is clearly PD due to age. I would hate to see this magnificent painting by a significant artist deleted. - Epousesquecido 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the source.
- But the question remains the same: does Australia law admit something like PD-Art? As nobody seems able to answer, I don't know what is Commons use: opt-in (if we don't know it's yes, so keep the photo) or opt-out (if we don't know it's no, so delete it). Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Use the search E gave to find a source that isn't governed by Australian law, then... let's not get carried away here, people. The search shows dozens of sources for this image, and it's way old enough to be covered under US law. This is a clear keep once the documentation is straightened out. ++Lar: t/c 16:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. PD-Art Yann (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Dubious copyright. This has been discussed before. Florida Photographic Collection claims that these images have a free copyright, but they did not take the pictures themself. They are assigning copyright for images that they did not take themself. There is no evidence that photographers signed a release. Royalbroil 12:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- By "dubious copyright", I assume this to mean that you accept that terms of the Florida licence as being acceptable for free use on Wikimedia, but that you question their bona fides in being able to grant it.
- On that basis, we would have to delete most of wikicommons! Wikimedia has almost no proof of anything in terms of verifying whether licences apparently granted by third parties are genuine, to this new level of proof requirement. Now as I understand Wikimedia's policy here (please correct me if there's a suitable reference) we are not required to prove each of these in turn, but we accept the word of reputable sources claiming that licences apply. I consider the Florida State Archives to be such a reputable source. Wikimedia's contributors are required to act reasonably and to apply policies carefully, but we're not required to investigate beyond this. Is there any evidence to suggest that the Florida archive's claims are not justified?
Andy Dingley 13:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)- The disclaimer on the website says "Some of the images may be protected by copyright. Persons accessing these images assume full responsibility for their use and understand and agree that the State Library and Archives of Florida is not responsible or liable for any claim, loss, or damage arising from the use of these images."[75] They are admitting that they don't own the copyright to all of the images. Royalbroil 13:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- They're not admitting that, this is just a boilerplate disclaimer. When contacted they confirmed that they're not aware of any copyright issues, but the disclaimer is there because disclaimers breed and are hard to avoid in such organisations. Of course there may be copyright issues with anything (and on wikimedia too), that's why we have policies on how to respond if such issues are identified or raised in the future. There's no reason to react to a potential issue that hasn't happened.
- As to the second point, then Wikimedia already accepts responsibility for Wikimedia's potential mis-use (it can't very well do otherwise) and part of that is to have reasonable and robust procedures for take-down of anything infringing. This is our defence against any hypothetical future copyright issue, not blaming their source. Andy Dingley 13:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(deindent) Please review Commons:Licensing. "The Wikimedia Commons accepts only media
- that are explicitly freely licensed, or
- that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work". This image is not explicitly freely license - it is implicitly at the most. It is not public domain in the U.S. Royalbroil 20:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- PD isn't the issue here, nor is Wikimedia policy. No-one is disputing those, the question is solely about the interpretation of "the Florida licence" and whether it's a free licence or not. Now a licence that clearly states:
- "Any use or reproduction of material deposited with the Florida Photographic Collection shall be allowed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (4), provided that appropriate credit for its use is given."
- is to my mind trying very hard to be a free licence, as we understand the term in the Wikimedia context, and is compliant with the constraints expressed by {{CC-by-sa}}.
- So what's the stumbling block? Are we agreed that it's solely owing to their disclaimer and the phrases "Some of the images may be protected by copyright." and "Persons accessing these images assume full responsibility for their use and understand and agree that the State Library and Archives of Florida is not responsible or liable for any claim, loss, or damage arising from the use of these images." ?
- Now I'm assuming that they're all protected by copyright, and that their copyright is subject to "the terms of the donation agreement under which the Archives acquired the images.", which as stated above is compatible with our need for a free licence. These two are not exclusive. For a donation to a government-funded archive, it's pretty much what I'd expect their licensing to require. Government funding of archives, particularly in the USA, isn't generally too keen on being a no-cost escrow service for a commercial photographer who wants to retain the exploitation rights.
Andy Dingley 21:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)- You don't know FPC's donation agreement and more than I do, so how can you know that the photographer has donated them under a free license? The FPC doesn't reveal their donation criteria (with respect to a free license). Would you try to find it out from them? How can you assign a Creative Commons type of a free license when there are other types of free licenses? Royalbroil 03:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know the terms of their donation agreement, but equally I have no reason to disbelieve the statement they do make, "Any use or reproduction of material deposited with the Florida Photographic Collection shall be allowed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (4), provided that appropriate credit for its use is given." Unusually for this thread, when a government archive tells me that I'm permitted to use their content I see no problem in doing so, and I'm happy to believe that they've acted correctly on their part such that they're in a position to do so.
- No one (post-the Florida archive themselves) is "assigning a free licence to this content", merely pointing out that Wikimedia's definition of "free" is based on CC-by-sa (used to be GFDL, but there was a policy shift) and that the Florida licence is in accord with the requirements of this. Andy Dingley 09:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- The terms of the donation agreement is the key to deciding the outcome to this discussion. You need to prove to everyone's satisifaction that the agreement allows free use, plus what definition of free use (CC, GDFL, PD, etc.). I hope that other people come across this discussion and give their opinion. Royalbroil 15:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm, what? "Wikimedia's definition of "free" is based on CC-by-sa (used to be GFDL, but there was a policy shift)"? I'm not sure where you get that from. Our definition of free is based on simple principles (freely re-usable by anyone for any purpose, with or without modifications), not on any one license in particular. Just clarifying. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Forrester 18:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
May 21
[edit]
Was an incomplete nom.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like it's based on a copyrighted, non-free map from Google Maps. Anyone speak Polish? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- The map at Google shows more detail at that scale, see [76]. Nevertheless it resembles Googles map design so obviously that i have no doubt, the original map was taken from there. Probably Google did update their map of this region in the meanwhile. Delete --Rotkraut 21:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious derivative work. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Spam. Unnecesary image (can be made with HTML). Dodo 09:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Dear coleagues: this image shod not be deleted. It's not spam; it wasn't neither sent to a lot of users, nor put in a lot of articles. It's an image made by me, with the w:en:Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo main slogan. Is not unnecesary. Who is the judge who is going to say which image is necesary and which isn't? Wikimedia Commons has a lot of images, from some funny faces made by a Swedish wikipedist call Roberth Edberg Image:RoberthEdberg.gif, to comercial alike logos Image:Coca-Cola logo.svg, or human faces ... and the show goes on. Is there some rule at Wikimedia Commons about what images are necesary and what aren't? I couldn't find it. Are we going to analize what pictures we think are "necesary" and what not? I don't think so, and if some coleague is propossing that we should control the "neccesarity" of each image, I'm strongly against this kind of filter. Regards, --Roblespepe 20:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is, it's called our project scope... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry Lewis, I checked Commons:Project scope but I cannot find the "necessarity policy". I cannot even find the word "necessary". Are you talking about the "useful for some Wikimedia project" policy, with the aim of avoiding private image collections? In this case, of course Commons images have to be useful for some Wikimedia project. That's obvious. But it's also obvious that an Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo poster alike image, must be created to ilustrate some article referred to the Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo. In fact this image was created by me on November 20th, 2007 (see), to ilustrate the w:es:Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo article, which I did the same day (see). But useful us very different from necessary. The former only needs some user who uses it in some Wikimedia project; the latter would lead to neverending discusions among users about the "necessarity" of each image. So I repeat my position. There is not such a thing like a "necessarity policy", and nobody even said that this image was not useful for some article, for the basic reason that it was created for a Wikimedia project. Regards.--Roblespepe 22:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Mmkay. Keep since it's in use, even though I don't really know what it's there for. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Mmkay.
- Sorry Lewis, I checked Commons:Project scope but I cannot find the "necessarity policy". I cannot even find the word "necessary". Are you talking about the "useful for some Wikimedia project" policy, with the aim of avoiding private image collections? In this case, of course Commons images have to be useful for some Wikimedia project. That's obvious. But it's also obvious that an Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo poster alike image, must be created to ilustrate some article referred to the Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo. In fact this image was created by me on November 20th, 2007 (see), to ilustrate the w:es:Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo article, which I did the same day (see). But useful us very different from necessary. The former only needs some user who uses it in some Wikimedia project; the latter would lead to neverending discusions among users about the "necessarity" of each image. So I repeat my position. There is not such a thing like a "necessarity policy", and nobody even said that this image was not useful for some article, for the basic reason that it was created for a Wikimedia project. Regards.--Roblespepe 22:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Let's see... I've seen that this image is been used on es:Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo and es:Robo de bebés en la dictadura argentina, apparently to illustrate the articles. OK, but here is the problem: the spanish equivalent of What Wikipedia is not; lo que Wikipedia no es, says clearly that: Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Having that in mind, I think that the images should be removed from the articles, and therefore deleted from Commons as they have no other potential use within the scope of the project. Otherwise, other NGOs could exploit this "gap" in our policies and create similar images with undercover publicity, phone numbers and e-mail addresses and place them in their respective articles. For example, in a future, en:Greenpeace could do the same thing and freely advertise its organization through Wikipedia and Commons. Yes, I'm completely aware that I am applying Wikipedia policies in Commons, and that Wikipedia and Commons are two independent projects with different policies; but in this particular case, I think there's a strong bond between the Wikipedia policies that I quoted and this deletion request. Summing up, my two cents here is to Delete. In addition to this comment here, I will start the debate in the spanish Wikipedia concerning if these type of images are allowed to be placed in the articles. --KveD (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Kved. I've see your point. I'm not a fanatic of this image and I can change it or moddified it, easely. But I think that Commons has to be very careful about deletion policy, because once you began deleting a poster, you will have to delete all posters, and then also the pictures of smiling politics, and so on... Let the projects discuss and decide if the image is useful, and if it is decided that it is not useful, so delete it from Commons. The way must begin from the other side, not from here. The problem of your comment is not only using Wikipedia's rules for Commons, but analogy. Greenpeace's action is completely different from Abuelas' action. Greenpeace is trying to save animals, so you can ilustrate the article with a poster of an animal and a slogan saying: "save the wales". But Abuelas are trying to comunicate with their grandsons and grandaughters; the poster saying "if you have doubts call us to this adress" is not advertising, is their own mission. They are not talking with general population or Wikipedia's readers, but with their lost grandsons/daughters. Anyway, it should be a task for each Wikimedia project, and each Wikipedia in each language, to discuss and decide, in each particular case if it is or it isn't adv. But not for Commons. I think Commons' policy is clear: the image has to be useful for a project; if it is, it cannot be deleted from Commons. Kind regards--Roblespepe 11:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment As I said earlier, I've started the debate on the Village Pump of the spanish Wikipedia. Cheers, KveD (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete I'm sorry but no. Pictures like these will only provoke a spam invasion from all the NGOs around the world. Besides, it's not like the "Abuelas" and "Madres" (Mothers) of Plaza de Mayo movements don't have enough publicity in the world and especially in Argentina (where this kind of information is useful. Even you admit that the message of this picture is not directed to all, since "They are not talking with general population or Wikipedia's readers, but with their lost grandsons/daughters.") with the political support of the Kirchner's government bombing every media of the country with information about them. --Mushii 19:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Drini: used to circumvent "wikipedia is not a phone directory" and better images could be made being more illustrative
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative (screenshot) of a copyrighted, non-free work. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete ©2008 Google. My two cents: derivative work from copyrighted material. --KveD (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per COM:DW --Kanonkas(talk) 11:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This is pretty clear-cut to me. I'm surprised to see that an administrator uploaded this. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, it was my mistake, but I made it before I applied for administrator. Julo 21:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete although geographic data are not copyrightable due to being "common property", the compilation thereof into a map with the addition of artistic choices of coloration, iconification, etc. consequently passes the threshold of originality; indeed, this is a derivative work. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Screenshots of non-Free software are effectively copyright infringements. Rama 16:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Picture identical to Image:Canal Saint-Félix in Nantes.jpg with lower quality. Pymouss44 Tchatcher - 10:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete low res duplicate. --Vriullop 19:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, result of bad trans-wikiing. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
nowhere on the source it says something about gfdl, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 13:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Copyvio from here and no authorization whatsoever. --KveD (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
License not applicable. This is not a photograph and the uploader is most deiinitly not the creator. Lokal_Profil 17:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is allowed in 2010 under {{anonymous-EU}}, but the current licence tag is absolutely wrong. --MPorciusCato 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Correcting myself: the poster has been signed, so the author is known. So, this will stay under copyright for maybe the next 100 years or so. --MPorciusCato 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, not a photograph (as the tag claims), no other reason it should be PD. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
useless; I removed the copyright tag Tilman Piesk 19:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why is it useless? (That's not to say I even know what it is. But I'm pretty sure it depicts something.) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep You can not withdraw a free license. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think he's trying to withdraw the license. I think he just wants it deleted for whatever reason. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Why would we delete this? The license can't be withdraw and several languages have "magic square" articles which may find this useful. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Invalid reasoning for deletion. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a painting made by Alan Lee in 1984. --Achird 18:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. --Nyo 20:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unsourced and possibly copyvio. --V.Riullop 19:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 12:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
On IMDb, this photo bears the copyright line "Photo date: 3 February 2008 Alexandra Maria Lara © Thomas Leidig". Based on a photo in the uploader's gallery, his name is "A.J. Quintero". Unless he can prove he is Thomas Leidig, this image should be deleted. – flamurai 07:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Kanonkas: Copyright violation
Delete I'm fixing a nomination for another user, who made a dubious claim of being the model. I'll ignore what User:Ribi said[78]. I personally support deletion as there's no evidence that the model consented to publication on the internet. This is obviously not a nudist walking down the street. It's taken in private, so consent of the model is essential. Also, there's a possibility the model is under age, but the image is obviously designed to be sexually suggestive. --Rob 06:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your "under age" sentence is a joke, or? :-) Mutter Erde 06:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- By under age, I mean *may* be under 18 years old. Obviously she's phsyically an adult woman. Generally laws are based on age, not puberty. I understood that, in the U.S., publishers of erotic and/or pornographic material are supposed to keep records of the age of their models. This obligation exists, even for models over 18. --Rob 06:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was a little astonished, that this classic vandal named Ribi has got his own show here yesterday. First he vandalized Dutch models, than he was male, than female. First he was an advocate of a friend, later of poor African prostitutes, later of poor African women in general and so on ... Even if I would accept his last role: Is anyone here, who really believes, that a wellknown artist as Klashorst spares the 5 dollars extra to get an permission from the model, that allows him to publish his photos wherever he wants? Mutter Erde 07:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not supporting or defending anything user "Ribi" did. I don't care if he's blocked. But that's beside the point. If you have evidence that a model release was obtained (from a 18+ year old) please let me know. We don't go by reputation, without evdience. We demand sources for licensing information, so why not for a model release, if it's absolutely required. Peter Klashorst has to worry about the laws of the Netherlands or wherever he lives (I don't care). We have to worry about the laws of the United States. There is a fair bit of material that's tolerated in the Netherlands and some other countries, but not always in the U.S. Being a respected artist, doesn't make all of somebody's work exempt from the law. --Rob 08:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I guess that you would not be satisfied, when somebody would pixel her face, isn't it :-) And commons has this template for {{personality rights}} pics from reliable extern sources. And btw: this is a real natural woman from the continent, where human live began. She's beautiful. No superoxyded hair, no fake tits, no plastic surgery, no bleeched teeth - so nobody has to ask, how old she might be without that stuff from western "civilisation". Klashorst has made a nice picture of her. Congratulations and Keep Mutter Erde 09:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is a forum to discuss if we can legally keep the image. Concepts of beauty are irrelevant.. --Rob 19:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I guess that you would not be satisfied, when somebody would pixel her face, isn't it :-) And commons has this template for {{personality rights}} pics from reliable extern sources. And btw: this is a real natural woman from the continent, where human live began. She's beautiful. No superoxyded hair, no fake tits, no plastic surgery, no bleeched teeth - so nobody has to ask, how old she might be without that stuff from western "civilisation". Klashorst has made a nice picture of her. Congratulations and
- Keep as long as we don't have a proof of what Ribi says. He's been vandalizing all Klashorst pages and treated him of being a pedophile and of abusing African women. See at the Village pump yesterday + the talk page of the Klashorst cat + Ribi's talk page. What Ribi says is never the same thing (once he says one of his friend is part of the models and now he says it's herself while I'd bet his a man!). Anyway, we don't have any model release for any picture on Commons so either we assume good faith for every picture or we delete them all any time there's somebody pictured. As for Klashorst's pictures, they come from his account on Flickr (even if they've now become private there) and we have to assume that such a recognized artist should be able to deliver such model release form. But again if we do make any effort to obtain that kind of form for his pictures there's no reason to behave differently with any other picture depicting a person on Commons (and not only naked pictures). To finish with, we have to respect the presumption of innocence. Ribi claims Klashorst has made some crimes (pedophilia, abuse...) but we mustn't judge that ourselves. We're not a court. As long as nothing has been proved about what Ribi says and as long as Klashorst has not been convicted, we don't have any reason to delete his pictures. What's more, even if Ribi's right about one or some women depicted, it wouldn't mean all Klashorst's pictures are concerned (and Ribi's history shows that s/he tried to delete them all). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- You successfully argued Ribi shouldn't be trusted. Unfortunately, that's not relevant to the issue of deletion. The need for a model's release is not a simply "all or nothing" thing. Often a model's release isn't needed. Also, it's only for sexually suggestive images, where the proof of age (18+) is important. Also, Klashorst's reputation is not relevant. Klashorst could have followed all laws that applied to him, but that doesn't mean all the images can be published by us in the U.S. --Rob 19:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not porn so we don't have to keep any record. And there's no reason to believe this woman is underage. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, who cares what type of person Klashorst is? Let people make judgments, that's up to them. (Making the judgment that judgments are wrong is hypocritical.) Even if Ribi is right, it doesn't affect anything. There's a difference between nudity and erotica. Records of consent and age are only required by law if the material is pornographic. We don't keep records and we never will. This is different from "publicity rights". Rocket000 03:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- You successfully argued Ribi shouldn't be trusted. Unfortunately, that's not relevant to the issue of deletion. The need for a model's release is not a simply "all or nothing" thing. Often a model's release isn't needed. Also, it's only for sexually suggestive images, where the proof of age (18+) is important. Also, Klashorst's reputation is not relevant. Klashorst could have followed all laws that applied to him, but that doesn't mean all the images can be published by us in the U.S. --Rob 19:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Project scope. However I don't know how strict US laws are about pornography. If this is considered pornography we should delete the image or we'll get into trouble with model release blabla. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not really arguing scope. If it's clearly legal, by all means keep it. --Rob 19:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- mmh, because you don't want to trust your eyes or your biology teacher..... let's wait for Ribi and see, whether she wants to admit that she is under age. Mutter Erde 21:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't care what Ribi says, or does. S/he should have been blocked for defamation and disruption. That's beside the point. Anyway, you keep on confusing chronological age with physical development. There's no dispute the model in question appears to have gone through puberty, and is physically an adult woman. I'm not claiming this is kiddie porn. Rather, I'm saying, that looking at the image, it's apparent that it's sexually suggestive, and she may well be under 18 years of age. Apparently you can see information I can't. Please, do tell me, from your superior "biological" information, what exact age is she? Please tell my how you deduced this age. Personally, I've seen older looking people who were under 18, and younger looking people who were over 18. --Rob 22:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- mmh, because you don't want to trust your eyes or your biology teacher..... let's wait for Ribi and see, whether she wants to admit that she is under age. Mutter Erde 21:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Even with US standards, I don't see why it would be considered as porn. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's porn because it's the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter. However, after looking into U.S. record keeping a little more, I don't think there's much issue with keeping (very) softcore material like this. There are many U.S.-based sites that have similar material that don't keep records (including some very well known sites). And since the artist is somewhat notable and it's obvious his sole purpose isn't to sexual excite, the art defense works here as well. Rocket000 09:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a depiction of sexual subject matter! How can you tell that self nipple-licking is sexual?!! It's erotic, not sexual. However, I agree with the rest of your answer. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- w:Oral stimulation of nipples (found in w:Category:Sexual acts) states "Oral stimulation of nipples is a human sexual practice." and "Some females and even some males experience breast orgasm without other forms of sexual stimulation". It uses a crop of this image as an illustration. It just seems obvious the model is trying to appear as though she is sexually stimulating herself and the image is made to sexually arouse the viewer. I think it's important to distinguish this image from simple nudity. --Rob 05:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a depiction of sexual subject matter! How can you tell that self nipple-licking is sexual?!! It's erotic, not sexual. However, I agree with the rest of your answer. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's porn because it's the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter. However, after looking into U.S. record keeping a little more, I don't think there's much issue with keeping (very) softcore material like this. There are many U.S.-based sites that have similar material that don't keep records (including some very well known sites). And since the artist is somewhat notable and it's obvious his sole purpose isn't to sexual excite, the art defense works here as well. Rocket000 09:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Even with US standards, I don't see why it would be considered as porn. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - An absurd theatre. The censors are coming. No way, no chance! "Could be", "Maybe" - these are not possible causes for a deletion. Marcus Cyron 09:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, censorship sucks, but if it's breaking the law, I think that's a valid concern. Rocket000 09:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep A work by a recognized artist. I don't much like his stuff but a cropped (by me) version is used on the Wikipedia. --Simonxag 17:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- There's a cropped version? Where? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
1. there is no evidence of the consents of the woman in publishing this photograph, 2. there ist no hint on the records you have to keep according to the requirements of US law, Title 18 USC 2257, 3. there is no evidence this person is not younger than 18 years old and I have no idea on dutch regulations -> delete, because this photograph can produce serious trouble. --84.62.10.244 07:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete ignoring all the discussion there might be the point this model might be under age, so we should go save and delete. abf /talk to me/ 12:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- What? I don't understand anything in what you wrote? Could you rephrase? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep An absurd theatre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denis Moura dos Santos (talk • contribs) 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Permission information requested from Peter Klashorst, but has not been supplied. There is no evidence that this model is of age. No evidence that consent of the model has been given. Therefore delete. ++Lar: t/c 01:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Commons is not censored & I am happy about that. However I am extremely concerns about the rights of the subject in such a case & I would be unhappy if many other reasonable people did not feel the same way. I think we should be looking for real confirmation of release by the model. Equally I think for any such material where there may be questions there should be explicit OTRS permission at the very least --Herby talk thyme 12:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- No need to create a lex Peter Klashorst for a professional photographer Mutter Erde (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- rights of the subject? - It's a professional model. Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per Lar, above. Channel ® 21:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Klashorst is a recognised artist, and apparently obsessed with doing naked work. That was why I quit art - I didn't see the point of sketching naked women for three years. I'd also say from some of the other photos that it was done in a studio, and so it seems unlikely that the model didn't know what she was doing. I'm going to assume good faith here. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete In the absence of the requested proof of model consent, there is no legal right or basis for presumption for posting PK's pictures. On behalf of the real human being depicted without her knowledge, thank you to all who support deletion. I have learned much in this process about the wiki community and human nature ribi
- It is my understanding that a model release has not been provided by Mr. Klashorst even though it has been asked for. Missing a model release is a serious problem in a picture that is this frank. "2257" may also be of concern. The image is still inside the system and can be undeleted if or when these two issues are resolved in one way or the other (eg. Mr. Klashorst or Foundation lawyers). Samulili (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"Armed Forces of the Slovak State 1939-1945" indicates that this photo is younger then 70 years. Hence the license is not applicable Lokal_Profil 17:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- License has now been changed to PD-50 but HUngarian copyright law still says life + 70 for PD. /Lokal_Profil 23:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. No valid license or suitable PD-tag. Samulili (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
likely copyvio abf /talk to me/ 14:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand the source? what is "Yılmaz Onay 50.Sanat Yılı"? Is this a verifiable source? --CyclePat 16:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- After he put the same image on de, the uploader claimed that it was painted by someone called "Ali Nesin". --Noddy93 09:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, the permission has been confirmed via OTRS. →Christian.И 12:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Unnecessary, MediaWiki already sorts alphabetically. Deletion request for all subcategories as wellCode·is·poetry 18:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
SHOULD NOT BE DELETED - THERE IS NO COMPREHENSIVE ALPHABETICAL LIST OF PAINTERS. ALTHOUGH PAINTERS ARE LISTED ALPHABETICALLY ACCORDING TO COUNTRY, IT IS STILL VERY USEFUL TO HAVE A COMPRHENSIVE LIST IF YOU ARE JUST BROWSING AND DON"T KNOW THE EXACT SPELLING OF AN ARTISTS NAME OR HIS COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.
- Delete This is totally redundant to the sorting already done by the software. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Basically it's not a question about any sorting features but rather where we apply it, e.g. painters by country, painters by country, painters by school, painters by era etc. and the category in question: painters by alphabet. OK we could go for the plain category painters as the main sorting criteria but these have sections for easier usage, because of letterwise sorting (less hitting the "next 200" button). There is no need to delete categories Painters-A, Painters-B etc. I would say. --Mattes 11:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Allso. Cäsium137 (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Don't delete! This is a great collection find artists and unknown artists. By deleting this section there will be problems finding artists and explore new names.
- Keep It would be stupid to delete this. How am I supposed to find artists in alphabetical order??? -John
- This is a very valuable list.
- Delete per nom Mutter Erde (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Will be deleted as soon as the bot has moved all the images in the proper category. But I just gave it a misstyped comment and now have a few problems, since the pictures should go from 'Alphabetic list of painters' to 'People by alphabet' and not the opposite way. I hope SieBrand reacts soon and tells me how to proceed. Sorry for the mess. -- Cecil (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Sorting is done by the Mediawiki software, so this category and its subcategorys are redundant/unnecessary. If you want to find painters faster, than improve their categories by putting them in the ones per nationality/country, style/genre, period, ..., but not by something that is already done by default. Cecil (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Depicts event in 1939, so not 70 years since it was made available. License doesn't apply. Lokal_Profil 17:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Description cites a copyrighted, non-free source. No evidence that this is a work of the US Federal Government. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- This certainly looks like an official portrait...but I can't tell. He resigned in 2006, so there wouldn't be a current bio of him on a government website. A cropped version of this photo appears on Washingtonpost.com and boston.com without credit...which is often indicative of a PD photo (they don't bother to credit pd photos). This link [79] credits "Photo: 5th U.S. Court of Appeals/AP" which doesn't make sense... since Mr. Luttig served on the 4th circuit. However, it does seem this is a government photo which was handed out to the press through the AP. -Nard 14:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This category has been deprecated for awhile now. It was originally created when ParserFunctions first debuted. It was for tracking their use in case some changes needed to be made. The extension has been stable for awhile now and this category is no longer needed. Even if we ever need to do some ParserFunction syntax updates en masse, this category wouldn't be useful. It's vastly incomplete and unmaintained. ParserFunctions are everywhere now because every time one of these templates gets subst'd the ParserFunction is added to the page, i.e. substitution outputs the function itself, not the result (unless multilevel substitution is used). It would be a simple task to do this anyway via searching a database dump. It's use has slowly be declining (same as on Meta) and since we're down to 63 members, I figured it's time to nominate it and wrap it up. Rocket000 01:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It served its purpose well. I don't see that it's necessary anymore. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete oh yes. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Emptied and deleted. Giggy (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
What is the source of all the pictures? Sterkebaktalk 17:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Every photo over the map was in commons. What is the problem?. --Ángel Luis Alfaro 20:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's a derivative work of (what I assume seeing that no authors/licenses are stated) freely licensed images. The whole point of free licenses in general is that anyone can edit or modify them providing the author(s) and license are mentioned. Just a general statement that "all images are from Commons" is not appropriate enough. That is, unless they are all PD (which they aren't). NielsF ? (en, nl, fr, it) 22:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- providing the author(s) and license are mentioned means that I must put in the description the 50 links to its original images?, well, I suposse I will do. I begin and will go on (be patient, there are many).--Ángel Luis Alfaro 07:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- All the names of the photos in commons are placed in the description box. Is enough?.--Ángel Luis Alfaro 16:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's a derivative work of (what I assume seeing that no authors/licenses are stated) freely licensed images. The whole point of free licenses in general is that anyone can edit or modify them providing the author(s) and license are mentioned. Just a general statement that "all images are from Commons" is not appropriate enough. That is, unless they are all PD (which they aren't). NielsF ? (en, nl, fr, it) 22:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - 3 of the images in the source box are redlinks, that should be fixed. After that, this seems like a Keep to me. Cirt (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work (some source images are redlinks, one of them was deleted as unlicensed).Ahonc (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
May 22
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is kind of "Vanity category" or "PR category", established by one single person, User:Jwdietrich2, only to be used for his own pics. -- WeHaWoe 11:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC) --WeHaWoe 11:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- When I recently made this deletion request, I was not aware that for some of "any-and-all" cameras similar categories do exist. Having been a photographer in an earlier life, I'm convinced that photographers take photographs, not Zeiss nor Zenit -- this is quite irrelevant. So, may the community decide on the usefulness oft even Category:Photographs by camera, I.am.already.out. Sorry. -- WeHaWoe 12:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Even if this category is currently used by one person, why should this be a justification for deleting it? A "vanity category" would be a category without content - which this category isn't. A PR category could be a kind of advertisement, in this case for a specific camera model. The Minox 35 GT is a historic camera type, whose production ended 17 years ago. Therefore, these labellings as "Vanity category" or "PR category" are not appropriate for this category. There is a large category Photographs by camera. What reason would we have then to keep it and its sub-categories like Photos taken with Fujifilm cameras or Photos taken with Zeiss? In my opinion, the camera related categories should be kept as they provide interesting additional information. I also prefer them over possible uploader-centered categories.
- Keep The Minox 35 GT is a famous camera but not a newest digital, easy to upload its pictures, therefore I think it is very natural even if there are only one or few contributors. And, traditional film cameras cannot give an Exif data automatically therefore informations by contributors themself are very valuable perhaps. I can sympathize with WeHaWoe's opinion as a generalization, but it is not a matter should be discussed at the deletion request on this category, I think.--Morio 13:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- On "What reason would we have then to keep it and its sub-categories like Photos taken with Fujifilm cameras or Photos taken with Zeiss?"
- THAT is (was) the VERY point -- my del.request was not REALLY about dispraising some single user, or some m+++ camera category, but rather about asking for the usefulness of that Category:Photographs by camera, which I did due to this "special occasion": I STILL do not see any reason to keep such, but it seems pretty clear that there is some majority who like to keep it, therefore: just do so. I just felt the urgent need to comment on that (with-or-without any chance to change anything). WeHaWoe 13:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It should come as no surprise that a category for images taken by a certain kind of camera will be filled with the images of someone that uses such a camera. That looks to me like stating the awfully obvious. And yes, "photographers take photographs, not Zeiss nor Zenit", but no photographer takes photographs without a camera, so the camera is still an important part of it. If we were consistent with "the camera is irrelevant" thinking, we'd also go and strip the EXIF data out of all our digital photographs.
The question is: is this category (and any similar one) useful to anyone? I think the answer is self-evidently yes!, for film cameras at least (as Morio points out). Just as people might be looking for, say, images made in Inkscape to find out if Inkscape is for them or not, they might be curious as to what photographs from a certain kind of camera look like. I know I've poked around in its grandparent category a few times, just out of curiosity. If it's useful to just a few people, and it isn't hurting anyone being there, then there's every reason to keep it. (Full disclosure: I've created two such categories for my Vito B and my Praktica MTL3. I don't know if anyone else will start using them.) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Although not being "very" convinced on the usefulness of this category (and similar), I hereby withdraw this deletion request. -- WeHaWoe 05:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay! Kept. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no more penis - private image - out of scope - ueseless (too smalll) ;-) 85.179.170.167 12:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete unused dick shot --Simonxag 17:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. While there's no such thing as "too many penis pictures", this one is really poor-quality. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
suspected copyvio; image not made by NASA, provided by MSU, but credited to UFL Office-bound Webmaster 15:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- First off, NASA did not create this image; The given source page, http://ciencia.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/05aug_nostress.htm, links to an MSU page that claims copyright.
- However, the MSU page that claims copyright (http://commtechlab.msu.edu/sites/dlc-me/zoo/microbes/pyrococcus.html) itself credits the image to Henry Aldrich of UFL, haldrich@micro.ifas.ufl.edu
- I can't find any other online uses of the image that make it clear that UFL or Henry Aldrich is releasing this image under a permissible license, let alone releasing it into the public domain.
- MSU does possess a higher res copy of the image (unlinked but visible within http://commtechlab.msu.edu/sites/dlc-me/zoo/microbes/media/) so maybe Aldrich gave them the image, but it's still marked as coyprighted © 1999 Comm Tech Lab, Michigan State University; I believe the license would depend on them and the terms of their funding.
Office-bound Webmaster 15:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deletion Mandatory- This, as pointed out by Office-bound Webmaster, violates an individual's copyright. I am the uploader to Commons, and I hereby confess that I did not make a very complete check to see that the image was not copyrighted before uploading it. Please delete it now. Thanks for calling it to my attention! Bob the Wikipedian 19:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC) --Bob the Wikipedian 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, unintentional copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
suspected copyvio; image not made by NASA, provided by MSU, but credited to UFL Office-bound Webmaster 15:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- First off, NASA did not create this image; The given source page, http://ciencia.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/05aug_nostress.htm, links to an MSU page that claims copyright.
- However, the MSU page that claims copyright (http://commtechlab.msu.edu/sites/dlc-me/zoo/microbes/pyrococcus.html) itself credits the image to Henry Aldrich of UFL, haldrich@micro.ifas.ufl.edu
- I can't find any other online uses of the image that make it clear that UFL or Henry Aldrich is releasing this image under a permissible license, let alone releasing it into the public domain.
- MSU does possess a higher res copy of the image (unlinked but visible within http://commtechlab.msu.edu/sites/dlc-me/zoo/microbes/media/) so maybe Aldrich gave them the image, but it's still marked as coyprighted © 1999 Comm Tech Lab, Michigan State University; I believe the license would depend on them and the terms of their funding.
Office-bound Webmaster 15:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deletion Mandatory- This, as pointed out by Office-bound Webmaster, violates an individual's copyright. I am the uploader to Commons, and I hereby confess that I did not make a very complete check to see that the image was not copyrighted before uploading it. Please delete it now. Thanks for calling it to my attention! Bob the Wikipedian 19:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC) --Bob the Wikipedian 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, unintentional copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploadad under wrong name; will be uploaded under new name again JFKCom 21:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- gelöscht,
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. 2 paragraph Bio Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 22:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 01:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Business Ad Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 22:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 01:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Doesn't Open pdf File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 22:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 01:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Business ad Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 22:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 01:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Web design info Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 22:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 01:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Bio Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 01:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photoshopped image and copied from this blog([80]). No evidence uploader is original author of the aircraft image or the inset image of the "moon". --Dual Freq 02:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. <obligatory>It's a shop. I can tell from the pixels and having seen quite a few shops in my time.</obligatory>. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. CV Bio Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 22:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- borrado,
podrías usar {{speedy|...}} también para estos, un saludo, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 02:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the picture is missing (the one here is just a fake for testing) Herzi Pinki 22:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. You could have speedied this one too. ;) Rocket000 01:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. -Nard 15:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Text-only -> out of scope.--Avron 17:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why is this still open from March? --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as a text file, which is out of the project's scope. WilliamH 10:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko 14:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Poor image I took in my own kitchen. No encyclopedical interrest... Pymouss44 Tchatcher - 21:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Arria Belli: User request
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not given free 195.18.109.60 17:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral This was licensed as GFDL on nl.wiki; the transfer was correct and the license was indeed "free". Uploader did state "Door iedereen te gebruiken maar s.v.p. niet verkleinen of anderszins" in the information box, however, which explicitly disallows "reduction or alterations" (i.e. derivatives). Not sure whether to consider this the author's touch luck (released under GFDL by mistake) or whether we honor the request for no derivatives and delete. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept Author cleared things up. No restrictions. Multichill 15:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source image on the dutch wikipedia nominated for deletion Kameraad Pjotr 19:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral This was licensed as GFDL on nl.wiki; the transfer was correct and the license was indeed "free". Uploader did state "Door iedereen te gebruiken maar s.v.p. niet verkleinen of anderszins" in the information box, however, which explicitly disallows "reduction or alterations" (i.e. derivatives). Not sure whether to consider this the author's touch luck (released under GFDL by mistake) or whether we honor the request for no derivatives and delete. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept Author cleared things up. No restrictions. Multichill 15:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source image on the Dutch wikipedia nominated for deletion Kameraad Pjotr 19:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral This was licensed as GFDL on nl.wiki; the transfer was correct and the license was indeed "free". Uploader did state "Door iedereen te gebruiken maar s.v.p. niet verkleinen of anderszins" in the information box, however, which explicitly disallows "reduction or alterations" (i.e. derivatives). Not sure whether to consider this the author's touch luck (released under GFDL by mistake) or whether we honor the request for no derivatives and delete. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept Author cleared things up. No restrictions. Multichill 15:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Copied by myself from en.wikipedia back in 2006. As of now, the given source http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08711.htm doesn't contain the image any more. Possibly deleted there after finding copyvio. I'm quite unsure if the licence was ever valid schlendrian •λ• 13:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- According to Google, the image was once used at the website www.guam.navy.mil [81]. The submarine ran aground near Guam on January 8, 2005, and there are quite a few press releases from the Marianas base about it.[82] I would think that indeed it's a Navy photo. Indeed, here it is still in the Internet archive.I would guess that it once appeared in the article "USS San Francisco returns" here. Unfortunately, the archive doesn't have the Jan 15, 2005 version of that article. Still: Keep as a U.S. Navy image. Lupo 15:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Lupo: Keep. WeHaWoe 15:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. Samulili (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Suspicious official-portrait-like photo of President of Taiwan, uploaded by user who has never uploaded anything else. Thoughts? 98.210.176.233 04:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unless the uploader can demonstrate otherwise, this srikes me as a highly likely copy vio. WilliamH 10:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copy vio. Kameraad Pjotr 19:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
no source (Author + his/her death) but loocks verry old. abf /talk to me/ 13:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Author is unknown, as well as his/hers death, painting is probably from XVIIc. when lived bishop Jan Albert Vasa, for sure is much older than 70years. Source, as it is in description, http://www.malarze.com. Copyied from malarze.com permission: "Images presented on malarze.com website may be used for non-commercial and educational purposes only, as long as they contain malarze.com logo watermark and their current form is not being edited or changed in any further way."Mikołajski 20:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, no author information, unfree for commercial use. Kameraad Pjotr 19:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not used in any project. A better one is available. Anarkangel 20:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep mark it with {{Superseded}} instead. I dont see much of a reason to delete it. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept, no reason to delete. →Christian.И 12:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Posible copy Ferbr1 13:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Images of Der Maddin
[edit]- File:Dodge-Viper.jpg ()
- File:Fakefiesta.jpg ()
- File:Fakepassat.jpg ()
- File:Meinomega.jpg ()
- File:Meinneuesauto.jpg ()
- File:Wikicivic.jpg ()
- File:FAKESKLASSE.jpg ()
(This one already has a DR open.)Closed that; discuss here please. - File:FAKEBMW .jpg ()
- File:Weihnachtstouran.jpg ()
- File:Essentouran.jpg ()
- File:Nissan-Primera-Fake.jpg ()
- File:Skoda Octavia Fake.jpg ()
- File:Fake-Ford-Mondeo.jpg ()
- File:Saturn Aura.jpg () (In category Unknown as of 11 September 2007; no license)
- File:Opel Zafira (Fake).jpg () (In category Unknown as of 27 August 2007; no license)
- File:Mazda mx 5.jpg () (no source, no licence)
All these appear to me to be out of scope. Why do we need images of "fake" photoshoped cars? And they are most certainly derivative works. (The last three are listed for reference). Rocket000 04:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete I see no reason why we should keep them. FP (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete No point in these even illustrating articles on the cars in question. Purely decorative. BrokenSphere 17:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Image:Venusine.jpg
- Image:Embryon.jpg
- Image:Neptune-Yeu.jpg
- Image:Oedipe-oxydo.jpg
- Image:Jesus-de-Cessy.jpg
- Image:Toison-or.jpg
- Image:Menetou-Salon.jpg
- Image:Regard-Interieur-oxydo.jpg
- Image:Cérémonie_de_la_Flamme.JPG
- Image:Près_de_Salute.jpg
- Image:Cygne-vitrail.jpg
- Image:Jean-Vuillemey-maquette.jpg
- Image:Jean-Vuillemey-peignant.jpg
- Image:Livre-Jean-Vuillemey.jpg
- Image:Marcel-Jean-Vuillemey.jpg
- Image:Marie-Clairvaux.jpg
- Image:Jean-Vuillemey-Guy-Breniaux.jpg
- Image:Jean-Vuillemey-Beaume.jpg
- Image:Portrait-Jean-Vuillemey.jpg
- Image:Guy-Breniaux-portrait.jpg
- Image:Chalain-Jean-vuillemey.jpg
- Image:Lac-jean-Vuillemey.jpg
- Image:Emile-Wegelin-Mediterranee.JPG
- Image:Emile-Wegelin-mer.jpg
- Image:Emile-Wegelin-paysage.jpg
- Image:Paysage-au-bord-du-lac.jpeg
- Image:Emile-Wegelin-paysage2.jpg
- Image:Paysage-printemps-Wegelin.png
- Image:Provence-Wegelin.jpg
- Image:Torrent-Wegelin.jpg
© means copyrighted so it's not compatible with any CC or GFDL licence. Also, different names are mentionned in his uploads (Guy Breniaux and Jean Vuillemey) although he mentions "own work" for each one. I tried to make him clarify that a long time ago but he ignored my warning. -- TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- the ones of Guy Breniaux deleted, as he does not permit [83] that (and Fazland is not the author). Have not looked at the others yet. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 11:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- In this case there are other works by Guy Breniaux you may delete. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Grund: Tabelle wurde verbessert und wird nach Löschen neugeladen Milgesch 07:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC) --Milgesch 13:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kommentar: Magst Du sie unter dem selben Namen hochladen? Es waere m.E. besser sie dann einfach mittels diesem Link neu hochzuladen, sonst wird sie vom CommonsDelinker auf den verwendeten Seiten gelöscht. Falls Du die alte Version nicht haben möchtest, könnte man sie auch nachtraegelich löschen. LG. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 18:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
erledigt, allerdings bin ich der Meinung, dass für Tabellen keine Grafikdateien verwendet werden sollten. --ALE! ¿…? 21:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
just generic mention of "free to use", permission for derivatives not stated explicitly. NielsF ? (en, nl, fr, it) 21:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Translation of U kunt de foto's gratis gebruiken. Als u foto's gebruikt voor commerciële doeleinden dient u wel de juiste bron te vermelden. Bron: Rijkswaterstaat HSL-Zuid / Ton Poortvliet: You may use the pictures for free. If pictures are used for commercial purposes the correct source has to be mentioned. Source: Rijkswaterstaat HSL-Zuid / Ton Poortvliet. NielsF ? (en, nl, fr, it) 21:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The website is owned by Rijkswaterstaat, which just ask attribution for all their public pictures, see also Template:BeeldbankVenW. GijsvdL 21:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Closed. Linked to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:BeeldbankVenW. Decision there will apply here, too. Forrester 20:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
May 23
[edit]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
1:1 copy of information panel with copyrighted logos Michiel1972 20:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio. --ShakataGaNai Talk 03:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio: Edvard Munch died in 1944 88.217.93.171 21:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- In fact I suggest to speedy it, as the copyvio of this blatant derivative is clear. --88.217.93.171 21:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Someone apparently impersonated me on CommonsHelper - I didn't transfer this image. Kelly 21:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Personnal work that will not be useful for any Wikimedia project. It should be moved, for instance, to the French Wikipedia. Diti (talk to the penguin) 21:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep A self made logo used on a user's user page. --Simonxag 23:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, 
I withdraw my nomination
Diti (talk to the penguin) 08:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Speedy kept, in use = in scope. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request -Gradivo 21:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete seems to be some sort of uploader's request. --Svens Welt 15:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, no license either. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of a copyrighted poster. Kelly 16:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- CommentThis image was cropped from other commons's image.Is only a fragment of this Image:Sasha_Grey_photo.jpgVicond 22:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It's Ok to have copyrighted artwork in a picture if it's incidental to the picture. If you then crop the picture to make this artwork the subject, you can no longer claim the defense. --Simonxag 23:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Ok but,only one thing.This is not an artwork is only a detail of one picture.My first idea was to make something like this:
here Image:Budapestbun2.jpg from here Image:Budapest girl.jpg.I can't underestand why in this case I can't do the same.By the way I've not any particular problem with it.If you believe that your decision is better, delete them. Vicond 02:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio. The reason why this is and Image:Sasha_Grey_photo.jpg isn't is because the original image just happens to include the poster - where as this "features" the poster. Example: a photo of someone wearing a t-shirt with a copyright logo is a derivative work and legal, but a picture of just the logo is copyvio. --ShakataGaNai Talk 03:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok.I will try to make the necklace's description using the hole imageVicond 14:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Question: I am also confused about why this is a problem. The Image:Sasha_Grey_photo.jpg has the attribute 2.5 license which states "You are free:" ... "to Remix — to adapt the work". But User:ShakataGaNai claims (and I assume both Kelly and Simonxag agree) that this adaptation (Image:Curious_Necklace.jpg) is not free. How then can the original image be "free"? I know copyright is a jungle, but I had thought a free image that is "free to adapt" is exactly that. Isn't that the purpose of Commons, for example see Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia? Should the original have the copyrighted parts removed? Please could someone else clarify this as it would seem to affect many images? Thanks. -Wikibob 09:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I now believe the original should not be on Commons, either, because "Works which contain other copyrighted works (derivative works) - these are not permitted, so don't upload them!" That is quoted from Commons:Upload (click on entirely my own work) which I assume should also apply to Flickr images. My completely amateur opinion is these images are maybe suited for Fair use on the english wikipedia but not Commons, but I'll wait to hear what others say. -Wikibob 10:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please read Commons:Derivative works. You'll see that the original picture is OK, but that the cropped version is not. --Simonxag 12:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
_(475130799).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(1).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_-_Napoli_chiesa_dei_gesuiti_1880-1905.jpg){kind=link}
![6.7 Image:"amour_sous_cellophane"_couverture.jpg](#Image:"amour_sous_cellophane"_couverture.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![12.43 Image:Hector "El Father" (wallpaper).jpg](#Image:Hector_"El_Father"_(wallpaper).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
_7.8_earthquake.gif){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![24.14 Image:Picswiss_BE-90-14_Hotel_"Oeschinensee"_beim_Oeschinensee.jpg](#Image:Picswiss_BE-90-14_Hotel_"Oeschinensee"_beim_Oeschinensee.jpg){kind=link}
_(475130799).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(475130799).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(475130799).jpg){kind=link}
_(475130799).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&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(1).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(1).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(1).jpg){kind=link}
_(1).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![[2]](https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Служебная:Log&type=upload&user=Знанибус&page=Изображение:Mudan+MD+6106.JPG&year=2007&month=7){kind=link}
![[3]](http://assets.mog.com/muze/cover/44/210444.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Napoli_chiesa_dei_gesuiti_1880-1905.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Napoli_chiesa_dei_gesuiti_1880-1905.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=&user=&page=Image:Citrus+Bowl.JPG&year=&month=-1){kind=link}
![[6]](https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:Morbert#Verwijderingsnominatie_Afbeelding:SOB-japan-001.jpg.2C_Afbeelding:Napalmdeath1989.jpg_en_Afbeelding:Jackvanelewout.jpg){kind=link}
![01:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2008/05#c-Pymouss44-2008-05-06T01:17:00.000Z-Image:"amour_sous_cellophane"_couverture.jpg){kind=link}
![17:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2008/05#c-MichaelMaggs-2008-05-09T17:13:00.000Z-Image:"amour_sous_cellophane"_couverture.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&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![[12]](https://scn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mmàggini:3_4.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[16]](https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Datei%C3%BCberpr%C3%BCfung/Schwierige_F%C3%A4lle/Archiv_1&oldid=45732899#Bild:Grails_grails_logo.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:Julie_Christie.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:Saoirse_Ronan.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:Alan_Arkin.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:Julian_Schnabel.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){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![20:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2008/05#c-Lucien_leGrey-2008-05-10T20:55:00.000Z-Image:Hector_"El_Father"_(wallpaper).jpg){kind=link}
![16:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2008/05#c-Mike.lifeguard-2008-05-11T16:55:00.000Z-Image:Hector_"El_Father"_(wallpaper).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_and_Fingon_(Elf_King).JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_and_Fingon_(Elf_King).JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
_-_and_Fingon_(Elf_King).JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
_-_and_Fingon_(Elf_King).JPG&action=history){kind=link}
_-_and_Fingon_(Elf_King).JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
_-_and_Fingon_(Elf_King).JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
_-_and_Fingon_(Elf_King).JPG){kind=link}
_-_and_Fingon_(Elf_King).JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
_-_and_Fingon_(Elf_King).JPG){kind=link}
_-_and_Fingon_(Elf_King).JPG){kind=link}
_-_and_Fingon_(Elf_King).JPG){kind=link}
_-_and_Fingon_(Elf_King).JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
_-_and_Fingon_(Elf_King).JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
_-_and_Fingon_(Elf_King).JPG){kind=link}
_-_and_Fingon_(Elf_King).JPG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[25]](http://elections.france3.fr/layoutftv/sites/municipales_2008/images/photo_candidats/59139_bricout_guy.jpg){kind=link}
![[26]](http://www.xeraco.es/imagens/ajunta.jpg){kind=link}
![[27]](http://www.xeraco.es/imagens/logotur.jpg){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
![[35]](https://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/drama/radio/images/sir-michael-gambon.jpg){kind=link}
_7.8_earthquake.gif){kind=link}
_7.8_earthquake.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_7.8_earthquake.gif){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
![[39]](http://venciclopedia.com/index.php?title=Imagen:Pedro_Elias_Gutierrez_1.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[42]](http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=Flag_of_Saint-Martin_(local).svg&w=_100000){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[45]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:2282819559_b24b2d6c42.jpg){kind=link}
![[46]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Image%3AMpe08.JPG&year=&month=-1){kind=link}
![[47]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Schloss_Rheydt_Model.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[53]](http://www.cdn.sherdog.com/_images/pictures/37/36999.jpg){kind=link}
![[54]](http://images.salon.com/books/feature/2005/02/12/lovecraft/story.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){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}
.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}
.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}
![[61]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:John_Coltrane-A_Love_Supreme.jpg){kind=link}
![[62]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ATrane_drawing.jpg&diff=15160345&oldid=12697219){kind=link}
![[63]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Warhol-Campbell_Soup-1-screenprint-1968.jpg){kind=link}
![[69]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:Eta.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=11627424&oldid=11533860){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){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}
.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}
![[78]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Lick_it_3_%28nude_photograph_by_artist_Peter_Klashorst%29.jpg&diff=11769652&oldid=11769641){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[80]](http://www.fototime.com/6CB1DFCFC3A394D/orig.jpg){kind=link}
![22:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2008/05#c-Herzi_Pinki-2008-05-22T22:46:00.000Z-Image:Picswiss_BE-90-14_Hotel_"Oeschinensee"_beim_Oeschinensee.jpg){kind=link}
![01:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2008/05#c-Rocket000-2008-05-23T01:38:00.000Z-Image:Picswiss_BE-90-14_Hotel_"Oeschinensee"_beim_Oeschinensee.jpg){kind=link}
![[81]](http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.guam.navy.mil/images/ssn711_8.jpg&imgrefurl=http://thesubreport.com/sanfran.html&start=1&h=600&w=485&sz=61&tbnid=pk68A0mxpBb26M:&tbnh=135&tbnw=109){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
Deleted. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a screen capture, not a mobile phone photo. Look at the aspect ratio and lack of cellphone camera metadata. Kelly 20:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment That'd be a 4:3 aspect ratio, which is the same as almost all digital cameras. Still, Delete in lieu of a convincing explanation from the uploader... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This was transferred from the English wikipedia, were it was subsequently deleted for lack of a source. The original uploader had uploaded a number of pictures under the creative commons license with out a source. When they were tagged for lack of a source, a source was provide for only one and the source did not actual release that image und the creative commons. BlueAzure 00:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Ahonc: In category Unknown as of 23 May 2008; no source
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no source, no license, unknown author Niteshift 21:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Ahonc: In category Unknown as of 23 May 2008; no license
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please delete this image. I uploaded this image few months ago. Wrong licence and this image isn't for commons --Suradnik13 09:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete--Zapos 18:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Personnal picture that should be only uploaded on Wikipedia FR Diti (talk to the penguin) 16:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the mention "pour ma page perso" ("for my user page") is clearly collided with a free licence.--Bapti ✉ 18:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Moreover, I'm not sure that this background of the picture is really a personnal creation of Jardino. I distrut since he upload for exemple logo on Commons.--Bapti ✉ 10:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep "for my user page" was likely just the uploader's way of saying "this isn't useless, I'm using it on my user page [subtext: so don't nominate it for deletion (which is exactly what happened)]". Even if it's only useful for one project, it can be kept. In use = In scope. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Jardino should confirm that he autorized anybody to use this picture, which isn't currently clear.--Bapti ✉ 10:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's licensed as GFDL & CC-BY-3.0, therefore it's perfectly clear that he authorized anybody to use this picture. It's used in fr, therefore it's within project scope. There is nothing wrong with this picture. Keep --Rotkraut 20:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's licensed as GFDL & CC-BY-3.0, therefore it's perfectly clear that he authorized anybody to use this picture. It's used in fr, therefore it's within project scope. There is nothing wrong with this picture.
Delete : Jardino said that this picture is for a personnal use only, so I have transfered fr:Image:Pétale détaillé de ancolie copie.jpg on fr.wikipedia.--Bapti ✉ 08:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The image is tagged as being a pre-1923 U.S. work. The image is a photograph of a French politician, so it seems unlikely that it was actually a U.S. work. BlueAzure 00:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
license indicates self-made, but i cant reed the text which is maybe given as source. abf /talk to me/ 05:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- It says "this is a picture of the north campus building". Babelfish may be your friend. Given that it has an exif, and it's not that special, I would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. Megapixie 02:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. Samulili (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
possibly stolen from the internet: see this homepage http://www.airpower.at/news04/0518_passivnaya/index.html , where the same images occure, but the author of these pics is Martin Rosenkranz. So the original copyrightholder is not RusArmy.com when the original images are claimed to be the property of http://www.airpower.at -- 132.199.34.80 13:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC) completed only deletion request --Svens Welt 13:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyvio. "Source: RusArmy.com" & "GFDL-self" ? Geraki TLG 18:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Delete it, it's stolen! -- 93.196.118.9 14:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The reason seems to be correct. The licence doesn't fit -- High Contrast 08:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
possibly stolen from the internet: see this homepage http://www.airpower.at/news04/0518_passivnaya/index.html , where the same images occure, but the author of these pics is Martin Rosenkranz. So the original copyrightholder is not RusArmy.com when the original images are claimed to be the property of http://www.airpower.at -- 132.199.34.80 13:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC) completed only deletion request --Svens Welt 13:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyvio. "Source: RusArmy.com" & "GFDL-self" ? Geraki TLG 18:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Delete it, it's stolen! -- 93.196.118.9 14:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The reason seems to be correct. The licence doesn't fit -- High Contrast 08:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Should be "fair use". Bogdan K (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
possibly stolen from the internet: see this homepage http://www.airpower.at/news04/0518_passivnaya/index.html , where the same images occure, but the author of these pics is Martin Rosenkranz. So the original copyrightholder is not RusArmy.com when the original images are claimed to be the property of http://www.airpower.at -- 132.199.34.80 13:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC) completed only deletion request --Svens Welt 13:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyvio. "Source: RusArmy.com" & "GFDL-self" ? Geraki TLG 18:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Delete it, it's stolen! -- 93.196.118.9 14:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The reason seems to be correct. The licence doesn't fit -- High Contrast 08:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Would setting something on fire be a Derivative work? Maybe :) ViperSnake151 15:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The entire cover is basically in tact, and it takes up a significant portion of the image. --ShakataGaNai Talk 03:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The cover text is largely pd-ineligible...it consists of the title (not copyrightable), a white background, the name of the publisher and number sold, etc. It is not an artistic work, and I doubt it rises to the level of artistic intent that copyright law is meant to preserve...aka the threshold of originality. -Nard 23:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a derivative work, it is more intended to illustrate articles on book burning and censorship.
- Delete What does the burning of a book preparing for SAT have to do with censorship? While it can certainly be funny to burn school books. the image is irrelevant in the article.
- Delete I concur. If anything, I think that the nature of the book detracts from the article. After all, who would not want to burn an SAT book? It has nothing to do with censorship; instead, it is a right of passage to burn your SAT prep books after taking the exam.
- Deleted. Freedom is questionable. So is scope (it was used to illustrate the burning of sacred maya scripts in 1th 16th century). Samulili (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't seems to be in Commons:Project scope. EugeneZelenko 15:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Strange... Not used, no description... Google'd for the term and can't find anything. --ShakataGaNai Talk 03:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not used, and no potential use. Geraki TLG 18:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence that image is in the public domain (please consider also this derivative work, Image:Toto-ic.jpg). Trixt 23:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no evidence for PD. dave pape (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It seems a promotional image or something like that, I don't believe that the uploader is the copyright holder. Trixt 22:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as neither source nor author are given. --Svens Welt (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Anonymous101 talk 11:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It seems a promotional image or something like that, I don't believe that the uploader is the copyright holder. Trixt 23:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as neither source nor author are given. --Svens Welt (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Anonymous101 talk 11:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Doubtful copyright status. It is an aerial view of Barcelona only possible by helicopter. It is probably from the town council although at the web site (see also pdf file at right) there is only a low resolution version. --Vriullop 18:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
derivative 84.109.90.27 12:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Same as the last voting on the pic ==>> Keep --Oren neu dag (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept See the previous DR.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Although these were supposedly released under the GFDL, the photographer is claiming in OTRS ticket #2008052310019431 that he never really agreed to the terms of the GFDL. Looking at the original OTRS ticket (#2007030310026109), User:Adambro asks for a GFDL release and the photographer replies, "Yes, that would be fine with appropriate credit/link." To my reading, this is not the same as, "Yes, I agree to the terms of the GFDL for these images." So it appears he misunderstood the original request email. As the photos are not truly free, they should be deleted here. howcheng {chat} 17:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I've read the emails regarding this. I find no blame in either Adambro or Jkelly, the person who approved the permissions, but I can clearly see where the copyright holder did not "know what he was signing" so to speak. I believe this is an honest case of misunderstanding and we should remove the images. Bastique demandez 17:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately it looks like these will have to go as I have to agree that the original permission wasn't watertight. I should have clarified this, Jkelly should have requested me do so, and of course the photographer should have made sure they understood and contacted me if they had any queries so we all made mistakes here. My appreciation of the issues involved in getting solid permissions is growing all the time and hopefully my later requests are better but I'll look to clarify any which aren't. Adambro 18:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 18:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This image has not been properly tagged and is POV. -- Aivazovsky 21:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- The image was properly tagged {{PD-self}} before someone removed it with a bad deletion request. It looks like that user found a copy on answers.com and thought this was a copyvio, however answers.com regularly copies large amounts of content from wikipedia, including images, so in fact the copying went the other way. The original image description had a little bit of descriptive info that was also removed with the deletion request. Restore the original license tag and info, and Keep. It could use a much better description and categories to be sure... it looks like nl-wiki uses this image on a couple pages, maybe that text would help. Carl Lindberg 05:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep, not a copyvio. Yann 17:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Azerbaijan has a restrictive (non-comercial only) freedom of panorama hence these image is violating copyrights. VartanM 02:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The copyright law of Azerbaijan says:
- Article 20. Use of Works Permanently Located in a Public Place
- The reproduction, broadcasting or communication to the public by cable of architectural works, photographic works and works of fine art permanently located in a public place shall be permissible without the author's consent and without payment of remuneration, except where the presentation of the work constitutes the main feature of the said reproduction, broadcast or communication to the public by cable, if it is used for commercial purposes[84].
- VartanM 02:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
VartanM, since when is Wikipedia - free online encyclopedia, is used for "commercial purposes"? And how come the monument to Khojaly Massacre victims is the only thing that again came to be your concern? Atabek 07:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep since it's not a copyvio, and remove the 2 identical tags from the image page --Kimse 07:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, I would bold the main feature of the said reproduction ... for commercial purposes. It seems this image does not go against Azerbaijan copyright law, as it is not the main feature of any reproduction, and is/will be used for illustrative purposes. However on the other hand, I wouldn't vote keep on this particular image, I'd like to see the original uploaded, without the "special" effects. Furthermore, is 209 × 344 really the highest resolution that you can upload, I would be suspicious of claims to ownership of the image in this case. - FrancisTyers 08:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete 209 × 344 is unlikely ownership resolution, as mentioned above. - FrancisTyers 09:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: I added this to the current day, as it is very old and hasn't been closed.
Deleted, this should have been done sooner. The monument is the main feature of the reproduction, and so this image can't be used for commercial purpose. Our licensing requirements are what they are. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama: "17 USC 120 applies only to architectural works, not to other works of visual art, such as statues or sculptures"
Should me moved to local Wikipedia on fair use.
--A.J. 10:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Weak oppose: This is a panorama in a fairly weak sense. The photograph shows the entire sculpture so necessarily includes its surroundings. However, the surroundings are bereft of any other structures or details. It is difficult to imagine how this sculpture could be photographed without including such surroundings (detailed photographs of parts of the sculpture include more or less the same surroundings). However, I'm not au fait with the "17 USC 120" cited above (could this be linked to?), so am only weakly opposing this. --Plumbago 09:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment (general): As the creator of this image, I'd just like to point out that the image was on a local Wikipedia before someone (not me) moved it here. It has now, of course, been deleted from said local Wikipedia because of its apparently unnecessary duplication here. I'm not a frequent user of the Commons (I only came here because my files were being deleted from the English Wikipedia because of their inclusion here), but my experience so far is that the Commons can have something of a disruptive influence on local Wikipedias. Files appear to be frequently copied here with poor attribution and details, which may then be lost when the original file is deleted from its local Wikipedia. And if the file is tagged for deletion (as here), it then has to be copied back to where it came from with the possibility of further information loss ("loss" in that special Wikipedia sense; I know the information probably still exists somewhere). Anyway, my apologies for ranting, but I'm getting a bit fed-up of my images winding up over here when it's done badly. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work, no freedom of panorama for artworks in the US. --Kam Solusar (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No FOP for artworks in US. Local projects can ask to get the file back : COM:UNDEL#Temporary undeletion. Forrester 18:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo comes from a comedy playing in 1989. I don't believe that the uploader is the copyright holder (see also the others uploads by the same user) Trixt 23:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- How do you know he wasn't in the audience? -Nard 23:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Should at least be a little bit explained. In the face of his other uploads AGF fails. Forrester 21:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
May 24
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probable copyright violation. Image source can be seen in this internet archive version of the page: [85], no indication on that page that the image is free. I have also not seen any indication that the uploader, User:Arwendraugh, obtained permission from the copyright holder. --Lyrl 01:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio. --ShakataGaNai Talk 03:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 08:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Seems to be a cover picture of a tape and therefore, it's under copyright. Pymouss Tchatcher - 01:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio --ShakataGaNai Talk 03:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. My closest finding was http://www.diskografija.com/album/tuzna-je-noc-340.htm However, the description page contained attempt for "Template:Information- naslovna stranica sa muzičke kasete" which means "cover of a music cassette", hence fair use. →Spiritia 16:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate of Image:Kanimbla 2007.jpg with a less clear name --Nick Dowling
- Deleted; {{badname}} giggy (:O) 01:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work - focus of the image is a copyrighted mural/projected ad Ytoyoda 03:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep South Korean law allows pictures of this stuff as long as the image is not being used for an image of the same medium (like a painting of a painting) and it's not being permanently displayed in a public place. ViperSnake151 12:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. If a painting derivative work can't be made, then the image is non-free. Superm401 - Talk 13:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete if the derived image is not allowed to be permanently displayed in public, that restriction makes the image non-free. --Simonxag 20:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as derivative. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. Image was copied from en.wikipedia to el.wikipedia and then from el.wikipedia to commons. The uploader is not the author (who is unknown), image was deleted from en.wikipedia as copyvio. Geraki TLG 13:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - highly likely that this is a copy vio of pitch side photographer for the media. WilliamH 10:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Note: Image was previously uploaded and deleted as unlicensed. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
exact duplicate of Image:Peischhinger Wehr Anna reg 14:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Could you please provide a link to the other image? I cannot find this other "duplicate". --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The other image is Image:Peischinger Wehr.jpg. I added {{duplicate}} to this one. --Rotkraut 21:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Done Seems it was deleted by User:Siebrand --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"For private use only" is not compatible with Commons:Licensing. EugeneZelenko 15:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Delete per nom. --Svens Welt 15:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
In which country statue installed? EugeneZelenko 16:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- The United States of America. Delete. --Kjetil_r 18:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. A photo of a statue as its primary subject obviously doesn't qualify it as incidental inclusion. I suspect the uploader simply misunderstands copyright law. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Can't be shared by cc-by-sa-3.0 licensing, the source website states "NO COPY!"~ Burgare 16:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Can't be shared by cc-by-sa-2.0 licensing, the source website states "NO COPY!"~ Burgare 18:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright info at http://www.fujitv.co.jp/rights/index.html?1#B ~Kylu (u|t) 03:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Text File article belongs on Wikipedia Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 17:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 20:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicate and also should be Wikipedia article Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 17:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 20:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Tagged on English Wikipedia as "possible copyright violation - wrong licence": it is a work of the Washington State government, not US federal government. Image is a copy of one at the URL given in the summary. --86.152.210.92 18:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, state government != federal government. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No verifiable source. The English Wikipedia uploader, Szuyuan huang, who has a very long history of copyright problems, cites the author as "SP Lee", but it's not clear who that is. (en:User:SP Lee does not exist.) —LX (talk, contribs) 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by request from the Commons uploader. Since any legal problems caused by the English Wikipedia uploader could potentially affect the Commons uploader, I'll respect that request and delete it right away. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
temporary file, now uploaded as new version of Image:Wikipedia-logo-nl.png Oliphaunt 21:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 01:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. University thesis Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 22:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted, por favor usa {{speedy|razón}}
saludos, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 01:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. University of Madrid Thesis on SAD Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 22:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted, por favor usa {{speedy|razón}}
saludos, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 01:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. University Thesis Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 22:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted, por favor usa {{speedy|razón}}
saludos, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 01:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Biography Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 22:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted, por favor usa {{speedy|razón}}
saludos, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 01:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Interview no links Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 22:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted, por favor usa {{speedy|razón}}
saludos, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 01:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Article on Biofusion should be on Wikipedia, (no links)Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted, por favor usa {{speedy|razón}}
saludos, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 01:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Due to the lack of sharpness and looking at the summary, this image seams to be a copyvio. ALE! ¿…? 22:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, looks like it to me. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Medical article should be on Wikipedia Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 22:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted, por favor usa {{speedy|razón}}
saludos, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 01:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
18th Century article Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 22:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted, por favor usa {{speedy|razón}}
saludos, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 01:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Suicide letter Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 22:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted, por favor usa {{speedy|razón}}
saludos, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 01:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Business article Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 23:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- deleted, por favor usa {{speedy|razón}}
saludos, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 01:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file must be delete because it's not correct in german. I've uploaded a new version here : Image:königliche_Nekropole_von_Tanis.jpg Thanks for deleting the older one --Neithsabes 23:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Done per request. Delete by User:Collard --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a duplicate category of Category:Song Dynasty, the latter of which is by far more developed and legitimate. This category, "Song Dynasty (960-1279)," was created on the 21st of September in 2005 by the same user who created the "Song Dynasty" category on September 15, 2005. This extra category for the same Chinese dynasty is completely unnecessary and a waste of space in light of the other category covering the same thing only in much greater depth. Therefore, I request that it be deleted.--PericlesofAthens 21:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- well if there was only one, then it should be indeed merged. Gryffindor (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Merged and deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Another Peter Klashorst of an identifiable woman with no consent lodged at OTRS MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Also Image:Down Under.jpg, which is just a larger version.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Bad faith nom, you're basically just nominating every Peter Klashorst image you find. Hey, it's art. He's not violating anybody's mystical rights. -Nard 11:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's not bad faith. We both know the user and we know his intentions are good whether we agree or not. Art is not exempt from violating personality rights. Rocket000 (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is a good faith nomination. However some of the claims against Klashorst seem to have come from another user who was asked repeatedly to verify them. They did not, but rather made death threats, of a kind which, if taken seriously, would have implied they were an active terrorist. Part of the problem is that Klashorst produces what look at first like tasteful nudes but which are rather disturbing. --Simonxag (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's not bad faith. We both know the user and we know his intentions are good whether we agree or not. Art is not exempt from violating personality rights. Rocket000 (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep we've had this debate so many times. Klashost is a recognized artist. His pictures are of posed models, not people in private situations and are used in a number of places on the Wikipedia. --Simonxag (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately, someone has decided to split the Klashorst deletion requests into several, separate deletion requests, which means the discussion has ended up all over the place. I think all the arguments in favour of deletion have been done to the death. Policy requires deletion. I will, however, copy-paste this refutation of every possible argument for keeping these (for all those reading this for the sixth time, sorry to spam every DR with the same crap, but that's pretty much what the keepers are doing, and doing this saves me time over refuting each argument individually). Enjoy the copypasta:
- Peter Klashorst is a prolific publisher of nude photos: So was R@ygold and the swirl face guy, and we're not about to start hosting their picture collection. That someone has a huge collection of such pictures on his Flickr account means nothing at all. This would only be valid in the case of, say, the Suicide Girls -- a business that we can count upon to get the requisite documentation before publishing (and as a side-note, hire photographers with talent, as well, something Klashorst should consider).
- Peter Klashorst is an artist: He's a painter, and possibly one that nobody would give a damn about if he hadn't got arrested for some rather unsavoury activity in Senegal some time ago. However good he is at painting, he is an amateur photographer. Or to put it less delicately, he's a not-quite-half-talented hack and it shows; even if he had an Uzi to his head I doubt that he'd be able to take a photo that wouldn't go down in flames at FPC like a skyscraper in New York (inb4 "so can you do better?" -- I don't have to be an expert on trains to tell you that a skateboard is not a train). He is certainly not an artistic or professional photographer. As such, we should apply the same standards to Klashorst as we would with anyone.
- His pictures are of posed artists: Bullshit. We know exactly where he finds the girls he photographs (it's not like his penchant for prostitutes is a secret, guys). And this is, again, made less likely by the fact that the kind of people that rent studio models can, at the least, take a half-decent picture if their life depended on it. So again, feel free to compare Klashorst's works to some of our Suicide Girls, for example: the difference between Klashorst and a professional studio photographer is roughly the difference between the paper airplane I just folded and a B-52 Stratofortress.
- These are not pornographic, so the age issue is irrelevant: An interesting position to take; try calling the party van and telling them that you have some nude pictures of under-age girls on your computer. Your end will be playing "mommies and daddies" in the prison showers with a fat, hairy fellow convict. Admit it: if these photos had any technical merit, they'd be soft-core porn. But we could even grant this premise and we'd still have the issue that there is no evidence that the models have given their consent for more-or-less unlimited publication of these pictures, so we don't even need to make this argument.
- Commons is not censored: Well, yes it is actually. We don't host child pornography on Commons, for example. We also don't host copyright violations. We are as uncensored as we can be within our legal (and moral) obligations. This is not an argument in itself; it is hand-waving to try and distract people from the real issues at hand.
- The related argument of This is a (possibly Senegalian Muslim) crusade to get rid of nudes from Commons: No, it's not. I am not a prude, nor do I really care to get rid of every nude from Commons. What I do care about is that we live up to our legal (and moral) obligations as codified in our policy on identifiable photographs of living people. Every one of these Klashorst photos fails our obligations on this count, and I'm damned if we should make an exception for Klashorst "becuz he's famous lol".
- Thank you for your time. Can we start deleting yet? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 17:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It's a pity to see such appalling stuff coming from an admin. The "keepers" are responding to individual deletion proposals as they come across them not spamming. If Mr. Collard wishes to accuse any of Kashorst's models of being prositutes, I suggest he produce evidence or remember the law of libel (and he says he's arguing for personalty rights!). Are prostitutes a cheaper alternative to artist's models? Hardly. And do professional models expect privacy? They do not however expect to be labeled as prostitutes or anything else illegal or immoral. Shame on you Mr. Collard! --Simonxag (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Likewise, it's also a pity to see both cavalier disregard for policy and thundering farts of illogic coming from other administrators in these deletion requests as well, so let's all just forgive each other and hold hands. The "spamming" thing, well, that was to pre-empt any criticism of me dumping the same copypasta (or should I say, "responding to individual deletion proposals as I come across them") in every deletion request. As for Klashorst's models being prostitutes, well, do you think it's so unlikely? Do you really believe that it's so wrong to assume that someone with a known penchant for prostitutes (this isn't libelous), who probably couldn't put a camera strap around his shoulder without an instruction manual, who posts a whole ton of photographs of young, nude women, is more likely to be hiring prostitutes and taking photographs of them, than hiring professional models?
"And do professional models expect privacy?", well, yes they do, and if we were talking about some kind of reputable artist or company (the point of my SG example) then we would be more inclined to assume that we were, in fact, talking about professional models who had given their consent. But given Klashorst's seedy background, I think we should be more vigilant about insisting on this than we should for any other random pr0ns that end up at commons. As it is, I think the odds are good that these women are poor, desperate, and are being used as trophies by some Dutch hack precisely because they are unlikely to ever find out that their pictures are being posted all over the Internet. Shame on me indeed. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 03:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)- The only valid point being made by the deleters is in the case of the women who might be under age: Kashorst is Dutch & Holland has a very low age of consent. The pictures may not be porn but in the UK pedo hysteria is such that a pediatrician's house has been burned down and at least 1 child has died because an adult did not dare come to their aid. This does not justify any assumption other than the models being models. I remember watching an interview with a plump middle-aged schoolteacher who had modeled for Lucien Freud (who had quite a reputation!): there was some gentle innuendo that she might have been Freud's lover (which she didn't seem to mind), but I think I can guess what would have happened if a Mr. Collard had called her a prostitute! --Simonxag (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with "pedo hysteria". The pictures are soft porn by any standards, and as such there are legal requirements for keeping that sort of thing around. And how is this the only valid argument? Does the fact that we have possibly compromising pictures of identifiable people mean nothing at all to you? "Does not justify any assumption other than the models being models", well, I can't imagine what kind of retarded parallel universe you live in, wherein it is IDIOCY! LIBEL! to assume photos of girls made by a man who has a known penchant for prostitutes may well be photographs of prostitutes. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 13:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Now who is slandering these women? Peter Klashorst or you? In his blog he calls them models. You call them prostitutes. -Nard 21:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with "pedo hysteria". The pictures are soft porn by any standards, and as such there are legal requirements for keeping that sort of thing around. And how is this the only valid argument? Does the fact that we have possibly compromising pictures of identifiable people mean nothing at all to you? "Does not justify any assumption other than the models being models", well, I can't imagine what kind of retarded parallel universe you live in, wherein it is IDIOCY! LIBEL! to assume photos of girls made by a man who has a known penchant for prostitutes may well be photographs of prostitutes. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 13:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- The only valid point being made by the deleters is in the case of the women who might be under age: Kashorst is Dutch & Holland has a very low age of consent. The pictures may not be porn but in the UK pedo hysteria is such that a pediatrician's house has been burned down and at least 1 child has died because an adult did not dare come to their aid. This does not justify any assumption other than the models being models. I remember watching an interview with a plump middle-aged schoolteacher who had modeled for Lucien Freud (who had quite a reputation!): there was some gentle innuendo that she might have been Freud's lover (which she didn't seem to mind), but I think I can guess what would have happened if a Mr. Collard had called her a prostitute! --Simonxag (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Likewise, it's also a pity to see both cavalier disregard for policy and thundering farts of illogic coming from other administrators in these deletion requests as well, so let's all just forgive each other and hold hands. The "spamming" thing, well, that was to pre-empt any criticism of me dumping the same copypasta (or should I say, "responding to individual deletion proposals as I come across them") in every deletion request. As for Klashorst's models being prostitutes, well, do you think it's so unlikely? Do you really believe that it's so wrong to assume that someone with a known penchant for prostitutes (this isn't libelous), who probably couldn't put a camera strap around his shoulder without an instruction manual, who posts a whole ton of photographs of young, nude women, is more likely to be hiring prostitutes and taking photographs of them, than hiring professional models?
- Delete Please see my comments on the Image:Fuck_you!_(nude).jpg deletion request. Brynn(talk) 04:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, per Lars comment on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Young black nude-2.jpg, no permission of the model, delete, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 18:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Possible copyright violation from [86]. Has a GFDL license tag, but the other page (which appears to predate the upload) has no license information, and uploader has not identified himself as either of the persons credited with the original page. --Gwalla 04:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Speedy keep. Ineligible for copyright, so the license should be PD-ineligible anyway. --h-stt !? 05:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. PD-ineligible.
Probably copyrighted by doctor. --Superm401 - Talk 06:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I believe (and I could be wrong) that medical records are legally "owned" by the person - not the doctor. --ShakataGaNai Talk 08:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't know any reason this would be correct. The patient has a HIPPA right to privacy, but that only limits how information can be shared. It doesn't give them a copyright. Superm401 - Talk 13:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not a US citizen, and these images were not taken in the US; please do not attempt to apply US law to this situation. :-) Unless you can provide proof that in the UK jurisdiction images are not owned by the patient, then the images should stay. They are images of me, taken on my behalf and paid for by my health insurance. If they fall into a category, it is of work for hire. Gerv 15:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep (hilarious...) →Spiritia 19:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't suppose you have an actual argument? Superm401 - Talk 22:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of course that I have. I am sure it is obvious, but let me articulate it. :-) For a work to be copyrightable, it must meet some minimal standards of originality and author's input. It should be the result of some creative, intellectual, or artistic efforts, none of which these CT scans are, IMO. →Spiritia 07:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not a mind-reader, and this isn't a vote. As noted, the Berne convention mandates protection for works in the scientific domain, of which this is included. The operator has enough discretion about how the image is taken that it is copyrightable. Superm401 - Talk 00:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of course that I have. I am sure it is obvious, but let me articulate it. :-) For a work to be copyrightable, it must meet some minimal standards of originality and author's input. It should be the result of some creative, intellectual, or artistic efforts, none of which these CT scans are, IMO. →Spiritia 07:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whether you're a U.S. citizen is irrelevant to this. Yes, HIPPA is a U.S. law; but my point was that medical privacy laws (the U.K. does have medical privacy law, I presume) are separate from copyright. As for the U.K., it's party to the Berne convention which says, "The works mentioned in this Article [including "literary, scientific and artistic domain"] shall enjoy protection in all countries of the Union. This protection shall operate for the benefit of the author and his successors in title." Note that it doesn't say for the benefit of the patient. Nor is it a work for hire, since the doctor is not your employee. Superm401 - Talk 22:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not an expert on UK or US law but in Belgium, radiography images belong to the patient, not the radiographer. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Again, the UK is party to the Berne Convention, which automatically gives copyright to the author (i.e. operator). I see nothing to indicate an exception here. Superm401 - Talk 01:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Except "author" and "operator" are not synonyms in the context of a work for hire relationship. --Una Smith (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- The uploader has provided no evidence they are the employer in a work for hire relationship. This is unlikely as they don't have the ability to control how the radiographer does their job. Superm401 - Talk 18:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the patient does control whether the image is taken. Work for hire is common in self-employed photographers, by the way; eg although many wedding photographers claim copyright some wedding photographers work for hire, in which case the client has all copyright. --Una Smith (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- The uploader has provided no evidence they are the employer in a work for hire relationship. This is unlikely as they don't have the ability to control how the radiographer does their job. Superm401 - Talk 18:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Except "author" and "operator" are not synonyms in the context of a work for hire relationship. --Una Smith (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep The uploader attests the copyright is his, and no evidence has been given that it is not his. --Una Smith (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's not how Commons works. The uploader needs to provide evidence the image is acceptable for the site. They have done nothing to show they own the copyright under the law. Superm401 - Talk 18:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- When in doubt, keep it. --Una Smith (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. To keep the image, there must be proof it is acceptable. If there are serious and unresolved doubts, the image must be deleted. Superm401 - Talk 11:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- By what policy? --Una Smith (talk) 08:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Commons:Licensing. "The information given on the description page should be sufficient to allow others to verify the license status" The information is not anywhere near sufficient to verify that it's PD. Superm401 - Talk 19:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- By what policy? --Una Smith (talk) 08:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. To keep the image, there must be proof it is acceptable. If there are serious and unresolved doubts, the image must be deleted. Superm401 - Talk 11:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- When in doubt, keep it. --Una Smith (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Cross-posted at w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Copyright of radiographies_revisited. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Created Commons:Patient images to prevent this from becoming a perennial discussion. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Another point which a friend made when we discussed this tonight: He said I have the ability to order the hospital to delete my scans. And if I can do that, they must not have ownership of them, because if they did, they could refuse. gerv (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- The right to order someone to delete private information has nothing to do with copyright. Superm401 - Talk 11:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete Under UK law, copyright in such images follows the usual rules - ie the copyright owner is the author of the image (the radiographer) or, most likely in practice, the radiographer's employer such as the Health Authority. See the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ss 11(1) & (2). Nothing under UK law gives the patient ownership of the copyright. It is true that there are other laws relating to the way in which the Health Authority can retain and use such images, but those are Data Protection laws amongst others. The fact that the subject may have some say in the use of the image does not mean he owns the copyright. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- The copyright owner has right to transfer all copyrights to someone else. So, for example, many veterinarians in small practices simply give the images, and the copyrights, to the client. --Una Smith (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- The "radiographer's employer" is me (through the intermediary of my insurance company) - these are not NHS scans, they are private. No Health Authority involved. gerv (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Kyro (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Is there enough creativity to create a copyright in the first place? I don't think so. The image is made by a machine. I don't see how the action of the operator could add creativity. Yann (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Photographs made by point-and-shoot cameras are always copyrighted. There's no reason the situation here would be different. Superm401 - Talk 19:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. There is no doubt that images of this type require sufficient skill and labour (eg in setting-up the equipment) for copyright to subsist - UK copyright law grants protection to images having far less originality than this. Under UK law, the "radiographer's employer" is the actual employer, not the patient/client, even if he paid privately for the images to be made. Employment, for this purpose, means under a contract of service, and not a contract for services (CDPA 1988, s178). The client does not become an employer merely by virtue of the fact that he is paying for the images to be made. Also, copyright does not pass with physical ownership of the image (eg an x-ray film, a printout etc) so the only way in which the patient could own this copyright is if there has been a formal copyright assignment in writing. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- No consensus for deletion. Copyright is ambiguous. Deleting admin no longer active. Requested undelete. James Heilman, MD (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
As with Chest CT scan with lung metastatis 3.jpg, copyrighted by doctor. --Superm401 - Talk 13:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not a US citizen, and these images were not taken in the US; please do not attempt to apply US law to this situation. :-) Unless you can provide proof that in the UK jurisdiction images are not owned by the patient, then the images should stay. They are images of me, taken on my behalf and paid for by my health insurance. If they fall into a category, it is of work for hire. -- Gerv 15:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chest CT scan with lung metastatis 3.jpg for reply. Superm401 - Talk 22:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chest CT scan with lung metastatis 3.jpg. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
As with Chest CT scan with lung metastatis 3.jpg, copyrighted by doctor. --Superm401 - Talk 13:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not a US citizen, and these images were not taken in the US; please do not attempt to apply US law to this situation. :-) Unless you can provide proof that in the UK jurisdiction images are not owned by the patient, then the images should stay. They are images of me, taken on my behalf and paid for by my health insurance. If they fall into a category, it is of work for hire. -- Gerv 15:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chest CT scan with lung metastatis 3.jpg for reply. Superm401 - Talk 22:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chest CT scan with lung metastatis 3.jpg. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images by Ably Weathered
[edit]- File:Florida Dealer.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Florida Gators.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Florida Vanity.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Florida Choose Life.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:BC 2002.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:IL 2001 VANITY.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MB TTP 299.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:PE 2001 SAMPLE BC.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:PE 2001 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MT 1991 Sample.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:AL EDUCATOR SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:AL ARTS SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:GA 1996 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CO 1974 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:FL 1970 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:AK 1956 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:FL 1975 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:SK 1995 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:FL 1977 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:FL 1978 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:FL 1986 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:FL 1991 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:AR 1968 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:AR 1968.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:AR 1976.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:AZ 1956 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:AZ 1959 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:AZ 1961 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:AZ 1964 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:AZ 1966 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:AK 1960 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:AK 1964 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:AK 1962 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MS 1975 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MS 1976 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MS 1977 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MS 1987 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MS 1994 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MS 1998 SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MI 1962.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:ME CONSERVATION SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:DC 2001 SAMPLE BJ.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:NE 2002 SAMPLE CC.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CT 2005 IAFF.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CT 2005 UCONN SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:AL POE SAMPLE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:GA RVMCG Sample 1998.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:GA RVMC Sample 1998.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CT MUNICIPAL PTS.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CT MUNICIPAL.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CT HAM PTS.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CT HAM.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CT FACTORY.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CT EARLY AMERICAN.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
First, License plates are not ineligible for copyright. Second its obvious that all these images have been generated by software. See [87] compared to [88]. So I believe all of these images are copyvio. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
![[87]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/PE_2001_SAMPLE.jpg){kind=link}
![[88]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/a/a3/20080501031319%21PE_2001_SAMPLE.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete as its my nom. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per precedent and arguments at Commons:Deletion requests/License plates 2. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above and also that the uploader is not the actual copyright holder as claimed. -- Infrogmation 17:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Images with recognisable people
ROCCO MONTANA CANTANTE ITALIANO anni 60 completed only deletion request --Svens Welt 15:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. copyright violation Yann (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
missing permission of shown persons, Recht am eigenen Bild Niteshift 17:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- These people take part in a public performance. No permission needed in this case according to § 23 (1) Nr. 3 KUG. Keep --Rotkraut 21:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. as per Rotkraut Yann (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
missing permission of shown persons, Recht am eigenen Bild Niteshift 17:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, see comment in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Drachenboot action2.jpg. --Rotkraut 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. as per Rotkraut Yann (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
missing permission of shown persons, Recht am eigenen Bild Niteshift 17:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, see comment in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Drachenboot action2.jpg. --Rotkraut 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. as per Rotkraut Yann (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
missing permission of shown persons, Recht am eigenen Bild Niteshift 17:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, see comment in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Drachenboot action2.jpg. --Rotkraut 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. as per Rotkraut Yann (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
missing permission of shown persons, Recht am eigenen Bild Niteshift 17:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, see comment in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Drachenboot action2.jpg. --Rotkraut 21:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. as per Rotkraut Yann (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
w:Robert Evans Snodgrass died in 1962, less than 70 years ago. William Avery 11:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- On further investigation seems this is a case of a copyright not renewed. William Avery 12:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per this old deletion request and the summary of the affair at Category:Snodgrass. But correct the tagging! Lupo 07:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hemmaberg Modell.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Adonis en Afrodite Jits Bakker Schiphol.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Europa Jits Bakker Schiphol.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Miles trompet Jits Bakker Schiphol.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Goldenearringticket.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Golden Earring.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Map of America.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Absent band.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Brain met.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:March 1st movement.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mulaló Museo Historia fuente Alexandra Pretel Arango.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Leon Theremin Playing Theremin.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Banderas Americanas.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Coat of Arms of Iceland.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by Rickabbo Commons:Deletion requests/Sweet food packages Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bronsåldersbåt, tygmålning på Norrköpings stadsmuseums förhistoriska avdelning, den 5 april 2007.JPG
May 25
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:4p179d3.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Manucho 36.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Veja article on Wikipedia.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Authority building dawn.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Beach (140107261).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Jummy.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cork Trees Near Ubrique.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:GST.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:AuCafe.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:CVCES.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Planetderaffenzelda.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Quiro.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Brawl.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dido.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Michael Jackson by San Sharma's.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Toricabio.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Anacos.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BitTyrant.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:POLIGRAFO.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:StRelProf1.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tlq.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Musculaturaextrinseca.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ximenasari.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:James, Jon, Robert.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Blue male budgie.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wupatki National Monument.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:IdealheilligtdieMittel.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:GettingStartedGuide.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Modificacion.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Moers.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Collatz2.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:HullCityFCLogo.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pafcbadge06.png Commons:Deletion requests/Images of UltioUltionis Commons:Deletion requests/Wikibooks Logo Variations Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sint-Elisabethsvloed (1424).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Howard Frank Archives images Commons:Deletion requests/Image:CMat32.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vidasol.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:AAPD1876.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cairo-dock wikipedia.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:05magdalenobatista.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Transport nach Ceylon.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BettyDodsonHHS.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Baton twirling (466722981).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Deco2000 rueckseite.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of Andrushivka.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Huỳnh Phú Sổ.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Triptychon.St.-Annen-Church.BerlinDahlem.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Triptychon.St.-Annen-Church.Berlin-Dahlem.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BilateralrenalAML.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Image-Swasont.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tribnoud.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Familie Ten Boom.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Voice of America Commons:Deletion requests/Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant image
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
May 26
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Asdfghjkl1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tgv.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Billy Coen.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Firefox3vistaxxx.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tabu.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Almaty City.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:David silva.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ZR-1 CaptMc ConCab.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Zr1dock.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:数学の問題を作らせて解かせる問題の有効性.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Alterpolítica.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Freedom.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nodras.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BitTyrant.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:POLIGRAFO.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vida.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Artastudios.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ArtAstudios.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Shellefied.PDF Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Doc3.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:CONSULCORMETODOLOGIA.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:NEXOS.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Documento1.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Docum.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Civale.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:PACO ZARZOSO.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Manuel Lombo.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Enredos 10.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Elvio Medina.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hans Meeuws.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gayatri Chalisa.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:كريستال مايع.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Side effects concerned with smoking spliffs.jpeg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hold.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cambio personajes simpsons.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:David beckham and his son.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Estatutos.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:AK 1997 SAMPLE.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:California 2SAM123.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:GA 98.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:GA 07.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ID 1987 SAMPLE.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:OR 1988 SAMPLE.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:OR 1998 SAMPLE.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:TX 2000 SAMPLE.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:YT 2003 SAMPLE.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Baumotto1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:KaltenbrunnerErnst.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Jumpingcat.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:B.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nationale AbmeldungFP.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FBW Aufloesungsbeschluss.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FBW Satzung.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FBW Namensaenderung.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FBW Gruendung.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Modificacion.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Collatz2.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Estudio Celular.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Billy.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/images from kmu.gov.ua Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hitler portrait HU 5234.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hitler portrait MH 4919.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Antoni Kosinski.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sea Harrier during Falklands War.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pierre Messmer.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flagofspringfield.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dimi degen oli manu.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:MichaelAnthony.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Board view.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:AHS logo.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:AHS Seal.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Anal Love.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ZSU-57-2 knocked out.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:HugoGattiBoca.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:U-9WWII.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Michael Anthony3.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Michael Anthony2.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:EdwardDukeOfKent.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Meyer en signal.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hitler in Paris.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eugène Gigout 1910.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Simpsons plane.jpg
May 27
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:57440.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Karizma.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Resolucion Hipotesis de Riemann - Wiki.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:喪-oracle.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ecology Ernst Haeckel version 1.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fécamp May 2008 014.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Roads in Yugoslavia Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Highways in Yugoslavia Commons:Deletion requests/Image:YAMAHA AE11 002.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:GIBSON ARCHTOP.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tivat Airport.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gtasa800x600.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gtaiv3888x2588.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Grand Central trial route map.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:I-215 (Utah).svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:RoyalAldrichHouse3.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SpicerHouse3.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Octagon House Commons:Deletion requests/Image:At the nudist beach.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Deinonychus ByUtah.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Proyecto-Subte-Cordoba.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Full of love.jpeg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Darth Maul 2.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Guilty (Russ Columbo).ogg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vagina,Anus,Pereneum-Detail.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Idensalmi, monument 1808..jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SchwankovskyTempleofMusic, Detroit.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:VillaCisnerosfotoaerea.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fabbricadivillacisneros.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Moschea di Smara.jpg
.svg){kind=link}
May 28
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Karte Gemeinde Courlevon 2007.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Simone Simons at ND Ateneo Theatre.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hibiscus hastatus trunk.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Phoenix descent & crater.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sunrise Adams2.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:84m.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rachel Marsden at CPAC 2008.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:DSCN1675.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:PuertoFerro.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Konferencja w Rabce 2008 (19).JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Klimadiagramm senftenberg.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:STA 1333&4-3.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bell betty louise.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dalphin I.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Adamhussain.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pa1956pass.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pa1957pass.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pa1960sub.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sophie marceau Cannes.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nikumaroro Island.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ornithorhynque IRSNB.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Adultbabyfemale2.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Daft punk member headshots Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Marvin Williams.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Justificació d'exempció Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Deathmarches-clandestine.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:DSCN1743.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:DSCN1743.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Matahari.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Быстрый переход.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Elvis.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:WilliamRemington.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Adultbabymale1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/User:Fabelfroh/Photos/2007
.JPG){kind=link}
May 29
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Joe Hahns.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:MikeShinodan.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dakhla-city.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:435313.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:MaitePerroni.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Marina elali.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Afiche.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Moisheaf.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flora-Köln-PIC00095.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Barry wordmark.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Andriy Danylko.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chinese Mountain Cat Looking Mean.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bissau-city.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Abu Laith Al Libi from released video.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:MIRIAM small logo.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Montreal-forum-1950s.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Deco2000 vorderseite.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Egor Letov.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Franz Funfte Modena.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Atta in airport.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Crotalus-atrox.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Trentino-Alto Adige-Südtirol provinces.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Franz von Papen als Hauptmann.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Winlogo own work.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Island Tour-01-Crossing St Martin to SInt Maarten.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ryu Fort Minor.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ernesto augusto 3 de brunswick.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:A la festa Grecoxipriota - Nosaltres dos amb les dos guies.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eight Bells01.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Manfred Kyber 1919.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ledoyen.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Audrey Hepburn 20.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Buhnenschriftsteller Oscar Blumenthal.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Grupo pp.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:DSCF5519.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Botero-chat-erevan.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Archaeopteryx ByUtah.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Furst Sergei Wolkonsky.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Thor Able Launches
May 30
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:HenryMoore RecliningFigure 1951.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Minitall.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Consuming Subway Sandwich.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Anglia Class 170 Turbostar.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Scott Fitzgerald's Silver Hip Flask.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:P1020123.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Circpenis.jpeg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:MOTEVO Brand Story.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Augustus Pablo.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Numenius tenuirostris.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Artweaver screenshot.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Christ in the Garden of Gethsemene.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FINAL FISH ANIM (00200).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Lexista Commons:Deletion requests/RogerRanger Images Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wikipedia.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:JAM002.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:JAM003.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cheproducts2.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rastafari flag.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Coroner Post MortemHubbard.gif
.jpg){kind=link}
May 31
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:9KZsBM926370-02.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Esme & mee.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Kosciol w Sobotce.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:GjettumGeita.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:1Canada Life weather beacon.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:100 6088.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Palowice rzut.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Brazdatposter.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Abram Ioffe.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Erect small5.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:RSDK01-4757-4-1-20070421195617-20070421195629.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Blohm und voss bv 238.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Materpiscis.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Materpiscis02.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:MDSIContemptOrder.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:NatWest Three David Bermingham Plea Agr.pdfCommons:Deletion requests/Image:Carte 25communes.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Azurescens.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pawankalyan.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Takeyo Tracing Paper.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gateway Tracing Paper Info.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Takeyo Inkjet Photo Paper.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of the Holy Roman Empire.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:AS Marsa-Shirt.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Randy'L He-dow Teton Dollar.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:France2007 001.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:1872 Electoral Map.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:1876 Electoral Map.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tracing Gateway roll.PNG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chinese dragons.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:1876 Electoral Map.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:1872 Electoral Map.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sigismund von Preussen.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Insignias.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Isabelle Françoise Helene Marie d’Orléans, comtesse d’Harcourt.jpg
