Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
June 1
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
error uploading Shareminer 02:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, also copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Better object exist. See this Nickpo 04:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - lower quality dupe & Not used. --ShakataGaNai Talk 08:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- deleted, but made a redirect, to Image:Spbtelegrafstamp1866.jpg
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 23:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
postage stamp, issued in 1997 by Indian government. Thus, not public domain --Redtigerxyz 05:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
”misnamed” is reason given by Sherurcij on original incomplete DR request of 27 May 2008. (fix0r of incomplete DRs! --Brynn 05:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Speedy as unused dupe replaced by Image:Ahmed Khadr in 1995 Pakistan.jpg. --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted (next time, rather than fixing a DR like this, use {{badname}} :)) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Noncommercial license at Flickr source. Kelly 06:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kanonkas(talk) 07:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation. Transfered from EN wikipedia, where it was uploaded by mass copyright violator tagging all commercial images as PD-self --Renata3 07:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like a fair use pic from a website. See also sq:Figura:Olta Boka.jpg. --Mutter Erde 07:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio. Mutter is correct - its tagged with a fair use template. --ShakataGaNai Talk 08:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio. Kanonkas(talk) 08:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
screanshot from the movie can't be in Creative Commons -Dobromila 08:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kanonkas(talk) 08:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I doubt this is free to use, based on the source, as well as the category it was placed in, among other things. -Izno 09:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Izno, also the resolution's too low to be useful. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No proper source, without an author death before 1938 this file can't be in the PD. A number of other images of the Uploader seems to have the same problem (if it is a problem). — Albert Krantz 18:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC).
- Delete The image depicts a 1944 mission (-> can't be Pd-old-70), violation of Russian Copyright law. Vinhtantran 03:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 20:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I've added another version of this ancient monument with the real name (Image:Tomba degli Altavilla.jpg) --D.N.R. 11:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: User:D.N.R. has become User:Generale Lee
- IMPORTANT: the correct-name image has since been deleted instead of this one! The Image:Tomba degli Altavilla.jpg should be undeleted, and this one deleted. 62.147.36.40 10:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Correctly named one restored, this one deleted. Please use {{badname}} next time. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused, not in COM:SCOPE. Dodo 10:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. Kanonkas(talk) 11:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No license SwirlBoy39 13:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kanonkas(talk) 13:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation; image substantially consists of movie poster. enochlau (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete immediately. Clear copyvio. Derivative work. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation; you cannot usurp the university's copyright over its logo by recreating it (identically) from scratch. enochlau (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Depends. How long has the university used this insignia? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)- Delete Exact copy of copyrighted logo, this school founded in 1963[1]. Vinhtantran 13:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. As copyvio. ShakataGaNai Talk 20:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation; no indication that it's been licensed freely. enochlau (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete speedy as copyvio. --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Own work of art, absolutly out of COM:SCOPE 79.196.123.124 15:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep Eh. Its a painting of a cat. I could see it being useful. Plus it is based off another commons image which is kinda cool. --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)- Keep as awesome. You can never have enough cat depictions. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- kept, could be useful, is used on talkpages atm.,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 23:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation; screenshot of commercial software. enochlau (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, simple {{copyvio}} case. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The title of this image indicates that this is probably a screenshot of a video, thus making this licensable under fair use. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This is indeed a screenshot of a video (available on YouTube). I don't see why it would be licensable since I have made the video (recorded and edited) it entirely myself. (talk)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bad filename -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinqui (talk • contribs) 2008-06-01 (UTC)
- Keep Why not use {{rename}} instead? --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, dupe of Image:Daisenguchi station monument.jpg, use {{badname}} next time plox Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Google is not a source - and does not tie in with a PD-self claim --Sfan00 IMG 17:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete speedy as copyvio --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation. Kanonkas(talk) 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bad filename --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinqui (talk • contribs) 2008-06-01 (UTC)
- Keep Why not {{rename}} instead? --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate of Image:Daisenguchi station east.jpg. Please use {{badname}} next time. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation from https://www.fotw.info/flags/be-vov.html, but should be replaced (used on more than 50 pages on nl:) before deleting. Kameraad Pjotr 18:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as simple copyvio. Sorry, but we can't host copyright violations just because one wiki has nothing to replace it with. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request : I uploaded this file with wrong name, file with correct name "Zorro gris" already loaded to replace this one.-Eassi 19:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{badname}} next time. Kanonkas(talk) 20:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Self made? I really doubt that to be honest. (size and format make me think of a website promotional photol) Lucasbfr 19:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Looks clearly like a copyvio. --Kanonkas(talk) 20:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Looks pro. Assume copyvio. --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Duly assumed. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Changed from {{Copyvio}}: Image created in 1929 and no documentation presented why the artist should have died more than 70 years ago. Kameraad Pjotr 19:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, need evidence. Vinhtantran 02:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing Date, Missing Author, cited website. Copyvio. ShakataGaNai Talk 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Per Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images Rob 22:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Advertising/Text - Out of Scope ShakataGaNai Talk 22:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:58, 2 June 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
Not a two-dimensional work of art, PD-art does not apply. Kjetil_r 12:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Question Do you suspect it is copyrighed?
If this photo is original work of uploader - just change {{PD-art}} to {{PD-old}}. If you suspect copyright violation - tell why, I do not see any printing artefacts. Julo 14:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I consider this a copyright violation because it comes from artclassic.edu.ru, according to the description page. There is nothing that indicates that this is the uploader's work. --Kjetil_r 14:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep Did you not see the description that it is a really old cathedral in Kiev ? It is an art class trip to a cathedral in Russia. It is properly linked to two active Categories. It is the uploaders work like the other 2,000,000 photos on Commons, they had the camera. WayneRay 14:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
- Yes, I know that it is a 11th century cathedral. But how do you know that it is the uploader's own work? The discription does not say so, the contrary is actually claimed when the PD-art tag is used. --Kjetil_r 15:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The license tag is for some reason changed to PD-old [2]. I doubt that the photo was taken 70+ years ago. --Kjetil_r 20:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete There wasn't coloured film 70 years ago. {{PD-art}} cannot be used here, either because of 3D art. Vinhtantran 03:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment There were color films 70 years ago, I have some Agfa diapositives made by my grandpa in 1930's. See also Technicolor. Julo 06:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, unless the uploader proves the PD status. artclassic.edu.ru says it is copyrighted by the Prosvescheniye publisher, and is hosted on Microsoft-IIS (which makes it more likely to be a very-non-free site). I couldn't find the image on the site. --AVRS 16:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence that the copyright owner (the photographer) has released this under a free licence MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
"I withdraw the copyrights" is reason given on original incomplete DR by Romancop, who is the uploader, on 10 April 2008. (fix0r of incomplete DRs --Brynn 04:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC))
- Keep It is marked as PD-Old. You can't withdraw the copyrights. So unless PD-Old no longer applies - it should stay. --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unless someone can provide the author and source of the image, or a solid reason why this image should be considered public domain. --Kam Solusar 20:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete As Kam Solusar. Vinhtantran 03:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No sensible source. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Source is given as website; license tag is self-made public domain. enochlau (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image originally from bnp.gob.pe . Copyvio unless someone knows about Peruvian PD laws (looks like a possible government group) --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 13:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Photo of modern painting. I think Commons:OTRS permission is necessary. EugeneZelenko 15:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The image's description indicates that these are copies of works by Cézanne. If they are faithful reproductions and the original Cézanne works are PD, then these might just be PD as well. I'm not familiar enough with Cézanne's own work to say how close they are to the original, nor am I familiar with the provisions in French law around faithful reproductions, but this deletion request should probably receive attention from relative experts in both those areas. Werewombat 18:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused low quality image showing four paintings, painted by someone non-noteable, hanging on a wall in front of a horrible striped wallpaper. Image also shows some collector's car models in the right bottom corner. Out of scope, we're not somebody's private photo album, and this is really not worth the time spent on a grand copyright investigation (or, indeed, on writing this rationale). Lupo 14:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative Work, but no permission by Guenther Uecker. Permission is only granted by Lothar Wolleh, photographer. Not by Guenther Uecker. --Syrcro 18:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I'm fairly sure the photog has permission from the artist (as he is standing in the picture). --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- A GFDL-permission in 1969. Wow, sounds like Nostradsmus. Syrcro 21:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sarcasm does not help. If the Artist gave permission for the photographer to take the picture and do with it as he pleases, which is obvious that he did.... Then we dont care about the artist. All we care about is what the Photog says. And he says (according to OTRS) GFDL. So it is. The picture is legal, and we can move on. --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- A permission just to take a picture isn't a permission to do with it as he [the Potogrpher] pleases. Syrcro 07:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, if it's not a work for hire (a very narrow category), then yes, the photographer can do whatever he pleases with it (personality rights notwithstanding). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're wrong: Commons:Derivative works . Syrcro 10:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I misunderstood: Are you saying that this is a derivative work of the bed of nails or what? Also, I haven't read the OTRS ticket; but if it says that the artist has given the photographer permission to do whatever he likes with the picture, than that's good enough for me. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're wrong: Commons:Derivative works . Syrcro 10:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, if it's not a work for hire (a very narrow category), then yes, the photographer can do whatever he pleases with it (personality rights notwithstanding). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- A permission just to take a picture isn't a permission to do with it as he [the Potogrpher] pleases. Syrcro 07:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sarcasm does not help. If the Artist gave permission for the photographer to take the picture and do with it as he pleases, which is obvious that he did.... Then we dont care about the artist. All we care about is what the Photog says. And he says (according to OTRS) GFDL. So it is. The picture is legal, and we can move on. --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- A GFDL-permission in 1969. Wow, sounds like Nostradsmus. Syrcro 21:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The ticket (2007041710005809) includes the permission of the photographer specified on the image description page to publish the image (and 4 other images) under the conditions of the GNU Free Documentation License. There is no permission email by the artist, and no information on whether or not the artist agrees with that license is being provided. —Pill (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The photographer says the picture is GDFL. If it isn't so then this is his fault because of missinforming. --Avron 00:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Ticket 2008051110020228 contains a statement by the photographer that there is no permission of the artist. Hence we are talking about a derivative work of a copyrighted, unreleased piece of art. Note: I reverted ShakataGaNai’s closure of this deletion request. Code·is·poetry 21:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, the ticket I mentioned is not on this cause, we got only the one Pill named above. Code·is·poetry 22:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
OK. Clarification needed. The claim is this is a potential violation of Guenther Uecker's rights. What rights? The copyright on the bed of nails thing (if that exists)? Or the copyright of the photo? (You are citing COM:DW, so I assume it's not a likeness/personality issue since that only deals with copyright). Rocket000 (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, authors are given exclusive rights by default. The subject of the work has absolutely no say over what license the copyright holder chooses. And remember things can be relicense; of course it wasn't GFDL in 1969 but it is now. Rocket000 (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Uecker is as a popular artist a public figure. I see no reason for a violation of Guenther Uecker's rights. Uecker came forward in the fifties with his nail pictures. We can talk about a violation of Guenther Uecker's rights when he is naked. --Zita (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- The nail-thing is a work of art, so the photo of if is a DW, but there is no licence by Uecker. Syrcro (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- The licenced photo itself is an artwork. --Zita (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is, but "just" a derivative work of that nail-what-ever. Syrcro (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- The licenced photo itself is an artwork. --Zita (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Three would like to keep it. You would like to delete it! So let`s keep it until Uecker want to delete it, right!? --Zita (talk) 08:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No reason to keep it: It's a copyrighted work and no permission is given by the author. "So let`s keep it until Uecker want to delete it" >>>>> Oh, ok! So let's forget all that trash about "Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content. So all content of the Wikimedia Commons is available under some free license, meaning that..." (COM:PS). Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 14:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I think that the permission from the photographer is enough for us. Yann (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. It is clear that the bed of nails is a 3D artwork created by Guenther Uecker, and that he has copyright in that artwork. Commons has no licence from him releasing his rights in any way. Of course, he knew the photograph was being taken (assuming that is him in it), but where is his premission which allows the photographer validly to release an image of that copright artwork under GDFL? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC) MichaelMaggs
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation; logo probably not user-made public domain. enochlau (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete speedy as copyvio. Fair use'd on en.wp. Originally from [3]. --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image has been deleted some days before as copyvio, reuploaded and still, copyvio Vinhtantran 02:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Again... --ShakataGaNai Talk 02:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
June 2
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probable Copyvio. ShakataGaNai Talk 00:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of Scope. Can be easily replaced with wikitables instead. This is software requirements for "Perfect World" MMORPG. ShakataGaNai Talk 01:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Spacebirdy: Off-Topic: Please see Commons inclusion policy
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio - Publicity shot for ... a band? ShakataGaNai Talk 02:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probable copyvio - http://www.urban-link.at/bilder/Bauchklang_200.jpg ShakataGaNai Talk 05:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally:
- File:BauchklangHubs.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:BauchklangBoxx.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:BauchklangBina.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:BauchklangAndy.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bauchklang3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bauchklang2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bauchklang1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bauchklang.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious copyvios. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of Scope. Also a badly modified dupe of Image:Nick Assassin.jpg. ShakataGaNai Talk 01:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- deleted, both as offtopic,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 22:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio suspect - Looks like a pro job. ShakataGaNai Talk 02:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Well yeah it's a copyvio. It's actually written "inconnu" (="unknown" in French) for the source and the author! So it's just that the uploader is not aware of Commons rules. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like a pro shot - but I can't find the source. ShakataGaNai Talk 04:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I am the owner of the shot. I uploaded it to add to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farah_Mir . This is a character page for Rosie Malek-Yonan. RMY
Question: Where did this image come from? It looks professional. Granted I can't find a source, I just get weary of anything pro looking. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I took the photo. I'll take the "pro looking" as a compliment :-) Where do I indicate that to clear this up? RMY
- We'll need the photographers (you) real name and permission sent to COM:OTRS. They'll tag the image with the OTRS permission and all will be taken care of. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, will do. RMY
- A release and permission has been sent via e-mail. Do not delete this photo until you have reviewed my e-mail. Thanks. RMY 09:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, will do. RMY
- We'll need the photographers (you) real name and permission sent to COM:OTRS. They'll tag the image with the OTRS permission and all will be taken care of. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I took the photo. I'll take the "pro looking" as a compliment :-) Where do I indicate that to clear this up? RMY
Kept, Permission confirmed by OTRS--Bapti ✉ 14:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(commons does not allow fair use images) --Veverica 08:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(commons does not allow fair use images) --Veverica 08:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
My image, supplanted by better image Vinometer.1b.jpg, please delete this one, thanks. Maikel 11:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- gelöscht,
- Fänks! Maikel (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unlikely to be the work of the flickr user 217.33.136.242 12:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup, deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ERROR Jorbrand 15:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Speedy. Text - Out of Scope. --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 22:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
private life protection Auseklis 19:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Privacy protection is not much of an issue since the uploader is the person in question. On the other hand, stamps may be protected by copyright. Rama 20:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted by Ahonc (non-admin close) --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No purpose, not used in an article. 216.15.111.243 21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Non-admin close - abusive DR's --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No purpose, not linked to any article. 216.15.111.243 21:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Non-admin close - abusive DR's --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No purpose, not linked to any article, pornographic. 216.15.111.243 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Non-admin close - abusive DR's --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Not an image that should be uploaded right here DerAndre (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing wrong with it. If you don't like porn, don't look at it. -Nard the Bard 01:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reason why it should be deleted. This is just another case of "I don't like it, it should be deleted!" --FP (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Kept Once again... "I dont like it" isn't a valid reason. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No purpose, not linked to any article, pornographic. 216.15.111.243 21:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Non-admin close - abusive DR's --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deletion request re-opened.
- Delete This is a perfectly proper request, and the image should be deleted as the permission of the subject has not been provided. See COM:PEOPLE. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep She posed for the camera. The photos are out there. Our use of it doesn't "violate" any mystical rights. If we were first publishers maybe but it's on flickr. Plus the USA doesn't really have moral rights, and the photo appears to be American. -Nard 12:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is not to do with moral rights in the legal sense, but in the ethical. "She posed for the picture" is self-evidently true, but irrelevant. Where is the evidence that she knew that her picture was going to be released publicly, and that she consented? There should be an OTRS ticket if she did. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I think there needs to be a real debate about this somewhere. Porn - as in beauty & art - is in the eye of the beholder. I hate to admit it but it is just possible that I have found sites on the internet in the past where this type of picture the standard content - they are termed "adult" sites. The fact that it exists elsewhere is not a reason why we should have it (indeed I would tend to argue the reverse in this case - it is available elsewhere so why do we want it?). --Herby talk thyme 16:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, out of scope, no permission of the individual. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 10:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Several issues with the image. First, highly intimate images of this kind if released without permission could cause serious harm to the individual. Commons, as an advocate for collection of free content, should be setting a high standard for all aspects of collecting, storing, licensing, and the reuse of our content. With images such as these, this requires determining if there is strong evidence that the image was released with the permission of the the subject of the photo, and the subject fully understood that the image would be published under a license that allowed unlimited reuse with proper attribution. I do not see evidence that the subject is aware of the release of this image and therefore feel that the image should be removed until it is obtained.
- Second, Commons images are collected for a purpose. Unlike Flickr, Commons is not intended to be a location where private images are stored. Images need to have a purpose. In general, Commons does not police this aspect of uploads as a high priority because of the high demand for examining more pressing licensing issue. But when we are discussing an image such as this one, it is worthwhile to examine the image to see if it fits Commons mission. In my opinion, there is a significant downside to hosting an unlimited number of pornographic images that needs to be addressed in our discussion. As Herby implies in his comment, Commons is not "adult site" and collecting an unlimited number of pornographic images will cause us to be seen as one by outside organizations. This needs to be be one consideration. Will collecting an unlimited number of these images harm our relationship with other organizations? In reality, I think it does. Some institutions, even those that respect the idea of free exchange of ideas and are opposed to censorship, would not collaborate with organizations appear to have this as a primary mission. As responsible stewards of Commons future, this aspect of the discussion should not be ignored.
- That said, when examining the merits of including this particular image, I do not think that this image is a horrible example of a female in a sexually explicit pose. If I had to choose between this image and others that I've seen uploaded to Commons and Wikipedia-en, this one is of higher quality and taste. But beyond the issue of quality and taste, I do have a concern about the use of this image. It is not possible from the image to clearly determine the age of the subject. I suspect she is over the age of consent, but it is not clear. I'm extremely reluctant to keep sexually provocative (sexually explicit, in this case) images on site unless the subject is obviously over the age of consent.
- Because of these concerns, I suggest the image be deleted until the issues are resolved. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 01:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Explanation of a Doctoral Thesis Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 20:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Definition? Out of scope. --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:27, 3 June 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 University of Peru Archives Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 20:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Resume outline Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 20:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Blank --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
fake Bio Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 20:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. University technical paper Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 20:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:30, 3 June 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 21:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete advert --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Historical article Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 21:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete print of wikipedia info - out of scope. --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Suspect Copyvio. Album cover perhaps? ShakataGaNai Talk 23:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, looks like a copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
After a google search for “no drugs”, this was one of the first images that appeared in the search results. Definately not PD. — H92 (t · c · no) 23:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Good call, I too was concerned with that upload over all. --ShakataGaNai Talk 23:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 15:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derived from copyrighted source, fair use claimed -Nard 17:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- The original image contained a photograph of the alleged hand of God goal (which is why it there's the fair use stuff), I removed that and the present image is available under a free licence, as far as I can tell. I can undelete the original photo on en.wiki if you want to see what I'm wittering on about. Nick 19:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
What are you wittering on about? Nice clear photo though.
- The present image is a hand-drawn illustration. There is no photo involved. Oppose deletion. 70.145.96.22 16:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Claims fair use. --ShakataGaNai Talk 23:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, uploader's won work. Not a derivative of something not free. --Kjetil_r 10:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept, this has gone on long enough. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Refusing to state the obvious. Dorftrottel 04:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Refusing to state what obvious? The pictures demonstrate something and aren't missing any crucial information... --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I see no good reason in that deletion request. A close-up of vulva. A genital piercing. So what? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Refusing to state the obvious. Siebrand 11:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Refusing to state the obvious. Dorftrottel 04:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Refusing to state what obvious? The pictures demonstrate something and aren't missing any crucial information... --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I see no good reason in that deletion request. Peeing is life. And we don't even see her face. There's no problem at all. The only problem might be your lack of objective reason for this DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep FxJ 18.07.2008
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is image is photo of many people's face, and the photographer is not the only who keep the copyright. Can uploaded assure that he has permissions from all of them? Vinhtantran 11:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep the people depicted hold no copyrights in the photo; and as this was taken in a public place there are no personality rights/privacy issues here. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Jacopo Werther 06:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No need for consent per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. --06:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)MichaelMaggs
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
pornographic- Vicond 16:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
{{vk}} Speedy.Commons is not censored. --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)- Delete Not because it is pornographic, but because the file size and image quality would indicate that this is a copyvio, likely extracted from a website.--Brynn 04:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Ok, after taking a second look - I agree. Probably a screen cap from a video. copyvio --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyviol. --Jacopo Werther 06:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyvio --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment So,for you User:ShakataGaNai and User:Brynn, this image can't be considered pornographic.Exacly,I can't explain why not,.That means that I can send to commons so many images like that without problem,yes or not? Oh sorry!with the corresponding licence and permission.So,I will take it into account for the next occations. Vicond
- Comment Commons allows for any sort of material that could be useful. See our project scope. Generally hardcore pornographic material serves little purpose and will be deleted. Otherwise, as long as _you_ made the work, or the work has been released into a free license by the author (for example, on Flickr) - we will accept it. That being said - if you didn't create the work - there needs to be proof that the work and been release into a free license. --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not because it is pornographic, but because poor quality and copyvio.--Econt 15:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Changed from {{Copyvio}} PD-Art does not apply in the UK. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 15:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC); but has this image enough originality to be protected by copyright? Kameraad Pjotr 18:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I have always said and still think that we should not be paranoid as to the stupid English laws regarding PD-Art. Keep. --AndreasPraefcke 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep per above Notwist 00:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- There is a rule for using PD-Art on Commons: Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, and no discussion to have. Similar cases where all deleted.
- I find very—I mean very—annoying that a Commons sysop don't apply rules. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. You may not like the law in the UK but we are bound to follow it. Sorry. MichaelMaggs 06:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
UK laws apply in the UK so the rest of the world can use it and the UK can block in their own country if they wish.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Changed from {{Copyvio}} PD-Art is not allowed in UK. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 17:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC), this is a scan from a book, but was the image in the book original enough for copyright protection? Kameraad Pjotr 18:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- There is a rule for using PD-Art on Commons: Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, and no discussion to have. Similar cases where all deleted.
- I find very—I mean very—annoying that a Commons sysop don't apply rules. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. You may not like the law in the UK but we are bound to follow it. Sorry.MichaelMaggs 06:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Restored PD-Art OK. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Yann (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Changed from {{Copyvio}}: PD-Art is not allowed in UK. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 17:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC), but is there enough originality for copyright protection? Kameraad Pjotr 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- There is a rule for using PD-Art on Commons: Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, and no discussion to have. Similar cases where all deleted.
- I find very—I mean very—annoying that a Commons sysop don't apply rules. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 14:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. You may not like the law in the UK but we are bound to follow it. Sorry. MichaelMaggs 06:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Picture illegible, not categorized and used in no article. More, it appears that there's no entry about this person in any Wikipedia (according to this Google test) Pymouss Tchatcher - 18:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Speedy because of no source, no license. Vinhtantran 02:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is not usable by any current or future Wikimedia project (art by unknown artist). Kenmayer 20:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Semi-corrupted. The "thumbnail" version doesn't work. --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete For the same reasons stated in here JohnManuel 23:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. One sentence Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 21:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete text out of scope. --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:05, 5 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 Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 21:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 20:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete text. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 20:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete text. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 20:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete text. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Military or Government Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 20:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete text. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Military or government Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 20:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete text. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Military or government Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 20:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete text. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Biography Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 21:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope biography --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Ahonc: In category Unknown as of 27 May 2008; no license
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope text doc. ShakataGaNai Talk 21:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom — H92 (t · c · no) 00:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, also copyrighted screenshots Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope text document. ShakataGaNai Talk 21:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom — H92 (t · c · no) 00:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, also copyrighted screenshots Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of Scope - cut off logo from an art gallery? ShakataGaNai Talk 01:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Regardles of scope considerations, it is a copyvio. Werewombat 18:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not needed at all --
- Apparently, someone nominated this for deletion but didn't create the subpage. I've created the subpage so we can settle this matter. Red Phoenix 16:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The reason for deletion given was "not needed at all", and since when is that a reason to delete a free image? Also, it is needed, let me explain. I'm a user from en.wikipedia, but I have this account just for commons matters. Two articles I work with there are an article on the Sega 32X and a list of games for the 32X. Given that the 32X is unusual in that it plugs into the top of the Mega Drive/Genesis, it is a rare console since it only sold 200,000 units, and that it generally helps the respective article, I would say it is very much needed, not to mention this is a free image that doesn't appear to have any copyright issues. Red Phoenix 16:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep definitely keep it, not reason to delete it. --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept, usable and used on many projects. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
pornographic-Vicond 16:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Is there a known problem of copyvio or a particular reason not to trust the uploader? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep this user seems to like nom'ing porn. --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well he just thinks it's forbidden on Commons. And I can understand one may think that. But the only question we may ask is: is it a copyvio? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- CommentI'm not with the requester but the license is questionable. Source "Finn E.B." ??? Author "TM" ??? --Avron 00:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, it's weird! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Tagged {{no permission}} because of the weird authorship info. Lupo 07:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I also tagged other pictures in the category:Vivi Berens, except for Image:Vivi Berens.jpg for which the author and the uploader seem to be the same. It's actually weird that it's the only non-nude pic of her. Just a supposition: it looks like the uploader knew this person before her porn carreer, had a personal picture of her and use that as a kind of fake proof her porn images have also been taken by him. Could I be right? BTW, there already was a short DR for one picture of this woman. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Guys, there's one more problem: this is probably CP. Most of these photos were taken in 1979. The subject was born December 12, 1961. Which means the odds of the subject being 18 in these photos is minimal. Which means OH SHI-
Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 09:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio ? ShakataGaNai Talk 04:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, this organization was founded in 2007. Vinhtantran 02:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio Trixt (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Obviously pro shot. Uploading username claims to be subject though. ShakataGaNai Talk 04:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, uploading username is subject. Was "pro shot" by username's sister-in-law for free and for free-use.
- Ok. I tagged the image with {{npd}} instead. Get COM:OTRS Permission and all will be well. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: In category Unknown as of 5 June 2008; no permission
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this photograph is already present on this website which indicates that the data are copyrighted. The uploader indicates that he is the owner (that might be true); I'm not sure it's allowed to upload here a document that was placed with an other license in an website. I ask for a check by someone who knows it. Thanks --Hercule 19:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Must send a license mail if it has been published first elsewhere. Vinhtantran 02:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{npd}} --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: In category Unknown as of 5 June 2008; no permission
copyvio : the image is from a jacket of a disk dated 1964, obviously cannot be in public domain --P-e 06:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. Vinhtantran 02:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rama: Copyright violation
This is a faced photo of many people. Can uploader assure that he's been given permission from all of them? Photographer is not the only one who keep copyright in this situation. Vinhtantran 11:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see a reason for deletion. That is solely the problem of the uploader. -- Mattes 12:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- @Mattes: That is solely the problem of the uploader. Sorry, but that is ...! In addition to the nice attitude with the uploader (we don't care if you get problems if we only can have your images), if an image violates the personality rights of the depicted person(s), the image has to go. But this should not be a problem in this case as this is a group and they were obviously posing for the photo. --Túrelio 15:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as I've said in a related DR, the photographer holds the copyright, not the subjects; as this was taken in a public place there are no privacy issues at stake either. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of Scope ShakataGaNai Talk 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment One of the pictured person is the author/user. Pic for profile? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Not for profile. There were a series of pictures from some sort of high school water pistol assassin game. --ShakataGaNai Talk 06:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Far too motion blured to be of any use to anyone. ShakataGaNai Talk 02:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
it's a kind of artistic picture. I don't understand why it should be delated --—Preceding unsigned comment added by auberlin (talk • contribs) 2008-06-02 (UTC)
- Comment Hey, It was just my thought that it wouldn't have a use. So I nominate it - that doesn't mean it will be deleted. That is for the community to decide. Feel free to put {{Vk}} down though - so people know you want to vote to keep it. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Self-portrait that might be only made for the user's profile. Just like my blurry pic on my profile actually! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete That's a good speculation, but it's not used in a user profile on any Wikimedia project. Delete per nom. Werewombat 21:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Could be for a profile, but is not in use as suchMichaelMaggs (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
How can we be sure that the painter is the one who give this to ibilio? BTW, Ibilio is not a trusted source, even worse than Flickr about Another-one's-work-but-I-licensed. Vinhtantran 11:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. From a website that trusts the uploaders to make sure the images they upload are free. Hmm. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
and other images uploaded by Xfparreira (talk · contribs).
Doesn't look like own work: bad quality, low resolution. EugeneZelenko 15:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
template only valid for photos, not for drawings -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 commons es 17:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, Copyvio. Vinhtantran 02:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no author information. Thialfi 18:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
"personal collection" doesn't seem to be a good source --Mazbln 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is the only picture from user Picturesc. Proposal sounds reasonable. --Ante Perkovic 10:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I’m not quite sure whether this is copyvio or PD-textlogo. — H92 (t · c · no) 20:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep PD-textlogo. Vinhtantran 03:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
the source link is dead and no proof is provided that the website released it under a CC license Madmax32 08:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment to Madmax32 - Use this --FSHL 08:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
OpposeFao say : Data contained in this database or software may be used freely,provided that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) be cited as the source.. The graphic is original, by me, with data of FAO, I source the datas. Where the problem ? :) --Valérie75 08:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)- Oppose Fao data may be used freely --OliverZena 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Here is their copyright page as of Feb 15, 05. It says "Data contained in this database or software may be used freely,provided that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) be cited as the source." Its cited as the source - so we're good to go. --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Logo for something. Uploader claims to be owner. ShakataGaNai Talk 23:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Personal art is out of scope MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
media is lacking author information. Cnuuk 07:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete speedy as copyvio. Source is a website. --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I moved this from wiki to commons, the original uploader was en:User:Jeffpw. If the image gets deleted here, I suggest someone uploads it back on wiki again. EliasAlucard / Discussion 19:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- The website does say "©-free 2006 Adelaide Institute". --MichaelMaggs 06:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- "©-free 2006 Adelaide Institute" looks okay to me. Keep and retag. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 09:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- The en:Adelaide Institute isn´t very trustworthy. --Cnuuk (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- The en:Adelaide Institute is trustworthy enough for allowing their images to be uploaded on Commons. EliasAlucard / Discussion 19:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- The en:Adelaide Institute isn´t very trustworthy. --Cnuuk (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and use proper tag. EliasAlucard / Discussion 19:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept, proper tag added. Kameraad Pjotr 13:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Redundance to image:Map Ubaid culture-de.svg, just a work version which is no longer needed. --NNW 16:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC) --NNW 16:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Speedy, redundance. Vinhtantran 03:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kameraad Pjotr 13:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Photo taken ca. 1940 by an unknown author, according to the uploader. Even if the author remained anonymous (no proof given), it would be copyrighted until 70 years after publication. -- Kam Solusar 20:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This was a random photograph, not every photo taken holds a copyright. Many of the photos were seized prior and were under ownership of the government. This one here is taken in a rally, Pancke was flanked by many other soldiers. There were many anonymous photographers, and this photo holds true to no known author, therefore allowing it to be categorized as anonymous. Zarbon (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Copyright lasts until 2010 (minimum). Kameraad Pjotr 13:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no author information Thialfi 18:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Maxim: Deleted because "In category Unknown as of 29 June 2008; no license/permission/source". using TW
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No purpose, not linked to any article, pornographic. 216.15.111.243 21:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Non-admin close - abusive DR's --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Deletion request re-opened.
- Delete This is a perfectly proper request, and the image should be deleted as the permission of the subject has not been provided. See COM:PEOPLE. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep She posed for the camera. The photos are out there. Our use of it doesn't "violate" any mystical rights. If we were first publishers maybe but it's on flickr. Plus the USA doesn't really have moral rights, and the photo appears to be American. -Nard 12:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is not to do with moral rights in the legal sense, but in the ethical. "She posed for the picture" is self-evidently true, but irrelevant. Where is the evidence that she knew that her picture was going to be released publicly, and that she consented? There should be an OTRS ticket if she did. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I think there needs to be a real debate about this somewhere. Porn - as in beauty & art - is in the eye of the beholder. I hate to admit it but it is just possible that I have found sites on the internet in the past where this type of picture the standard content - they are termed "adult" sites. The fact that it exists elsewhere is not a reason why we should have it (indeed I would tend to argue the reverse in this case - it is available elsewhere so why do we want it?). --Herby talk thyme 16:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, out of scope, no permission of the individual. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 10:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Several issues with the image. First, highly intimate images of this kind if released without permission could cause serious harm to the individual. Commons, as an advocate for collection of free content, should be setting a high standard for all aspects of collecting, storing, licensing, and the reuse of our content. With images such as these, this requires determining if there is strong evidence that the image was released with the permission of the the subject of the photo, and the subject fully understood that the image would be published under a license that allowed unlimited reuse with proper attribution. I do not see evidence that the subject is aware of the release of this image and therefore feel that the image should be removed until it is obtained.
- Second, Commons images are collected for a purpose. Unlike Flickr, Commons is not intended to be a location where private images are stored. Images need to have a purpose. In general, Commons does not police this aspect of uploads as a high priority because of the high demand for examining more pressing licensing issue. But when we are discussing an image such as this one, it is worthwhile to examine the image to see if it fits Commons mission. In my opinion, there is a significant downside to hosting an unlimited number of pornographic images that needs to be addressed in our discussion. As Herby implies in his comment, Commons is not "adult site" and collecting an unlimited number of pornographic images will cause us to be seen as one by outside organizations. This needs to be be one consideration. Will collecting an unlimited number of these images harm our relationship with other organizations? In reality, I think it does. Some institutions, even those that respect the idea of free exchange of ideas and are opposed to censorship, would not collaborate with organizations appear to have this as a primary mission. As responsible stewards of Commons future, this aspect of the discussion should not be ignored.
- That said, when examining the merits of including this particular image, I do not think that this image is a horrible example of a female in a sexually explicit pose. If I had to choose between this image and others that I've seen uploaded to Commons and Wikipedia-en, this one is of higher quality and taste. But beyond the issue of quality and taste, I do have a concern about the use of this image. It is not possible from the image to clearly determine the age of the subject. I suspect she is over the age of consent, but it is not clear. I'm extremely reluctant to keep sexually provocative (sexually explicit, in this case) images on site unless the subject is obviously over the age of consent.
- Because of these concerns, I suggest the image be deleted until the issues are resolved. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 01:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
no author named, but imho really old! abf /talk to me/ 13:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- As this is not a work of art, it needn't to have a single author. This was very probably collectively produced by the same people who also issued this paper, i.e. the de:Christlicher Metallarbeiterverband. It's legal successor is the de:Christliche Gewerkschaft Metall. The then had of the umbrella organisation de:Christliche Gewerkschaft was de:Karl Matthias Schiffer who died in 1930. --Túrelio 15:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, collective work from 1913, so should be covered by {{Anonymous-EU}}. --rimshottalk 19:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contains visible copyrighted material like simpsons figure. Petar Marjanovic 16:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
See also: Log.
- Delete Derivative --User:G.dallorto 01:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No, focus is the laptop itself, not the contents. Vipersnake151 01:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I have photoshopped this photo and removed the screen, therefore this image is obsolete. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:MacBook_Air_black.jpg. Save-Me-Oprah 16:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Illustrates typical MacBook AIr usage scenario and shows the LED-backlit screen. Kaomso 16:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This might be on point to the derivative issue: If I take a photograph of a kid who is holding a stuffed Winnie the Pooh toy, does Disney own the copyright in the photo since they own the Pooh design? If someone takes a photograph of a MacBook Air showing the iTunes Music Store on-screen, does <$corporation> own the copyright in the photo since they own the copyright to a small advertisement found on iTMS on that screen? The focus of this photo is clearly the MacBook Air and its nice screen, with iTunes open showing typical usage. Are pictures of Times Square in New York, with its advertising nearly everywhere, allowed on Commons? Kaomso 03:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it is there to show GUI, right? If not, what's wrong with Image:MacBook Air black.jpg? Those icons are definitly part of what it's meant to be showing. Rocket000 12:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This might be on point to the derivative issue: If I take a photograph of a kid who is holding a stuffed Winnie the Pooh toy, does Disney own the copyright in the photo since they own the Pooh design? If someone takes a photograph of a MacBook Air showing the iTunes Music Store on-screen, does <$corporation> own the copyright in the photo since they own the copyright to a small advertisement found on iTMS on that screen? The focus of this photo is clearly the MacBook Air and its nice screen, with iTunes open showing typical usage. Are pictures of Times Square in New York, with its advertising nearly everywhere, allowed on Commons? Kaomso 03:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Software is just as important as hardware. And shows the hardware specs of the screen, too.--HereToHelp (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Resolution of all MacBook Air models is fixed. The image indicates the native resolution of all publicly-available MBA models. 67.168.62.166 07:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is pretty much a screenshot of non-free software, which we delete. These keep votes are starting to sound like fair use rationales. Rocket000 12:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 18:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I thought about the undeletion again and I got the problem into my mind wich was not mentiont in the last discussions: Its cc-by! Means you can cut and license it again as cc-by. So if you cut Homers Image it would also be cc-by. With cc-by-nd the last undeletion reason might have been valid, but not here. So I herby request to 
Delete it. abf /talk to me/ 13:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm, what? If the original was cc-by, and it's been edited and licensed as cc-by, what's the issue? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Clear derivative work of Mac OS X and copyrighted matereal. Or just blank computer screen. --EugeneZelenko 15:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete again. A quote from the undeletion request: I discussed this matter with ABF (the deleting administrator), and he/she indicated that the deletion was based upon the argument by Rocket000 that "this is pretty much a screenshot of non-free software, which we delete." In fact, this isn't "pretty much a screenshot," as the clear purpose is to illustrate the computer, not to illustrate software. So based on either person's logic there (mine or David Levy's) the copyright material doesn't need to be there. Rocket000 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, I don't think it was rightly undeleted in the first place. Copyright overrules consensus. Rocket000 19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Idea: blank the screen and detour. I'll do that when I have a minute. Rama 11:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- comment Surely the design of the laptop is covered by copyright? edward 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted version with screenshot; kept other. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image serves no purpose on here and is not used for any article. 216.15.111.243 17:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep immediately. Oh come on! I'm sick of those DR! And I'm sick of anonymous IP coward requests! This picture is a non-pornographic illustration of vagina. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Kept, well within Commons:Project Scope. Bad faith nomination. Commons is not censored. -- Cat ちぃ？ 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not used for any pages, no purpose 216.15.111.243 21:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Non-admin close - abusive DR's --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No liscense --—Preceding unsigned comment added by SwirlBoy39 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It is obvious they wanted CC-by-SA 2.0. I vote we keep and just retag it with the properly named template. --ShakataGaNai Talk 23:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, cc-sa is a valid license. It's deprecated by Creative Commons but it is a valid license. It imposes a sharealike requirement without attribution. Keep Image is appropriately licensed. -Nard 23:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, cc-sa is a valid license. It's deprecated by Creative Commons but it is a valid license. It imposes a sharealike requirement without attribution.
Kept - valid license --Herby talk thyme 15:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I have blanked this request in order to try and fix the search issue as described at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48573 and also reported at Jimmy Wales' English Wikipedia talk page[4] russavia (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image serves no purpose on here and is not used for any article. 216.15.111.243 17:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep immediately. Oh come on! I'm sick of those DR! And I'm sick of anonymous IP coward requests! This picture is 1) a non-pornographic illustration of genitalia; 2) a work by artist Peter Klashorst (and if one thinks we already have enough of Klashorst's work, I'd answer that this artist is famous enough so it would be non-neutral to determine which works we would keep and which we would delete). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Kept, well within Commons:Project Scope. Bad faith nomination. Commons is not censored. -- Cat ちぃ？ 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No purpose, not linked to any article. 216.15.111.243 21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Non-admin close - abusive DR's --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vulva 03.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vulva 01.jpg
This image serves no purpose on here and is not used for any article. 216.15.111.243 17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep immediately. Oh come on! I'm sick of those DR! And I'm sick of anonymous IP coward requests! This picture is a non-pornographic illustration of genitalia. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep Commons is not censored. We do have adequate pictures of this nature but we act as a repository for material across the Foundation. It is not pornographic even if it is "graphic" --Herby talk thyme 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Kept, well within Commons:Project Scope. Bad faith nomination. Commons is not censored. -- Cat ちぃ？ 23:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
No purpose, not linked to any article. 216.15.111.243 21:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Non-admin close - abusive DR's --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Highly unlikely that a non-free album cover is GFDL or CC 'free' SkierRMH 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Info Original page claims to be from owner company. Copy is larger than linked copy. Still suspect w/o OTRS. --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Licensing confirmed via OTRS. howcheng {chat} 20:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The uploader hasn't proved that its creator has died for 50 years or more because the photo here is derivative work. Vinhtantran 11:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work (photo of picture).Ahonc (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate of Image:Bazilika_Esztergom_Hungary.jpg Villy 10:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep They do appear to be the same shot, but the two image files are not of the same quality. In fact, Image:Bazilika_Ostřihom.JPG is somewhat sharper than Image:Bazilika_Esztergom_Hungary.jpg, which is on the blurry side. Yes, one of them should be deleted, but that one should be Image:Bazilika_Esztergom_Hungary.jpg. Werewombat 22:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Since it was a non-controversial small improvement, I took the liberty to upload the sharper version on the unsharp one, and delete the former. Patrícia msg 13:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
June 3
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
source google, author picasa: looks like copyvio to me — H92 (t · c · no) 00:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete in fact I added {{copyvio}} --ShakataGaNai Talk 00:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio from [5].--Trixt 01:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
source picasa, author google, permission google: very suspicious — H92 (t · c · no) 00:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Agree. Taggged with {{copyvio}} --ShakataGaNai Talk 00:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Trixt: : Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(file unusable) --Panoha 13:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
replaced with category:Old Town, Varaždin --Suradnik13 14:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Please see categories for discussion --Kanonkas(talk) 14:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment OK. Just for information, in croatian we called Stari grad what mean "Old Town". Nobody called that castle in Varaždin "Castle" --Suradnik13 14:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Non-admin close. Wrong place --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
See Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2006/07#Image:Albert_Einstein_Swss_Patent_Office_clerk_1905.jpg. Gabbe 15:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image says "Do not move this file to Commons before 2013 because until then less than 70 years will have passed since the photographer's death.". Seems simple enough to me. --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete after moving back to local wiki(s). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted before some en-admin deletes the version over there. Lupo 07:19, 4 June 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 15:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete it could be used for a user page - but its not. --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Work Resume Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 16:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Business ad (outdated) Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 16:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 16:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. 5 sentence Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 17:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Graduate school schedule Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 17:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
feel free to delete. Also free to delete: Image:COLLABORATION GRID f2007 revised.pdf & Image:COLLABORATION GRID f2007.pdf Jannone (author)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 17:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 17:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 17:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 17:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 17:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:53, 4 June 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 17:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Medical article Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 17:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. 2 paragraph Biography Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 17:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Business ad for computer mouse Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 17:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Biography Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 17:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
8 word Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 17:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
One paragraph Bio Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 18:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:02, 4 June 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 18:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. 1 paragraph Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 18:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. 1 paragraph Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 18:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. 1 paragraph Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 18:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. 1 paragraph Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 18:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Autobiography Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 18:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:04, 4 June 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 18:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:04, 4 June 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 18:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not "text in a general typeface". —LX (talk, contribs) 18:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- This also applies to Image:BloopLoader logo.png. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete both as copyvio. --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Review about social and economic factors and consequences of the diabetes Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 18:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. 1 paragraph Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 18:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
University Thesis Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 18:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WayneRay --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is very unlikely that the Josef ist the original author, as claimed. It is a scan. If he was the original author, he woud scan the photography. Avron 22:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyvio scan from a book. --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COPYRIGHT WITHDRAWN BY OWNER --KezOnTour 21:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Speedy kept. The GFDL is irrevocable. Go fail somewhere else. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A crop from another image deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images. Rob 06:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this looks like a recent book, i don't believe that the licence could be free Guérin Nicolas (messages) 13:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per derivative work. --KveD (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rama: Copyright violation
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Advertissement for a recent event, most probably not released with a free licence Guérin Nicolas (messages) 13:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per SPAM and promotional. (For non spanish speakers: it's a religious promotional flyer) Not used in any project. KveD (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rama: Copyright violation
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:DW. enough said. ViperSnake151 23:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lycaon 13:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derived work from Image:Fred_and_Ginger_from_the_Front.jpg which was delete because it had no free license at flickr. Kolossos 10:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 04:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
i'm pretty sure this is a screenshot from rosemary's baby (and check out the user's photostream) 98.210.176.233 10:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete already placed {{speedy}} tag. In effect, it's a capture from Rosemary's baby. --KveD (talk) 03:19, 4 June 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.
Derivative work of commercial packaging. EugeneZelenko 15:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, certainly is. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. Painted in 1923 (see Britannica article and artist died in 1953 (see American Museum of Natural History slide 2540). howcheng {chat} 00:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete no license either. --ShakataGaNai Talk 00:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image had been PD-US (license was removed by an IP); second link in nom asserts date of 1923 (i.e. not before 1.1.1923); PD claim does not appear supported. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 09:02, 7 June 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. ([6]) -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)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Mural's are generally copyright. ShakataGaNai Talk 00:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: No FoP in France per COM:FOP. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The same mural can be seen on the official web site of the city of Guebwiller here http://www.ville-guebwiller.fr/visite%20(6).html . Should ask the city about its licensing? Jeriby 20:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Coypright mural. Needs licence from the painter MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Copyrighted symbols, logos --Lycaon 09:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Have you seen Category:Beer cans? Rocket000 13:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ohh sh*t ;--). Lycaon 13:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know. Honestly, this is one area I'm never quite sure what to do. To me, almost all those are clearly copyvios, however based on apparent precedent it seems they are allowed. I say delete them, but I would love to hear others' opinions. Rocket000 18:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well I'm against deletion. ^^ --Romanceor [parlons-en] 13:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know. Honestly, this is one area I'm never quite sure what to do. To me, almost all those are clearly copyvios, however based on apparent precedent it seems they are allowed. I say delete them, but I would love to hear others' opinions. Rocket000 18:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ohh sh*t ;--). Lycaon 13:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted.Clear copyvio of design and text. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
No source, no authorship completed only deletion request --Svens Welt 10:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, lacking source information. Kameraad Pjotr 13:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
is the unrotated "duplicate" of Image:Prof eckhard heise 2006.jpg --Túrelio 12:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate file. Kameraad Pjotr 13:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Unused errorous and superseeded map. Both a corrected png version Image:UNSC 2007.png and svg version Image:UN Security Council 2007.svg exists. Lokal_Profil 12:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kameraad Pjotr 14:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this image applies to the Licensing. It is unlikely that this was made by a Polish photographer or published for the first time in Poland and simultanously Poland and abroad. There are some images in this category with same problem. Avron 22:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: I accidentally closed this DR. I was being a bit trigger-happy with DelReqHandler.js ;\ Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- What does in mean "unlikely that this was (...) published for the first time in Poland"? Read carefuly {{PD-Polish}}:
It was published in Poland 1994 (source referred); the experienced uploader knows rules and no reason not to trust him. Julo 06:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)...all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are assumed public domain.
- What does in mean "unlikely that this was (...) published for the first time in Poland"? Read carefuly {{PD-Polish}}:
- There is no proof at all that this image was published for the first time in Poland.
- Additionaly they may be PD in Poland, by not in the rest of world. In Germany there is also a freedom of panorama but this images are not allowed on commons.
- Don't take me wrong, I want to have this pictures on commons but at the moment I doubt the license is OK.--Avron 10:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- You've been given the proof that the facts are as they are. You have any proof that they go another way. Only unproven doubts... And you think that it is enought and honest to make a rumor? Electron 10:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- The uploader has to proof the licensing, not me. --Avron 11:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- So you've been done. If you have unproven doubts it is you who has to prove their are likely... Electron 08:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- You proof that you have no clou about licensing issues. So learn about this or stop arguing here.--Avron 21:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I live in a free country and nobody have rigth to stop me talking and saying my opinion (even it is uncorfortable to him)... So OK. On the other hand. I'll go your way: I have doubts that you have daubts that I have daubts that you have doubts about the fact the licence is rigth or not. There are two opinion: the first is proven the second it is only unproven doubts... In my opinion it is you who should prove it. It is quite hard to prove that you are not a camel. Even you have proofs and the opponet only doubts. Is it clear? Regards :) Electron 06:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- You proof that you have no clou about licensing issues. So learn about this or stop arguing here.--Avron 21:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- So you've been done. If you have unproven doubts it is you who has to prove their are likely... Electron 08:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- The uploader has to proof the licensing, not me. --Avron 11:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- You've been given the proof that the facts are as they are. You have any proof that they go another way. Only unproven doubts... And you think that it is enought and honest to make a rumor? Electron 10:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As Julo...Electron 07:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Info I agree with Avron that "it is unlikely that this was made by a Polish photographer", but I assumed that the image was "published for the first time in Poland". There is no way for me to prove that there were no earlier non-Polish printings, and if any are found than I think it would be appropriate to delete the image, but I think you should prove it. There are hundreds of images of German forces (Germans, Ukrainians, Cossacks, Azerbaijanis, etc.) from Warsaw Uprising (see [7] or [8]), but most images on Commons are the few that I can find in book sources. --Jarekt 12:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I know there was a long debate about a similiar case Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Stroop Report but it was clear that the pictures were published in Poland for the first time. In other case Commons:Deletion requests/Image:The Bochnia massacre German-occupied Poland 1939.jpg it was made clear that this image is polish property.
- Here this is much more difficult. Some other questionable images like Image:Karl16.jpg don't even show the publication origin. I didn't nominate all of the images, just one, to clarify the status. --Avron 12:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Any {{PD-Polish}} images that do not have proof of publication (or other form of official printing) in Poland should not use that license and likely should not be on Commons. I consider them a separate and different group, which should be discussed separately. --Jarekt 19:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that is enough. PD-Polish can only apply when photo was for the first time published in Poland and not because it was once published in Poland. That is the crucial difference. It can't be this way: someone finds photos in a polish book, uploads it on commons and automaticaly claims it as PD-Polish. --Avron 08:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I also agree with your statement above. That is why I am not uploading WWII pictures of Hitler or battle of Stalingrad using {{PD-Polish}}, which I have plenty of in Polish books. I am uploading pictures from Warsaw Uprising and Occupation, since I assumed that people outside of Poland are less interested in those and those pictures were unlikely to be printed for the first time outside of Poland. However if there is any proof of prior printing outside of Poland before the earliest date of publication listed with the image, that would be a good reason for removal. --Jarekt 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that is enough. PD-Polish can only apply when photo was for the first time published in Poland and not because it was once published in Poland. That is the crucial difference. It can't be this way: someone finds photos in a polish book, uploads it on commons and automaticaly claims it as PD-Polish. --Avron 08:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Any {{PD-Polish}} images that do not have proof of publication (or other form of official printing) in Poland should not use that license and likely should not be on Commons. I consider them a separate and different group, which should be discussed separately. --Jarekt 19:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Finally I've found this picture in German Federal Archives [9] as "Bild 101I-695-0424-08A" --Avron 10:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- And this is a right way you should go at the beginning. Regards Electron 10:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- As I said before, you don't have a clou about licensing on Commons. Also as I said before, the uploader is responsible for the appropriate licensing, not anyone else. Commons:Licensing is a good place to start on this topic. --Avron 11:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- You are right but you don't right, too. What would you say if I declared that you are not an European citizen because I doubt about it. I know that you are probably German but it is not enougt for me... I think that it is a similar situation and in a such situation it is my way to prove my doubts not you. To sum up: You have doubts and you (in the end of all) move your but... and did what be to done on the beginning. BTW: it is very simptomatic that especially Germans have such a strict copy right law about the pictures that were taken during WWII. It is quite strange and say very much for that who remember what Germans did during this time... OK. But law is a law and it is not my buisness what kind of law is now here in Germany... Regards and I wish you a good day :) Electron 12:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Electron, If you are trying to be helpful in this discussion, I think you should stick to facts and not your opinions about other users. --Jarekt 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for understanding. I've tried to tell this from the beginning: only facts, please - not undocumented doubts... Regards Electron 06:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Electron, If you are trying to be helpful in this discussion, I think you should stick to facts and not your opinions about other users. --Jarekt 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- You are right but you don't right, too. What would you say if I declared that you are not an European citizen because I doubt about it. I know that you are probably German but it is not enougt for me... I think that it is a similar situation and in a such situation it is my way to prove my doubts not you. To sum up: You have doubts and you (in the end of all) move your but... and did what be to done on the beginning. BTW: it is very simptomatic that especially Germans have such a strict copy right law about the pictures that were taken during WWII. It is quite strange and say very much for that who remember what Germans did during this time... OK. But law is a law and it is not my buisness what kind of law is now here in Germany... Regards and I wish you a good day :) Electron 12:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Avron, It is interesting that you found this picture in German Federal Archives. A lot of the same WWII pictures you might find it in American, Russian and Polish archives as well. What is significance of your find to this discussion? Does it mean the picture was printed in Germany? --Jarekt 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I know, I'm taking the role of devil's advocate, so I'm not liked ;-) As I said I would like to keep the pictures but I also want to assure that one can trust the PD-Polish to the best of our's knowledge. There are some indications not to trust in this case. Usually commons has strict rules so the licensing should be credible.
- To your question, what is the significance of this image in the German Federal Archives:
- The author is a certain Mr? Leher of german propaganda troops
- The ownership of the nagative is on the German Federal Archives
- This proves not much in this case, but the indication is that a polish book of 1994 is unlikely the first publication of this image. Nothing more, nothing less. It's up to the admins, which have a deeper knowledge of licensing, whether to trust PD-Polish or not in this and similar cases.
- But what annoys me a bit is the attempt of establishing a reversal of the burden of proof for the licensing, like me had to proof that the image is not copyrighted. That is not the way Commons work.
- --Avron 16:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your role as "devil's advocate" is appreciated, since it might clarify boundaries of which images are acceptable and which are not under this license. The last thing I want to do is to invest a lot of time researching, organizing and documenting a collection of images and to have them all deleted. I also understand your annoyance with burden of proof, but I can not think of a better alternative. If I upload any PD-Polish image of unknown photographer (and it is very rare to see photographer's names in many Polish books) I usually can not guarantee his nationality or that it was not published before in other country. But, if there is high probability that photographer was Polish or that there would be little interest in the picture subject in other countries, than I use PD-Polish and document books I found the image in. I might document multiple books in search for the oldest one (see for example Image:Gesiowka.jpg). I also understand that if prior publishing is found than the image will no longer meets requirements of PD-Polish. This the process I observed being used with PD-Polish and I can not think of better alternative.
- As for this particular image it all boils down to probabilities. I was guessing that it was likely published in Poland first since I assumed that there was much more interest in subject of Warsaw Uprising in Poland than in other countries. However, I can see that late publishing of the book (1994) and physical location of the negatives in Germany are a problem. I will let others judge the likelihoods. --Jarekt 19:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Photo taken in August 1944 by a photographer Named Lehrer of the Propagandakompanie der Wehrmacht. German Urheberrecht has clearly not yet expired. Trying to apply PD-Polish is a stretch in such cases. Lupo 14:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Unknown, uncaptioned, microscopic, unused photo completed only deletion request --Svens Welt 11:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. no source, no date, no description. Yann (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I've re-opened this discussion, as this image did not previously receive sufficient debate or consideration. Nomination request was "I guess it's protected by copyright" which was implicit its assertion of uncertainty. Please consider the following:
- The words "Bee Gees" are, as a phrase, not eligible for copyright protection. No album cover or other work from which this image was allegedly derived was provided; where is evidence that this is not the work of the uploader? I can write, for example, trade names such as "Microsoft" or "The Rolling Stones" in whatever font I choose with no violation; considerations of ineligibly due to being "a simple typeface" don't even come into play without first identifying the work allegedly being copied (i.e. of what image is this a copyvio? Give us a link or other substantive information).
- Text is not eligible for copyright. "A simple typeface", the deleting admin's term, is not a legal phrase or definition. The United States Copyright Office identifies "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" as ineligible for protection" (emphasis mine) and has been reiterated numerous times in case law, including, for example, Darden v. Peters. The logic therefor is rooted in the concept of "useful articles", as articulated by Title 17. "Mere variations of typographic ornamentation" is very broad wording and, indeed, seemingly counterintuitive in the apparent latitude it provides. However, it is what it is.
The notion that text must take the form of "a simple typeface" to be ineligible for protection is a misconception not supported by statutes or case law (likely caused in part by a hitherto removed, misleading and false disclaimer at Template talk:PD-textlogo). If Commons wants to implement a text policy that is stricter than actual law (e.g. just as en.wiki fair use is stricter than "real life" fair use), that is something we can certainly consider. As things stand now, however, this image has been wrongly deleted. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is probably derived from this cover: en:Image:Bee Gees Greatest 1979.jpg in en:Bee Gees Greatest. --AVRS (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly not eligible for copyright. -Nard 01:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete To me this looks like an artwork, admittedly one that depicts words, but an artwork nevertheless. I think a fair bit of creativity from a graphic artist rather than just fancy typesetting went into its creation. Also the Bee Gees are a UK band and the record company responsible for the record mentioned, RSO, is also British. I'm not sure that UK law is quite so liberal as US. --Simonxag (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Seems to have some effort gone into it. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Windows screenshots
[edit]Image:Jazilla milestone 4.pngCropped out decorations. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 15:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)- Image:TuxGuitar Windows.png
- Image:7-Zip 4.32 attitude compression rate de.png
- Image:7-Zip 4.32 data compression procedure de.png
- Image:7-Zip File Manager ES.png
- Image:7-Zip Filhanterare.gif
- Image:7-Zip screenshot.png
- Image:AWB_Username.png (down arrow)
- Image:JMulTi_screenshot_VECM_Impulse_Response_Analysis.gif
Image:Histogramme_Iguacu_02.pngcropped by the uploader down to a trivial 3D border --AVRS 20:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)- Image:Blender 2.45 screenshot.jpg (Has been cropped since this deletion request, should be fine now.) 85.147.58.212 22:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Inkscape.png
- Image:Inkscape-Reglages-Calque-Blanc-Opacité-0500-3D.PNG
- Image:Inkscape screenshot.png
- Image:Wikipedia rss with mozilla thunderbird.PNG
- Image:VirtualDub 1.7.0.png
- Image:Virtualdub asf.png
- Image:Virtualdub audio codecs.png
- Image:Virtualdub audio conversion.png
- Image:Virtualdub brooktree tweaker.png
- Image:Virtualdub frame rate.png
- Image:Virtualdub interleave.png
- Image:Virtualdub video codecs.png
- Image:Virtualdub video filtering.png
- Image:Virtualdubmain.png
- Image:Virtualdubmod audio filtering.png
- Image:Virtualdubmod prefs01.png
- Image:Virtualdubmod prefs02.png
- Image:Virtualdubmod prefs03.png
- Image:Virtualdubmod prefs04.png
- Image:Virtualdubmod prefs05.png
- Image:Virtualdubmod prefs06.png
- Image:Virtualdubmod prefs07.png
- Image:Virtualdubmod prefs08.png
- Image:Virtualdubmod prefs09.png
- Image:Virtualdubmod prefs10.png
- Image:Virtualdubmod streams.png
- Image:Virtualdubmod vbr mp3.png
- Image:ContribsRollback.JPG Superseded by PNG version with the titlebar cropped out. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 01:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Sodipodi Windows.png
Image:Emule-transfer-stats-window 048a.pngCropped out decorations. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 01:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Image:POL eMule search results.gifcropped. odder 12:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Still contains scroll bar and buttons, which is the argument for most of these. Rocket000 06:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)- Image:Emule morpht.PNG
- Image:Emule 047a.jpg
- Image:Captura Chatzilla (MAG).PNG
- Image:Chatzilla channel view.png
- Image:Chatzilla query view.png
- Image:Chatzilla start.png
- Image:Gnucleus - Downloads Screenshot.jpg
- Image:Dasherwindows2.png
Image:VMware_Workstation_-_Snapshot_Manager.pngremoved for being a copyvio of VMware and not Windows however. ViperSnake151 18:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)- Image:Wikiuutiset-RSS-Syöte-FF3-01.png
- Image:Wikiuutiset-RSS-Syöte-FF3-02.png
Image:Wikiuutiset-RSS-Syöte-FF3-03.pngGIMP'd — Str4nd 05:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)- Image:Wikiuutiset-RSS-Syöte-FF3-04.png
- Image:メモ帳.JPG
- Image:Wordpad.JPG
Windows is a non-free operating system published by Microsoft, and the appearance of its GUI widgets is likewise non-free. Per Commons:Licensing#Screenshots, it appears that the use of non-free widgets such as the Windows title bar in a screenshot may not count as de minimis copying, making the whole image non-free. I'm not an expert at identifying close boxes, as I have never used Windows Vista, but I have difficulty believing that all of these screenshots were taken with Wine. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 23:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Dialog boxes, buttons, and the like are not copyrighted. In fact, this was Microsoft's position under oath in Apple v. Microsoft. -Nard 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Quoting from Commons:Licensing#Screenshots (my emphasis):
- Screenshots are copyrighted if the displayed program or operating system is copyrighted. For a detailed discussion see here.
- In addition, the specific designs of the minimize, maximize, and close boxes are not textual elements. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- So Microsoft's sworn statements in Apple v. Microsoft that their look and feel isn't copyrighted shouldn't be binding on them? -Nard 23:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- The up arrow to scroll up isn't copyrighted, but the specific image used for an up arrow in Windows may be. Otherwise, Apple would have had 0 leverage when it was sending out cease and desists for unauthorized Aqua clones. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- So Microsoft's sworn statements in Apple v. Microsoft that their look and feel isn't copyrighted shouldn't be binding on them? -Nard 23:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Quoting from Commons:Licensing#Screenshots (my emphasis):
- In this case, I would have to say Delete because the Luna theme is not simple enough not to be copyrighted. The specific parts that I am mentioning are the titlebar and the border around the window. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:35, 31 December 2007 (GMT)
- So Microsoft has a copyright on the blue spectrum now? -Nard 02:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- What a senseless discussion...on the same level you could say, the painter has no rights for his painting, because some other people produced the colors... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.196.72.102 (talk • contribs) at 13:30, 17. Apr 2008 (UTC)
- So Microsoft has a copyright on the blue spectrum now? -Nard 02:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Damian: the Aqua clones copied the whole interface (or "skin")! A screenshot is something different. A commentator on slashdot said about the Aqua and Apple controversy:
- There is no issue here. These are not Aqua-inspired graphics, or reminiscent-of-Aqua graphics, or graphics that look sorta like Aqua, these are Apple's graphics, copied and pasted, bit for bit, into a Stardock theme. This is not "look and feel", this is just plagiarism. [..] This is a re-implementation of Aqua on Windows. [..] Taking someone else's work and calling it your own is being a dick. How can anybody reasonably defend this? ([10])
- To take a screenshot of a program that incidentally show three window-icons or a scrollbar is on a completely different level. The "down arrow" or the "maximize icon" look quite differently in different versions of Windows or even in different Windows skins. I find it unlikely that they, by themselves, can be be copyright protected. Not everything can be copyrighted.
- And how does http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/publications/copyrightalexmorrisson.htm prove that every part of an operating system is copyrighted?
- So I don't see any solid evidence why it should be copyrighted. I think User:Nard the Bard has on the other hand provided evidence of the opposite.
- Fred J 02:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Damian: the Aqua clones copied the whole interface (or "skin")! A screenshot is something different. A commentator on slashdot said about the Aqua and Apple controversy:
- I'm inclined to agree with User:O here, but I think most images can be saved by cropping. I have previously interpreted Commons:Licensing#Screenshots such that screenshots should not show titlebars from non-free operating systems. I would regard the rounded design, shadow effects, gradients and colour scheme as used by default in Microsoft Windows versions later than Windows 2000 and Windows XP, taken as a whole (not just "the blue spectrum"), as copyrightable. I would not regard its inclusion as incidental or de minimis, as it generally appears in full resolution without any distortion. I do recognise that it is a borderline case, but as much as I cannot say with certainty that it does infringe, one would be hard-pressed to make a substantiated argument with any reasonable degree of certainty that all courts in applicable jurisdictions would hold these elements to be below the threshold of originality. I don't, however, see a problem with screenshots with the older look of Microsoft Windows or screenshots cropped to exclude the titlebar. I believe we should err on the side of caution to protect the legal integrity of Commons and crop out unnecessary window decorations, and I think that would be a sufficient remedy in most cases to avoid deletion.
- In summary:
- Keep "Windows classic look" screenshots (e.g. Image:Jazilla milestone 4.png)
- Crop all others to exclude Window decorations
- Delete those screenshots where this is not possible (such as for MDI applications)
- —LX (talk, contribs) 16:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Since in KDE it is possible to select a "Redmond" Skin (i.e. a windows classic look and feel) and since KDE doesn't contain copyrighted images, those screenshot can be kept. In fact a normal user cannot distinguish between the Redmond skin of KDE and the native windows classical L&F. (e.g. Image:Wikipedia rss with mozilla thunderbird.PNG)
--193.206.186.101 15:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)- Exactly, some of those don't even look like Windows. (Image:Virtualdubmain.png) Rocket000 22:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep most, Delete some. Nearly all of these do not contain non-free material (some do like the ones with Windows icons, and I'm not talking about simple generic geometric shapes like the "close" button or "down" arrow). The classic title bar is not specific to Windows. If it was, practically all free software would be in violate of Microsoft's copyrights, and I don't think that's the case. Rocket000 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Specifically, I support deleting Image:Gnucleus - Downloads Screenshot.jpg, Image:Emule morpht.PNG, Image:POL eMule search results.gif, Image:Emule 047a.jpg, Image:7-Zip screenshot.png, Image:7-Zip Filhanterare.gif, Image:7-Zip File Manager ES.png, and Image:Wikipedia rss with mozilla thunderbird.PNG for those who hate Wikipedia's logo being used where it's not needed. The rest seem fine to me except maybe the Vista one. The title bar, scroll arrows, and right-hand buttons are not enough to be a copyvio. Mainly because it's way to generic and Microsoft didn't even design them, but also because I would say text, gradients, and extremely simple geometric non-artistic shapes are PD-ineligible. You might say it's eligible when taken as a whole, but Microsoft and the U.S. court system would disagree[11]. Rocket000 22:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep A Windows classic title bar is not enough to make it copyrighted by Microsoft. Platonides 22:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep most, I think. Copyrightability standards can differ between countries... the discussion linked above is for the UK, but US rules are probably more applicable here. The symbols on the title bar icons are too simple to be copyrighted (and were taken from en:NEXTSTEP anyways), and likewise the WinNT / Win2K stylings are also too simple, I think. I'm less sure of the XP and Vista styles... they are more complex gradients, but if they are autogenerated programmatically, that is actually an argument against copyrightability (no human artistic involvement). They are certainly branding of a sort, maybe trademarkable, but I'm still unsure about copyright. Of course, most individual graphic icons are copyrightable, so screenshots which show task bar icons, the desktop background, program icons, system icons in file listings, etc. would all be copyrightable. Some of the above screenshots have those, and not all can be saved, but some can through cropping. Carl Lindberg 07:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- "but if they are autogenerated programmatically, that is actually an argument against copyrightability": <sarcasm>Yeah, and SVG images are automatically {{PD-ineligible}}.</sarcasm> Gradients in such vector images are also generated programmatically, but the choice of the area in which the gradient is applied, as well as the colors and directions of the gradient, are creative steps. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 15:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously SVG images are not automatically ineligible. A single gradient though, should not be eligible by itself. Drawing a straight line involves choices in placement, angle, and color, but that would not be anywhere close to copyrightable by itself either. If a generic effect can be applied to arbitrary shapes, then simply adding that effect to an uncopyrightable image does not automatically add a copyright, I don't think. Does Adobe get part ownership of a derivative copyright if you use one of its Photoshop effects on one of your images? The XP title bar style seems to be horizontal gradients... is that original enough, or is that just common practice to create a 3D-ish effect? It is probably arguable either way. Simply changing the colors is not enough to add a copyright either, so I'm not sure that enters into it. According to this, Copyrightability depends upon the presence of creative expression in a work, and not upon aesthetic merit, commercial appeal, or symbolic value. From the same document, a combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations is not copyrightable either. It seems to me the design of the title bar falls into that area, but it may be arguable. Obviously, cropping away the title bar is safer, but I'm not comfortable with deleting images solely on that basis either. It may be protectable via trademark or design patent, but copyright, to me, seems borderline at best. Carl Lindberg 17:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- "but if they are autogenerated programmatically, that is actually an argument against copyrightability": <sarcasm>Yeah, and SVG images are automatically {{PD-ineligible}}.</sarcasm> Gradients in such vector images are also generated programmatically, but the choice of the area in which the gradient is applied, as well as the colors and directions of the gradient, are creative steps. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 15:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- What on earth. Totally unfounded nomination. Keep them all. Among the topmost unfounded listings here are for example Image:Blender 2.45 screenshot.jpg (uses all its own UI elements) and Image:AWB Username.png (does not display a single Windows UI Element). --Ligulem 15:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's founded until COM:DW lists an explicit exemption for de minimis use. The AWB screenshot has a down arrow from a scrollbar, and one might argue that the specific shape of this down arrow comes from the (copyrighted) Windows library. Blender has a non-classic titlebar, or is this titlebar drawn using a custom toolkit in the same way that the titlebar of Office 2007 windows is drawn? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 23:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep where the objection is on the basis that there are minor elements of Windows OS in view as part of the free software's screen shot. Where a screen shot includes a piece of Microsoft software (e.g. OS utility or applet, or stand-alone application), then certainly it should be removed from Commons (perhaps to be hosted on a platform that permits fair use images and images with other licenses permitting limited use). I don't see any images in this collection that meet those criteria. Application title bars, scroll bars and drop-down list arrows don't, IMHO, meet such criteria. Webaware talk 02:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Rocket000's selection of images have file listings which include file icons, including system and third-party ones, so those could be a problem. Image:Emule-transfer-stats-window 048a.png needs to have the windows task bar cropped off for sure. Carl Lindberg 05:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I'll grant that the emule image needs cropping as you say - I had not scrolled down far enough to see the Windows task bar before, sorry! I don't think that the others Rocket000 lists should be deleted, however, as they are not representing the icons as anything more than what their owners intended them to be, and are themselves but a small part of the image (compare to a photograph of a street scene with shop signs, cars with manufacturers' badges, etc.) Webaware talk 03:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's interesting that you mention "cars with manufacturers' badges" See this adrants story about Ford Motor claiming copyright on pictures of its cars. (Found via Slashdot) --Damian Yerrick (☎) 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting... although it sounds like their claims are solely around trademarks, with nothing to do with copyright. I was not able to find the details of the actual complaint -- just a vague description from someone a couple people removed from the original -- but it's quite possible that they are just claiming that a third-party calendar of all Ford Mustang photos is either trademark dilution or something people may mistakenly assume is a Ford product. Trademarks have to be more vigorously protected, as they are easier to lose. It's also quite possible the lawyers are trying to stretch trademark law to (or beyond) its limits, but without knowing the actual claims it's hard to say either way. As a similar example, the shape of the Empire State Building is trademarked I believe. None of which has anything to do with copyright... you can trademark all kinds of things which would not qualify for copyright. Carl Lindberg 04:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Crikey, it would put the blender amongst the pigeons if some heartless companies took a similar view of, what, 20% of the images here on Commons? At any rate, the image referred to by Crotalus horridus, below, adequately demonstrates my point, FWIW. (oh, and note that Ford have not done as you say - they have requested that Cafe Express "cease and desist" producing images of its trademarks for profit, and Cafe Express have gone hunting through its customers' uploads) Webaware talk 09:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's interesting that you mention "cars with manufacturers' badges" See this adrants story about Ford Motor claiming copyright on pictures of its cars. (Found via Slashdot) --Damian Yerrick (☎) 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I'll grant that the emule image needs cropping as you say - I had not scrolled down far enough to see the Windows task bar before, sorry! I don't think that the others Rocket000 lists should be deleted, however, as they are not representing the icons as anything more than what their owners intended them to be, and are themselves but a small part of the image (compare to a photograph of a street scene with shop signs, cars with manufacturers' badges, etc.) Webaware talk 03:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Rocket000's selection of images have file listings which include file icons, including system and third-party ones, so those could be a problem. Image:Emule-transfer-stats-window 048a.png needs to have the windows task bar cropped off for sure. Carl Lindberg 05:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- crop Crop the part of the image that is clearly Microsoft to avoid and problems.
- Keep screenshots containing the classic (95/98/2K) Windows interface. First of all, the site that has been quoted above is irrelevant since it is based in the United Kingdom and discusses UK law. Copyright law in the United States is different in a variety of ways. I don't think that 16×14 toolbar buttons containing only simple geometric shapes have enough creative aspect to be subject to copyright at all, and even if they are, their use here is incidental. It's no different than the Times Square wide-angle shot that happens to contain some trademarked/copyrighted logo. They are not the primary subject of the picture, so their presence is irrelevant. That said, we could always remove any ambiguity by using Wine to take screenshots and employing a theme that looks similar, but not identical, to the standard Windows theme. Crotalus horridus 23:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
February 2008
[edit]- Delete / crop XP and Vista titlebars, icons, taskbars; classic taskbars and non-trivial icons. Also, for instance, remove Image:Dasherwindows2.png, if the toolbar settings do not matter or if it is replaced or if it is unused. The other classic stuff can wait for a replacement (or be cropped), icons and the W98 gradiented titlebar being probably the most vulnerable part. --AVRS 20:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Possible solution: What if we use ClearLooks for Windows XP? Windows decorations are replaced by Clearlooks decorations, including buttons and other UI elements. Clearlooks for Linux is GPL theme, and this version was released under GPL too. It would be easier than installing Linux or even Wine. FedericoMP 00:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Doable, but to prevent future misunderstandings, it would be nice to mention ClearLooks in the description of each image that has been corrected in this way. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 14:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: OS-GUI appearing in a screenshot of a free program is fair use 193.190.253.144 18:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fair use is prohibited on Commons. --AVRS 19:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't you nominate Image:Burger King in London.jpg, Image:Stevejobs Macworld2005.jpg, etc. for deletion then? We have thousands of images that contain some copyrighted items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjetil r (talk • contribs) 2008-06-03T10:31 (UTC)
- The first of them has {{trademarked}} for a reason. Screenshots are exact copies. --AVRS 12:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't you nominate Image:Burger King in London.jpg, Image:Stevejobs Macworld2005.jpg, etc. for deletion then? We have thousands of images that contain some copyrighted items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjetil r (talk • contribs) 2008-06-03T10:31 (UTC)
- That's an argument for moving all such screenshots to your local Wikipedia or Wikibooks, not for keeping them on Commons. As I understand the policy, the test for Commons is whether it's legal to copy the widget images pixel-for-pixel, use the images for widgets in a Free operating system, sell copies of the Free operating system, and market the Free operating system as a direct competitor to the operating system that the images came from. That distinguishes de minimis copying (which appears to be allowed on Commons but has no solid definition as of March 2008) from fair use copying (allowed only on some language editions of some other Wikimedia projects). --Damian Yerrick (☎) 14:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Some free OS's we allow screenshots of have themes that directly mimic XP. Pixel for pixel. And we allow those screenshots. It'd be silly therefore to exclude actual Windows screenshots. -Nard 20:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fair use is prohibited on Commons. --AVRS 19:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- A square with a cross, blue headers and simple ractangulars filled with texts are not copyrightable see, en:Merger doctrine#Copyright and en:Threshold of originality. Software created for Windows using it's widgets is also not automatically copyrighted by Microsoft. What makes the interface unique is the arrangement of the simple elements. So lets Keep the screenshots and crop away trademarked Windows Logos / copyrighted wallpapers, but not grey bars. --Matt 23:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep screenshots with classical windows gui elements (buttons, title bars, scrollbars, panels, etc.) --Ilya K 11:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep all of them. They are obviously for some sort of tutorial for people who use Windows, replacing them with Linux pictures would be counter productive Bitplane 17:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- What does make you think they are for a tutorial? --AVRS 20:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, there is little or no difference between these screenshots and images like Image:Burger King in London.jpg, Image:Stevejobs Macworld2005.jpg, etc. --Kjetil_r 10:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
June 2008
[edit]- Comment Ok People. Lets figure this out and be done with it already! --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I added Image:VMware_Workstation_-_Snapshot_Manager.png to the list, I hope that is the right procedure. :s — H92 (t · c · no) 15:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- VMWare is unfree altogether, and such screenshots are subject to speedy deletion. This deletion request is about screenshots of free software containing window decorations and other elements of proprietary software. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the information. I had no idea of what VMWare was before I took a look on en.wiki right now, and I now see that it’s proprietary software. If i did know that I would right away mark it as speedy. The only thing I did know was that the Vista decoration is not free. ;) Sorry! — H92 (t · c · no) 22:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I added Image:Wikiuutiset-RSS-Syöte-FF3-03.png: Firefox is free. — H92 (t · c · no) 14:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- +3 more — H92 (t · c · no) 14:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've cropped out the Vista specific stuff from Image:Wikiuutiset-RSS-Syöte-FF3-03.png and Image:Wikiuutiset-RSS-Syöte-FF3-04.png. Firefox UI is not copyrighted for Microsoft, FYI. --AtteL 15:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep... --AtteL 15:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I added Image:メモ帳.JPG (a screenshot of Notepad) and Image:Wordpad.JPG. --125.197.253.83 20:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted the obvious problem images. Left the others for further discussion.
This DR cannot be dealt with properly on the basis of the policies we currently have. There is a need to set out some general principles, agree them, and apply them. Before we can deal with difficult questions like "can Windows minimize/maximize icons be allowed?", we ought to discuss the whole concept of de minimis generally. I propose the following:
- 1. Write a de minimis proposal, not specifically screenshot-related. I have done this at Commons:De minimis.
- 2. Discuss and agree that page
- 3. Apply whatever principles are agreed to screenshots, and draft some easy-to-apply rules that we can use for screenshots
- 4. Discuss and agree
- 5. Re-open this DR as needed, and apply those rules.
Please come over to Commons talk:De minimis and discuss. --MichaelMaggs 15:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
You cannot be sure that the artist is the one who gave it to ibilio, so this image is likely copyright violating. Vinhtantran 10:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Who is the author of this painting? Date of publication? It might be PD-Art if it is old enough. Yann (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The author is on the image description: Yên Hòa. I couldn't find anything about the artist. However, the site's conditions to submit these images include "Please note however that according to sunsite.unc.edu rules, all contributions should either belong to the public domain, or have a copyright allowing distribution." [12] So which one is it here? We don't know. Unless we are sure the image is PD due to age, we cannot host this file. Patrícia msg 14:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
June 4
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyivo, see here Gabbe 09:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unless her neck is growing out of her chest, this is a photoshop job in an unflattering pose. --190.4.72.45 12:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Deleted as a copyvio. The provided deletion rationale wasn't sufficient for an image to be deleted. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
miami 83.4.112.119 14:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep Bad faith deletion request. Speedy keep. --Brynn 17:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Speedy kept, junk request Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Text file article should be on es wikipedia (spanish) Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 15:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
deleted Julo 19:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Also:
Very poor quality photo. Brynn 16:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete useless. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Frankly it is so bad I'd delete it speedily personally --Herby talk thyme 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete speedily. It can’t get much worse. — H92 (t · c · no) 18:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I've added another, very similar one to the nomination. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- deleted, both, nothing there.
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 20:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The Flickr source listed is not the original source. The copyright owner uploaded it here, which shows "all rights reserved"'. Kelly 17:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The other copy you point to says "Chad took this great photo of me..." implying that Chad Forbes (theforbzez) is the actual photographer and therefore copyright holder, even if the other flickr user uploaded it first. So the license looks correct. --dave pape 17:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're correct - I didn't make the connection. Someone please close this nom, thanks. Kelly 19:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The Flickr source listed is not the original source. The copyright owner uploaded it here, which shows "all rights reserved"'. Kelly 17:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:JamieBamber.jpg. --dave pape 17:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're correct - I didn't make the connection. Someone please close this nom, thanks. Kelly 19:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possibly unfree content. Uploader in the original Esperanto file notoriously uploaded pictures taken from the web and put the GFDL tag on them. They are currently being deleted off of Esperanto as unfree content. --Yekrats 20:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
non-commercial use only, no derivative works allowed restrictions Jarekt 20:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
non-commercial use only, no derivative works allowed restrictions Jarekt 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
non-commercial use only, no derivative works allowed restrictions Jarekt 21:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Is used at en:Prostitution in the People's Republic of China where its description reads "A prostitution "reeducation center" at a former brothel in Beijing, 1949." So the author cannot have died 70 years ago, which is what the PD-Art tag requires. If someone can justify this being PD for some other reason then fine. Otherwise it has to go. Could the deleter please consider fair use on the English Wikipedia? --Simonxag 11:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I changed license to {{PD-China}}. Keep. -Nard 00:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I withdraw my nomination. --Simonxag 10:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 10:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Permission "for use on Wikipedia only" is not free enough for Commons. See Commons:Licensing. -- Kam Solusar 12:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Speedy if no changes. Vinhtantran 13:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not commons friendly. Deleted. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"You are allowed to use this photograph only in articles in which Golden retriever is mentioned and on Wikipedia only." is not free enough for Commons. See Commons:Licensing. -- Kam Solusar 12:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Not free. Vinhtantran 13:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Permission to use for Wikipedia only." is not free enough for Commons, see Commons:Licensing. And there's no proof that the copyright holder agreed to release the image under the terms of the GFDL. -- Kam Solusar 12:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted as copyvio. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"may be used in Wikipedia only" is not free enough for Commons, see Commons:Licensing. -- Kam Solusar 12:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not commons friendly. Deleted. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Permission from author for use on Wikipedia only" is not free enough for Commons, see Commons:Licensing. -- Kam Solusar 12:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted as copyvio. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:40, 5 June 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.
Flickrwashing. Nothing but copyvios on that Flickr account. Lupo 09:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted, 1952 photo by Virgil Apger, MGM's promotional photographer 1929-1969. Apger took photos of stars like Clark Gable, Lana Turner, Esther Williams, Stanwyck and magazine covers for "Look", "Life" and "Photoplay". Thuresson 00:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ava Gardner.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not in COM:SCOPE self-created artwork without educational purpose, not used Avron 14:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I could see this being useful on something like say Wikinews. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept per ShakataGaNai. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Paspoort is auteursrechtelijk beschermd copyvio Sterkebaktalk 17:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep pd-ineligible. -Nard 00:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There's no creative work, just this picture and plain text. Dantadd✉ 01:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Suradnik13 07:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Orlovic (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative works ...Forrester 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom — H92 (t · c · no) 18:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(User TZV is also known in german wikipedia. Im sure he was never in this nuclear power plant. Otherwise he has taken the photo without a permission of the operators. So somebody else has taken this foto.) --K4ktus 20:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep in lieu of any evidence supporting the implausibility of somebody visiting a nuclear reactor. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Looking at his uploads at the German Wikipedia, there were quite a few deletions because of obvious copyvios ([13], [14], [15], [16] etc.) and/or missing permissions - most of them images of power plants. And note that on his userpage on Commons, he identifies himself as "Howert Gales from Beaver Valley, USA.", while his userpage on the German Wikipedia states a completely different name and country (the German user is editing many power plant articles, so the chances that these two users are completely different people in real-life is kinda slim). --Kam Solusar 22:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment you dont get a permission to take fotos in the building as a private Person. the photo is non-free in my opinion. --K4ktus 08:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment An example: [17]--K4ktus 09:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Lewis Collard. --Jacopo Werther 09:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deleted at de.wikipedia; no licence.... ...Forrester 17:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't know if this is the same image as the deleted one on the German WP, which was deleted in 2004 (can't see the deleted image, was this before the ability to restore deleted images was introduced?). But it lacks information about author and source as well as a license. --Kam Solusar 22:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Tagged with {{nld}} for the license.--ShakataGaNai Talk 04:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: In category Unknown as of 5 June 2008; no license
Uh huh, sure this is own work...sure... -Nard 23:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Would be PD-old-100 - but its made by a company. CopyVio? ShakataGaNai Talk 05:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally:
- File:BeechmontLake.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:BeechmontLake.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
--ShakataGaNai Talk 05:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I believe you also meant to include Image:BeechmontDrive.JPG in the above list. Keep. U.S. works published in 1908/1909 - {{PD-US}}. --dave pape 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I endorse deletion of all of these images, plus any other images uploaded by this user. There is no documentation (other than the user's assertion) of the actual age of any of these images, which are similar in subject matter and other characteristics to numerous copy-vio images uploaded or flickr-washed (often repeatedly) by a now-banned English-language Wikipedia user and sockpuppets (see [18]). I believe this user to be a new sockpuppet of Jvolkblum. For examples of past problematic Commons activity, also see the following ongoing and completed discussions: Flickr images by Mr.Scholastic, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention#Sockpuppeter, Image:BrewsterSchoolhouse.jpg, and PremiumPoint (1).jpg. --Orlady 12:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally another image from a related sock: --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- File:TrinityStPaulsNewRochelle0001.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Delete. There is no date on the images to independently verify the age of the images, in the past Jvolkblum has made up dates when they did not know the actual date. BlueAzure 22:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. We have two issues here.
- First, the dating of the postcards. I can say with almost complete certainty that BeechmontEntrance.JPG and BeechmontLake.JPG, at the very least, are dated accurately. The false colouring (a very time-consuming thing to do that few would bother with after colour film went mass-market) and grain is fully consistent with a postcard of this age. Yes, we don't have any actual documentation on this, but in many cases we only have the user's word for it and we don't go on crusades to delete them all ("was this really published in this book?" "does he have independent witnesses willing to state in writing that she did take this with her own camera?"). Which brings us to the second issue:
- Second, can we trust this user not to be lying about it? I say we can. Certainly, we should not throw around accusations of sockpuppeteering without convincing evidence. Our nominee said they are "similar in subject matter and other characteristics" to the deleted, well, this is a giant WTF. They are taken from different media, depicting different places in different eras. How our nominee managed to find any similarity other than "they weren't taken yesterday and they all have trees in them" is way beyond me.
- TL;DR paranoia is not a substitute for evidence. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Addendum: I just noticed this user was blocked. I don't know about what evidence Herby had that this was multiple account abuse; I don't think there was ever enough evidence here to even justify a checkuser in the first place. But whatever. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- The images which are clearly early 20th century US postcards I have retagged and changed the info from the false PD-self claim to PD-US. This took care of the images except for Image:BeechmontDrive.JPG which did not match the other postcards (and may or may not be old-- could be a modern pic with false b&w photoshop effect) which I deleted.
Closed; most kept with retagging; one deleted per above. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Flickrwashing. Lupo 09:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted; flickr uploader clearly not creator of image, false license. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
en.wp page lists this as possibly non-free. ShakataGaNai Talk 04:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept, taken while in office (1970 - 1971) and thus Public Domain under Syrian copyright law. Kameraad Pjotr 14:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
There's no information about the author or original source of this image on the source website. No proof is given that this is indeed the work of the United States Coast Guard. -- Kam Solusar 12:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, no source/author information. Kameraad Pjotr 14:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Photo from the press office of a German town. Obviously not "part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment", so {{PD-GermanGov}} does not apply. -- Kam Solusar 13:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, PD-GermanGov does not apply. Kameraad Pjotr 14:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not the house of Howard Carter which is at the foot of this mountain! 82.93.105.143 16:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Misnamed yes, but the description says otherwise. Perhaps a rename is in order, but not a deletion. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept, but renamed. Kameraad Pjotr 14:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Picture courtesy of Gen Dynamics Electric Boat Div, see http://www.defenseimagery.mil/assetDetails.action?guid=df1479d45e9c9efd5b66eaa80b2174d4b1d5d1b6. So not US-Mil-PD schlendrian •λ• 15:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- So an EB (electric boat) employee goes out on the initial testing of sub (in 1982) and takes the picture under contract...taking a picture of a military operation for the military, and then gives the photo to the military. So what makes you think the military doesn't own this photo? Did you read the Terms of Use of the website? -Nard 10:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG-81) aerial stern view.jpg, where Lupo confirms the opinion. Also, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000101----000-.html says 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. And an employee of EB is not a employee of the United States Government, I believe. Thats the way I as a non-lawyer would put it --schlendrian •λ• 10:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Just saw en:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government#Works produced by contractors, where Wikipedia clamis, that 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• 11:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Indeed contractor's works are not "U.S. government works". See en:WP:PD#U.S. government works. Lupo 14:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The origination software's terms and conditions include "you must not modify it" and "Any commercial use is however prohibited". No indication that screenshots of the program (derivatives) would have alternative licensing. Wiki does not allow images with "no derivatives" and/or "no commercial use" provisions. --ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. That seems to refer to the program itself. When you download and run the installer for V2.76 from 2004 (the latest version, bar a minor patch in 2008), the terms and conditions displayed read as "Cartes du Ciel" is a freeware. You can freely install and use any number of copies for your personal or public usage and publish the result as you want. You are sole responsible to use this software which is deliver to you as is and without any warranty. You are authorized to redistribute this software on any support under the restriction that you must not modify it, you include all the documentation files and you not charge a price superior to the support itself. Any commercial distribution is however prohibited without a specific authorization. (Emphasis mine.) Lupo 14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The botto of the page this comes from is marked "Copyleft 2005" but if you go to the home page you see the license is cc-by-nc-sa 2.5, not free enough for Commons. -Nard 23:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
So try to give it the correct form and upload it--Juan Flores A. 23:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Question Would the bottom of that specific page supersede the homepage? There is nothing to stop them from having more than one license on a website. --ShakataGaNai Talk 23:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. "Copyleft" is not a license, it's a type of license, of which CC-BY-NC-SA is one. Lupo 14:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
cambio Edosolis 14:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep "Change" ? Doesnt make sense.
Kept. no valid reason for deletion Yann (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The image was tagged for deletion by the uploader on 5 September 2005 without completing the deletion request. The reason given follows. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
there's another pictures with this name in the German speaking WP edition. This needs to be renamed (I'll do it).
Mattes 22:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- This picture can be deleted and since the licence tag and source is missing, it is redundant. Mattes 11:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann 23:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Very questionable license. If Robe is the author, why this small size? In any case, image is unused. Avron 00:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep But may be very useful in the future. I see nothing wrong if we are talking about the licence... Electron 07:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted (Collard: "recreation of deleted material") Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 17:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is a tag on a newly created article on commons WikiProject Canada. This is not a gallery, so the tag named This gallery has been requested for deletion is irrelevant and does not make sense at all! The gallery is at Canada. This is a wikiproject similar to these commons definition of wikiprojects and Commons category Wiki Projects . I believe this tag is in error and should be removed. This commons wikiproject is a child of the english wikipedia wikiproject which is trying to resolve image controversy from there. Did add some media to try to help the wikiproject out. Kind Regards. SriMesh | talk 02:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete First off, it was nominated by a bot. Don't take that personally. Otherwise, Commons != Wikipedia. Leave the "WikiProjects" on wikipedia. --ShakataGaNai Talk 02:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Kill it with fire. Let's try not to turn into the other wiki, guys. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
.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}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Sophia_iznutri.jpg&curid=373949&diff=11990390&oldid=11989298){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://www.seo.org/media/fotos/GAL_Gallus_gallus_JMR.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:Eta.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[13]](https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Logbuch&type=delete&page=Bild%3ANowoworonesch_NPP_2.PNG){kind=link}
![[14]](https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Logbuch&type=delete&page=Bild%3AKernkraftwerk_Sewerodwinsk.PNG){kind=link}
![[15]](https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Logbuch&type=delete&page=Bild%3ABahnhof_Selbitz.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Logbuch&type=delete&page=Bild%3AKursk.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:RBMK_reactor_from_Ignalina.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_aerial_stern_view.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- So how do we create an area to discuss images relating to Canada? Your help here is appreciated, we don't want to stumble about a different space, but maybe we do need a clue :) Franamax 02:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- There are already Wiki Projects on commons, it just give a starting point for users who want to help out in a narrowed down area, as the help page on commons is very vast and covers a large area of media. This WP aims at improving commons in many ways. SriMesh | talk 02:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- *deep breath* Okay, knee-jerk reactions aside, here's what I really think. A WikiProject is necessary and useful when other communication channels are not sufficient; e.g. if there is a real and genuine need for centralised discussion of a matter, or when discussion of said matter threatens to drown out other discussions in other channels (VP and friends). I could see how this would be necessary for articles on Wikipedia (though I wonder if they're worthwhile on balance, given the instruction creep and drama that come with them), but really, how useful is it for a media repository? Is there really much to discuss? Are the existing channels really so broken for this purpose that we have to establish new ones (and balkanise the community in the process of doing so)? I say no, and let's not enact solutions to problems that don't exist yet. But I'm open to argument here. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- And by the way, if this does get kept, move it into Commons space; mainspace is for galleries. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Boricuaeddie has already performed the move to commons space. Thank you. New title is Commons:WikiProject Canada SriMesh | talk 02:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- You didn't move it... You did a copy paste. --ShakataGaNai Talk 02:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Page moved properly. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- You didn't move it... You did a copy paste. --ShakataGaNai Talk 02:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- So how do we create an area to discuss images relating to Canada? Your help here is appreciated, we don't want to stumble about a different space, but maybe we do need a clue :) Franamax 02:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - While there are certain niches (chem diagrams is the first one I can think of) which require coordination and centralized discussion, this is not one of them (though it hurts my pride as a Canadian to say so). There is just no reason I can see to have this. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I think theme-based co-ordination is useful. For example, my proposed changes at Template talk:PD-Canada never really got much attention -- if there was a noticeboard for a Canadian project, then I think things like this could get the attention of those who are interested, without spamming the Pump or commons-l (conversely, people are more likely to monitor a thematic noticeboard than these massive, general areas). --Padraic 13:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete There is absolutely no reason for this. It will just make messes (like all the cross-namespace redirects I'm cleaning up) and take away valuable time from contributers. I've seen what some WikiProjects do. Not much. More time is spent on organizing, recruiting members, and making cute little templates, than any real work. Centralized collaboration's not needed. If you really want to benefit the project, just go to work. Please don't start this crap here. Rocket000 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really want to get into a long discussion, but I don't really think it's the wiki way to start assessing what is and isn't worthwhile work. Obviously we all have our own ideas of what's valuable and what's not -- the genius of Wiki(m|p)edia is that it lets everybody spend their time on their own priorities. It's ridiculous to think that if someone was going to spend time on a project template, and it gets deleted, they will necessarily work the exact amount of time on something else that is "worthy". Wiki-time and wiki-interests are not fungible. --Padraic 18:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images in Category:Murals in Ludington, Michigan
[edit]Apparent copyright violation by all images in Category:Murals in Ludington, Michigan. Freedom of panorama in the United States extends only to architectural works, not to works of public art such as murals or statuary, even if installed permanently in a public place. Therefore these images are subject to the original copyrights on the murals themselves. This would not be an issue if {{PD-old}} or {{PD-US}} applied, but no evidence is presented regarding the date of authorship or identity and date of death of the author. --Werewombat 20:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Converting the Indians.jpg
- Image:Day at the Beach.jpg
- Image:Father Jacques Marquette.jpg
- Image:Fort Daul store1.JPG
- Image:Fort Daul1.JPG
- Image:Fort Daul2.JPG
- Image:Fort Daul3.JPG
- Image:Fort Daul4.JPG
- Image:Fort Daul5.JPG
- Image:Fort Daul6.JPG
- Image:Fort Daul7.JPG
- Image:Frank Saputo Vegetables.jpg
- Image:Freedom Rings.jpg
- Image:Ludington lumbering 1879.jpg
- Image:Ludington's Own Recipients2.jpg
- Image:Ludington's Own.JPG
- Image:Lumbering at Ludington 1879.jpg
- Image:Marching Forward.JPG
- Image:Rev John Christensen.JPG
- Image:Scottsville Clown Band1.jpg
- Image:Scottsville Clown Band2.jpg
- Image:Scottsville Clown Band3.jpg
- Image:Town of Murals.jpg
- Image:Windows of our Lives.jpg
- Image:Winter Wonderland.jpg
Deleted. These cannot be kept without a release from the painter in each case. Without it, they infringe the painter's copyright. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image serves no purpose on here and is not used for any article. 216.15.111.243 17:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep immediately. Oh come on! I'm sick of those DR! And I'm sick of anonymous IP coward requests! This picture is a non-pornographic illustration of vagina. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Kept, well within Commons:Project Scope. Bad faith nomination. Commons is not censored. -- Cat ちぃ？ 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not used for any pages, no purpose 216.15.111.243 21:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Non-admin close - abusive DR's --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No liscense --—Preceding unsigned comment added by SwirlBoy39 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It is obvious they wanted CC-by-SA 2.0. I vote we keep and just retag it with the properly named template. --ShakataGaNai Talk 23:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, cc-sa is a valid license. It's deprecated by Creative Commons but it is a valid license. It imposes a sharealike requirement without attribution. Keep Image is appropriately licensed. -Nard 23:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, cc-sa is a valid license. It's deprecated by Creative Commons but it is a valid license. It imposes a sharealike requirement without attribution.
Kept - valid license --Herby talk thyme 15:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Bad Quality, unusable in any Wikimedia project Xgeorg 06:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please also delete the following ones (same reason):
- Image:Alex Burrows.jpg
- Image:Matt Cooke.jpg
- Image:Spencer machacek2.jpg --Xgeorg 06:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Granted, the quality isn't ideal, but for use in their respective articles, the image is shrunk to a degree that it is not as evident. With the exception of Cooke, these images are presently the only ones available to represent the three players. In this sense, I believe that the pictures enhance the articles they complement rather than compromise. However, I understand the opposing argument and would respect deletion. Orlandkurtenbach 10:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. I've seen worse... and some are in use, meaning they can be useful. Patrícia msg 14:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
June 5
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work. The copyright of the design photographed is most likely held by Sarah Lawrence College, which is not the uploader. BlueAzure 01:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Non-free music video clip see caption for this image in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_to_the_Floor_(Starsailor_song)&oldid=216307375 --Angusmclellan 19:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 21:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
University logo Kimse 07:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is not an original photo by the Flickr uploader, but a crop of a news photo found here: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dime-071203 Ytoyoda 12:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete (speedily) as copyvio. And a good lesson learned for a certain new Flickr reviewer >.< --jonny-mt en me! 14:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Howcheng: Copyright violation
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Like Image:Briancook.jpg, appears to be a crop of a copyrighted photo. Too small to be much of use anyway. Ytoyoda 12:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. --jonny-mt en me! 15:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Spacebirdy: Copyright violation
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Invalid file. Most likely copyrighted logo. EugeneZelenko 15:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. copyvio ShakataGaNai Talk 17:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong name. Right one: Image:Schmetterl_2.JPG Atlan da Gonozal 16:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: Dupe of Image:Schmetterl 2.JPG
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possible copyright violation Chech Explorer 17:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by rama ShakataGaNai Talk 21:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possible copyright violations. The web site that hosts the image: © 2005 Hall Institute of Public Policy - New Jersey. All Rights Reserved. Chech Explorer 17:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 21:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation. No fair-use on Commons. Chech Explorer 17:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Again.... --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope - the information on this image can be represented in another way Chech Explorer 17:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 17:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of Scope, it is an image showing a (meanwhile solved) problem with a local template on the dutch wikipedia --Wimmel 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 20:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A still image from a music video. No evidence given that the uploader is the copyright holder. Angusmclellan 19:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 20:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Still from music video. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Angusmclellan 19:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 20:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Still from music video. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Angusmclellan 19:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 20:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Still from music video. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Angusmclellan 19:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 20:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Still from music video. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Angusmclellan 19:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 20:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Still from music video. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Angusmclellan 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 20:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Still from music video. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Angusmclellan 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 20:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Still from music video. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Angusmclellan 19:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 20:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like a screenshot Kimse 23:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 02:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like a screenshot Kimse 23:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 02:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Statue_of_Colonel_Thomas_Cass,_Commander_of_the_Ninth_Regiment_Massachusetts_Volunteers.JPG
[edit]
Who is sculptor since USA doesn't have Commons:Freedom of panorama for sculptures? EugeneZelenko 15:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The sculptor was Thomas E Brooks. The statue was unveiled on 21 September 1899 according to the New York Times. According to Wikipedia, the sculptor died in 1919. I think this means the copyright on the work, if it existed, expired in 1989.
Kept. Sculptor was Richard Edwin Brooks. In the future, please categorize your files and please do mention the sculptor and date the statue up front. Lupo 06:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Will do, thanks for the advise!
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image dosn't match the structural formula IngerAlHaosului 09:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean, exactly? It matches the structure at en:Articaine.
- Ben 11:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- One of the is incorrect then, because the wikipedia version has a extra CH3.So wikipedia has OCH3 (see upper right corner) and commons has just a O (see lower left corner). I am not a chemist so i don't know with one is correct.
- No, they're both the same. -CH3 is the same as the end of a line. See en:Skeletal formula.
- Keep Structure is correct, and high-resolution to boot :) By the way, IngerAlHaosului, you can tag chemical structures that appear to be incorrect with {{disputed chem}} instead of listing them for deletion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept, I don't think there's a problem (the uploader removed the {{delete}} tag as well, so I'm thinking he doesn't see one either). If there was one, this is something that should be fixed, rather than nominating for deletion. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Artwork by en:Salvador Dali, who died in 1989. It's not in the public domain and the owner can't release it as GFDL as he is not the copyright holder. -- Kam Solusar 12:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio per Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images. (note: there was an error in my first nomination, so I'm re-doing it. Sorry for repetition) Rob 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Personal photos. Out of scope. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Pictures of the lighted Eiffel Tower are considered copyrighted in France. -Nard 16:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I believe that's correct. Silly as it is to copyright the lighting on a building, it is copyrighted under French law. Werewombat 14:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Silly, yes, but also the law :( – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Freedom of Panorama in the USA doesn't apply to statues or sculptures. So, if this statue is under copyright (it's a recent statue, so I think it is) it should be deleted per derivative work / copyright violation according to US law 17 USC 102(a)(8). -- KveD (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
uploaded by known copyvio-creator, no source (author + death) abf /talk to me/ 12:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: In category Unknown as of 5 June 2008; no source
looks like a scan from a book, not an original photo. see the halftoning (?) in the background gray 98.210.176.233 04:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Yup, looks like a scan to me too. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Mass del. Many suspect images, many look like scans from old work. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- File:Conceicaodapraia026.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Conceicaodapraia024.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Conceicaodapraia023.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Conceicaodapraia021.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Conceicaodapraia020.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Conceicaodapraia017.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Conceicaodapraia016.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Conceicaodapraia014.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Conceicaodapraia012.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Conceicaodapraia010.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Conceicaodapraia008.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Conceicaodapraia006.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Conceicaodapraia004.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Conceicaodapraia002.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Image has been deleted from Flickr, presumably as it is obviously not a free image. PeeJay 14:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. Original source is here. Carl Lindberg 01:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per above. Note: Flickr user jamesmughal seems to have no shortage of false license copyviols. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
PD-old not assured.Code·is·poetry 23:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 12:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Original uploader on en-wiki is serial copyvio offender, see w:en:User talk:Bg007. Likely copyvio. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Also:
Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I deleted Image:Rue Knez Mihajlova Belgrade.jpg as it was RM'd from en.wp as copyvio. --ShakataGaNai Talk 08:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 14:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
and Image:Javierloppez.jpg. Most likely copyvio. EugeneZelenko 15:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete By the watermark, the photographer is Damian Benetucci. The camera metadata matches other photos available on his website, so apparently he keeps the EXIF data with photos he distributes. I can't find this exact photo there, but it is on Javier Loppez' myspace page. We would probably need a permission email sent to OTRS from the photographer (or Loppez, if he owns coypright by contract); otherwise this seems like a pretty clear copyvio. Carl Lindberg 01:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 14:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an image of a painting by Lionel Edwards. He died in 1966 (english wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Edwards). This image doesn't satisfy copyright requirements --Celtus 23:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Question Where can we verify that this work is by that artist? --ShakataGaNai Talk 02:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about a web reference, but the ref i used to find the illustrator was: Harrington, Peter. Culloden 1746, The Highland Clan's Last Charge, Campaign series #12. Osprey Publishing. p. 20. ISBN 1 85532 158 0. It gives this as part of the caption: "'The Battle of Falkirk' (17 January 1746) by Lionel Edwards." If you google "Lionel Edwards" you can see that his works mainly deal with horses. Also, i think you can see a similarity in his paintings found on the web with this one. So far i can't find you an easy web ref to say that this image was his though.--Celtus 07:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 14:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- No source, en.wiki copy mistakenly claims that "Public domain This file is in the public domain, because Official picture of the President of Mexico" ˉanetode╦╩ 01:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It appears to be PD-Mex. Evrik 18:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is NOT in the PD. Official portraits of the Mexican presidents are not in the PD. For a brief period of time, the Fox administration allowed journalists to use pictures of his own events, ceremonies, etc. under a PD-license, but those were pictures located exclusively in a particular server: fuente.presidencia.gob.mx. It's quite clear in the template. Esteban Zissou (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering how best to handle this when doing Flickr review, but this appears to be a TV cap, and the outfit he is wearing is the same as [19] and [20], which makes this a probable copyvio. jonny-mt en me! 14:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 05:20, 27 August 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 [21] (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.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by it's painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 01:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Incomplete request. Listed on 2008/06/05. Rocket000 18:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Although this painting appears to have been done by "VS STUDIOS
@ mail.com", and so could not have been done over 70 years ago, and the original painting on the site was "painted over the winter of 1955-1956" per w:Tillie, the image that inspired them is much older, as demonstrated by {{PD-Art}} Image:Steeplechase jack 1905.jpg. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Public domain status is not viral; a work does not enter the public domain simply by being inspired by a public domain work. To use an analogy, a musician performing his interpretation of a classical piece of music holds the copyright to any recordings of his own performance. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- If this were an original work taking inspiration from something in the public domain, I'd tend to agree; but this seems more of a simple copy than a reinterpretation with sufficent originality to be considred a new work. I don't the music analogy applies; I'd see this more as writing out a copy of a few bars of a public domain composition from old sheet music on to a fresh piece of paper. -- Infrogmation 03:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It has been established that the original work was fromt he 1890s. A modern copy of a public domain work does not generate a new copyright per US law. (The added email address I believe should be seen more as an advertisment for the sign restorer than any claim of new copyright.) -- Infrogmation 03:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Semms to be more a copy than a reinterpretation. ...Forrester 10:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- KeepIf the painting was published in the US before 1978 without a copyright notice then it's PD-US-no notice. --Simonxag 01:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Comparing to Image:Steeplechase jack 1905.jpg, this mural definitely appears to include "original expression", which I believe (could be wrong) is the standard under US law for when a reproduction takes on its own copyright. However, Simonxag's point about pre-1978 no notice could sway me toward "keep"; but I would want to be sure that's the correct interpretation of US law. Werewombat 14:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly has sufficient originality (not a mere copy), but nonetheless there's no (c) so it's {{PD-US-no notice}} Mangostar (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is absolutely not a copy. The expression is the same as in Image:Steeplechase jack 1905.jpg but the details are different. There is originality. Furthermore, there is no Freedom of panorama in the US. I am unsure about the claim that there is no copyright because there is no copyright notice, though. How are copyright notices of wall paintings processed? We can't be sure this is PD. Patrícia msg 14:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- I assume that we need to discuss your predication "There is originality" deeper. Everything esle you say is imho not doubtable. [[ Forrester ]] 13:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- What I mean with originality is: if this wall painting is based on the character depicted in Image:Steeplechase jack 1905.jpg, as Jeff G. pointed out, the new work is sufficiently different from the original to be considered a new artwork. I agree this is a subjective point of view. I'm not sure this was what I was unclear about. Patrícia msg 14:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I understand what you want to say, but the question is: are you right? Since (as you said correctly) this is a "subjective point of view". I assume we have no definitive proof for en:Threshold of originality...But as a matter of fact I would accept a deletion since it's quite hard to say....that's also the reason why I said "Semms to be...." [[ Forrester ]] 16:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Giggy (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
June 6
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is J. Watt. See Image:Hw-watt.jpg --Chesnok 17:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Italic text
Cool. Kept and tagged with {{rename}}. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 09:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photograph is of a temporary installation, thus not covered by FoP; which makes it a derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture, hence the claimed license is invalid. Another picture of the same installation has already been nominated for deletion here. 92.40.14.67 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The linked page(Alison Lapper) openly admits that this is a temporary installation and this picture is thus a (presumably unintentional) copyvio; so what on earth is it doing on Commons? -- 92.40.14.67 01:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Per above. --TheHellraiser 02:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Taken in good faith, but a clear copyvio I'm afraid. MichaelMaggs 06:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
watermarked and increctly liscenced 207.161.213.17 02:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Watermarks suck, but aren't against the rules. It was incorrectly license, but I've fixed that. ShakataGaNai Talk 04:58, 6 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 Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 02:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Powerpoint! ShakataGaNai Talk 04:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No permission, copyrighted --TheHellraiser 02:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 04:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No permission, copyrighted --TheHellraiser 02:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 04:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No authorative or reliable source is provided for the inline text or description. --99.240.196.9 03:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Kept. Abusive DR ShakataGaNai Talk 04:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Her_Majesty Queen Elizabeth II with Prime Minister The Rt. Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau signing the Constitution.jpg
[edit]
Copyvio per Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images. Rob 05:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete (regretfully). The statements in [22] and [23] are pretty clear--the copyright is owned by the archives, and they do not allow modification or redistribution. --jonny-mt en me! 05:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Appears to be copied from consplayers.com, whose vague licensing policy can be seen here. Identical images were deleted as copyvios on en-wiki--see en:Possibly unfree images/2008 January 25#Image:Vertexguy01.jpg, en:User talk:8BitRulez, and en:Special:DeletedContributions/8BitRulez (sysops only). jonny-mt en me! 08:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I found a very similar picture but it is not the same. In fact it is obvious that these images are _not_ from Consplayer because the consplayer images are much nicer (no motion blur). Keep on all them unless you can find two images that are actually identical between the sites. --ShakataGaNai Talk 09:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment While I can buy that the other one is not copyrighted, this one appears to be from the same set as en:Image:Vertexguy02.jpg, which is listed by the uploader (who appears to be the same on both projects; see my response to the other image for more information) as belonging to Cosplayers. I'd be happy to undelete it for a temporary review if you'd like. --jonny-mt en me! 15:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I hate to be a stick in the mud, but I noticed a few things: #1 - This image is larger than the copy on consplayer.com (by a bit) - so it would be impossible for him to have just "cut off" the watermark. #2 - This picture is taken from the right hand side of the stage, where as most of the consplayer images were taken from the left or center of stage. #3 - I can't find any images in the gallery that are almost identical or identical to the DR's you nom'd.
- If you think it will help - you can go ahead and undelete that one image temporarily on en.wp (Oh how I wish Commons admins had global deleted file viewing ability) and poke me on my talk page. I'll take a look - but at this point I think the images that he uploaded are actually his own. --ShakataGaNai Talk 19:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there's always the proposed global admin group :) Anyways, after walking away for a little bit and coming back with fresh eyes, I'm inclined now to agree with you. I'd been keeping an eye on these photos since they were added at once by the uploader of the original copyvios (incidentally, the "cropped watermark" comment in the deletion log only refers to a comment I made at en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 January 25#Image:Vertexguy01.jpg about en:Image:Vertexguy03.jpg, where the image you linked above was re-uploaded with the watermark cropped out). But the arguments above combined with an e-mail I received from the uploader explaining where the images came from have convinced me, so I'm going to go hunt down the templates I need to withdraw and close these nominations. --jonny-mt en me! 02:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn. --jonny-mt en me! 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Beat me to the keep. But I removed all the templates already. So don't worry. --ShakataGaNai Talk 02:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Appears to be copied from consplayers.com, whose vague licensing policy can be seen here. Identical images were deleted as copyvios on en-wiki--see en:Possibly unfree images/2008 January 25#Image:Vertexguy01.jpg, en:User talk:8BitRulez, and en:Special:DeletedContributions/8BitRulez (sysops only). jonny-mt en me! 08:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per [24] --ShakataGaNai Talk 09:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
![[24]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Chris_Kline_Contra_GDC07a.jpg&diff=12077051&oldid=12076763){kind=link}
Nomination withdrawn per [25]. --jonny-mt en me! 02:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
![[25]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Chris_Kline_Contra_GDC07a.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=12090793){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Appears to be copied from consplayers.com, whose vague licensing policy can be seen here. Identical images were deleted as copyvios on en-wiki--see en:Possibly unfree images/2008 January 25#Image:Vertexguy01.jpg, en:User talk:8BitRulez, and en:Special:DeletedContributions/8BitRulez (sysops only). jonny-mt en me! 08:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per [26] --ShakataGaNai Talk 09:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn per [27]. --jonny-mt en me! 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Appears to be copied from consplayers.com, whose vague licensing policy can be seen here. Identical images were deleted as copyvios on en-wiki--see en:Possibly unfree images/2008 January 25#Image:Vertexguy01.jpg, en:User talk:8BitRulez, and en:Special:DeletedContributions/8BitRulez (sysops only). jonny-mt en me! 08:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per [28] --ShakataGaNai Talk 09:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn per [29]. --jonny-mt en me! 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
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.
cpivio, its a logo and the uploder set the permission as Fair use Hidro 10:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey please don't delete it, I am the uploader. Is fair use not allowed? what is the tightest copytight I can give it? Shy halatzi 11:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, fair use is not allowed on Commons. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
cpivio, its a logo and the uploder set the permission as Fair use Hidro 10:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey please don't delete it, I am the uploader. It is not a logo. What's wrong with it? Shy halatzi 11:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, fair use is not allowed on Commons. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
cpivio, its a logo and the uploder set the permission as Fair use Hidro 10:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey please don't delete it, I am the uploader. Is fair use not allowed? what is the tightest copytight I can give it? Shy halatzi 11:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No fair use on Commons. --Pymouss Tchatcher - 00:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, no fair use allowed on Commons. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploade with wrong name IngerAlHaosului 13:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by 32X: 16:01, 6 June 2008 32X (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Benzyl.svg" (Duplicated file: Image:Benzyl-group.svg) (restore) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
sofja 79.130.189.245 13:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Despite that I am NOT the photographer or uploader of the original image, WHY should this image be deleted? I can not see any reason. --217.10.60.85 14:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept, it's imperfect but it's in use. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio, same reason as Image:Making_Movies.svg --Balabiot 13:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Balabiot 14:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea what Image:Making_Movies.svg was, but this image is way too simple to be copyrighted. It's merely the text "The Beatles" on a plain white background, which is ineligible for copyright, just as most company logos are (see Category:Company logos). Simple text like this cannot be copyrighted, even if it does appear as part of a copyrighted album's artwork. The "Zoso" logo (Image:Zoso.svg) from the album Led Zeppelin IV was nominated for deletion as well, but its result was keep because a small group of characters are not eligible for copyright. Dream out loud 22:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- It was this, the cover of a Dire Straits album. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's some text. pd-ineligible. -Nard 23:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Undoubtedly ineligible; I think the Making Movies DR was errantly closed. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:The Beatles album cover.jpg for my comments. --Hautala 11:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment pardon, but
this is insane. Ask a random bunch of people to write "Zoso" with fancy characters. If they put a line between the o's and one below, and draw a kind of triangle on the bottom line, I'll agree that this is ineligible. same for Making Movies.if you give a random bunch of people a red background, a light blue rectangle, a light blue semicircle, and ask them to arrange them in some way and write "Dire Straits" and "Making Movies" (you could replace "Dire Straits" and "Making Movies" with "Deers' rights" and "Telling stories" to avoid influencing people). Again, if all of them put the rectangle on the right side, the semicircle next to the rectangle, and write the text vertically in the rectangle, then Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Making Movies.svg was ineligible too.
- I doubt that this would happen in any sane experiment, and actually I doubt that most people if asked to write "The Beatles" on a blank sheet of paper would write it in grey, would write "The BEATLES" with the right combo of lowercase/uppercase, and would push it slightly towards the right edge. Even people who know the cover!!!
- The reason why I doubt that, is because you are asking people to use creativity, and creativity is how the original artists came up with these concepts. Creative work makes anything a work of art; and even if the result is very simple, "ineligibility" might make indipendent reinvention not a copyvio, but attempts to mock would remain copyvio without any doubt. All IMNSHO. Balabiot 06:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. This is the clearest {{pd-ineligible}} I have come across in some time. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I can't imagine why this should be public domain, I didn't find a clause in peruvian law on the copyright status of official works.Code·is·poetry 14:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC) PS: Duplicate at Image:SignCuzco.jpg.
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's blurred Diomede 14:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- so what? Blurred images have to be cancelled only when a better version is uploaded. Did you upload a better version?? --Sailko 14:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep Keep until a non-blurred equivalent version is uploaded, as the policy says. --Sailko 14:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Blurred image Diomede 14:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep Keep until a non-blurred equivalent version is uploaded, as the policy says. --Sailko 14:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
It is a blurred copy of the Image:Image:Santa trinita, giovanni dal ponte, martirio di san bartolomeo (1434).JPG Diomede 14:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete: Yes delete, check Image:Santa trinita, giovanni dal ponte, martirio di san bartolomeo (1434).JPG --Sailko 15:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Very clearly superseded; will be universally replaced shortly. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possible copyright violation. No specific source and no specific statement from the author about the usage of the logo provided. Chech Explorer 15:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, definitely a copyright violation; I don't expect Blizzard release the logos from their games under a free license. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Logo de la Empresa Supermercados Peruanos". Even though re-drawn, this is a non-free image. Angusmclellan 15:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is marked with copyright and source pages are marked all rights reserved MilborneOne 15:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Nonsense, Wikipedia, etc. should't create a new view - it should show excisting views. So this picture is not relevant. And in fact it is important to improve the mood in Wikipedia... see this relevant (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Welt) german Page: http://www.welt.de/kultur/article1271014/Wikipedia_laufen_die_fleissigen_Autoren_weg.html. And read here (German): "In jüngster Zeit hat die Wikipediagemeinde zunehmend Schwierigkeiten, engagierte Autoren zu finden bzw. zu halten. Eine im Herbst 2007 veröffentlichte Erhebung in der englischsprachigen Version ergab, dass erstmals seit Gründung die Wikipedia sinkendes Engagement ihrer vormals als Autoren aktiven Benutzer zu verzeichnen hat und auch die Zahl der Neuanmeldungen rückläufig ist. Einer der Hauptgründe ist laut Studie ein immer rauer werdender Umgangston innerhalb der Gemeinde.[17]" from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Sozialstruktur_der_Autoren —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.69.184 (talk • contribs) Kam Solusar 11:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC) (UTC)
- Speedy keep - blatant nonsense. --Kam Solusar 11:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Throw it away. It's a graphic that is often used to discriminate users (they are told to be a "troll"). But the german Article shows that this is a real problem for wikipedia -"the users run away" (excerpt of the article). So show muscle and begin to clean up Wikis from discriminating content. --84.160.71.14 15:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I can't discern a reason for deletion neither in English or German. If there is a problem at a Wikipedia somewhere, start a discussion there. Thuresson 20:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. In use on hundreds of pages across many projects. This is not our problem. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploaded to English wikipedia by en:User:Drfreid, who's 12 edits there include vandalizing ([30]). The only source for this photo is English Wikipedia. "Drfreid" claims that the photo is public domain but has not substantiated that claim. Thuresson 21:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Accidentally uploaded to the wrong name; image has been reuploaded to Image:Zamek Bierzgłowski outside 1.jpg. Please delete this version. Thanks. Mike Peel 21:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Mike Peel 21:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted; please use {{badname}} next time. :) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio per Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images Rob 22:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio per Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images Rob 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio per Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images Rob 22:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio per Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images Rob 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio per Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images Rob 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio per Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images Rob 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio per Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images Rob 22:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a suspected copyvio, like others at Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images. Since the date of publication isn't given, it might be public domain, but I think we have to assume it's not old enough, until given a date of publication. --Rob 22:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio per Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images Rob 22:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio per Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images Rob 22:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not a federal product (.gov != fed), SCAQMD is a regional authority. ---Nard 23:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The credit is given as (an unnamed) "ABC photographer", but then it's tagged as released into the public domain by the author, something which major-network photographers aren't in the habit of doing; and there is no indication that the uploader is actually the creator or owner of this picture. Dtobias 23:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as obvious copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside the Commons:Scope. -Nard 23:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as per comments here. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep WayneRay 03:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)WayneRay as above
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside the Commons:Scope. -Nard 23:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No it's not. In fact, it might even be of historical significance if the description is right. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 00:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep WayneRay 03:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)WayneRay as above
- Keep per Lewis Collard. --AVRS 13:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside the Commons:Scope. -Nard 23:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as per comments here. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep WayneRay 03:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)WayneRay as above
Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Flickrwashing. Flickr account contains low-res versions of professional celeb shots of people from Venezuela, Brazil, and the Philippines. Lupo 09:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. As copyvio ShakataGaNai Talk 09:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, re-opened. After a look at the uploader's user page and contributions:
- In fact, all uploads of User:Speedracer05 (who claims to be the Flickr account owner and to work for a pageant company in the Philippines) are suspect. A credible OTRS permission from the company would be needed at least. Lupo 09:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, Missed that. This users images will needed to be gone over with a fine tooth comb. Some images are suspicious, some are self made, other have OTRS perm, and still more are from other websites. Confusing. --ShakataGaNai Talk 09:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete All images from that Flickr account are blatant copyvios. Spellcast (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Flickr account is uploading copyvios. Kanonkas(talk) 21:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
cpivio, its not a free image and the uploder set the permission as "free for Fair use while indicate the source" Hidro 10:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am the uploader, please don't delete the files. I will change the permission. Which permission is the strongest copyright? Shy halatzi 11:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed the fair use comment. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THE FILE! it takes a long time to upload it back. Shy halatzi 10:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- are you the copyright owner of that image? Hidro 21:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Collard: Copyright violation: disagreement from the IAA board as to whether the picture should be uploaded, contact me for the tl;dr
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Is this a poster? Kimse 05:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Probably.--Londoneye 11:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Maxim: Deleted because "In cateogry Unknown as of 7 June 2008; no license/permission/source". using TW
Screenshot. See image description. Chech Explorer 15:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly a screenshot. Pruneau 16:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot. See image description. Chech Explorer 15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly a screenshot. Pruneau 16:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Still image from a French movie from 1960. Why should this be PD? Lupo 09:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Certainly not PD-self as claimed. Pruneau 16:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, not PD. Kameraad Pjotr 14:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Not old enough for PD Sargoth 16:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- The image is older than 1935. It is older than needed for PD. 72.229.48.178 22:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unless someone can provide proof that the author died more than 70 years ago or that the author remained anonymous. --Kam Solusar 11:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It is highly unlikely that the author survived much longer since it is a very old photograph, and the author is anonymous. Many photographs such as this were taken in public rallies. Zarbon (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Zarbon has consistently been warned for copyvios, and there is no proof as to ownership etc. Deleting. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
copyright violation: author confirmed to me that it was copied from some other website --Josq 09:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Rly? Special:Contributions/Plaatjesman shows no discussion with you. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Off-wiki discussion. Uploader is a student of a project that I coordinate. Apparently copied from http://www.thermo.com/com/cda/newsevents/events_detail/1,3084,20125,00.html Josq (talk) 09:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Very well then. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 02:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
and Image:SX862 cover.jpg, Image:SX862 side.jpg, Image:Sharp SX862 Internet chi.jpg.
Most likely advertisement. Also contains web sites screenshots. EugeneZelenko 15:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 15:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
do not have rights Artaxerxes 15:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Note: Deletion request is by the uploader. I presume the uploader realized it was improperly licensed. No usage of file in Wikimedia found. -- Infrogmation 22:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Insuficient information about the author and the licensing of the logo. Chech Explorer 15:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. © violation Yann (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
What's this? Probably the bot doesn't understand the Bavarian language --Mutter Erde 20:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's author was Karl Klimsch (1867-1936)[31], PD-Old license is valid. Filip em 18:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. PD-Art Yann (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Poor quality, hard to tell what this picture is of. -Nard 00:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Neutral but maybe Keep because we don't have any other pictures of "cockfighting arena" on Commons so it might be better to have a poor one than nothing. We may delete it later if we find a better image with an equivalent subject. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)- Keep We can ask for a better quality pic, but when coupled with the captioning/file name I found this to be quite an eye opener about the social and commercial setting of cockfighting in the Philippines. Werewombat 19:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, better than nothing! TimVickers (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Yann (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
New Jersey maintains copyright. allows verbatim copying only. not suffiently free. ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No licence MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
rights not properly arranged Artaxerxes 23:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you haven’t created this image, or were not allowed to take it, just put {{Copyvio}} with an appropriate reason on it. If you have the copyright of this image and would like it to stay on Commons, you just can put {{Personality rights}} under the license tag. --AVRS 12:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No licenceMichaelMaggs (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As an album cover, it is inherently a non-free image. The uploader claims this cover is ineligible for copyright because it is "too simple". szyslak 08:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- The uploader here. It is too simple because:
- It has nothing but the words "The BEATLES" on the foreground. You can't copyright two words.
- The words don't form anything pictorial and are in fact in a common typeface, which are public domain.
- The background is plain, you can't copyright a plain colour.
- When you say that album covers are inherently non-free, you should be saying that in practice almost all album covers can be and are protected by copyright. This one is very exceptional in that sense. Please also see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nirvana album cover.jpg. --Hautala 11:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please point to the copyright law that says things that are too "simple" can't be copyrighted? This is a copyrighted image that doesn't belong on Commons. However, you're free to upload it to a wiki that allows fair use images, such as the English Wikipedia. In fact, on enwiki's version of the image, it's tagged as fair use. szyslak 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- The U.S. Copyright Office has on the page Copyright Office Basics answer to the question "What Is Not Protected by Copyright?". According to it,
- "Titles, names" are not protected, meaning the words "The BEATLES" are not protected as the title of the album or the name of the band
- "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" are not protected, meaning that as the font used on the cover is not protected as it is just one of the zillion similar fonts
- "Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship" are not protected, which is legal mumbo jumbo for "simple". --Hautala 12:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- The U.S. Copyright Office has on the page Copyright Office Basics answer to the question "What Is Not Protected by Copyright?". According to it,
- Could you please point to the copyright law that says things that are too "simple" can't be copyrighted? This is a copyrighted image that doesn't belong on Commons. However, you're free to upload it to a wiki that allows fair use images, such as the English Wikipedia. In fact, on enwiki's version of the image, it's tagged as fair use. szyslak 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Just because it's famous doesn't mean it's copyrighted. --Fb78 14:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, it is really strange, and probably it is not that useful to have just one album cover, and not the others. But it really seems to me that you cannot copyright such a straightforward idea, no matter you use that as an album cover. --Mormegil 17:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I think that the reason given above should consider the artistic value of the image, too. Its simplicity is not casual, it is a precise design choice adding value to the composition. We can see this cover as the music biz equivalent of a Lucio Fontana painting. And they are copyrighted :-) --Jollyroger 08:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know the case of the paintings, but I dare to disagree that simplicity would be copyrighted if even it was artistic. If the cover was even simpler, all white for example, that would be an artistic decision just as well and would probably have artistic value as well (it's one of the most famous album covers), but still, that would not mean the record company would gain copyrights to white colour or plain album covers. --Hautala 11:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed with Hautala. The thing that there has been much deliberation put into some decision does not make the result copyrightable. Compare this with e.g. book titles. An author may spend days choosing a good name, but still, the name itself is not protected by copyright. [32] --Mormegil 12:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know the case of the paintings, but I dare to disagree that simplicity would be copyrighted if even it was artistic. If the cover was even simpler, all white for example, that would be an artistic decision just as well and would probably have artistic value as well (it's one of the most famous album covers), but still, that would not mean the record company would gain copyrights to white colour or plain album covers. --Hautala 11:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Mormegil. Additionally, pure texts are not copyrightable. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Bryan, __ ABF __ ϑ 10:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept --Digon3 talk Too simple to be copyrighted
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
reopening as copyvio, now that Image:Making_Movies.svg has been deleted. --Balabiot 13:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Balabiot 14:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Why do you think it's eligible, Balabiot? (In before "John Cage copyrighted four minutes and thirty three seconds of silence so it must be".) I think Trixt's assessment of the Making Movies deletion request was wrong. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep pd-ineligible. AYFK? -Nard 23:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- "AYFK?"? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Are you effing kidding. -Nard 03:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh. :D Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- NNAA (No, not at all). Because most people if asked to write "The Beatles" on a blank sheet of paper would not write it in grey, would not write "The BEATLES" with the right combo of lowercase/uppercase, and would not push it slightly towards the right edge. Even people who know the cover. That makes it a work of art, despite its simplicity (which might be a reason to not consider copyvio an independent reinvention -- but not an admitted attempt to mock the original work of art). Balabiot 06:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- And if you told someone to type out Microsoft, then they probably wouldn't use the same font and "pac man" idea as this, but this is our classic case of ineligibility. Indeed, if I asked you to write the word "this" right now, I dare say you wouldn't end up writing exactly the same thing as this, but I'd be silly to say this was some kind of unique, copyrighted expression. (Please don't gratuitously accuse N of personal attacks, by the way; what he said was nothing of the sort.) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Are you effing kidding. -Nard 03:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- "AYFK?"? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I vote Keep like above. Please also see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:The White Album.svg. --Hautala 11:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept as {{pd-ineligible}} – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfree image of advertising hoardings. This has not been taken to illustrate the building but the advertising (see the image categories). MichaelMaggs 06:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know. I can't really read anything after "The Beverly Hills" (Granted I can't read Chinese - but I can't even make out the characters). I agree there is alot of advertising there - but there is just as much in Time Square or several other major cities. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- You don't need to be able to read it, as there are large obvious photographic images that are copyright protected. --MichaelMaggs 10:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have drafted a new page for discussion about this. See Commons:De minimis. --MichaelMaggs 15:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Legal in Hong Kong under COM:FOP. -Nard 12:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, I'm afraid not. HK law uses exactly the same word as the UK law from which it derives, and 2D images, posters, photographs etc are not permitted, even if permanently located in a public place. See COM:FOP. --MichaelMaggs 13:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I agree we can't apply FOP, and the advertising definitely is not de minimis. Just based on the raw percentage of the image area occupied by the ads, it can't be treated as incidental or insignificant. The photo composition (extended upward to capture the big ad) and categorization just seal the case. Werewombat 19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Sorry for late reply. I would like to clarify what the photo contains. The subject of the photo is a tram stop and a building. Beside them, there are 9 pieces of advertising posters appeared in the photo, instead of one single advertising. Consider what the photographer had taken and how he could avoid the advertising, I don't think it has breached COM:FOP. Baycrest(Talk) 18:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, the ad is copyrighted. --Minghong (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- KeepI saw a lot of photo about the street and the Hong Kong law about coryright,call "COPYRIGHT ORDINANCE".I don't think this photo against the "COPYRIGHT ORDINANCE".—Railhk0512 (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Baycrest. -- Kevinhksouth (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Take a photo in a public area in Hong Kong does not contravene anyone's copyright. --✉Hello World! 16:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It does not violate COM:FOP.--Hargau (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a vote. Could one of you who has voted to keep without reasons please explain the legal basis for your vote? Assertions that it does not violate copyright are not enough. You need to explain why. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Because the law in China and Hong Kong specifically exempts these works from protection. Please read COM:FOP. As we've already stated. -Nard 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, I'm afraid not (again). HK law uses exactly the same word as the UK law from which it derives, and 2D images, posters, photographs etc are not permitted, even if permanently located in a public place. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Because the law in China and Hong Kong specifically exempts these works from protection. Please read COM:FOP. As we've already stated. -Nard 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Does not satisfy Commons:De minimis: most of the image is comprised of copyrighted content, and there is no COM:FOP in HK. Patrícia msg 14:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
proper rights not arranged Artaxerxes 19:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No license. Deleted. Badseed talk 03:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Merté died in 1938 [33], so this picture will not be in the public domain until 2009. --Jergen 07:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC) --Jergen 07:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Anfrage beim Rechteinhaber an der Postkarte heute abgesandt. --Milgesch 09:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment So we've waited only 99.3% of the time we needed to wait for this to pass into PD? Yes, technically it should be deleted. Werewombat 19:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Update (stays up-to-date): We waited 99.880952380952% of the time we needed to wait. My opinion: Let's wait the last 0.11904761904762 %. (but it should be deleted until then....) [[ Forrester ]] 22:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Let's be hard! Not PD. Will undelete it 2009 :) [[ Forrester ]] 22:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Apparently a fair-use image but tagged with CC-SA license. Probably not suitable for Commons. Angusmclellan 13:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete barring clarification. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- CC-SA permission obtained – Goustien 07:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Obtained how? Do we have confirmation? — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Needed to trun a blind eye on this.... [[ Forrester ]] 22:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
We still didn't have such images in Category:Penis? EugeneZelenko 15:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep well see it by yourself in the cat and sub-cat. I don't think we have any equivalent. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: The description of the scrotum is wrong in the second image, i wonder, if this images are self-taken, the second one seems to be copied from any source. --Martin H. (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. [[ Forrester ]] 23:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Insufficient information to justify PD tag -mattbuck (Talk) 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Can you please ask Luxo (he is stated as the uploader) for that? Thanks, HardDisk (aka CommonismNow) 22:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. [[ Forrester ]] 23:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
June 7
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this user's flickrstream is just a compilation of photos found elsewhere. the url given as the source for this photo is now dead, so who knows if the licensing was correct. Mangostar 01:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Untrustworthy Flickr account. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyrighted image from http://www.ifunpix.com/everywhere.aspx Kimse 01:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyrighted image from http://en.beijing2008.cn/36/31/article214003136.shtml Kimse 01:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyrighted image from http://guide.sacbee.com/119/story/654.html Kimse 01:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyrighted image from http://www.berkleemusic.com/ Kimse 01:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of a copyrighted sign. -Nard 02:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Complete nonsense. It's a picture of a man who happens to be holding a sign, which is hardly a derivative. This nomination, and the other two, reek of POINT. Night Ranger 06:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept, it's a man holding a sign, and a sign in plain text at that. Consider your point made, N. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of a copyrighted sign. -Nard 02:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Now THIS can be construed as a derivative. Go ahead and delete it. Night Ranger 06:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, as there's no objection from the uploader. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reviewed the same day it was uploaded. License is unfree. -Nard 02:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I doubt the author is really "yo" or "me" in English. -Nard 02:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Me too. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possible copyright violation. Couldn't find anything about GFDL on the web site. Chech Explorer 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work, GFDL very unlikely. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
proper rights not arranged Artaxerxes 03:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no license since February.Ahonc (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Maybe the user stiched the image but it smells like copyright violation. Chech Explorer 04:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Same here. Also a really bad shoop. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside of project scope, vanity. MER-C 10:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contradictory licensing terms. Image caption may imply that the Flickr uploader is not the copyright holder. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
i took this photo from internet without proper autorization Hujadila 20:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 22:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unclear copyright status. It looks like a screenshot or promotional material (professional quality) Trixt 20:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. By User:Siebrand ShakataGaNai Talk 22:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. The BSD Daemon is fully copyrighted, and the FAL license for the GNU head requires the whole work to be sharealike. -Nard 20:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. "BSD Daemon Copyright 1988 by Marshall Kirk McKusick. All Rights Reserved." ShakataGaNai Talk 22:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The BSD Daemon is copyrighted :( -Nard 20:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. "BSD Daemon Copyright 1988 by Marshall Kirk McKusick. All Rights Reserved." ShakataGaNai Talk 22:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside the Commons:Scope. -Nard 20:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. It's a letter... Out of scoped out of existence. ShakataGaNai Talk 22:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence that the uploader has authorisation to publish this logo. Publication is not enough in any case. Listed as fair-use of a non-free logo on enwiki, same uploader. Angusmclellan 21:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. As copyvio ShakataGaNai Talk 21:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside the Commons:Scope. -Nard 00:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Maybe illustrative of historical portraits or photographic techniques. Even if it's not, I like it. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Nice period hairstyle --Simonxag 00:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
My own fault. Redundant. Quissamã 00:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Redundant to which file? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I uploaded it again with another name.
- --Quissamã 06:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 07:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The information from the image can be represented by a table or in another way. Chech Explorer 03:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete just text --Simonxag 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 07:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
False license. There was no Creative Commons back in the 1950s. Chech Explorer 04:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is from a defunct British motorcycle manufacturer in an obsolete magazine so there is nobody to ask for pemission - I've removed it from the new wikipedia article on Ambassador Motorcyles - but is there a case for a 'fair use' just on this article? TR001 12:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- You can use the image 70 years after the magazine company locked down. --Chech Explorer 14:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: : Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of Scope. ShakataGaNai Talk 07:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Out of Scope, no permisson.--Ahonc (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 07:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of Scope ShakataGaNai Talk 07:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Out of Scope, no permission.--Ahonc (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 07:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to the English Wikipedia it is fair-use image: en:Image:PrefSymbol-Hiroshima.png Ahonc (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 07:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to English Wikipedia this is unfree (fair-use) image. See en:Image:PrefSymbol-Nagasaki.png Ahonc (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 07:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Only used in a deleted article about a non-notable band (en:Jolly Rotten). --Mike Rosoft 10:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 07:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to the English Wikipedia this is non-free image. See en:Image:PrefSymbol-Shiga.png Ahonc (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 07:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to the English Wikipedia it is non-free image: see en:Image:Nagasaki CitySymbol.png Ahonc (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 07:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to the English Wikipedia it is non-free image: see en:Image:PrefSymbol-Yamaguchi.png Ahonc (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 07:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to the English Wikipedia it is non-free image: see en:Image:PrefSymbol-Yamanashi.png Ahonc (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 07:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong Name - My fault Quissamã 12:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 07:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
substituted by image:Acenaphthene-3D.PNG --..TTT.. 12:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Since it wasn't being used. ShakataGaNai Talk 07:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Obviously photoshopped, which makes this photo outside the Commons:Scope as the image is being used at en:Jan Malm and the photo does not befit an encyclopedic biography. Futhermore I doubt Toggan is really the original author of this image. -Nard 12:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete --Chech Explorer 18:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 07:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Background image potentially copyrighted, as is the dialog box. -Nard 13:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- The dialogue box is not copyrighted. Background image is in public domain from Desktopography. I think. If i'm wrong then delete. Cyclonenim 15:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. As out of scope. I appreciate Huggle, but email is a much better way of getting error messages to the Author. ShakataGaNai Talk 07:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyrighted product, logo Gaaarg 14:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not enouch creativity is present that isn't functionally dictated. Functionally dictated design is not copyrightable. -Nard 15:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Yes the logitech logo is Copyright. But this is derivative work (and not focused on the logo) ShakataGaNai Talk 07:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possible copyright violation. Chech Explorer 16:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. There is more than enough copyright content in there. ShakataGaNai Talk 22:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possible copyright violation. Lacks enough source info. Chech Explorer 16:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: : Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Screenshot of a non-open source software. Chech Explorer 16:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: : Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image isn't "own-work". Just search the google ( http://images.google.com/images?hl=lt&q=panasonic lumix ls60&lr=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi ) for this camra and you'll see, there are tons of images exactly at this angle. It is likely a modification from early Panasonic promotional image. --Andrius Vanagas 18:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - obvious copyright violation. --Chech Explorer 18:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 22:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation: drawing is signd by the artist, Marten Toonder. His work is not in the public domain. Jan Arkesteijn 18:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 22:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivate work. The original version uploaded was a picture of two people standing on the sides of a poster of the copyright character Iron Man, the current version is a crop containing only the copyrighted character. BlueAzure 19:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 22:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
crop of a photo already deleted as a suspected copyvio 63.204.222.2 20:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 22:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
i took this photo from internet without proper autorization Hujadila Hujadila 20:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 22:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
i took this photo from panoramio without proper autorization Hujadila 20:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 22:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
en:Sofiko Chiaureli (May 21, 1937 - 2 March 2008), around 30 years old (= 1967). PD in Georgia, PD on commons? --Mutter Erde 22:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Appears to be PD nowhere... -Nard 02:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 08:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I call bullshit. Not self-made. -Nard 15:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It was shot at a glamour photo event in Phoenix, AZ.
- Delete --Chech Explorer 18:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Without further informations, we should suppose that this image could be an invasion of privacy Trixt 21:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Agree. This image doesn't demonstrate anything mentioned in the description. --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per ShakataGaNai --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, possible attack image, privacy issues. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
photo of copyrighted mural. don't know where the photo is taken but it's likely in the US where there is no freedom of panorama 63.204.222.2 20:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete Seems to be a US image and as the date is 2004 that makes it a copyvio. Is used on a lot of Wikipedias so its a pity. Could be fair use on the English Wikipedia. --Simonxag 00:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Categorized as "Graffiti in the Netherlands" where FOP applies. -Nard 12:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per N – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Freedom of panorama in the Netherlands (from where our uploader appears to come) extends to two-dimensional murals. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
proper rights not arranged Artaxerxes 17:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Chech Explorer 18:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted; uploader request, presumed mistaken upload. -- Infrogmation 22:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
No FOP in the USA and derivative of a copyrighted sculpture. -Nard 02:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Again, complete nonsense. It's a picture of a statue and a building, which is hardly a derivative. This nomination, and the other two, reek of WP:POINT. Night Ranger 06:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete While this nomination does look a lot like point making a point (and on that count, I'm a little hesitant to support deletion), N still has one. In some jurisdictions, photographs of sculptures are considered derivative works of said sculpture, and the United States is one of them. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Americans can't believe their laws they're so outrageous. Perhaps they should start lobbying their politicians for FOP on public monuments. --Simonxag 00:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, I can't believe it. I keep reading it and thinking about all the illegal derivative works I saw in photography booths at an art fair today. What a stupid, unnecessary law. Night Ranger 02:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I highly doubt this is "own work"/ -Nard 02:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete I'm a bit worried about this user's other uploads too. Depending on who he is they might be all OK (including this one) but I think they're all copyvios. --Simonxag 00:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Not really self-made. -Nard 14:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Chech Explorer 18:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- This image is self-made. Indeed, I took this picture yesterday to provide Commons a nice picture. This skull is a gift. And how can you assert it's not self made ? Xerto 06:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to assume that it's not Xerto work. Filip em 12:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep looks fine to me. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Well, keep it too Xerto (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Claimed as own work by en:user:Essence5, which seems unlikely based on that user's user page. Appears to be a professional shot, presumably in relation to Miss Colombia. Angusmclellan 22:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Who actually stands with their hands clasped to to the side like that?!!? Seriously - probably copyvio. --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The Wikipedia user seems to be a Colombian girl into beauty pageants. I am a bit worried by the lack of metadata, but she ought to have access to such people posing for their photos. --Simonxag 00:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. That the Wikipedia user may be interested in beauty pageants says nothing; we have plenty of users too interested in football but that doesn't mean that every random football player copyvio is not, in fact, a copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Defer to delete due to the apparent circumstances and the fair probability it may be a copyvio. rootology (T) 13:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 15:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The GFDL and cc-by-sa are mutually incompatible. -Nard 02:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep
No. No they aren't. In fact that was one of the recommended setups in the old upload form. I know all of my images use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Now GFDL, cc-by-sa, Copyleft and PD all at the same time could be incompatible. But that is not deletion worthy. Just ask the user to correct the problem (pick one or the other). --ShakataGaNai Talk 03:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)- Delete Lewis pointed out to me what is going on here. Never mind me.. --ShakataGaNai Talk 03:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless we can persuade the authors of this one and this one to relicense CC-BY-SA. This one is PD (compatible, of course), so the combination could be CC-BY-SA. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 09:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- The images are clearly separatable, though that doesn’t make derivative works licensing simple (though probably easy enough) to describe. This calls for a question: what to do with screenshots of Wikimedia projects (GFDL plus anything) and software which includes GPL and CC BY-SA works? --AVRS 11:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
en:User:Muntfish is, according to his website, not old enough to have taken this image by himself. Permission? Author? Why PD? --Noddy93 17:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- PS: Derivative works: Image:Alan Turing at the Ratio Club.jpg, Image:Horace Barlow.jpg.
- Delete --Chech Explorer 18:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I found some extra data that the photo is taken at a Ratio Club meeting held May 2-3, 1952. The photographer seems to be unknown. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
See Template talk:PD-PEGov. This license only applies to text documents from Peru. -N 01:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC) ---Nard 01:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see the use of it if it cannot be applied to images; unless we're going to start scanning Peruvian government documents, I can see that this will only lead to confusion. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree, no point in having it here if it can not be used on images. --Victor12fromWikipedia 21:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete--Suradnik13 09:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Deleted as per above. Yann (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Radswiki does not own this image and cannot freely license it. -Nard 14:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- the author of this site, Benjamin Hentel claims that these photographs were taken by him, and I have no reason to suppose (like you do) that these are web-collected scans from various sites. These images are clearly licensed - see [34]. You can question the autorship of all flickr images, as well (there is no evidence that flickr users own these images). Filip em 14:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I have uploaded lots of scans from radswiki to illustrate medical articles in Wikipedia. In every case uploaded image was licensed like this file. Other images with no clear license or with no-free license (like [35]) weren't uploaded to commons by me. I think it's important to pinpoint now, whether these images are free or not, to avoid similar situations in future. Filip em 14:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
![[34]](http://www.radswiki.net/main/index.php?title=Image:Multiple-sclerosis-005.jpg){kind=link}
![[35]](http://www.radswiki.net/main/index.php?title=Image:Lateral-patellar-dislocation-103.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep I can see no reason to doubt copyright status or authorship. TimVickers (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. as per TimVickers. Yann (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio. See http://twub.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html, Copyright © 1999 – 2007 Google, see intellectual property rights under http://www.blogger.com/terms.g. Also, no indication of GFDL on page, no indication of creative comments, etc. Also see http://www.flickr.com/photos/lob2k/10292401/ Night Ranger 02:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep flickr and blogger images were uploaded after the Wikipedia image was first uploaded in Feb 2005. / Fred J 07:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Correct, those came out after my initial upload, and use the same filename as my original upload. Alkivar 23:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this looks like something useless and low resolution Madmax32 11:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why useless? It is used on necrophilia articles on four wikipedias, including en:Necrophilia / Fred J 23:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's because there are stupid people who insert it into those articles. #1 no evidence the mouse it is dead or it is engaging in sexual contact (for all we know this was staged) #2 necrophilia refers to a human sexual fascination with corpses, mice are not people. This is okay on a joke website but not on an encyclopedia Madmax32 03:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please: we are not the moral guide of Wikipedia, we are their image provider. The image has been there since 2005 and has been discussed (en:Talk:Necrophilia#Mouse_Photograph) with consensus for it to stay. It makes no sense to delete it from here. / Fred J 16:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's because there are stupid people who insert it into those articles. #1 no evidence the mouse it is dead or it is engaging in sexual contact (for all we know this was staged) #2 necrophilia refers to a human sexual fascination with corpses, mice are not people. This is okay on a joke website but not on an encyclopedia Madmax32 03:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why useless? It is used on necrophilia articles on four wikipedias, including en:Necrophilia / Fred J 23:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you read the necrophilia page it would have told you that necrophilia was the "love of corpses". It does not refer to singularly human behavior, we are just egotistic and assume that it can only refer to people in the act. However this picture does at least prove a point; that animals are culprits of the act of necrophilia as well. Staged or not this picture should not be removed just because someone doubts its athenticity.
- OK, other animals have sometimes exhibited necrophilia. Noted. That discussion is not particularly relevent to this deletion requests-- it is an image of dubious source at dreadful low resolution that we don't know if it depicts what it claims. I disagree that there is any "consensus" about use of the image on en:Wikipedia, but in any case source and licencing requirements are somewhat looser there then here. Lousy low res possibly faked dubiously sourced image? Not for Commons. -- Infrogmation 20:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you read the necrophilia page it would have told you that necrophilia was the "love of corpses". It does not refer to singularly human behavior, we are just egotistic and assume that it can only refer to people in the act. However this picture does at least prove a point; that animals are culprits of the act of necrophilia as well. Staged or not this picture should not be removed just because someone doubts its athenticity.
- Delete like Madmax32. Yann 22:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing seems to be going on here. This image is unencyclopedic, awful quality and adds nothing to the project. It isn't even verifiable that these mice are real or they're engaging in the "activity" they're supposedly engaging in. Night Ranger 19:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Its only awful quality because someone came in and compressed the ever living shit out of it. I've reverted back to the original which is MUCH clearer. Alkivar 23:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing seems to be going on here. This image is unencyclopedic, awful quality and adds nothing to the project. It isn't even verifiable that these mice are real or they're engaging in the "activity" they're supposedly engaging in. Night Ranger 19:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep not that anyone will give any weight to my !vote as i'm not a regular commons contributor. However it should be obvious 1) I dont falsely claim copyright 2) I have contributed many images in public domain or had friends release images GFDL/CC-by-SA. 3) If someone wishes to remain anonymous and still contribute text its allowed... why not an image? Alkivar 00:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Non-encyclopedic and unverifiable. It is impossible to determine what the two mice are doing here or even that they're actual mice and not fake. Furthermore, the uploader does not have rights to the image (according to his own comments on the image page) and therefore licensing and copyright are impossible to verify. Night Ranger 19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- This person "Alkivar" says "I did not take the photo, my friend did, he authorized its release via GFDL but stated he did not want his name associated with it." If this logic is okay, then I could just as easily take a picture of Madonna from the internet, claim "my friend" took it and released it as GFDL but they don't want their name associated with it. Real copyright licensing can't be done by "a friend of a friend" it needs to be done by the copyright holder. Delete this thing. Night Ranger 19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- This person "Alkivar" is me, an admin on EN Wikipedia. I have credibility, and do not upload copyvio. My friend who took the photo is a professional journalist who didnt want his name attached to the photo but didnt mind it being released. We allow anonymous text contributions, why not image contributions? I can certainly give people who are required evidence that it is in fact GFDL released. Alkivar 23:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- The dreadful quality is because someone came in and jpeg compressed the ever living shit out of it for no apparent reason. I have since reverted to the original version which is clear. Alkivar 23:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh my, yes, I see Madmax32 mucked with it terribly. Why? -- Infrogmation 00:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- The dreadful quality is because someone came in and jpeg compressed the ever living shit out of it for no apparent reason. I have since reverted to the original version which is clear. Alkivar 23:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Closed as Keep Due to apparent bad faith actions by some of the people opposed to keeping it. (The quality of the image was destroyed, then people voted against it on that basis). If someone wants to make an argument to delete this purely on the grounds of non-usefulness they can open a new deletion request, but this one is too tainted by incorrect information. --Gmaxwell 00:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
(1) This image is still of poor quality, even though a new version has been uploaded. It cannot be ascertained what these 2 "mice" are doing, whether they are real mice (they look like rubber toys to me), or if they are, indeed engaging in the claimed activity. As such, image has no value to the article on the behavior for which it has been uploaded and is unencyclopedic due to poor quality. (2) I don't know anything about these claims of bad-faith that were brought up in the last IFD, but admin status should not make one exempt from the rules. Everyone who uploads an image must either state that they own the rights to the image and release them into GFDL, or else provide evidence that the copyright owner released the image under GFDL. Saying "my friend released it" isn't good enough. If evidence can be obtained then, please provide it via the correct channels. Night Ranger 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep, as the previous request was settled two days ago. Rama 21:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Needs an OTRS ticket # as uploader does not own copyright per comments in summary Night Ranger 03:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, there is no reason to assume this is a copyright violation; I've asked the uploader to email OTRS. w:User talk:Alkivar#Image:Necromouse.jpg John Vandenberg (chat) 12:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This image, after ages and ages, still has copyright problems. License shows that Alkivar is the copyright holder, but in the Summary, he says he did not take the picture, his "friend" did. He was asked in February to provide pertinent info to OTRS for verification and there is no evidence of him doing so. He has since been desysopped and has retired. Night Ranger 00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If this image was pre-existing on the web the source would have been found by now. So it is reasonable to believe it is an original image. -Nard 02:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept and ENOUGH OF THIS. You don't get to open a deletion request again and again (this is the fifth time by the same user) until you get the answer you want. Stop it. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Harrys51
[edit]- File:Kathia. J Rodriguez MD.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kathia. J Rodriguez full.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kathia. J Rodriguez.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
All photos uploaded at enwiki by w:User:Harrys51 (and then transferred here by User:Gato76680). The first one looks very much like a screenshot and I'm assuming all were taken from some web site in early-to-mid-2007. Harrys51 was a single-purpose account at enwiki all of whose activity involved the actress pictured here. Some of the images were deleted the first time and the appearance is that he learned that PD-User would save them (and he's been correct until now). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as obvious copyvios. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is an image of A Brazilian folklore figure, with a penis added for some reason. Inappropriate. Dalillama 01:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Image has been uploaded purely to vandalise other Wikimedia projects. WjBscribe 04:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Either outside the Commons:Scope or a copyvio. -Nard 02:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Speedied, this user has uploaded several pr0n copyright violations so far. This image was also deleted before, for being used for en.wp vandalism. Indefinitely blocked. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Amanda Gilman photos
[edit]
Apparantly the permission recorded in OTRS is from the subject herself, but I dispute her right to release this image. The image was taken by Fadil Berisha, who photographed all fifty-one contestants for the Miss USA 2006 pageant (as he has done for each pageant since 2004). As far as I am aware the copyright lies with him and the Miss Universe Organisation (as is made clear in their Terms & Conditions). Unfortunately the organization recently deleted old pages from their websites or I'd link straight to Gilman's Miss USA profile page with the image on it (it wasn't captured by the Internet Archive). Similar images were deleted from Wikipedia in December 2006 as contravening the fair use policy. --PageantUpdater 07:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
(Note from Lewis: The images in question were not given by the nominator, I presume he/she means one of the following two images. What is meant by "the image" is unclear, but I think the "copyright lies with the photographer" issue applies to them both. Here they are.)
- Delete Copyright in a photograph is held by the photographer, not by the subject (except in the case of work-for-hire and so on, and I doubt these are). So, it's pretty clear to me we'd need a release from the photographer. Also someone had a bit too much fun with Photoshoop in the first one, don't you think? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 15:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted painting. -Nard 00:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I don't know. Religious iconography is generally fairly old. I would think it is safe to assume it is PD. --ShakataGaNai Talk 02:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: I uploaded this photo in difficulty through commonist. I took this photo by myself. The church is in Nea Myrtos, Lasithi prefecture. The icon of the saint is inside the church. Photography is allowed. Unfortunately, I don't know the person who created it, but if it is copyright violation uploading a photo of an icon, then let's remove all photos depicting churches irrelevant to religion, because of not knowing or having the licence of their architects. --Lemur12 08:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Icon could well be C20. We need to know its out of copyright, we can't assume. --Simonxag 00:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: 1) PD-self tag is incorrect, as this is a derivative. 2) No evidence presented to confirm that the image is not contemporary. This could be from, say, the 1950s just as easily as 1850s. 3) FoP in Greece has bizarre conditions of "mass media" and "occasional reproduction" which hint at not being free enough. There's legitimate and reasonable uncertainty here; Commons should not be asserting public domain when the aforementioned concerns exist. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. [[ Forrester ]] 23:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replaced through Image:Ostmund.two.de.png, Image:Ostmund.two.en.png and Image:Ostmund.two.es.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.139.53 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I replaced the old simple image without any legend through three (spanish, german and english language) images which explains the problems at the border (at that time) with a legend. The old image is now unnecessary and not linked. I am the author of the 4 images. --[[User:Createaccount|Antipatico]] 21:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No valid reason given. Is the old map wrong? It's different... [[ Forrester ]] 23:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Modern monument since war in Afganistan was in 1980s. EugeneZelenko 16:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ну и какие у меня коммерческие цели? Не делайте из закона Белоруси посмешище. Вы его интерпритируете на свой манер. Может тут лицензию другую нужно использовать, но у меня в голове не укладывается, что нельзя в Вики размещать фотографиии белорусских памяткиков--Uk-Kamelot 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Так не у тебя цели, а у тех, кто будет использовать данное изображение. Чтоб его не использовали в коммерческих целях, нужно поставить лицензию, хотя бы {{Cc-nc}}, однако в Commons эта лицензия запрещена.--Ahonc (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Подобная проблема существует во всех странах бывшего СССР, США, Франции, Италии и некоторых лругих. Подробности в Commons:Freedom of panorama. --EugeneZelenko 15:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Well-understandable discussion...could someone translate? :) [[ Forrester ]] 23:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Use Babel Fish :P. COM:FOP#Commonwealth of Independent States links stopped working, but I am guessing that the law didn't change in the meantime. So Delete, I'm afraid. Patrícia msg 14:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Use Babel Fish :P. COM:FOP#Commonwealth of Independent States links stopped working, but I am guessing that the law didn't change in the meantime. So
Deleted. [[ Forrester ]] 17:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope. Chech Explorer 04:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep - used on a Wikipedia - facsimile of an original historical document. --Simonxag 00:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Simonxag --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Hold on a second. In what other circumstances do we allow users to claim a scan of a work, however "historical", as GFDL? And is there any reason this should be in the public domain? {{PD-Israel}} only extends to photographs, not text. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I hadn't thought of the copyright issue. The author is supposed to be the state of Israel and copyright there lasts 70 years (from 1957 to 2027). --Simonxag 10:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Question Waht's written there? Can it be copyrighted? [[ Forrester ]] 23:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unknown copyright status; out of scope.--Ahonc (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The GNFL claim is clearly wrong. It may be possible to restore this if the copyright status can be clarified, but nothing has been done since June to fix this problem.MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
June 8
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Elysee.fr does not allow people to reuse its image, "Les graphismes, photographies et ressources multimédias ne peuvent être reproduits sans accord préalable." --Vinhtantran 01:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. From the site:
- The reproduction of documents in hard copy or electronic form must obey the following principles:
- Free dissemination,
- Respect the integrity of the documents reproduced (no change or alteration of any kind)
- Quote explicit http://www.elysee.fr site as a source and mention that reproductive rights are reserved and strictly limited.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Of course the author of this picture couldn't have died for 70 years. Vinhtantran 02:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 02:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio Vinhtantran 02:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 02:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyvio Vinhtantran 02:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 02:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative image of copyrighted photo. Possible copyvio of this similar image. Border black. --miranda 03:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. It is obvious that face came from _somewhere_. ShakataGaNai Talk 04:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Seems like copyright violation. Chech Explorer 04:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. fan works are considered fair use. ShakataGaNai Talk 04:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Eventhough the image is really from Flickr, the close up of the logo may violate copyrights. Chech Explorer 04:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 06:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Youtube screenshot Kimse 04:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source for image of KKK dude...I'm sure it's not self-drawn. -Nard 05:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep{{PD-ineligible}} --Starscream 17:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Housekeeping (non admin closure) - Image was deleted as a copy vio. WilliamH 20:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
there already is another category similar to this one. sorry, i missed the other one because of missing links --Akinom 10:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Housekeeping (non admin closure) - Category was deleted as superfluous to an already existing category. WilliamH 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of a copyrighted work --Szczepan talk 15:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Herr Kriss 15:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 20:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
My reasons for wanting them deleted are: 1) they identify me in the real world can due to some issues I'd rather they were deleted to prevent people from tracking me. 2) "I previously used it elsewhere" is a violation of copyright because they are not originally my images but a fried who now wants to sell her collection. I never informed her I used the images on this site. 3) I am the only contributer, and to be frank the images are pretty crap and add very little if anything to wikiprojects. 4) As for why I only tagged some of my uploads, I only tagged images I was the only contributer to. The other images I didn't tag were uploaded from wikipedia on behalf of another editor, so should NOT be deleted. I am only asking images which I am the sole author of to be deleted. Think outside the box 15:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- deleted, out of scope,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 17:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is not a link of the Flickr. --SRJ 15:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Um, yes there is. Look harder. -Nard 16:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep. There is a link to Flickr, it is valid (though you may have to register with / log in to Flickr to see the image), and the license is valid as well. No reason for deletion given. --Rosenzweig 16:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept, yes there is. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is not a link of the Flickr. --SRJ 15:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Look harder in the source field. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept it's right there. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There is an existing file with the right name Image:Russian license plate (EN).png --MacMax 22:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
done Julo 16:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is some rock band. Seems like copyright violation. Chech Explorer 16:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per copyvio. The band is All That Remains and I don't think the uploader is the author of this image. KveD (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There are plenty of versions and sizes of the image at http://images.google.com/images?ndsp=18&um=1&hl=bg&lr=&q=羅倫佐的油&start=0&sa=N Chech Explorer 17:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I removed a copyvio tag but I submit for discussion. Infringing? -Nard 17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Internet Explorer 7 is not open source software. --Chech Explorer 19:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I know, that IE is not open sourse, but (when you validate your Windows) if for you free, but it isn't suffice. I think, that will be better delete this image, it was my mistake... --Jagro 20:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per derivative work. The screenshots has copyright if the program/operative system shown has copyright. KveD (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploaded new version with a small correction at Image:Karta FP Tuamotus isl.PNG by same user. V.Riullop 21:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 21:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate of another image at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Red_River_Trails_Locator_Map_cropped.PNG --Kablammo 21:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Nominated image resulted from a faulty (mispelled) attempt to upload a new image; that new image has since been uploaded and then slightly edited. No reason to retain this one. Kablammo 21:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Next time use {{badname}} instead of a DR.ShakataGaNai Talk 21:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Marked as a copyvio but I disagree. It looks like a generic tracing of a space station design. A far cry from the original. -Nard 17:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- The design of this "space station" is not free. This is same case as tracing of w:AT-AT or w:AT-ST. Alex Spade 20:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- We have only chance to obtain an image of B5-station - we can try to find its model paraded in public place in the country with Freedom of panorama. Alex Spade 12:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Алекс, давай по-русски. Это НЕ копивио, НЕ спертое изображение. Я СИДЕЛ И ГЕМОРРОИЛСЯ С ЭТИМ РИСУНКОМ полдня, чтобы нарисовать точно станцию, однако же, это НЕ взято откуда-то! Нарисовано мной с нуля... Хорошо, подскажи тогда, как мне быть с иллюстрацией шаблона. Как и что нужно сделать, чтобы нормально нарисовать станцию и это не вызвало бы у тебя «святой гнев копирайтера»?? - Zac allan 11:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Практически никак. Alex Spade 11:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious derivative work; given that it's called "Babylon 5 station" you'd have a very hard time arguing that this is some kind of "generic sci-fi space station". Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 11:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Raoul Dufy died in 1953 and France has no freedom of panorama according to COM:FOP, so I do not think this image can be hosted here. Angusmclellan 09:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment No FoP in France I agree. But is it in France? There's no information about that... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- You know I think no one BUT US would complain about the existence of this picture. The original is in the Musem of Modern Art, Paris. -Nard 13:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete then... I just wanted to be sure. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- You know I think no one BUT US would complain about the existence of this picture. The original is in the Musem of Modern Art, Paris. -Nard 13:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I took this picture in the Museum of Modern Art in Paris, France, where this painting is exhibited. Pictures were allowed, so I don't understand why this picture shouldn't be hosted here. --Sylvain Thomin 01:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Pictures might be allowed for your own souvenir but this doesn't mean you're authorized to publish it and/or release it with a free licence. You own the picture but not the rights linked to the painting. But you may contact the museum if you want to be sure about that. They may be able to confirm what I've just said... or maybe they'd tell you that they own the rights of their exhibited works and that they allow anybody to use their pictures as they want! But I'm quite sceptical about that. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Not encyclopedic. Advertising. Unused (and the uploader seems to have no other Wikimedia accounts so I don't think it will be used on any profile) TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
source not CC license --Shizhao 14:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Converted to {{Npd}} ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:23, 27 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)
Copyright problem: the source clearly has a copyright statement linked which makes no mention of the GFDL, in fact clearly contradicts it. If "CAIS" has actually released it under the GFDL, there is no mention of that anywhere that I can see. (spam filter is preventing me from posting the links) Storkk 13:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- The {{Delete}} tag was blanked from the image description by Le Behnam (talk · contribs) with the following edit summary: "CAIS replied with emails that their images can be used under GFDL, if you don't believe me please send them an email and they will confirm".
- If such a permission e-mail exists, it needs to be forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. If no such evidence is provided within seven days, the image is subject to speedy deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please allow for more time for another email to be responded to and forwarded. Le Behnam (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually if you could email them that would be better. Their email address is on their website. Le Behnam (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- A lot of time has passed, nothing seems to have been done. Two bullet points from the CAIS copyright page seem particularly relevant: "Images within this Website have been protected by registration software and visible watermarking. Attempting to reproduce or alter an image in any way is an offence punishable under international law and you must not attempt to do so or permit anyone else to do so." and "Except in the case of images of certain objects in the CAIS is not able to give you permission to reproduce the images within the Website and cannot reply to requests for such permission. ". This directly contradicts any commons-compatible license. The latter sentence also directly contradicts the utility of asking them yet again. --Storkk (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually if you could email them that would be better. Their email address is on their website. Le Behnam (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. If that permission ever arrives, somebody of the OTRS-team will restore the image. Cecil (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
PD-old not assured.Code·is·poetry 16:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Postcards are almost NEVER attributed. You'd be hard pressed to show this is anything but an anonymous or corporate work. -Nard 17:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- The photo was taken in Leipzig and the text is in German, so I think it is safe to assume that German law applies here. If the author is not credited on the postcard (this needs to be checked), then Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure applies. Pruneau 17:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. More than 100 years old. Yann (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
A photo of a government (?) poster in Laos. We don't seem to have much information on the country, but if its kept French influence on its law it won't have Freedom of Panorama and we definitely can't assume it has. Picture used on Wikipedia (fair use?). --Simonxag 12:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Laos apparently has NO copyright law, see [36]. The Laotian government can't very well claim copyright on anything it produces if it has no legislation... Furthermore the poster was apparently funded by USAID (as it says right on the bottom). Under US law (where our servers are) this might therefore be considered a US gov't work... -Nard 13:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Good research. But... Your source has Laos having no copyright law but being on the verge of introducing one. (I think partial US government funding is a bit of a red herring.) Where does that leave this picture? Would the poster be copyright in the US? Will it very shortly be copyright? Does anybody know? --Simonxag 09:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Wow. This level of uncertainty inclines me toward keep (for now), unless and until Laos does do its own copyright legislation. The USAID funding is irrelevant - works paid for by the US government but not executed by US government employees are not automatically PD. The only remaining question in my mind is whether US law recognizes copyright on works executed in other countries, even if those works are PD there. Werewombat 20:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. as per Werewombat. OK for now. Yann (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation; logo probably not user-made public domain. enochlau (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete speedy as copyvio. Fair use'd on en.wp. Originally from [37]. --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 05:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image has been deleted some days before as copyvio, reuploaded and still, copyvio Vinhtantran 02:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Again... --ShakataGaNai Talk 02:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Images by Think outside the box
[edit]My reasons for wanting them deleted are: 1) they identify me in the real world can due to some issues I'd rather they were deleted to prevent people from tracking me. 2) "I previously used it elsewhere" is a violation of copyright because they are not originally my images but a fried who now wants to sell her collection. I never informed her I used the images on this site. 3) I am the only contributer, and to be frank the images are pretty crap and add very little if anything to wikiprojects. 4) As for why I only tagged some of my uploads, I only tagged images I was the only contributer to. The other images I didn't tag were uploaded from wikipedia on behalf of another editor, so should NOT be deleted. I am only asking images which I am the sole author of to be deleted. Think outside the box 15:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- 18 separate DR's merged into one. --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Lichen_growing_on_tree_branch_2_-_March_2008.JPG ()
- Image:16_spot_Coccinellidae_2_-_March_2008.JPG ()
- Image:16_spot_Coccinellidae_-_March_2008.JPG ()
- Image:Gasometer_-_Feb_2008.JPG ()
- Image:No_junk_mail.JPG ()
- Image:Bottle_garden.JPG ()
- Image:Lichen_growing_on_tree_branch_-_March_2008.JPG ()
- Image:Gasometer_-_Feb_2008.JPG ()
- Image:Daffodil_side_portrait.JPG ()
- Image:Assorted_solar_powered_garden_lights.JPG ()
- Image:Spider_in_web_3_-_Feb_2008.JPG ()
- Image:Spider_in_web_2_-_Feb_2008.JPG ()
- Image:Spider_in_web_-_Feb_2008.JPG ()
- Image:Lucy_side_portrait.PNG ()
- Image:Vandalized_Speed_Camera.JPG ()
- Image:Wallington flood under bridge - 20 july 2007.PNG ()
- You care to explain this in a more logical fashion? Most of your arguments are contradictory or half hearted at best. #1 - most of the images can not be used to track you what so ever (and the rest are highly unlikely). Lichen on a tree? Daffodi's? Spider's? A cat? #2 Where does "I previously used it elsewhere" come from? So you are saying all these pictures were taken by a "friend" - what about the rest of your uploaded images? Did that "friend" take them too? #3 - The images are crap? Well then why would your friend want to sell them? Plus I don't think most of them are crap, no, they aren't pro shots - but neither are mine. #4 you being the only contributor really makes no difference. On commons, unless someone sees an image needing a categorization - it probably won't get touched by anyone else. Also - did you leave images that your "Friend" took, but other people edited?
- Question How's this for a question - what is the _real_ reason you want these deleted? --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Further contradiction: if you didn't take the photos, how on earth could they be used to identify you IRL? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Got to be honest this puzzles me too. I'm not someone who sticks with rules no matter what but bearing in mind I originally reviewed these I fail to see what "identifies" you here - I guess the same as above - why the delete request really? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- A while ago on Wikipedia there was a big "move everything to commons" drive. I have not tagged images which were uploaded from Wikipedia for other users who I know nothing about. Those images have nothing to do with me and do not identify me. These above images, however, do identify me because the person who took them lives with me, and therefore these pictures, which were taken in and around where I live, could be used by a determined person to trace my geographical location. On the commons upload form there are huge notices saying "copyright violations will be deleted" etc, but no warning saying "anything you upload will NOT be deleted upon request. It will remain here forever no matter how hard you try to get it deleted." I do not understand your resistance to deleting them. They are of no use and or can easily be replaced. In fact, there are many many similar images already on commons. It is common curiosity to delete. Think outside the box 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- See the problem isn't the fact that an author requested deletion. We aren't contesting that. The problem is you listed many different reasons (you numbered 4, but really there were more) to delete the files - and many of those were contradictory. For example - did you take these pictures? Or did a "Friend"? You must understand we dislike being lead around in circles. --ShakataGaNai Talk 00:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- ShakataGaNai, forgetting my seemingly contradictory reasons for a second, are you saying I need no reason whatsoever, and the simple fact that I'm the uploader and have requested deletion is enough? That is what you imply with your above comment. In that case, why are we even still arguing over this? Ok, I'll break it down for you. My friend, who lives in my house, took these pictures. We share a computer, and without her knowlege I uploaded her images which were store on the computer to Commons. That in itself is a copyright violation, and should be enough to have these images deleted. As for the other argumets you have put forward, me being the only contributor does make a difference. If someone added a categorization or not is besides the point - your not going to give them attribution for the image just because they added a category to it, are you? In that case I could get attribution for every image on this site by adding a category to them. That is madness. Further, this image is of my neibours cat, and my neibour doesn't know I feed their cat and that it comes into my house. Suspose they stumbled across this image, it wouldn't be too hard for them to work out who I am by looking at the other images, which reveal my location by containing common place marks for the area. Think outside the box 19:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- See the problem isn't the fact that an author requested deletion. We aren't contesting that. The problem is you listed many different reasons (you numbered 4, but really there were more) to delete the files - and many of those were contradictory. For example - did you take these pictures? Or did a "Friend"? You must understand we dislike being lead around in circles. --ShakataGaNai Talk 00:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- A while ago on Wikipedia there was a big "move everything to commons" drive. I have not tagged images which were uploaded from Wikipedia for other users who I know nothing about. Those images have nothing to do with me and do not identify me. These above images, however, do identify me because the person who took them lives with me, and therefore these pictures, which were taken in and around where I live, could be used by a determined person to trace my geographical location. On the commons upload form there are huge notices saying "copyright violations will be deleted" etc, but no warning saying "anything you upload will NOT be deleted upon request. It will remain here forever no matter how hard you try to get it deleted." I do not understand your resistance to deleting them. They are of no use and or can easily be replaced. In fact, there are many many similar images already on commons. It is common curiosity to delete. Think outside the box 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. See now you are explaining several seemingly contradictory pieces of information. This helps us make more sense of the situation, because to be honest, we are suspicious of what is going on. As for the contributions, I did not mean that simply by adding a category to an image do you get attribution. But I also had no idea what you were classifying as a "contribution" to an image. As for being "her" images. How many of these are her's, how many of the rest of your images are her's? --ShakataGaNai Talk 19:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- None of the images I have uploaded are mine. But only the ones I have tagged for deletion (the ones listed on this page) are copyright violations. The ones I have not tagged are images from Wikipedia which have the right licence tagging, so should not be deleted. Think outside the box 08:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, are you going to delete them? Think outside the box 12:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well? Think outside the box 10:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hello? Think outside the box 10:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Echo, echo, echo. Seriously, is anyone here? Please delete? I made this request like nearly a month ago. Think outside the box 19:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE DELETE THESE IMAGES!! Think outside the box 13:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Echo, echo, echo. Seriously, is anyone here? Please delete? I made this request like nearly a month ago. Think outside the box 19:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hello? Think outside the box 10:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well? Think outside the box 10:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, are you going to delete them? Think outside the box 12:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- None of the images I have uploaded are mine. But only the ones I have tagged for deletion (the ones listed on this page) are copyright violations. The ones I have not tagged are images from Wikipedia which have the right licence tagging, so should not be deleted. Think outside the box 08:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. See now you are explaining several seemingly contradictory pieces of information. This helps us make more sense of the situation, because to be honest, we are suspicious of what is going on. As for the contributions, I did not mean that simply by adding a category to an image do you get attribution. But I also had no idea what you were classifying as a "contribution" to an image. As for being "her" images. How many of these are her's, how many of the rest of your images are her's? --ShakataGaNai Talk 19:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted those images which were not used outside commons, which leaves 4 of which probably 1 is not replacable. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- The non-replacable is probably the Image:Bottle_garden.JPG, isn't it? I'm surprised we don't have even a slightly similar image. --Túrelio (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Images of Bonjour Quebec
[edit]- All images labeled as coming from Tourism Ministry of Quebec
Most of Bonjour Quebec's images are copyvios from the "photothèque" (image bank) of the Tourism Ministry of Quebec. The terms of use for that site do not allow free redistribution; see http://tq.asp.visard.ca/Default1.htm?Ajavar9=V1&Comment1=1 Gribeco 20:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- According to Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by Bonjour Quebec, permission was received for this user's uploads. Someone with OTRS access ought to add the ticket number to the images. --dave pape 01:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- The ticket number is 2007071710012519. --Gribeco 02:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Uploader states that this image is in the public domain for being an "Italian generic image older than 20 years". Italy has a copyright of 70 years pma, and I think the template {{PD-Italy}} was deleted for the same reason. -- Kam Solusar 13:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- I changed license to {{PD-ItalyGov}}. However we should be sure of the source of the image before keeping. -Nard 13:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- At the moment, there's no evidence that it is the work of the Italian government. --Kam Solusar 15:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Italy has a copyright of 70 years only for artistic work. For generic images is 20 years. I'm italian--Gaetano56 22:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- According to this old version of {{PD-Italy}} "only a very narrow fraction can be considered not artistic according to current italian laws." This doesn't look like a generic, non artistic photo to me. --Kam Solusar 15:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Author: unknown but PDGov? [[ Forrester ]] 17:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
"the image was widely available to the public in the 1960s. It was obtained from a local resident's home collection" is not a valid reason for claiming the image to be public domain. Without any information about the author or original source, the copyright status can't be verified. -- Kam Solusar 13:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to what the claimed method of distribution of this was. Could qualify as {{PD-US-no notice}} -Nard 13:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. [[ Forrester ]] 17:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Forgot translate one part of the text, problem with text appearance -82.208.2.237 13:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not used, 2 languages >> not really usable. [[ Forrester ]] 17:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
File is corrupted, svg to the same theme is available here. -Michael Kümmling ✐ 14:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It is only the thumb - the file itself is fine. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - this is truly superseded. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've now re-read the error message... it says, that this image is to big for the software (5587 x 5696 > 12.5 mio!). Even if it would be scaled down, the labels are too small, so you need to scroll the map when you want to read the labels. Color of line S2 is disadvantageous as white text on bright yellow background is hardly readable. The other map in svg format doesn't have this problems and is true to scale, giving a better idea of where the lines are running. So I don't see any worth in reworking this map. --Michael Kümmling ✐ 20:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- A cite by the author of the image: "Hi, you can delete the image. I'm no more satisfied with it. Greetings,--Friedrichstrasse (msg) 21:38, 11 giu 2008 (CEST)" (from Discussioni utente:Michael Kümmling) --Michael Kümmling ✐ 22:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. [[ Forrester ]] 17:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
and Image:Minsk stena Tsoi 1.JPG, Image:Stena Tsoya 1.jpeg.
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus and Russia. Murral was created in 1990s. EugeneZelenko 16:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Русскими словами можно сказать, что не нравится? И как можно исправить, чтобы понравилось? Acca 06:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. [[ Forrester ]] 17:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Doen's seems to be in Commons:Project scope. EugeneZelenko 17:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep it's in use, so I'm guessing it is. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Some people are starting to use that Paint page as an opportunity to share their creations with the world. That image shouldn't be there, and I see it isn't any more. Even if it should be kept, it shouldn't be under the name "paint.gif". CountingPine 23:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment But then we need at least one example of what Micros~1 paint can do, and this is as good as any... Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 11:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep yes it is. heh (User:Uiw)
Kept. Showing that you can do more with paint than :D what ppl like me can do with it seems to be a quite good reason to keep this image. [[ Forrester ]] 17:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works. EugeneZelenko 16:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Generic text, a generic hot dog image, and stuff. pd-ineligible. -Nard 17:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Generic text and generic images. Also, culturally significant. Jman077 00:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Generic text and generic images. Also, culturally significant. 71.238.122.144 20:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete clearly derivative work and not COM:DM. abf /talk to me/ 17:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I really got some difficulties with this.....but I assume that there latent originality. At least it's not that clear as N, Jman007 and ABF say ;) [[ Forrester ]] 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work; American Coney Island sign is more than just a name, and is copyrightable. dave pape (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Images of Rcuya
[edit]- File:W-2002-El-Conquistador-(Escultura).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:W-1998-Huayque-(escultura).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:W-alfredo.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Sin-darme-cuenta.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:W-1996-Ama-kella-LLulla-Sua.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:W-1994-La-Serenata.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:W-1992-Preocupaciones.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:W-1992-Consejo-de-Huillaq-U.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:W-1980-Consejo-de-Sabio--Pi.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:W-1978-Perro-enamorado-de-l.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:W-1972-Mensaje-Imposible.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:W-1998-Músicos-de-la-Aldea.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Quintanilla 01.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
I believe that User:Rcuya's images are all copyvios because he is not the author as he claims. Bedwyr 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
On hold E-mailed the user. [[ Forrester ]] 19:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. [[ Forrester ]] 17:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Book scans
[edit]- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 201.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 200.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 199.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 198.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 197.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 196.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 195.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 194.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 193.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 192.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 191.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 190.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 189.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 188.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 187.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 186.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 185.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 184.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 183.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 182.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 181.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 180.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 179.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 178.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 177.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 176.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 175.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 174.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 173.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 172.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 171.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 170.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 169.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 168.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 167.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 166.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 165.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 164.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 163.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 162.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 161.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 160.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 159.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 158.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 157.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 156.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 155.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 154.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 153.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 152.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 151.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 150.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 149.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 148.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 147.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 146.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 145.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 144.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 143.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 142.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 141.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 140.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 139.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 138.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 137.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 136.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 135.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 134.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 133.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 132.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 131.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 130.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 129.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 128.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 127.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 126.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 125.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 124.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 123.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 122.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 121.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 120.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 119.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 118.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 117.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 116.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 115.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 114.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 113.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 112.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 111.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 110.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 109.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 108.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 107.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 106.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 105.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 104.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 103.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 102.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 101.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 100.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 099.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 098.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 097.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 096.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 095.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 094.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 093.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 092.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 091.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 090.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 089.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 088.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 087.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 086.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 085.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 084.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 083.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 082.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 081.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 080.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 079.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 078.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 077.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 076.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 075.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 074.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 073.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 072.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 071.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 070.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 069.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 068.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 067.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 066.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 065.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 064.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 063.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 062.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 061.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 060.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 059.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 058.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 057.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 056.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 055.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 054.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 053.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 052.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 051.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 050.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 049.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 048.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 047.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 046.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 045.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 044.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 043.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 042.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 041.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 040.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 039.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 038.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 037.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 036.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 035.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 034.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 033.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 032.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 031.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 030.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 029.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 028.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 027.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 026.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 025.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 024.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 023.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 022.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 021.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 020.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 019.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 018.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 017.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 016.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 015.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 014.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 013.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 012.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 011.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 010.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 009.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 008.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 007.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 006.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 005.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 004.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 003.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 002.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Oberamt Blaubeuren 001.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The place of this stuff is not here. Wikisource is a better place for such media. --Chech Explorer 17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- I redirected some separate nominations here as these should be considered together. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Someone should PDF these or djvu them and keep them as one file instead of ... several hundred separate ones. --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep - these scans are part of the Wikisource Commons Scans at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:De_Wikisource_book See also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikisource You don't have to decide if book scans are useful as single pages. It is Commons policy to accept these. Please contact Commons Admin User:Joergens.mi --Historiograf 23:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Speedy kept. Perhaps someone should djvu or PDF these. But that doesn't mean that scans of individual pages are not useful, because they are. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 01:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
June 9
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
While this is in the public domain in the USA, I do not believe that it is in the public domain in the UK (life + 70 years, 1945 + 70 = 2015). Angusmclellan 09:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: : Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image is copyrighted. The website indicated as the source (http://www.tightloop.com/ants/index.php) states: "Unless otherwise noted, all images copyrighted by Dale Ward. Contact me at ants@tightloop.com for questions regarding use of these images" Waldir talk 10:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 17:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is copyrighted by CBS (www.cbs.nl) Gouwenaar 11:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 17:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is copyrighted by CBS (www.cbs.nl) Gouwenaar 11:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 17:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
cc-by-nc-sa-2.0, unfree. -Vantey 13:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 17:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE. I'm not entirely sure what to make of this one, but I can't see a use. Carl Lindberg 13:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Commons is not an MSPaint warehouse. ShakataGaNai Talk 17:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Article Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 13:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope Herby talk thyme 14:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Obvious copyvio (watermarked). User's uploads on en were speedily deleted as copyvios.--Ohnoitsjamie 16:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 17:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Obvious copyvio (watermarked). User's uploads on en were speedily deleted as copyvios. --Ohnoitsjamie 16:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 17:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:SCOPE - personal résumé. Dodo 17:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 18:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
In the diagram is a copyright sign --Ma-Lik 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 18:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright. Chech Explorer 19:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 21:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is acutally a coprighted logo See this. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 20:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 21:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request -Luvinstarzz 17:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Publicity for Vanessa and requests by Vanessa herself to have this picture removed from her page. Thank you.
- I speedily reverted the nomination. This new user doesn't understand the nomination process, and claims to be representing the artist. There was anonymous IP vandalism on this photo earlier in the day. Evrik 19:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative Work ...Forrester 18:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per derivative work. In the future, this could easily qualify as {{speedy}} deletion. --KveD (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. See Commons:Derivative works. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
because is duplicate Benimarco 19:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ShakataGaNai: per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:CapdOr.JPG
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not sure if the Fedora Logo's are actually GPL ShakataGaNai Talk 19:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- File:Fedora logo.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- I'm not sure if the logo's are actually GPL because Fedora says "It is important to understand that, although Red Hat allows third parties to replicate its open source software under the GNU GPL, absent a written agreement or other express permission it does not allow third parties to use its trademarks. " - This would seem to imply that the Logo's are not released under GPL. --ShakataGaNai Talk 19:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 02:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been bold and removed the "This deletion debate is now closed" marks, it is clearly not closed. On the one hand, ShakataGaNai has not actually deleted the images; on the other hand, I think it's inappropriate to make a deletion request and close it yourself after just 7 hours, unless the situation is absolutely clear. I don't think it is - to me, the trademark guidelines linked and quoted above say anything about the copyright status of the logo. The PNG file is based on a wallpaper which is claimed to be GPL; if that's valid, the PNG file is OK, and so is the SVG file (simpler version of the GPL logo + PD text). --Tokikake 11:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Uh oh, I think I took my boldness a bit too far. I accidentally alerted the Linux Wikiproject AND reuploaded it as a non-free image locally! ViperSnake151 11:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as they should have been from the start. "itz linux so it gots to be GPL lol" is ridiculous. There is no evidence anywhere that these are under a free license. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Doll of copyrighted fictional rat.--141.84.69.20 21:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC) --141.84.69.20 21:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete dw Herr Kriss 23:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Housekeeping (non admin closure) - Image was deleted as a derivative work. WilliamH 20:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
because it seems an add 79.21.135.178 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, spammy, not useful. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bad name:/ Novic84 08:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept, I can't find one with a better name, so please use {{rename}}. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
luchtfoto's steden 62.194.30.225 13:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Google translate say "aerial photographs cities". That is not a valid reason to delete in my book. --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I don't know what's the problem... This is a photo taken by me in a hill near Reutte, not an aerial photograph (at least I got my feet on the ground :-D). Nevertheless what's the problem about aerial photographs? --Willtron 11:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept, no conceivable problem with this. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 01:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This appears to be a derivative work of a painting, and there is no indication that the uploader is the original artist. howcheng {chat} 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I agreed, not enough information about this image either. --Kanonkas(talk) 18:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
User:Dodo suppose this work derivative. I don't agree to this statement. --Sergey kudryavtsev 14:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Are you the author/owner of the copyright of the toy? If not, then your photo is an (unauthorized) derivative work. Regards. --Dodo 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, i'm no author of toy's design. But all toy mammoths is similar. And why is not deleted a huge amounts of a «derivative works» of Stuffed animals and other photos of a «useful articles»? E.g. a author of Image:Cute stuffed koala toy.jpg writed that he buy this toy (no toy's design) in Melbourne and take its photo. -- Sergey kudryavtsev 13:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment "Other similar images are being kept" is always a bad argument: 1) similar is not always equal; 2) maybe we should deleted them all instead of keep them all. Regards. --Dodo 06:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, i'm no author of toy's design. But all toy mammoths is similar. And why is not deleted a huge amounts of a «derivative works» of Stuffed animals and other photos of a «useful articles»? E.g. a author of Image:Cute stuffed koala toy.jpg writed that he buy this toy (no toy's design) in Melbourne and take its photo. -- Sergey kudryavtsev 13:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
| “ | "the design of a useful article shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article." | ” |
| “ | "дизайн полезного изделия должен рассматриваться как живописная, графическая или скульптурная работа только в том случае и только в той мере, в которой такой дизайн вносит новые живописные, графические или скульптурные элементы, которые могут быть отдельно идентифицированы, а также способны существовать независимо от аспектов основного применения изделия" | ” |
- «All toy mammoths is similar» is meaninig that «there are no such features». -- Sergey kudryavtsev 08:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, per Dodo --AVRS 17:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Dodo and I know that I can't upload photos of copyrighted art (like paintings and statues), but what about toys? Toys are not art!. --KveD (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative Work ...Forrester 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per derivative work. Don't qualify as freedom of panorama because the Canadian Copyright Act 1985 specifies that the sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship has to be permanently situated in a public place or building. So, I doubt that this poor guy disguised as SpongeBob SquarePants is doomed for eternity in that spot. :-P --KveD (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative Work ...Forrester 18:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Was tagged for speedy deletion but is installed permanently in a public place (park in belgium) with consent of the copyright owner (park is a licensee for showing spongebob installations). So the sculpture itself is not a copy-vio and as it is installed public, freedom of panorama holds true here. Imho deletion not justified. -- 80.139.35.148 12:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per derivative work and probably copyvio. In the future, this could easily qualify as {{speedy}} deletion. And as for the comment of 80.139.35.148, there is no freedom of panorama in Belgium. Cheers, --KveD (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. We've been through this quite recently. No FOP in Belgium - speedied. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative Work ...Forrester 18:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per derivative work. In the future, this could easily qualify as {{speedy}} deletion. --KveD (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This image was taken in Belgium, and according to this, there is no freedom of panorama laws there. So, it's a derivative work. Cheers, --KveD (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. We've been through this quite recently. No FOP in Belgium - speedied. 21:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)MichaelMaggs (talk)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Long article Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Itsa powerpoint! ShakataGaNai Talk 19:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The source ([38], page 7) credits this image to "OEM". According to the appendix [39], OEM is the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management (NYC) - not Federal Government work, not PD-USGov. dave pape 15:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep (changed see below). Interesting comment, Dave. However, I think the image stills PD, because its part of a PD work (US-FED), and it's no claim saying that the picture is not in the PD. The mention only says what is the source, because that's an obligation. In the same page, above, is another picture, which (different to this one) has an inscription saying that it is copyrighted. The same solution was adopted by the Wikipedia in English (see). Reagrds.--Roblespepe 15:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I disagree with the above reasoning. First, it was not created by the U.S. federal government. That is clear. Secondly, inclusion in a federal government work does not mean that it is PD. It is not inclusion in a federal government publication that makes something PD (after all, they use some things with permission, and in other cases, they are as entitled as anyone else to use stuff under the "fair use" clause), it is the work's creation by a federal government employee. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Changing vote. Delete Yes Collard, you're right. That's the exact situation of the discussed image.--Roblespepe 14:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Changing vote.
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
and Image:A00001701.jpg, Image:Clavecin plichart.jpg
Looks like modern art. Low resolution. EugeneZelenko 15:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Artist died in 2006, so was unlikely to be uploading his own work after that date. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Freedom of Panorama:
- Denmark
The article 24 of the Danish copyright law permits panorama freedom for buildings. This, however, does not extend to the works of art that are located in public places. They cannot be commercially published when they constitute the central element of the picture.
- reason of deletion request
- no FOP for sculptures in Dennmark
- Comment By the way, if you check the uploader's contribution you can see he nominated himself this picture as candidate for {{QualityImage}} twelve minutes after uploading, and put template {{QualityImage}} himself, five days after his own nomination and five hours after acceptation by User:Dschwen. Funny childishness, isn't it? Julo 11:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think it is a good place to discuss about my behaviour. Focus on the photograph not on me, because you are making a fool of yourself with such oppinion. If you have to delete the picture, do this, I am not going to cry. Anyway, read what Przykuta wrote on Polish Wikipedia. --Ranger 12:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete. {{Derivative}} of a copyrighted work made in 1981 by Knud Nellemose (1908-1997). We've previously had to delete photographs of sculptures in Denmark because there is not sufficient freedom of panorama for such photos there. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
deleted Julo (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This is obviously a shot of a very young male taken in someones house. Not taken for medical purposes. 70.49.249.153 02:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Judging from the user's other contributions, it's a self-portrait, and he claims to be 29. Genital development indicates that this is not a 'very young' person; they appear to shave their body, thus the hairlessness. No opinion on the image's suitability for Commons, but I seriously doubt that this is an underage individual. Morven 08:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you conclude this is a self-portrait? I see nothing of the sort on the page. Can you explain? 128.2.220.215 11:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete amateur character Szwedzki (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- This admin (Szwedzki) has a history of rule-breaking. Now he requires against the idea of Wikimedia Commons that images must be professionally made in every aspect.Richiex (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: Seems as if model is just shaved, as an adult penis can range from 4 to 10 inches. 70.19.38.67 23:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. This is the Internet, you can find this sort of stuff elsewhere if you really need it. —Giggy 14:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This has been scanned from a photograph in a UK book. The photograph has UK copyright per Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. The tag cannot be used for UK images and this is a copyright violation. MichaelMaggs 13:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- There are hundreds of scanned photos of public domain artworks from UK books in the Commons, and removing them will limit our ability to present works of art. I have removed the PD-art license (you are correct, that is wrong) and replaced it with PD-old, per "This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years." - PKM 16:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Our desire to keep UK images scanned from recent books cannot trump the need to ensure we do not infringe copyright. You need to read Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, as that explains why UK images of this type cannot be kept: the original painting is out of copyright, but not the photograph of it of which this is a scan. Unfortunately, the 'obvious' thought that this cannot possibly be copyright-protected is wrong. It would be ok if the photograph were to have been taken in the US but this is a UK work. I do understand that we have lots like this, but the copyright position is clear and they will need to be deleted as they come to light (nobody has so far done a block-delete request). --MichaelMaggs 16:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have read Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, repeatedly. Would the same picture published in the US (Yale University Press) edition of the same book be acceptable by your interpretation? - PKM 05:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, the critical question is where was the photograph of the painting taken, as it is that which determines which law covers the original photograph. This is a painting held in a UK museum and the photgraph is protected by UK copyright. --MichaelMaggs 06:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't it the country of first publication that determines what the source country is for our purposes? If an American goes to the UK, takes the photo there and gets it then published in the U.S., it would be a U.S. image, and would be PD as per Bridgeman. Anyway, to answer PKM's question: no, the image would still not be ok here. If the same image were published within 30 days in the U.S. and in the UK, it'd be simultaneously published, it'd have two source countries (the U.S. and the UK), and it'd be treated as a U.S. work in the U.S. and as a UK work in the UK. Hence it still wouldn't be acceptable here because it still would be copyrighted in the UK, one of its source countries, and arguably the most important one because that's where the painting is located. If the photo was first published in the UK and then (more than 30 days later) in the U.S., it'd have one source country (the UK), and thus still not be ok. Only if the photo had been published first in the U.S. and then more than 30 days later in the UK it would be a U.S. work. It'd still be protected by copyright in the UK, but the UK wouldn't be a source country, and we only care about the copyrights in the source country and in the U.S. Lupo 07:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- The discussion assumes the picture was taken specially for the book, which is extremely unlikely; this very rarely happens for art books. It is almost certainly a library picture, and if placement in the library catalogue does not constitute publication, the only way to find out the first publication is to ask the owning collection or picture library. Michael Maggs says "This is a painting held in a UK museum" - is it? Which one? Certainly not the National Portrait Gallery, National Gallery, or the Royal Collection - see their online searches. Where does this information come from? There is nothing about the current owner on the picture file. Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- According to the en-WP article on William Scrots, the painting is at Hampton Court Palace, in the UK. Pruneau 17:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I see that now, although I am dubious this is correct, and would like to see it confirmed. The Royal Collection website [40] shows 3 portraits by or after Scrots of Edward, including a well-known standing 3/4 length, and two very inferior heads, but not this one. A Google search does not confirm that this one is in the Royal Collection. Most of the paintings at Hampton Court were moved to Windsor a couple of years ago in fact, not that that is an issue. 87.194.23.18 16:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there is a Scrots painting of Edward VI at Hampton Court according to the NPG. They don't say exactly which painting, but the mention in the same breath with the similar one at the Louvre is an indication that it is indeed this image here.
- Yes, I just linked to that above - read what the NPG actually say "At least five paintings survive, which derive from two variants of the same basic type. The best surviving examples are those in the Louvre and at Hampton Court." - This is one of the Louvre type. The "Hampton Court" type is the one in red, linked to above in the Royal Collection = Hampton Court. There is another variant of this type in the NPG. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- And anyway, I think the default assumption for such a painting is that it is indeed located in the UK. If someone claims otherwise, let them provide evidence that this painting was in fact not located in the UK. Lupo 22:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why? Arguably the best English royal paintings are in the US, Vienna and Paris, all from the sold collection of Charles I. I have already mentioned above that this painting is NOT in the NG, The NPG or the Royal Collection, the three obvious places. Undoubtedly the best portrait of Edward is in Washington (the Holbein), and a third version of this Louvre type is in Los Angeles [41], so the US would in fact seem the most likely location. Bear in mind that such portraits were often used as diplomatic gifts for foreign monarchs, which is how the Louvre got theirs. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there is a Scrots painting of Edward VI at Hampton Court according to the NPG. They don't say exactly which painting, but the mention in the same breath with the similar one at the Louvre is an indication that it is indeed this image here.
- Yes, I see that now, although I am dubious this is correct, and would like to see it confirmed. The Royal Collection website [40] shows 3 portraits by or after Scrots of Edward, including a well-known standing 3/4 length, and two very inferior heads, but not this one. A Google search does not confirm that this one is in the Royal Collection. Most of the paintings at Hampton Court were moved to Windsor a couple of years ago in fact, not that that is an issue. 87.194.23.18 16:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- According to the en-WP article on William Scrots, the painting is at Hampton Court Palace, in the UK. Pruneau 17:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- The discussion assumes the picture was taken specially for the book, which is extremely unlikely; this very rarely happens for art books. It is almost certainly a library picture, and if placement in the library catalogue does not constitute publication, the only way to find out the first publication is to ask the owning collection or picture library. Michael Maggs says "This is a painting held in a UK museum" - is it? Which one? Certainly not the National Portrait Gallery, National Gallery, or the Royal Collection - see their online searches. Where does this information come from? There is nothing about the current owner on the picture file. Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't it the country of first publication that determines what the source country is for our purposes? If an American goes to the UK, takes the photo there and gets it then published in the U.S., it would be a U.S. image, and would be PD as per Bridgeman. Anyway, to answer PKM's question: no, the image would still not be ok here. If the same image were published within 30 days in the U.S. and in the UK, it'd be simultaneously published, it'd have two source countries (the U.S. and the UK), and it'd be treated as a U.S. work in the U.S. and as a UK work in the UK. Hence it still wouldn't be acceptable here because it still would be copyrighted in the UK, one of its source countries, and arguably the most important one because that's where the painting is located. If the photo was first published in the UK and then (more than 30 days later) in the U.S., it'd have one source country (the UK), and thus still not be ok. Only if the photo had been published first in the U.S. and then more than 30 days later in the UK it would be a U.S. work. It'd still be protected by copyright in the UK, but the UK wouldn't be a source country, and we only care about the copyrights in the source country and in the U.S. Lupo 07:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, the critical question is where was the photograph of the painting taken, as it is that which determines which law covers the original photograph. This is a painting held in a UK museum and the photgraph is protected by UK copyright. --MichaelMaggs 06:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have read Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, repeatedly. Would the same picture published in the US (Yale University Press) edition of the same book be acceptable by your interpretation? - PKM 05:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Our desire to keep UK images scanned from recent books cannot trump the need to ensure we do not infringe copyright. You need to read Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, as that explains why UK images of this type cannot be kept: the original painting is out of copyright, but not the photograph of it of which this is a scan. Unfortunately, the 'obvious' thought that this cannot possibly be copyright-protected is wrong. It would be ok if the photograph were to have been taken in the US but this is a UK work. I do understand that we have lots like this, but the copyright position is clear and they will need to be deleted as they come to light (nobody has so far done a block-delete request). --MichaelMaggs 16:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- There are hundreds of scanned photos of public domain artworks from UK books in the Commons, and removing them will limit our ability to present works of art. I have removed the PD-art license (you are correct, that is wrong) and replaced it with PD-old, per "This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years." - PKM 16:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is in practice any difference between the UK and the States over this; it is just that we haven't had a case in the UK to update the situation. Nor will we, because the result would be Bridgeman v Corel all over again. There is no effective copyright on simple photographs of old art and everyone knows it. The last thing the museums would want is a copyright case against Wikipedia on a work like Scrots' Edward VI (not that I can find out where that painting is), which they would be bound to lose. The museums exist (often by grant) for public education and information, and so does Wikipedia. Wikipedia's scans from books do not affect the money museums or collections can make from the original photographs: in fact, they probably help, as they may give editors and researchers ideas for which pictures to pay to include in books (this, for example, is a little-known picture of Edward, which Wikipedia is publicising). Deletion seems an unnecessarily drastic suggestion to me. Qp10qp (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your opinion, but your view runs counter to the views of all the major copyright practitioners' manuals in the UK. None of them have any doubt that the US decision in Bridgeman would have been decided differently on the other side of the pond, as indeed it would in many Common law jurisdictions. I have asked the uploader to check the book to see what copyright information is given. If we can't find out that way, I will try to get hold of a copy of the book myself. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have the book, which places the painting in Hampton Court as of 1969. Most of the paintings there have been dispersed to other locations since. There are also "photographer acknowledgements" in the back matter, which I will check when I get home. PS I also confirmed that this is a US printing if that is significant. Stay tuned... - PKM (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- All the paintings at Hampton Court are part of the Royal Collection (which is how they should be credited). The Royal Collection has another 3/4 length of Edward VI by (or attributed to) Scrots, see web-link above. I have to say I remain dubious they have this one but don't put it on their website (also their picture library catalogue). 87.194.23.18 03:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- The photo "acknowledgement" for this image is to A.C. Cooper Ltd, London. - PKM (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Just the photograpy firm; they would not retain copyright I'm pretty sure, even in those distant days. 87.194.23.18 03:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have the book, which places the painting in Hampton Court as of 1969. Most of the paintings there have been dispersed to other locations since. There are also "photographer acknowledgements" in the back matter, which I will check when I get home. PS I also confirmed that this is a US printing if that is significant. Stay tuned... - PKM (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
MichaelMaggs, I see you updated Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag (which I also note you started in April 2007) to remove the mention of no decisive court case and the "probably" wording. Others following this conversation should note that the wording in place when the image was uploaded has been changed since this conversation started. The citations you provide are valuable. - PKM (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. In fact both the before and after versions are accurate. The emphasis is slightly different, as experience shows that starting with 'no court case' encourages some readers to infer, incorrectly, that nobody has any idea what the UK courts would say, so we might as well assume that the law is the same as in the US. It isn't. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
It is interesting to read the full Opinion of Lewis A. Kaplan, United States District Judge on BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORP., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), in which the court ruled (my abstract) that UK copyright (a) does not apply to photographs of public domain works of art, and (b) any such UK copyright, if it were to exist, would not be enforceable in the United States. The image challenged in this case is specifically a photographic slide of The Laughing Cavalier, a painting in the Wallace Collection in London, which by your interpretation would not be public domain in the US. The court specifically rejected the Wallace Collection's assertion of copyright in this image. In the US, that image is in the public domain. The wording in our {{PD-art}} license that Bridgeman vs. Corel applies to photographs "taken in the United States" (added in May 2007 by you, following a discussion) is in direct contradiction to the ruling of the court.
Additionally, the US court ruling cites a British case:
The allegedly greater skill required to make an exact photographic, as opposed to Xerographic or comparable, copy is immaterial. As the Privy Council wrote in Interlego AG v. Tyco Industries, Inc., [footnoted] "skill, labor or judgment merely in the process of copying cannot confer originality . . . ." [footnoted] The point is exactly the same as the unprotectibility under U.S. law of a "slavish copy."
Wikipedia's own article on en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. points out that as the Museums Copyright Group (which you cite) is "a group with obvious interests in the outcome of the case, their views cannot be considered disinterested".
Many groups and individuals have an interest in asserting copyright on photographed, scanned, and otherwise reproduced artworks, for a variety of reasons, but asserting copyright doesn't make it so.
I believe that all participants in this conversation are approaching the subject with good will and an intention to balance protecting Wikimedia Commons (and the rights of copyright holders) against the educational mission of the Commons. However, I believe that in this specific instance too narrow a definiton of what is Public Domain has been promulgated as Commons policy over the last year. - PKM (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- You are quite right that in Bridgeman a US court rejected a claim of copyright on a UK photograph, and held that any such UK copyright, if it were to exist, would not be enforceable in the United States. So far as that case reflects US law, we know that a US court will not uphold such copyright wherever the photo was taken. I am not suggesting that the scanned image being discussed here is protectable in the United States. But that's not the end of the story, since to be allowed on Commons the image has to be free not only in the US but also in the source country (Commons:Licensing#Interaction of United States copyright law and foreign copyright law). In the source country - in this case the UK - the unanimous view of the writers of the main copyright practitioners' texts is that the rule in Bridgeman represents a US-centric view that would not be followed in a UK court (my summary, but I could post short quotes to back that up: the whole discussion on the UK view of that US case is too long - several pages - and would be a copyright-infringement itself to post). But, for example, here is what the principal copyright practitioner's text, Copinger & Skone James, has to say on the copyrightability of photographs:
In terms of what is original for the purpose of determining whether copyright subsists in a photograph, the requirement of originality is low and may be satisfied by little more than the opportunistic pointing of the camera and the pressing of the shutter button. There seems to be no reason of principle why there should be any distinction between the photograph which is the result of such a process and a photograph which is intended to reproduce a work of art, such as a painting or another photograph.
- PD-Art says that Bridgeman applies to photos taken in the US, which is correct. It would also be correct, as you point out, to say that, according to US law, Bridgeman also applies to photos taken elsewhere; correct but irrelevant since so far as Commons is concerned the subsistence of copyright in photos taken elsewhere is not for determination by any US court but by the court of the source country. (At least, that applies when an image is PD in the US; if it is not PD in the US it cannot be hosted on Commons anyway).
- Of course it is true that museums have an agenda of their own, but we on Commons should try to be as objective as we can, using the precautionary principle that if there is a real risk that the image is not free in any relevant country we delete. It is useful to bear in mind, also, that many editors of Wikipedia and similar sites have their own reasons for wanting Bridgeman to apply throughout the world (and, sometimes indeed baldy stating that it does, or that if it doesn't that doesn't matter anyway). Nobody likes it where their images are deleted. But as a multi-national project it is important that Commons doesn't host images that would be unlawful in their source jurisdiction. That's a very longstanding policy here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- But, with respect, I do not believe that you are being objective. You are assuming that the manuals of advice you have read are the end of the matter, but they represent the point of view of those who wish to protect copyright. In practice, it would be almost impossible to prove in court that pointing a camera at a static picture (as opposed to at your granny) and pressing a button conferred originality. The present image is an odd case because it is so obscure that I am starting to believe it may be the only professional photograph of that painting; but, for the most part, anyone who came to court seeking to protect a well-known image of, say, Henry VIII would have to prove that the photograph they possessed was different to a photograph of the same painting taken by someone else. Since the whole point of art photography is to reproduce the work of art as faithfully as possibly, it is unlikely that one image of a painting would be much different to another picture of the same painting. If one could prove that one owned the only photograph of a painting, I suspect the court would still want to know what made the photograph any different from another putative photograph of the same painting. In short, I do not accept that we can be sure the UK courts would endorse minimal-threshold originality: it seems to me clear that they would laugh such an idea out the door.
- Finally, copyright is not a fixed set of rights perfectly formulated in manuals; it is a moving target, and in order to retain an effective copyright, the holder has to protect it in court. This is why, for example, no one is allowed so much as to decorate their website with a picture of Snoopy: money is at stake and the corporation involved will ask them to take the image down. The lack of cases against the websites that collect Tudor portraits suggests to me that no owner thinks duplicates of photos of old art are preventable. People who want to use the photographs for their books will still require the original, not low-res hand-me-down scans like ours. Loss of earnings caused by scanned images of old art would be tricky to prove in court. Qp10qp (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Qp10qp, the professional practitioners' texts are as objective and authoritative as you are going to get in the absence of an actual court ruling, and if you are really prepared to say flatly that you know better than the leading text Copinger & Skone James (I can cite more) and that "it seems to me clear that they would laugh such an idea out the door" there is nothing I or anyone can say that will convince you. I do understand your wish to keep this and similar images: I do too. But Commons has to follow the best local legal advice: I have presented my evidence and suggest you should do the same. But therein lies the problem: you reject the views of the most knowledgeable copyright lawyers with an airy "they represent the point of view of those who wish to protect copyright". There, we have to part company.
- Most importantly, I am afraid you have misunderstod the entire concept of originality in copyright law. Originality is nothing to do with proving that one photograph of a tudor portrait is different from any other independently-taken photograph. It relates to the extent that each photographer has independently applied skill and labour in taking the image. It is perfectly possible for two independent photographs of the same painting each to be original and hence protected by independent copyrights even if they are absolutely identical. In such a case, the copyright owner may have a difficult evidentiary task in proving which image was copied by an infringer, but that is another matter. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- MichaelMaggs, as a point of curiosity, by your understanding can a separate case be made for including the image on English Wikipedia rather than in the Commons?
- A Fair Use case could certainly be made for an article on the portrait, or on the portraiture of Edward VI or the work of William Scrots, but not for wider use. - PKM (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Michael Maggs, there is certainly nothing you could do to convince me that anyone would take Wikipedia to court over a picture like William Scrots's Edward VI. But that isn't to say that I'm entirely unaware of where you are coming from. Because I can see that if Commons has a set of rules, you are only doing your job as an administrator in wanting to see them followed to the letter. But it seems to me important to argue vigorously about the issue, rather than accept the potential loss of thousands of images through unnecessarily conscientious self-policing of old art scans. The debate is important, even if an administrator feels that, given the rules, there is no debate. Qp10qp (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- PKM and Qp10qp, I accept both of those last two points entirely, and I certainly agree that it is important to test the limits of our rules and understanding of the law. Only by doing that can we be confident that our rules are as good as we can make them. Commons rules do develop as our understanding increases and/or as case law moves on. On the issue of fair use, I can certainly envisage a valid fair use claim being made on the English Wikipedia or elsewhere for hosting of this image there in the context of a particular article. Actually, since the English Wikipedia's rules are less international than on Commons, the image should be OK on that site even without a fair use claim. As I understand it, the English Wikipedia accepts all images that are PD in the US (as this one is) without any concern about status under local (UK) law. My suggestion would be to upload this image there so that it is not lost in the event that the admin who eventually closes this deletion request decides that is has to be deleted from Commons. It would be a shame to lose it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. The image has been uploaded to English Wikipedia as Image:Edward_VI_William_Scrots_c1550.jpg - PKM (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The policy change was made without consensus and it is ludicrous to delete PD works just because the digitial file history is unknown. No other server in the world would do so, no court would ever issue an injunction to take the file down. Apply some common sense. -Nard 21:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I see there has been a call for reversion of this policy under discussion since May - perhaps we should wait for that to be resolved before a final decision is made on this image? - PKM (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I was finally able to conclude my research on UK law on that issue and just added the result at the "Call for revision" linked above. Please check the discussion there. --h-stt !? 14:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- You have done a remarkable job. The decision on the present image, it seems to me, therefore boils down to whether we intend to kill ourselves with caution. (I agree with your view on the silly Copinger & Skone James quote, which in my opinion defies common sense, whether one knows anything about the law or not.) Qp10qp (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I am afraid that asking admins to close deletion requests on the basis of what you perceive as "common sense" rather than on what the law actually is files in the face of clear Commons policy. I don't want to lose this image any more than you do, but analysis of UK law and legal opinion makes it clear beyond reasonable doubt that this image breaches UK copyright. Please read my comments on call for reversion of this policy. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- You have done a remarkable job. The decision on the present image, it seems to me, therefore boils down to whether we intend to kill ourselves with caution. (I agree with your view on the silly Copinger & Skone James quote, which in my opinion defies common sense, whether one knows anything about the law or not.) Qp10qp (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- If the picture must be deleted because of Commons rules, so be it. I don't think, however, that it would ever be challenged in court. None of the examples you quote in that thread deal with anything like this image. Qp10qp (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Apply PD-Art makes more sense. Yann (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Being more then sticky. If the museum in question has issue, it's their responsibility to raise the issue for debate. Also PD-Art tag seems fine. Cladeal832 (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. following today's policy change, as noted on COM:ART. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Author G. Maillard Kesslere died in 1979 --Gruznov 15:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Leopold Auer, the man depicted in the photo, died in 1930, so I have no trouble believing the claim that it was taken before 1923. Pruneau 17:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Publication, not mere existence, before 1923 is the criterion. No evidence has been provided that this was published before 1923. Original upload log contains: "Source: Graded course of violin playing : a complete outline of violin study for individual and class instruction. Leopold Auer. 4th ed. -- New York : C. Fischer, [c1926- — v. : illus., ports., diagrs. ; 31 cm.)" (emphasis added), which seems to contradict notions of pre-1923 dating. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
incorrect title Psychless 00:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be better to re-upload it with the correct title, Image:HOI 1903 Volume 1 page 283.djvu before deleting it? Angusmclellan (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Renamed. Yann (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no proof that creator died 50 years ago (unlikely, since this was published 53 years ago) 63.251.53.131 16:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
No, you are absolutely wrong. Over at Wikisource, The Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China states:
The term of protection for the right of publication and the rights provided for in Article 10, paragraphs (5) to (17), of this Law in respect of a work where the copyright belongs to a legal entity or other organization or in respect of a work created in the course of employment where the legal entity or other organization enjoys the copyright (except the right of authorship), shall be fifty years, and expires on 31 December of the fiftieth year after the first Publication of such work, provided that any such work that has not been published within fifty years after the completion of its creation shall no longer be protected under this Law.
According to the Wikipedia article Postage stamps and postal history of the People's Republic of China, it is the state which issues postage stamps, which last I checked is a government organization, not an individual person with copyright protection of fifty-years after death. The quote above explicitly says that publications by legal entities and organizations (in this case, the State Post Bureau of the People's Republic of China) lose their copyright status after fifty years of age. The stamp was issued in 1955 and it is now 2008.--PericlesofAthens 17:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- And why would you tag this image and not others from China during the early 1950s, such as these stamps here: Image:Stamp china 1952 800 soldiers marching .jpg and Image:Stamp china 1955 8 playing mah jong.jpg? I think all of these should apply to the copyright status as mentioned in the quotation above.--PericlesofAthens 17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- w:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep this if the above requires it. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but the quotation I posted above still stands.--PericlesofAthens 02:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- w:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep this if the above requires it. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- And why would you tag this image and not others from China during the early 1950s, such as these stamps here: Image:Stamp china 1952 800 soldiers marching .jpg and Image:Stamp china 1955 8 playing mah jong.jpg? I think all of these should apply to the copyright status as mentioned in the quotation above.--PericlesofAthens 17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Evrik 18:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - seems ok if that quote is valid. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad you have supported the position of keeping the image, but unfortunately no one has responded to this deletion request in the past two and a half weeks. Is there a reason for this lag? I'd like to get this issue resolved, as Zhang Heng has recently been promoted as a FA over at Wikipedia.--PericlesofAthens (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Accoring to the postage stamp templates, Chinese stamp that are 50+ years old are PD. Ww2censor (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, per Ww2censor. --Michael Romanov (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. PD-China OK Yann (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Like previous version of image, taken from same Flickr account that contains just copyvio images. Likely that uploader is the owner of the Flickr account, and using it to attach false license to copyrighted images. Ytoyoda 04:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Procedural close, deleted by Giggy. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not pd-ineligible -Nard 00:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No Treshold! ChristianBier 10:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is not simple enough to be public domain, unless I don't know something about the components. AVRS 13:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:IsraeliInitiative.jpg Yuval Y § Chat § 13:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
photograph of copyrighted artwork Calliopejen 16:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I do not see why it is a problem for me to upload an image of what could very loosly be considered to be an artwork. Where does it end? Is a building considered to be an artwork too? Because the skull map has now been dismantled, I think that we should do everything we can to keep any free images of it. If the concern is that I had scanned this image from a copyrighted book, then I now state explicitly that I personally took the original photo. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 05:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Is the concern here that we are violating Pol Pot's right to make copies of the skull map? --151.203.202.131 17:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I have not seen any justification for deletion. In the absence of any reason to delete, the image should be kept. Samy Merchi 21:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Closed as kept per above. -- Infrogmation 20:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
wrongly kept at previous deletion nomination. this is clearly a copyrightable artwork. its having been dismantled also does not change that. 63.251.53.131 17:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Do I understand correctly that this was created in Cambodia during the Pol Pot regime? If so, do we have any information on relevent copyright laws for that time and place? Commons:Licensing seems not to have anything on Cambodia. -- Infrogmation 18:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know when it was made. In the last deletion discussion someone said it had been dismantled, but I'm not sure if that is correct. It was on display in the Tuol Sleng museum when I visited last June/July. I would guess that it was made after the fall of the Khmer Rouge, based on its apparent anti-Khmer Rouge message. 63.251.53.131 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- And I just made Template:PD-Cambodia. The current law at least protects works until 50 years after the author's death. 63.251.53.131 22:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- More info from [42]: Skull map was made in 1979. It was disassembled in 2002, but there is a large photographic reproduction of it that remains in the museum (must be what I'm remembering). 63.251.53.131 22:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Much more research: The 2003 copyright law of Cambodia is ambiguous as to whether it is retroactive, and I could not find any commentary one way or the other. I would presume that it is retroactive because the statutory language is broad, and to be on the safe side. This image, however, should be PD in the US, so moving it to en.wiki would be a good solution. The 2003 copyright law was Cambodia's first. (See this book for a statement that Cambodia did not have a copyright law as of 1997; other places online say that the 2003 one was the first.) Because this image was in the public domain in Cambodia as of January 1, 1996, and because it was not marked with a copyright notice, it is in the public domain in the United States.[43] 63.251.53.131 22:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- More info from [42]: Skull map was made in 1979. It was disassembled in 2002, but there is a large photographic reproduction of it that remains in the museum (must be what I'm remembering). 63.251.53.131 22:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- And I just made Template:PD-Cambodia. The current law at least protects works until 50 years after the author's death. 63.251.53.131 22:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know when it was made. In the last deletion discussion someone said it had been dismantled, but I'm not sure if that is correct. It was on display in the Tuol Sleng museum when I visited last June/July. I would guess that it was made after the fall of the Khmer Rouge, based on its apparent anti-Khmer Rouge message. 63.251.53.131 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept as 63.251.53.131. Yann (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possible copyright violations. The web site that hosts the image: © 2005 Hall Institute of Public Policy - New Jersey. All Rights Reserved. Chech Explorer 17:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 21:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation. No fair-use on Commons. Chech Explorer 17:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Again.... --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Uploaded wrong file. Too low res. -Planenut 11:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Dupe of Image:SQA380.jpg below+description. Kept as no higher res file seems to exist Badseed talk 03:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Wrong file uploaded. -Planenut 11:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Dupe of Image:9V-SKD2.jpg above Deleted. Badseed talk 03:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Author died 1942, why PD? --Noddy93 16:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I uploaded it here in 2006 and probably just looked at the date of the film then. This seems a clear case of deletion. Pity.//Hannibal 18:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that this Image is PD only in USA, being published before 1923. I didn't knew the author when I uploaded the second version of it. --Alex:D 21:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Indeed a pity, nice image Badseed talk 03:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possible copyvio or http://velneo.com/index.htm, and it is a logo. Logos are not allowed on Commons unless they are free. Soxred93 12:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It seems PD-ineligible to me, but this is very poor quality. It should be recreated as PNG or SVG. Yann (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Tagged as {{PD-textlogo}}. Patrícia msg 15:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
No evidence that this is an ALF photograph. This image is not mentioned by the OTRS ticket listed on the image page. Kelly 05:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission for this image.Ahonc (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
This image is not from the Animal Liberation Front, but from a separate organization. Image not mentioned in the OTRS ticket. Kelly 05:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The image appears under "Above-ground supporters and publications", and in it's description, it clearly states that the image is of authorship of the "Animal Liberation Front Supporters Group", so it's clear that it comes from a separate organization. I must admit that I'm not used to the wiki rules, but I cant see why it should be deleted. (User:189.18.190.14)
Deleted. [[ Forrester ]] 16:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Amateurish, poorly drawn image, probably made on something like Microsoft Paint. The labels look like they were crudely drawn with the brush tool instead of the text tool. And the axis lines were drawn without any use of guides or rulers to make them straight. We could use a more professional looking replacement. Zzyzx11 00:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- So, replace it then! Why do you talk about deletion, as we do not have a better alternative? --Eugrus 15:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Hardly usable & replace it on ru.wp with the german one (which seems to be the same?) [[ Forrester ]] 23:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Still in use (ru:Модель AD-AS). dave pape (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Better use File:As-ad-model.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) [[ Forrester ]] 22:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
UMD front images
[edit]- File:CIMG2443.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Sonyumd.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:UMD Front & Rear View.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:UMD-spel.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The front of all UMDs contain copyrighted cover art. In most other optical disc format images (e.g. Category:DVD, Category:Blu-ray Disc), blank media is used to depict the front, which avoids this problem. This is almost impossible for UMDs because blank media is not generally available (Sony restricts distribution to game manufacturers); nonetheless, by depicting the front of UMDs, these images inevitably show copyrighted pieces of art. Kelvinc 00:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep I would keep it, because the entire cover art is not visible (especially EMD-spel.JPG) and is not the center of attention. Most of the photos at commons have a tiny aspect, which is copyrighted. Let's keep calm, shall we? BeŻet (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I guess what you are suggesting is a de minimis defence. I'm actually a bit ambivalent about this nomination, because I know all these uploads were in good faith, but I'm not convinced that de minimis applies here, because the UMD front art takes up more than half of the front surface area of the UMD. So far, I've found one UMD that may have insufficient original cover art to be a problem: Image:UMD front.JPG. However, this would require that the yellow PlayStation controller silhouette be de minimis, or the silhouette be a simple geometric form and such forms are copyright ineligible under Korean law. Kelvinc (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. some, but kept one:
- Image:UMD front.JPG: PlayStation controller silhouette seems to be a very simple geometric form, but not COM:DM because of the high color contrast. >>> Keep.
- Image:UMD-spel.JPG: Not usable because of bad quality. >>> Del.
- Image:UMD Front & Rear View.JPG: Containig copyrighted image, not COM:DM. >>> Del.
- Image:Sonyumd.jpg: Containig copyrighted image, not COM:DM. >>> Del.
- Image:CIMG2443.JPG: Containig copyrighted image, not COM:DM. >>> Del.
This image is not in the public domain as (per Mike Godwin) Bridgeman vs Corel does not cover images of coins. See en:Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems/Archive_10#Are_images_of_old_coins_PD_Art.3F and en:Wikipedia:Copyrights/MikeGodwinSays. Similar Fitzwilliam Museum images include Image:Eadbaldobv.1.jpg, Image:Offapenny.jpg, Image:Edgarobv2.jpg, Image:Helmetobv1.jpg. Similar images of unknown provenance include Image:Athelred.gif, Image:EdwardMartyr.gif. Angusmclellan 11:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment E-Mailed them, deleted last 2. [[ Forrester ]] 09:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have struck out the two you deleted so that any newer versions don't get deleted in error. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry but coins are not 2D. Were the photographs made by Grueber, Herbert Appold (1846-1927) so that they're PD-old? [[ Forrester ]] 13:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, coins are not two-dimensional, but photographs are and the copyright on those expires. Grueber wrote the text. The book claims in the preface that "[t]he sixty-four Collotype Plates, by the en:Clarendon Press, Oxford, give representations of all the more interesting specimens". So the images are copyright the Clarendon Press, 1899, and are now in the public domain because the copyright period expired by
19601970. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, coins are not two-dimensional, but photographs are and the copyright on those expires. Grueber wrote the text. The book claims in the preface that "[t]he sixty-four Collotype Plates, by the en:Clarendon Press, Oxford, give representations of all the more interesting specimens". So the images are copyright the Clarendon Press, 1899, and are now in the public domain because the copyright period expired by
- Any why did the copyright period expired by
19601970 exactly? In any cases the template is wrong. [[ Forrester ]] 21:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Any why did the copyright period expired by
- The photographs are credited to the publisher, a legal person, not to nameless natural person[s] who created them, so copyright lasts 70 years from publication. This is unexceptional since "if a work is produced as part of employment then it will normally belong to the person/company who hired the individual". UK Copyright Law Fact Sheet It may have lasted less than 70 years, but I'm not going to search for the copyright act in force in 1899 to find out whether the images have been in the public domain for 38 years or 58 years because the result is the same either way. If it isn't the right template, it's the nearest I can find on Commons:Image copyright tags visual. It's the right duration, 70 years from publication. Near enough is good enough. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- So you claim the work ais anonymous? [[ Forrester ]] 22:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not at all, only that the copyright term is the same as if it had been anonymous, commencing with the year of publication. "[I]f a work is produced as part of employment then it will normally belong to the person/company who hired the individual". Such corporate ownership is claimed in print in the book in which these images appear. There's no reason to doubt that claim. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Whether the photographs belong to the organization or the natural person is a moot point. It has been both 70 years since publication and 70 years since the person died. -Nard the Bard 23:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- The last 2 images were reuploaded and do *not* fall under the scope of this req. [[ Forrester ]] 23:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Very good. My "keep" does not apply to the principal image of this deletion req. -Nard the Bard 00:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Whether coins are regarded as two or three dimensional is completely irrelevant if the coin is a thousand years old. In this case only the age of the photo/death year of the photographer is relevant. /FredrikT (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well this is *exactly* what we are talking about? Didn't you read it? [[ Forrester ]] 16:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless the provenance of these images can be establised. They claim to be taken from http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/coins/emc/, but that is just a link to a large database, and the specific entries have not been specified. Searching on Athelstan does not bring up the first coin, and neither does a search on Eadbald bring up the second. In the absence of a verifiable source, the images will have to go regardless of any other argument. If anyone would like to update the author fields, I would be happy to look at this again, as once we have a proper source it may well be that the images can be proved public domain. The last two images, Image:Athelred.gif and Image:EdwardMartyr.gif, crossed out above and not now part of this request, are in my view OK as anonymous works - and I have corrected their tags to reflect their {{PD-UK-unknown}} status. But those can be linked to a specific 1899 printed publication by Grueber. The others have not so far been sourced in the same way. I think we should allow a further seven days for someone to provide sources, and to close as delete if they cannot be provided. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. [[ Forrester ]] 09:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
June 10
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright. Chech Explorer 04:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 06:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright. Chech Explorer 04:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 06:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Screenshot of software which is not open source. Chech Explorer 04:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Taken right of Copyright website. ShakataGaNai Talk 06:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Screenshot of software which is not open source. Chech Explorer 04:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Taken right of Copyright website. ShakataGaNai Talk 06:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Screenshot of software which is not open source. Chech Explorer 04:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Taken right of Copyright website. ShakataGaNai Talk 06:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I can't believe the license Michael Reschke 05:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Some sort of poster advertising music? ShakataGaNai Talk 06:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
go to http://www.ultreo.com/web/home/about/press-room/ - click on 'Ultreo product set' - not likely it's self made by a wiki user. Rat at WikiFur 08:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image this has been cropped from has been deleted for copyvio. --137.44.1.200 09:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
note deletion but rename!!!!! Stephvvv 09:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept, use {{rename}}. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
New account that copied my User & User_talk pages, apparently to pretend to be me while vandalizing Image:Austinstjohn.JPG (nomination also includes User_talk:Davapape). --dave pape 21:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted false user page and user talk page; indef blocked the attempted impersonator/troll account. -- Infrogmation 22:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
i don't think this flickr user actually took this photo of yves st laurent as a young man 63.251.53.131 23:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. Flickrwashed copyviol; seen on BBC website credited to AP (Associated Press). -- Infrogmation 00:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Misdated; as discussion on the image page shows it is clearly not a pre-1923 US work as claimed. Can't be known to be PD without additional information on source. Only source listed is "Arizona Historical Society"; their website has a copyright notice on the front page [44] and says "Digital files of images or text remain the property of the Arizona Historical Society. They may not be copied, modified, resold, or deposited in another institution." [45] --Infrogmation 20:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 02:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
license not credible - probably copyvio h-stt !? 20:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader to en:Wikipedia uploaded it with source as "Image from Dawn of Man (2000) by Robin Mckie| ISBN 0-7894-6262-1)". I doubt the book is licensed under GFDL. Note: Uploader at en has not been active this year. -- Infrogmation 20:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Filename is wrong. Correct file exists at "Hyperbolic Sine.svg" Geek3 22:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Use {{duplicate}} instead for speedy deletion. Pruneau 17:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 17:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unfree image, assembled with several fairuse logos of airlines. --Andros 1337 21:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Clear copyvio. Pruneau 17:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately this image is of a temporary installation and is thus a copyright violation; see talk page Korax1214 10:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete as nominator. -- Korax1214 10:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK delete it Gordo 11:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Content of Image talk:DSC09873.JPG:
The tagline "5th September 2005 to 25th November 2005" is ambiguous; does it refer to the period this sculpture was installed at Canary Wharf?
If so then this picture is a copyright violation (albeit an unwitting good-faith one), as in this case this was a temporary installation so FoP does not apply. -- 217.171.129.68 14:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- The above dates do indeed refer to the time this sculpture was installed at Canary Wharf, as part of an exhibition called Sophie Ryder: The Minotaur, Hare and Other Animals (one of a series of exhibitions collectively called "Sculpture in the Workplace"). It is thus indeed a derivative work and copyvio, as FoP applies only to permanent installations, which this is not.
- A pity, as this is an attractive and potentially useful picture. -- Korax1214 10:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
no evidence that author died 70 yrs ago 63.251.53.131 20:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- According to German law the copyright expires in 70 years for works whose author is not know (anonymous works). I think the original photographer in this case is not known (?). --Joonasl 06:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not knowing who the author is does not mean the work was published anonymously. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it does. "Anonymous" means "unknown", incl. "forgotten". What you mean is rather "hidden" or "secret". Not only secret authors are anonymous. Julo 08:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, it does not. If I understand German law correctly, the image is PD as long as the author has not made a claim of ownership in the 70 years following publication (anonymous publication). Just because we don't know the author doesn't mean than the author wasn't mentioned when the photo was first published, nor in one of the subsequent publications between 1924 and 1994. Delete Pruneau 17:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Theoretically, the author could be 5 years old in 1923. Theoretically, he can live 100 years. It means it cannot be PD before (1923-5+100+70)=2088. But theoretically he can live 110 years ---> PD after 2098. But if he will die after 120 of his happy extremly long life? PD after 2108? When would you accept "public domain" according your way of understanding German law? Have you read list of the verified oldest people? 122 years old, NOW. But what will happen, if the oldest person of the world will prove the author of this picture, born in 1918 and still alive? Don't you see absurdal way of meaning?
We have to act according law. But it is not less important to act according common sense. Keep as {{Anonymous-EU}}
Julo 19:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)- The author doesn't need to be alive for the photo to be still copyrighted. If the author can be known, the photo will be PD 70 years after his death. That means that if the author of this photo taken in 1923/4 was still alive in 1938, the photo is not PD. I don't think this is absurd.
{{Anonymous-EU}} states that we should "make sure the author never claimed authorship"; until someone checks the back of the postcard, I don't think we can claim to have "made sure". Pruneau 19:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)- You did not understand my question: how long do you want to wait, if - what is most possible - nobody will check this photo and the author is unknown? 2108 or longer? Julo 07:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know whether there is a consensus on Commons is as to how long to wait in these cases. The answer might be 2014 or 2114, but that hardly matters: presently, there is a good chance that the photo is not free, so it should be deleted. Maybe someone who speaks good German could contact the website where this photo was uploaded and ask them where the picture came from. Pruneau 08:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Don't play with figures you just get from your imagination. Why not 2115 or 2116? And why 2014, not 2004 or 1994? Maybe the author died next day after this photo, and it is public domain since 1994?
But the problem is somewhere else: what does it mean "anonymous work" and "pseudoanonymous work" in Berne Convention context (Berne convention is the basis of copyright law in most countries of the world)? IMHO if it is impossible to verify, who was the photographer and when he died - we can treat this work as {[pseudo]anonymous}, and wait just only 70 years. Julo (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)- I chose those numbers at random, they have no significance. I think that "anonymous" means "published without a mention of the name of the author". I don't think we can claim that the author is "impossible to verify", since no one has tried very hard to find out who it is. Indeed, there is a possibility that the photo is PD, but there is also a possibility that it is copyrighted. Unless we can know for sure, we should err on the side of caution. Pruneau (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Even if this image is not in the public domain, it has to be considered as fair use, for the historical value. Anyway the general idea on wikipedia-en is to leave the images until a verifiable copyright holder claims right on the images, especially for cases like this. 195.221.106.157 14:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fair use content is not admissible on Commons - see COM:L#Material_under_the_fair_use_clause_is_not_allowed_on_the_Commons. However, this image may be uploaded to en-WP. Pruneautalk 08:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Dammn I had not realised it was on Commons. Anyway if it is deleted it will have to be moved to wikipedia since it adds a significant value to the article about hyperinflation 195.221.106.7 17:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fair use content is not admissible on Commons - see COM:L#Material_under_the_fair_use_clause_is_not_allowed_on_the_Commons. However, this image may be uploaded to en-WP. Pruneautalk 08:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Even if this image is not in the public domain, it has to be considered as fair use, for the historical value. Anyway the general idea on wikipedia-en is to leave the images until a verifiable copyright holder claims right on the images, especially for cases like this. 195.221.106.157 14:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I chose those numbers at random, they have no significance. I think that "anonymous" means "published without a mention of the name of the author". I don't think we can claim that the author is "impossible to verify", since no one has tried very hard to find out who it is. Indeed, there is a possibility that the photo is PD, but there is also a possibility that it is copyrighted. Unless we can know for sure, we should err on the side of caution. Pruneau (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Don't play with figures you just get from your imagination. Why not 2115 or 2116? And why 2014, not 2004 or 1994? Maybe the author died next day after this photo, and it is public domain since 1994?
- I don't know whether there is a consensus on Commons is as to how long to wait in these cases. The answer might be 2014 or 2114, but that hardly matters: presently, there is a good chance that the photo is not free, so it should be deleted. Maybe someone who speaks good German could contact the website where this photo was uploaded and ask them where the picture came from. Pruneau 08:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- You did not understand my question: how long do you want to wait, if - what is most possible - nobody will check this photo and the author is unknown? 2108 or longer? Julo 07:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- The author doesn't need to be alive for the photo to be still copyrighted. If the author can be known, the photo will be PD 70 years after his death. That means that if the author of this photo taken in 1923/4 was still alive in 1938, the photo is not PD. I don't think this is absurd.
- Theoretically, the author could be 5 years old in 1923. Theoretically, he can live 100 years. It means it cannot be PD before (1923-5+100+70)=2088. But theoretically he can live 110 years ---> PD after 2098. But if he will die after 120 of his happy extremly long life? PD after 2108? When would you accept "public domain" according your way of understanding German law? Have you read list of the verified oldest people? 122 years old, NOW. But what will happen, if the oldest person of the world will prove the author of this picture, born in 1918 and still alive? Don't you see absurdal way of meaning?
- No, it does not. If I understand German law correctly, the image is PD as long as the author has not made a claim of ownership in the 70 years following publication (anonymous publication). Just because we don't know the author doesn't mean than the author wasn't mentioned when the photo was first published, nor in one of the subsequent publications between 1924 and 1994.
The image is made publicly available at http://www.fes.de/archiv/_weimar/fb000751.htm with no copyright notice. Since there is no copyright notice, does that mean the image is now in the public domain? 72.208.61.246 12:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, even content published without a copyright notice can be copyrighted. Furthermore, it is likely that the site you link to is not the first place where this image was published. Someone who speaks German well enough would need to ask the website where they found the image; it would help determine the copyright status. Pruneautalk 08:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem here. It seems to be a case of fair use. The image isn't being used for its own self, it's being used to give a valid example of the effects of inflation and the problems. Think of it as a historical record, not something to be entertaining. Don't delete it. 71.209.99.77 23:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not example of fair use, but of rationality: the author of this picture is anonymous now and 99.99% will be anonymous next thousand years. Don't think as prosecutor. Julo (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- kept Julo (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Image:Inflation-1923.jpg - second request
[edit]
The copright status of this image is not very clear. On the one hand it uses the PD-template and on the other hand it says: "Found at ; public use allowed under the condition that "© AdsD der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung" is mentioned (if the image is copyrightable at all)." ALE! ¿…? 10:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'll say this once again: we don't know whether this image is PD; no one has done any kind of checking to find out whether it is anonymous. The original image is here: [46]. It would certainly help if someone with a good knowledge of German could contact the FES archives (contact page), to find out where the image comes from. Pruneautalk 11:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- If nobody ever checked this image, I do not understand, why it was kept. --ALE! ¿…? 13:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've just checked it. Here is my mail and the answer. W3ird N3rd (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- If nobody ever checked this image, I do not understand, why it was kept. --ALE! ¿…? 13:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
|
(English version below - my German is not very good but I can read German / Englisch Version unter - Mein Deutsch ist nicht gut, aber ich kann Deutsch lesen)
Ich habe eine Frage zu den Copyright-Status eines Bildes in das Archiv. Es geht um dieses Bild: http://www.fes.de/archiv/_weimar/fb000751.htm Was ist der Copyright-Status? Ist sie in die Gemeinfreiheit (no Copyright)? Ich frage das, weil das Bild in die Gemeinfreiheit muss sein für Nutzung auf Wikimedia Commons. Vielen Dank im Voraus, Hello, I have a question about the copyright status of a picture in the archive. It's about this picture: http://www.fes.de/archiv/_weimar/fb000751.htm What is the copyright status? Is it in the public domain? I am asking this because the image needs to be in the public domain to be used on Wikimedia commons. Thanks in advance, |
|
das Inflation-Bild aus unserer Datenbank ist frei für Nutzer, als Quelle erbitten wir die Angabe "AdsD in der FES". |
- Good that you have asked, but IMHO this answer is not sufficient. --ALE! ¿…? 08:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've just sent another mail. I'll keep you posted. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- New answer, just in: "das Bild ist nicht völlig frei von Rechten, das Copyright liegt bei uns, beim AdsD, lediglich die einmalige Nutzung ist frei.". I don't think there's much we can do in that case. Someone who speaks German properly and has a better understanding of licenses might ask them if they want to consider releasing this picture with a CC license because of the lessons we should learn from this picture. ;-) W3ird N3rd (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've just sent another mail. I'll keep you posted. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per ALE!. As unfortunate and as sad it is to lose a photograph that is used by 31 projects on 70 pages, we have so far no idea by whom this photograph was taken nor do we know when it was published first. As it was shot in 1923 it is not very likely that it is already in the public domain. Regarding the attempts to get a permission from the archive of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung we cannot be sure that this archive has even the rights to pass this image to us under an acceptable license. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Status 10 years later
[edit]
http://archiv2.fes.de/Downd.FAU?sid=AEE88CD377&dm=5&qpos=15&erg=A seems to have been updated. (original links rotted) Korrekturdatum (last corrected): 9 October 2015.
"Rechte: Rechteinhaber nicht ermittelbar Benutzerhinweise:
Der Rechteinhaber ist uns trotz eingehender Recherche nicht bekannt. Wenn Sie Hinweise auf den Inhaber des Urheberrechts haben, bitten wir um Mitteilung. Wir stellen das Bild unter der Bedingung zur freien Verfügung, dass wir von den eventuellenAnsprüchen Berechtigter freigestellt werden. Für eine reproduktionsfähige Datei wenden Sie sich bitte unter Angabe der Signatur an uns: Archiv.Auskunft
(domain) oder Tel. 0228/883- 9046."
This translates to "Whodunit? We dunno, despite thorough investigation. Tell us if you know more. If we provide you with this pic, plz don't sue.". If they can't figure it out, it's anonymous.
- If this work is assumed to have never been lawfully published, {{PD-anon-70-EU}} applies. {{PD-US-unpublished}} applies 120 years after creation. (2044)
- If this work is assumed to have been lawfully published between 1923 and 1925, {{PD-anon-70-EU}} applies together with {{PD-1996}}.
- If this work is assumed to have been lawfully published between 1926 and 1948, {{PD-anon-70-EU}} applies, PD-US 95 years after publication date.
- If this work is assumed to have been lawfully published after 1948.. No PD yet.
(some rounding errors may apply)
Assumptions of lawful publication after 1925 seem far-fetched. Considering the cost and difficulty of taking a photograph in the early twenties, the best assumption is that this photograph was (partially) staged and published locally. Since that probably still violates COM:PRP because we will simply never be able to actually find such an old publication (it's quite possible zero copies survived), we have to fall back to undelete in 2044. The strange contradiction is that if we somehow did find such a publication, the author would probably no longer be anonymous. FTR: if it was up to me, I'd undelete it. Plenty of PD-old images here are lacking a US license tag anyway and in most cases nobody ever cares. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
proper rights not arranged Artaxerxes 10:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Deletion request is by the uploader; no use of this image found in Wikimedia. I presume the upload of this image was some sort of mistake; no objection to deletion. -- Infrogmation 22:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Useless picture: fake background Karta24 10:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I disagree with the first comment; this looks to me like a potentially useful image. Just because a false blue-sky-with-clouds (better than a solid black or white background) has been "stripped-in" to replace the unsightly and distracting building of the original image, that doesn't automatically render this image "worthless". Although if the building could be thrown out of focus without causing DoF problems with the statue, the result might be a better picture. -- Korax1214 (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think this nom should be closed; "useless picture" seems to me to be sheer POV, and "fake background" is not a valid reason for deletion, as this image is clearly labeled as retouched in both English and French. Retouched pictures are allowed on Commons; there's even an entire category for them. -- Korax1214 (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. no valid reason for deletion Yann (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is used on the website of the United States Army Center of Military History ([47]), but there's no information about the author or the original source of the images. I doubt that these photos were taken by employees of the US government, so why should they be in the public domain? --Kam Solusar 17:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. The license says all works from USACMH are public domain. So that is what I am going to go with. ShakataGaNai Talk 05:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Renomination. Just saw this beneath the table of contents of the book the image was used in: "All illustrations are from Department of Defense files, with the exception of [...] the one on page 174 (General von Luettwitz), taken from captured German records in the National Archives." [48]. So it came from captured German records, which means they are not a work of the US government and most likely still copyrighted in Germany. And the other image looks like an official photo as well, no evidence that it is in the public domain in its country of origin. -- Kam Solusar 16:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This would be public domain but the Germany 25 year WW2 law was superseded, so even after becoming public domain in 1969, copyright was reapplied in 1995 by the European Union. This satisfies the critical american January 1, 1996 date, so this image is not only copyrighted in Germany, but copyrighted in the United States. Most definitely not suitable for Commons. WilliamH 19:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Original license has been changed, it looks like now as a CC-BY-NC (non commercial use), see here (fr). Guérin Nicolas (messages) 14:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Was it ever under the GFDL? The wayback machine doesn't think so. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Might be possible sincerely : it was one of the first picture that i uploaded and at that time i was not aware that CC-BY-NC is not allowed on Commons, i just saw "Licence libre" (free licence) and then thought that it was ok... Guérin Nicolas (messages) 16:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Badseed talk 03:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Newer version available Dinoguy2 23:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept the latest&used version Badseed talk 03:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Newer version available Dinoguy2 23:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
...Deleted Badseed talk 03:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Likely copyrighted - Mexico is life+100. Kelly 02:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I think that It can't be copyrighted, I inherited a lot of pictures that my grandfather (Miguel Angel Lara Lopez) and my Uncle Grandfather Rabi Villa gave me. Both, and other members of my family are historic photographers, I just scanned the picture (That I also gave to the Historic Archive of the City of Manzanillo) and gave the possibility to other persons to see it. Example of the same situation is this picture: (150px). My Uncle grandfather appears as a boy (right) in that picture, with the General Matias R. Villa, that was his uncle. If somebody else needs to know or wants to ask something, I will answer it... greetings-- Tatehuari
- So, you're the legal heir of the original photograph? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm not sure... but I am the only one that has the original picture, and other historic documents and photographs. -- Tatehuari
- Considering that the picture was taken in 1928, and supposing the photographer died at the same year (what is not likely), than it would keep the copyrights until 2028, according to Mexican law. User Tatehuari alleges that the photographer was his grandfather or his uncle grandfather; supposing that it is true, it is unlikely that he is the only heir, since other members of the family might request the same copyrights. --Tonyjeff (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm not sure... but I am the only one that has the original picture, and other historic documents and photographs. -- Tatehuari
- I think the historic and educational value outweighs the doubt on copywrite ownership. For the sake of education, information and like matters the author should leave the image until such time that the copywrite issue is resolved. (User:189.162.84.61)
Deleted. As per Tonyjeff. Tatehuari, you should ask all your family members who could be the heirs first and then upload it (you may do COM:UNDEL after you did and they agreed to PD or a free license). User:189.162.84.61 is wrong. [[ Forrester ]] 17:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
June 11
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Likely copyvio. Animated film poster. Brynn(talk) 01:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 02:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reviewed the same day as uploaded. Unfree. -Nard 09:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Unfree image from Flickr.Ahonc (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
error title,tranfer to Category:Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University --Dingar 09:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Empty category.Ahonc (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is image in better quality - Image:Sviblova Tower of Kolomna Kremlin.jpg --Хинт 12:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as dupe. Ahonc (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
PD-art seems extremely unlikely given what looks like a 70s image. Megapixie 14:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Chris Evert was born in 1954, so it's impossible the author of this photo died more than 70 years ago. Pruneau 17:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, {{copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deriv work per other starwars discussions. Megapixie 14:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as derivative work. WilliamH 18:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, {{derivative}} of a copyrighted, non-free character. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deriv work - clearly a sculptural work. Also Image:YodaGetxo01.JPG Megapixie 14:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as derivative work. WilliamH 18:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, {{derivative}} of a copyrighted, non-free character. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Either this is a copyright violation or a criminal offense: If the image is a copy of the real signature I doubt it will be a free image. If this is not the real signature I really doubt it can be legal to make such forgeries. --|EPO| da: 15:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-ineligible}} seems to apply to signatures; see for example Image:Barack Obama signature.svg. Pruneau 18:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I hate to do a "per someone", but I don't think a signature is copyrighted unless the author explicitly copyrights the artistic design of the signature, which I cannot imagine someone doing. ([49] see footnotes) J.delanoygabsadds 18:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Right - Signatures are not copyright by default. Additionally how is it a criminal offense? --ShakataGaNai Talk 19:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think he's thinking of something like forging a check. Copying someone's signature is not illegal, any more than copying postage stamps is illegal. What is illegal is to try to pass off the copy as the original. J.delanoygabsadds 20:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- That was exactly what I had in mind: You can't make the signature yourself and call it someone else's. --|EPO| da: 22:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think he's thinking of something like forging a check. Copying someone's signature is not illegal, any more than copying postage stamps is illegal. What is illegal is to try to pass off the copy as the original. J.delanoygabsadds 20:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: Mere variations of typographic ornamentation and lettering are not eligible for copyright. Although not being eligible for copyright and being "public domain" are different legal concepts, Wiki has yet to recognize that distinction. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems I was a little too fast making conclusions. I fully understand that the simple text is not a work eligible for copyright. I was thinking about US presidential signatures with a PD-USGov template, which only were PD as works of the US government.
Closing the discussion myself - kept. --|EPO| da: 22:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Likely copyvio. Professional photograph of country singer, Taylor Swift. Source cited as MSNBC. Brynn(talk) 15:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. Pruneau 18:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, {{copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:13, 11 June 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.
The image is not the Commodore Perry. See the Wikipedia page Discussion for reasons. 20.137.18.50 15:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. howcheng {chat} 16:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Howcheng: Bad name
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no author / no source Jarekt 17:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. And tagged with {{nsd}} instead. ShakataGaNai Talk 19:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong file-name Gouwenaar 18:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 19:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong file-name Gouwenaar 18:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 19:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unless the uploader owns a satellite, this is not their own work. Unless the satellite image is shown to come from a free source, we have to assume it's copyrighted. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Sat images from NASA are PD. But alas... this was probably from google maps or similar. ShakataGaNai Talk 19:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicate, otherone has better name of file Gozo 19:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Ahonc: In category Unknown - May 2008; no license
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probable copyvio. According to article referenced in summary, image is sourced from Reuters - who do not (as far as I am aware) release their images under Creative Commons licenses. Commons Shaped Box 21:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. copyvio ShakataGaNai Talk 21:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image depicts multiple people in a non public place. There is no evidence on offer that the persons depicted have given consent. Peter Klashorst was contacted and asked for clarification, none was forthcoming. Image is unlikely to have a lot of use in WMF projects as the quality is low (blurry, poorly lighted, jarring composition) ++Lar: t/c 13:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Private location + no indication of permission of subjects = Delete – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I tried to contact the artist three weeks ago to ask for clarification about the permission; but without response. Which I find quite suspicious. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not worth it. Rocket000 15:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Eyða, per nom, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 20:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Given the context (a private place where dancers may not wish to be publicly identified) this definitely requires the dancers' consent per the policy set out at Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. In the absence of such consent, we cannot and should not host this. --MichaelMaggs 20:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 01:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
titanic 85.248.6.254 15:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: Source copyright info asserts Wiki-compatible license. I've corrected the license and summary to give proper attribution. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Properly licensed. -Nard 22:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept, no issues. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
PD-old claim is dubious: the date given is 1977, and the subject was born in 1954. Pruneau 19:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Cute, dated 1977 and claiming PD on life of author + 70 years. It's still 2008, no? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
"Dubious" understates the case for deletion somewhat. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of non-free 2D art. I'm afraid there's no indication that this is illegal grafitti as opposed to a legal mural. Kelly 02:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Spain appears to have FOP covering 2D works. I see no reason to delete this. -Nard 09:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Is this is in Spain? Damn, you're right. Close this while I slink off like an idiot. Kelly 11:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Kept It's in Spain. Platonides (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work of this copyright photo 24.128.49.162 13:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep FOP covers the photo of the grafitti, and the grafitti itself is protected under another provision of Spanish law, article 39: "The parody of a disclosed work shall not be considered a transformation that requires the consent of the author, provided that it involves no risk of confusion with that work and does no harm to the original work or its author."[50] -Nard the Bard 17:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is clearly not a "parody". It is a tribute to Tupac, and it is not fair use to make graffiti that looks nearly identical to the original photo in style. (I was the IP, and I saw this, immediately recognized that it was a photo I had seen before, and found it in google images. That's how close they are, and how famous the original photo is.) I agree that the relevant copyright to worry about is not the muralist (that is covered by FOP)-- it is the copyright of the photographer. Just adapting a photo into a mural does not negate copyright issues. Mangostar (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete not a parody, clearly just a copy of the original image. Megapixie (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Changed mind to Neutral. -Nard the Bard 09:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
There are better pictures with more detail just change it
- Delete, derivative work--shizhao (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete clearly a derivative work of the copyrighted photo --Kam Solusar (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Derivative work. Sv1xv (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image has claim of permission. Uploader has edit warred over the no permission tag, which lead an admin to lock the page. Opening deletion request for discussion of adequacy of permission (sadly I cannot remove the no permission tag as the page is locked). -Nard 09:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Borderline. Why does the Flickr user not change the license at Flickr to simple CC-BY-SA? Lupo 11:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Housekeeping (non admin closure) - Image was deleted due to missing license. WilliamH (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Monobi: In Category:Unknown as of 10 June 2008
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image has claim of permission. Is it sufficient? -Nard 09:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Housekeeping (non admin closure) - Image was deleted due to missing license. WilliamH (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Monobi: In Category:Unknown as of 10 June 2008
No rationale for GNU. May be copyrighted. Botev 00:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Although it is the work of a government organization, {{PD-Egypt}} does not list any allowances for documents produced by the government save for laws and rulings. It's possible that the uploader took a picture of the cover, but the cover itself is apparently under copyright by the Egyptian Ministry of Civil Aviation. --jonny-mt en me! 03:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment What's more {{PD-Egypt}} only mentions that the text of such rulings and laws is in the public domain, while this image also contains a graphic element (the logo of the Ministry of Aviation?) which may be copyrighted. --Botev 12:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Ahonc: In category Unknown as of 11 June 2008; no source
proper rights not arranged Artaxerxes 14:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Ahonc: In category Unknown as of 11 June 2008; no license
Also:
Text screen dump. Out of scope. Siebrand 23:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Image only used for vandalism in Spanish Wikipedia. See [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. --HUB 14:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This seems more like a content dispute... Whether or not a personal photo is encyclopedic in an article entitled "Beauty" is a matter for local debate... but the caption "the epitome of beauty" can hardly be seen as vandalism, for she is a very pretty girl. However, Delete no consent of filmed person. -Nard 22:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Again: [57], [58]. --HUB (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep nothing wrong with this picture, tagged it with {{Personality rights}}. Multichill (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. content issue on WP, no pb with the image. Yann (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Extremely unlikely the FBI is the author of this work. The source is a wanted poster which contains numerous photos the FBI probably borrowed from the original authors. Kelly 02:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The legal policies page explicitly notes that permission must be obtained for content not generated by the DoJ. Mere hosting on a .gov website is not tantamount to federal authorship. This does not appear to be FBI authorship and, indeed, no authorship is asserted at the source. the FBI doesn't exactly take photos of just anyone. By the time the FBI was interested in Chesimard, this is not the type of picture they would have been taking. Эlcobbola talk 00:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
and Image:Erwin Rommel portrait crop.jpg (cropped version)
According to the source website ([59], scroll down to the bottom) this is a captured German photograph. So it's not "the work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties." Without any information about the author, original source and date of publication, there's no evidence that it is in the public domain in its country of origin. -- Kam Solusar 01:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- The picture appears in an official publication of the United States government – "United States Army in World War II: European Theater of Operations: The Supreme Command" by Forrest C. Pogue, released by the Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army, Washington DC in 1954, CMH Publication 7-1, Library of Congress Catalog Number: 53-61717, available for purchase from the US Government Printing Office – which means that under U.S. law, there is no copyright on it. Ed Fitzgerald 04:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- As a German work, German law is relevant for us, too. And in Germany, this image is still copyrighted. Lupo 11:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Its copyright was reapplied in 1995 by the European Union. This satisfies the critical american January 1, 1996 date, so this image is not only copyrighted in Germany, but copyrighted in the United States too. WilliamH 18:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- As a German work, German law is relevant for us, too. And in Germany, this image is still copyrighted. Lupo 11:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- delete --Marcela (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 13:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I asked for a speedy delation of this Image--Nasib Bitar 05:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reason? Platonides (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- When I first joined I was not focused, and did not know what really added value to Commons. This photo has been an orphan since September 2007 and has not been used once, and does not really serve any purpose here. Since then I have uploaded hundreds of photos that are useful and of better quality. This photo has value only to me as a person, yet I could not use it in any article. I almost made 16800 edits in the Arabic Wikimedia since I joined on 22 August 2008, so I really realize I made a mistake to upload it. I am the only person who knows who the people in the photo are, thus rendering it as redundant to others. If I remember correctly I uploaded it to write an article about Haj Adnan, but the article was voted for deletion last October.--Nasib Bitar (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If it has value to you, and you want to put it on your user page or something, that's just fine with us. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 04:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Housekeeping (non admin closure) - Image was deleted per user request. WilliamH (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: User request
It doesn't appear to be Soon-Yi Previn Louis Waweru Talk 14:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I've seen horrible pics of stars without their makeup here on Commons (compare this and this), but even accounting for that this still doesn't look like her. -Nard 22:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Patrícia msg 15:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Bad license, not a work of the US Federal government. Kelly 00:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Although published by the US government as part of an official report, it was not originally created by government employees as part of their official duties and thus is not covered by {{PD-USGov}} (unless I'm missing something). In addition, the earliest possible publication year would theoretically be 1939, which means that it does not qualify for {{PD-old}}, and neither does it seem to be covered by Slovakian PD rules, which come into play due to the fact that this appears to be the location of first publishing/disclosure. While I have no doubts that the original authors would want this important work to be freely available, without any specific statement it seems it might be safer to let the individual wikis handle this image under their respective non-free content rules. --jonny-mt en me! 04:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. [[ Forrester ]] 17:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope? ShakataGaNai Talk 02:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per ShakataGaNai.--Ahonc (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Mysterious.... What's the English word for de:Anprobe or Einkaufen ??? Categories should always be in English language. Mutter Erde 15:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- There isn't an equivalent word for anprobieren in English. The appropriate translation is "to try something on". WilliamH (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've put it now in the Category:Shopping. Is there a better category? Regards Mutter Erde (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per ShakataGaNai Platonides (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC) undeleted Image was illustrating an article at German wikipedia, can't be considered "out of scope" as per aboveFinn Rindahl (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Uploader claims that this photo was taken by employees of the US federal government in Washington. Another contributor claims that the photo was taken by First Ukrainian Front of the Red Army in 1945. The templates Template:PD-Soviet, Template:PD-Russia-2008 and Template:PD-Russia do not appear to be relevant. Thuresson 13:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviets, so this is most definitely not a U.S. Federal Government image. WilliamH 17:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- This work probably counted as {{PD-Russia}} and we have a lot of grandfathered works we are hesitant to delete that were licensed as such... and this work was uploaded in 2005. I am in favor of including this image with the grandfathered ones. -Nard 22:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep--Starscream (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as per above. Booksworm (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question Could you provide nearer elucidation? [[ Forrester ]] 23:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as {{PD-Russia}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept as {{PD-Russia}} — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
June 12
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Mack Trucks logo probably not PD-ineligible. Brynn(talk) 00:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not ineligible. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 01:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Although Mack adopted the bulldog in 1922, it was certainly not this version of it, which is decidedly contemporary (title even contains "new logo"). Not PD-ineligible. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I only added it because of the thousands of logos that I saw on here and Wikipedia, some examples: :Image:Coca-Cola_logo.svg :Image:Mitsubishi logo.svg :Image:Abercrombie Logo.PNG :Image:Logo Migros.gif :Image:Yahoo! logo red.svg :Image:Crown logo.png, etc. How do they stay and this one can't? There are thousands of logos here. WikiDon 01:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Other logos are okay for various copyright law reasons: Mitsubishi and Coke logos are too old for copyright, among other things (though still trademarks); A&F, Migros and Yahoo! logos are basically just text (which cannot by copyrighted). Crown logo actually probably should be deleted. Best way to think of it is to think of logos as just another form of art, and ignore the trademark side of things. Imagine had the "Mack" text not been stuck beneath the bulldog: it would be obviously a work of art and it's new enough for copyright. Kelvinc 02:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 04:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence author released logo under CC-BY-SA 2.5. Nature of work (logo) is unlikely to be released under such license. Uploader's only contribution. Kelvinc 02:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Likely copyvio - scan of a book cover. No indication of permission. Brynn(talk) 03:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Text on the cover is nothing special, but the pictures are probably copyright. ShakataGaNai Talk 04:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probable copyvio. The photo is web resolution and does not contain metadata. The original uploader at the English wikipedia only uploaded this picture, but it is from a set of at least two pictures as seen here. The other picture appeared in a blog post dated over year before this photo was uploaded to the English wikipedia. BlueAzure 03:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Close-up photograph of a book cover from a book published between 1995 and 2005. Brynn(talk) 03:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious copyvios like this can be speedy deleted. MichaelMaggs 06:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
shows copyrighted interfaces, copyrighted album covers 82.33.114.90 05:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. SpeedyMichaelMaggs 06:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Commons doesn't allow for CC-BY-SA-NC - Plus, who is really going to use that option when they have 2 less restrictive choices -ShakataGaNai Talk 04:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wrong, not when it is part of a multi-license tag. This has already been discussed – see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual.lensovet 05:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Dual licensing is fine. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Any license is ok as long as the image also has a free license. (see also COM:VP and COM:L) --Para 10:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photograph was taken in a private place where the subject has an expectation of privacy. The subject's consent is therefore clearly needed as set out in the policy Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. It is not enough that the subject knew that the photograph was being taken: what is needed is explicit consent to its being released under a free licence which allows it to be publicly posted on Commons. A further issue here is that the subject may well be underage - the teddybear seems to have deliberately been included to give that impresssion. Our rules are perfectly clear, and there should be no question of circumventing them by describing the photographer in the image decription as an "artist".
The same applies to Image:Young_black_nude.jpg. --MichaelMaggs 06:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC) (Note: I've folded the comments from another deletion request into this one; the issues, as I see them, are exactly identical. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC))
- Keep The photo of known photographer. Also there is no many photos of black naked women... Electron 06:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Odd. Why does the fact that the photographer is "known" influence whether our policies should be applied to him? --MichaelMaggs 06:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Odd? An art is usually odd and not repetitive because this is basic feature of an art. Each artist try to be the one (i.e. odd) and not similar to others... Usually an art try to provoke public to not be indifferent. As this peace of art do. Also all arts of known artists are valuable to keep regardless of any politics... Electron 07:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This concerns me. 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. I understand that Klashorst has been contacted and asked for such confirmation - despite a reasonable period of time he has not confirmed this. In this situation I believe deletion is the only sensible option. 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 07:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep A photographer's job is to make photographs and publish them later. No evidence that he has not the model's permission :-) Mutter Erde 07:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I regret "No evidence that he has not the model's permission" is entirely inadequate if there is a possibility the model is under age --Herby talk thyme 07:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Peter Klashorst has been asked for some proof that he obtained consents from his models. This proof has not been forthcoming. Therefore delete. ++Lar: t/c 10:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete on all counts. The issues are threefold and interconnected. First, the image is pornographic, and you'd have a damned hard time trying to persuade the party van that this image is merely "artistic". There is absolutely no difference between this and what would show up in any softcore pr0n magazine or web site. Which brings us to the next issue: If this image is pornographic, then we have a duty to verify the age of the model (not just under Federal book-keeping laws, either, from which someone in the past has argued we're exempt: we should insist on this sort of thing because we don't want underage nudes on Commons). As Maggs said, it's certainly not implausible that the subject is underage. And, even if this were not true, we still don't have the consent of the person depicted (and again, even if the law does not mandate us to do it in this case, we should do so as a matter of common decency), nor do we have any reason to think that he has secured this permission from all the random girls he's photographed (how many girls do you know that would consent to "mind if I post your nude pictures on the Internet for all to see?"). All considered, there are just too many issues with keeping this sort of thing around. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 11:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Clarification: The fact that it is pornographic is not, by itself, a reason for deletion, and I wasn't trying to suggest as much (we're not censored, after all). It's the fact that it's pornographic and could plausibly be depicting someone underaged, and doesn't have permission from the person depicted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 12:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Eyða, per Lar, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 12:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Delete, lacking the proper verifications being in place. rootology (T) 13:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Peter Klashorst is an artist. That detail in the description is useful to show that this picture is in the project scope as an illustration of his work. About the consent: I can understand that... but somehow I believe we would have no problem if such a nude picture on bed was taken by an even more reknown photographer (say, Helmut Newton for instance). Art is not only made in studios. It can also be created in "private" places. Actually an artist is even able to reproduce a private place in a studio. This might sound hypocrit but is there a proof this is a private place? I can understand the rules but there are clearly some problems with them. As long as we are not able to find solutions with our incoherent rules, I'll vote Keep for any Klashorst's picture. Because it's not the same case as any "normal-private-place" picture. Let's be objective: does Klashorst own a harem to take photographs of so many different women in private places? So yes, to answer MichaelMaggs, I do believe strongly that we should consider pictures of known artists differently. In fact the problem is not about the place but about the situation: yes this might be taken in a private place but not in a private situation. It's the latter that is more important. Oh, and about the age: there's no reason to think she's underage. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Or - is there no reason to think she is over age? I fail to see why you are prepared to assume she is when there is a possibility (as the artist has not confirmed otherwise) that she isn't which is the more worrying legal possibility. --Herby talk thyme 15:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- There's no physical aspect of her that would create any doubt. At least not more than any other nude we have. Physical aspect, in such a case, doesn't bring any reason of thinking there's an age problem. So it's again a question of coherence. If we want to be sure every nude is overage, well we need proofs for each picture. If we don't want to ask that, well there's no reason to worry about that one and not the others. Coherence. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yep - I agree that there should be coherence. I would want OTRS confirmation of any doubtful model's age. I have no idea what your area of expertise is to be so certain of her age? --Herby talk thyme 15:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with TwoWings. We in fact do need proofs for every picture. This is one (well, two, actually, some helpful person merged the noms :) ). There are others. Let's work through this one and get to a clear outcome first though. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yep - I agree that there should be coherence. I would want OTRS confirmation of any doubtful model's age. I have no idea what your area of expertise is to be so certain of her age? --Herby talk thyme 15:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- There's no physical aspect of her that would create any doubt. At least not more than any other nude we have. Physical aspect, in such a case, doesn't bring any reason of thinking there's an age problem. So it's again a question of coherence. If we want to be sure every nude is overage, well we need proofs for each picture. If we don't want to ask that, well there's no reason to worry about that one and not the others. Coherence. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Peter Klashorst an artistic photographer? Pants. As far as his photography goes, he's a hack; he might be notable in being perhaps the only person to get more noise out of a decent Canon EOS than I often do from 400 ISO film and my cheap-ass scanner combined, but such a dubious achievement is not "artistry". Yes, he's done a few half-decent paintings, but that doesn't make him some kind of outstanding photographer, and it certainly does not make him exempt from our rules that require this sort of thing to have permission from the subjects, and some kind of proof that we're not distributing under-age nudes. Making some special exception for him on this count because he's an "artist" is like saying we should feed ourselves from Gordon Ramsay's toilet bowl because well, he is a pretty good chef. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Or - is there no reason to think she is over age? I fail to see why you are prepared to assume she is when there is a possibility (as the artist has not confirmed otherwise) that she isn't which is the more worrying legal possibility. --Herby talk thyme 15:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Wasn't there any previous (closed) DR about that picture already? Where is it? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- DeleteSet aside the issues of whether or not it’s artistic, or whether or not Peter Klashorst may or may not have a produced a decent painting at one point in his life. We need to be careful about photos like this for no other reason than legal issues. While I’m not certain this particular individuals photo would draw legal fire, discussing her photo in legal light provides an opportunity to for all of us to clarify and refine our policy regarding such images, thereby avoiding walking on thin legal ice in the future. (in b4 Lewis says “policy schmolicy”…I’m not talking volumes of written code. ;) ). After all, this is Commons and we do get to decide such things.
- The primary issues regarding this image are model consent and verification of age. In discussing these factors, it would be helpful if we made a distinction between corporate porn and pornographic/nude photos taken by an individual. We’re all observant enough to know a professional porn photo when we see one, regardless of whether we’d admit it or not. I don’t think anyone would argue that the Suicide Girls’ models, Playboy models, etc, have not given consent and been verified to be 18 years of age or older. In addition, any adult posing for a reputable publisher understands that their photos are for publication. I’m not confident that Peter Klashorst, or any other individual who has not been subject to mass public scrutiny and review (as a corporation has), regardless of whether it’s done in the name of ‘art’ or not, has done the same. If we apply this ‘reputable mass media corporation vs. individual’ criterion of reasonableness when reviewing our collection of erotic images of identifiable people, we can pretty safely say that the vast majority are fine, and would allow us to dismiss arguments that we have other somewhat similar images of a pornographic nature.
- The onus is on us to ensure the photos we maintain conform to certain standards and to enforce our own policies. In the absence of evidence of model consent and age verification, and in the absence of a reasonable expectation that both have indeed been obtained by the publisher, this photo and photos similar in that they have been taken by an individual (as opposed to a reputable publisher) in a private setting, must be deleted. Okay, I’m done. Cheers! Brynn(talk) 17:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- You've pointed out something that hasn't been pointed out here: We should be more strict about images that come from (for example) some random old guy who rents and photographs prostitutes, and who nobody would call an "artist" (or even care about) if he hadn't been arrested once. And this is why the sky is not going to fall if we get rid of Klashorst's pictures. There are plenty of other sources (like SG) from which we can get our pr0n and not have these sorts of worries. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 18:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: No evidence of consent to publish or subject's age. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
In cases of nudes where there is no confirmed permission, the rights of the subject must take priority over dogmatic cries of "NOTCENSORED" - doubly so when the model is of questionable age. Per Brynn's insightful analysis, images such as these deserve increased scrutiny and we should err towards protection of the subject. Hence, Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
--Jan-luca (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. Kein Problem erkennbar. Code·is·poetry 16:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. - keine Probleme. Geograv (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio per Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images Rob (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 18:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Why do I doubt "own work by uploader"? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not credible that this is own work. No model permission either, unless Mclaren is the subject and took her own picture. The other upload by this contributor, Image:AC_Cobra_MKII_289.jpg suggests that is an unlikely coincidence. Absent better permission proof, delete. ++Lar: t/c 11:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Clearly a copyio. Kanonkas(talk) 16:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is unlikely that this is the uploaders own work. Better proof should be offered. The "83" watermark seems like it's likely this came from a website. The uploader could show it's more likely they have ownership by providing a version sans watermark ++Lar: t/c 13:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete pending better support that uploader is the copyright holder. Atypical resolution, no camera meta data, and questionable watermark per nom are, together, worrisome. Quack? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete check the user's upload log, two more blatant copyright violations too. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 06:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 06:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a pdf file that contains a non-rotated image. Should be a jpg file. --Michael Romanov (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
True. Uploaded as Image:Knud Knudsens plass.jpg and deleted. --Kjetil_r 22:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image of a copyrighted toy.[60] FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ShakataGaNai: Copyright violation
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Moved to Sketch, based on the assumption that it should be named in singular.--Dan Polansky (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Please remember anyone (well, autoconfirmed users) can move pages and create redirects. In the case it was fine, but please don't copy'n'paste move in the future (GFDL issues). Rocket000 (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a pdf file that contains 133 pages and has problems at downloading. The user is a novice and probably does not know the Commons download rules. -Michael Romanov (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I categorized this and put it in an appropriate PDF Category. It is art and history and is important and just needs further categories for people to use it. WayneRay (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
- Delete Outside project scope. Self-written text works by unknown authors are not in scope. -Nard 19:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I don't see the right licensing info, since the current {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} license is not appropriate. Not to mention problems of misusing the Information template and missing English image info including its source. --Michael Romanov (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why is the current license inappropriate? I don't doubt uploader wrote it. -Nard 01:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the uploader is not the only author of this publication. The full list of authors includes Ryszard Bogdan Kucharczyk, Henryk Przerwa and Roman Jułkowski. Moreover, this does not look like a private publication. On the other hand, you might be right because there is a copyright disclaimer saying:
- Why is the current license inappropriate? I don't doubt uploader wrote it. -Nard 01:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone we wszystkich tomach Ryszard Bogdan Kucharczyk Żadna część publikacji nie może być reprodukowana, przechowywana jako źródło danych, przekazywana w jakiejkolwiek formie zapisu (elektronicznej, mechanicznej, fotograficznej lub innej) - bez pisemnej zgody posiadacza praw.
If translated into English, that means:
All rights reserved in all volumes Ryszard Bogdan Kucharczyk No part of the publication can be reproduced, stored as a data source, transmitted in any form (electronic, mechanical, photographic or otherwise) - without the written consent of the holder of rights.
Anyway, I don't know whether the current Wikimedia policy permits to store the media file like this at Commons without following the Commons:OTRS procedure. --Michael Romanov (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Giggy: Out of project scope
Deleted by Giggy: Out of project scope
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside project scope and it doesn't really look self-made. -Nard 23:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted - Monobi (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Monobi: Out of project scope
Is this enough of the Windows/IE interface to warrant deriv work? ShakataGaNai Talk 05:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Don't think so. The Wikipedia logo on the other hand... // 213.115.98.218
- Comment Maybe, maybe not. But Keep and blank the screen to be on the safe side. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 11:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: IFF the screen is blanked. The Windows interface is copyrighted (e.g. start button, throbber, etc.), as is the Wikipedia logo. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete If Windows interface is copyrighted (it isn't that clear for me from the position of german copyright....) this image should be removed because with a blanked screen I do not think it's usable. ...Forrester 05:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Probably is ok as is, but let's blur the screen to be safe. Will perhaps do that now. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Did that. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. OK now. Yann (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside project scope. -Nard 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - This was already ruled within project scope. See the discussion. (Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2007-10#Taric_Alani) Taric25 19:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep Useful nude art photo. --Simonxag (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As per above: "Useful nude art photo." >>> It's not nonsense. ...Forrester 05:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Johan Braakensiek died in 1940; so no public domain yet Clausule (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, he died febuary 1940, but don't worry, in a year and a half it'll be 70 years. The picture was here for two years and nobody complained. And even if that happened, it could still be removed right away. What else could possibly be the meaning of Be bold? - Aiko (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- If it will be in the PD in a year and a half's time, then it can be uploaded again in a year and a half's time. "Be bold" does not mean "break the law". Anrie (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It will become PD on 1 January 2011. That's two and a half years to wait. In the meantime, it's a copyvio and should be deleted. Pruneau (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- This image is over a century old. - Aiko (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 13:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Restored as this is {{PD-Art}} since 1 January 2011. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It seems unlikely that this was created entirely by the uploader. Without any evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that at least the satellite image comes from a non-free source. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- This also applies to the low-resolution duplicate Image:Ubicacion2.articulo.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It's just a photo of the park map (i deleted the low res one). But maybe there is FoP? Platonides (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Badseed talk 03:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Wrong licence. --CDIP No.150 repair meter 17:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Certainly not 50 years old. Pruneau (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Void license Badseed talk 03:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
original on huwiki is not released under GFDL hu:image:Warr guitar.gif I believe it was copied from there because its page included a template of ours, hu:Sablon:Nemkereskedelmi, which approximately means non-commercial image. – Alensha SL egy cica :) 20:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC) (fixed deletion request Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC))
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Non commercial per .hu template Badseed talk 03:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
As many of flags of croatian counties, cities and municipalities here at commons, this image is also taken from Zeljko Heimer's site, and he gave permission for Wikipedia only see this --Suradnik13 10:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Could you provide a link to that site? If it's WP only, and that's a legitimate claim, it's not freely licensed and therefore ineligible... ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Info Sorry, i forgot to check it after i subst-ed deletion request. Now should be ok --Suradnik13 (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment:
LOL, someone may translate it. ...Forrester 05:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)"Poštovana Roberta, Čini mi se da je takav predožak (Predložak:FAME) korektan i da bi se mogao koristiti. Srdačan pozdrav, Željko Heimer (originalna korespodencija proslijeđena je svim administratorima)"
Deleted. No proper source.Ahonc (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
1)The Mexican presidency has never released this picture to the PD. 2)No source was provided 3)No author was provided: life + 70 cannot be applied. --Esteban Zissou (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Agree, uploader needs to state a clear source. ...Forrester 05:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No proper source.Ahonc (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of copyrighted computer software. --ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Per COM:DW. Ahonc (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is claiming PD based on the lifetime of an author while simultaneously indicating that the author is unknown. The image is dated 1905; the photographer could have been, say, 25-35 at the time, and could therefore have indeed lived another 33+ years (unlikely given life expectancies at the time, but still entirely possible). Without knowing the author (i.e. date of death), it seems irresponsible to claim PD when reasonable age scenarios indicate a possibility that author died after 1938 (i.e. less than 70 years ago). --ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
If the author is unknown the copyright expired 70 years after publication. --Luigi Chiesa (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, anonymous works are 120 years from date of creation in the United States. Further, just because the uploader did know the author (i.e. the website didn't say one way or another), does not mean the author is unknown - just unknown to us. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- ...And there's no assertion of date of first publication. Publication, not existence, is the criterion; with no publication date, we cannot make a determination using that criterion. By the way, 70 years from publication is false; the date in the U.S. is before 1.1.1923. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as per Luigi Chiesa. Yann (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. You need to specify reasons why the author is not only unknown but anonymous and at least find a proof for published before 1923. [[ Forrester ]] 23:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of copyrighted computer software. --ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Clearly not COM:DM, we could discuss about the question whether It's copyrighted but I don't see a proper reason why it should not be copyrighted. [[ Forrester ]] 23:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Illustrator Cornelis Jetses died in 1955; it's not yet in public domain Clausule (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like DW.--Ahonc (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. COM:DW without any permission. [[ Forrester ]] 23:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I cannot find the source for this but I believe it to be a copyvio, same as the user's other uploads here and others I am discovering on en.wiki. see en:User talk:Dreamafter and user's Editor Reviews there pointing out his copyright problems. -Nard 23:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. [[ Forrester ]] 23:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
June 13
[edit]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 (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Platonides (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 23:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. a Movie analysis Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Platonides (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 23:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Flickr source does not appear reliable - the rest of his photostream is copyvios (music video screenshots, etc). dave pape (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Add Image:Kanywinsbillboard.jpg and Image:Kanylve.jpg to this request - they're from the same flickr user. --dave pape (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 06:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The LDS church web site states that this photo is "© 2005, Jason George. All rights reserved." 216.201.65.12 08:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 11:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is an image of me that I do not want shown. Kma922 (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Then maybe you shouldn't have uploaded it? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps not. Do I not have personality rights to invoke, even if I was the uploader, however? Thanks. Kma922 (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Enough of the face is visible for this woman to be identified, and she has withdrawn consent. This is not the type of photo where we should insist on our rights that licence/consent can never be withdrawn. This appears to be a genuine request, and we should show sympathy and some flexibility. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possible copyright violation, it's taken from the official Eiffel 65 homepage, which is offline since 2 years. ChrisHH (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Does Category:Penis still not have such matereal? EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, too low-quality/dark/penisy to be usable. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 16:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. long article Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 17:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicate of "Coburg Löwenstraße 22.jpg" JFKCom (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Housekeeping (non admin closure) - Image was deleted as a dupe. WilliamH (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Even if uploader is auhtor, Commons:OTRS permission is necessary. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete looks like a copyvio. --Kanonkas(talk) 21:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. © and out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
too huge for png & ugly & better version is online (Van_Keulen-Nieuwe_Pascaert_van_Oost_Indien-1680-1735-3.jpg) Benedikt.Seidl (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. PNG is a good format for maps. Yann (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate of Image:Icon External Link E-Mail.png Diti (talk to the penguin) 07:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Note they're not exactly the same... Different size, but being "Own cut, from Print Screen", it's not strange. I propose removing all of them and replace by the original ones. I change the license of them all from GFDL to GPL. And still no author (it's pre-svn), what a great work we do with our in-home software... Platonides (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment WTF is with that authorship info anyway? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 23:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate of Image:Phoque de Weddell - Weddell Seal.jpg Diti (talk to the penguin) 08:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, picture is in GIF format, which contains only 256 colours. Diti (talk to the penguin) 09:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see color differences, but the gif has a lower resolution. However, the jpg is cropped compared to the gif. ?! Platonides (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Image does not have information related to its source, license and description -- Shyam (T/C) 13:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. No image info Badseed talk 04:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
image is not visible ŠJů (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Just not correctly resized by mediawiki Platonides (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This image should be reuploaded as JPEG. Yann (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Turned into jpg, uploaded as Image:Cycle route sign near Domazlice.jpg and this one Deleted. Badseed talk 02:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
proper rights not arranged 134.126.150.235 15:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. There actually was a license tag that was removed by you, my friend ([61]). This is kept and if you have any doubts, contact User:EmpirecontactBadseed talk 02:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
![[61]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AThe_Biscuit_Burners.jpg&diff=12208352&oldid=10067833){kind=link}
No evidence it is Public Domain. Author stated to be Milwaukee World Festival, Inc which doesn't seem to be the uploader. Dual Freq (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Badseed talk 02:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of Milwaukee World Festival, Inc. Dual Freq (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Badseed talk 02:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
License given on Wikipedia, "Photo: Jarle Reiss. No commercial use allowed, Free for all use on Wikipedia with credits" ViperSnake151 (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- i am the owner of this picture, and dont understand why someone want to delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.26.3.62 (talk • contribs)
- Please link to the page which contains the restrictions you state. -Nard 01:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- this photo: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilde:DjFalk.jpg Why someone want to remove it, is more than i can understand.. ;)
There is no copyright-violation or anything else, that would indicate a deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunscreen (talk • contribs)
- I don't see any restrictions there. Is the original deleted? Could an admin see what it said? -Nard 20:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I guess i just remove the "removetag" on the image. Sunscreen (talk)
The topic of such picture might be copyrighted and out of Commons scope (trip program) Guérin Nicolas (messages) 06:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Pruneau (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't unterstand the problem. Why should there be a copyright on a simple list?Paebi (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- For example, the logo at the top left of the image is probably copyrighted. Furthermore, even it isn't copyrighted, this image is out of Common's scope. Pruneau (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Used, not out of scope since it shows contemporary (commercial) usage of a historic event. Logo seems to be COM:DM. [[ Forrester ]] 14:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe this is a copyright violation from [62] ([63]). The image was already uploaded to the Afrikaans Wikipedia in 2005 (this version dates from 2008). The one at the Afrikaans Wikipedia cites the site, but will in all likelihood get deleted due to lack of licensing information. --Anrie (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Also see the nomination below this one (Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Cape of Good Hope). Anrie (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. [[ Forrester ]] 14:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
{{Trademark}} is not a license, not simple enough to be PD. ViperSnake151 (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- (Comment) I uploaded this logo because I think this logo is PD-textlogo. But Somebody removed PD-textlogo licensing ... If delete it, please delete other JR logos. --Monaneko (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know about the threshold of originality required in Japan, but this seems very simple. Yann (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. [[ Forrester ]] 14:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Japan. Also model located in museum, not public place. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but what should I change to keep it here? As i can see, there is almost the same photos here, just angle is a bit worse. --Rambalac (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. You most likely can't do anything unless you can get a permission of the copyright owner for this COM:DW. [[ Forrester ]] 22:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Someone should tell Thyra first, that the US are not the UK, secondly that a pic from a blog is not a good source to claim, that the author is "unknown", third that she's still avoiding to categorize her uploads meaningful, and fourth, that the photographer was Wood's lover en:Berenice Abbott, who else? [64].
After this, someone could tell Thyra, that this pic could be kept, when she finds a good source, which states that this pic was made before January 1, 1923. Thanks Mutter Erde (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Or I could just delete it. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please open it again, because she is very diligent and there is probably a general misunderstanding of correct licensing.
- More "unknown" authors from the "United Kingdom" from the last days Mutter Erde (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Image:William Carlos Williams.jpg
- Image:Louis Aragon.gif
- Image:Jane Heap.jpg
- Image:Margaret Caroline Anderson.jpg
- Image:Tsuguharu Foujita.jpg
- Re-opened. Are you being sarcastic? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm only a bit sarcastic :-). But the main problem (for me) are her tons of uploads with no or senseless categories. Regards Mutter Erde (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted: portrait by Berenice Abbott (1898-1991). Will be public domain in 2061. Another example of why "unknown" is not "anonymous". Rama (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: I also deleted the other images. I fail to understand how one can take photographs in the catalog of an exhibition about a photographer, claim that the author is unknown, and claim that the author died for over 70 years. Number these facts 1,2 and 3: both connections 1-2 and 2-3 are blatantly false. Rama (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I originally speedied this as a derivative work, but on second thoughts, there should be community input on this. What do you think? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 19:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think the "look" of Spock can be copyright, can it? I mean after all his look is simply w:Leonard Nimoy with pointy ears. --ShakataGaNai Talk 19:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it can. That's why we don't allow fan art. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like copyright paranoia to me. Multichill (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Avoid "avoid copyright paranoia". Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I have drawn this caricature. Where's the problem? It's a satirical comment and therefore an original work. It doesn't say "This is Spock" or look in any way like him in reality. But nice you recognized him anyway! Greetings from Germany. --RailroadGun (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't? "SpockIcon1007.gif" with "Spock cartoon" in the description...? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Again: what's the problem? The title/description? Well, I rename it as "Collard", if you really want - would be okay with me... --RailroadGun (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't? "SpockIcon1007.gif" with "Spock cartoon" in the description...? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete Unfortunately courts do uphold character copyright. The production of this image might be considered fair use as a parody, but that's something not allowed on the Commons as such rules vary so much from country to country. --Simonxag (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- See [65]. It's worse than just a copyright infringement. Under a bizarre Ninth Circuit ruling (which is law in California, hence Hollywood) you must obtain permission from both the studio that owns the copyright and the individual portrayed to make a derivative work. Unfortunately drawing Leonard Nimoy (which may be legal) with Spock ears is probably a copyvio. -Nard 01:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copies the distinctive makeup of the actor as shown on screen, therefore a clear copyvio. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I was going to vote 'delete', but I'm holding off for now: Image:Facial_Hair_comic.jpg also portrays Spock (and Mirror Spock), and I think most people would argue to keep that one. Powers (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per "That's why we don't allow fan art. Lewis Collard!" & Simonxag, I assume that we cannot say that there is completely no creativity in creating this characteristic (!) style. [[ Forrester ]] 23:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of copyrighted public art in the US are derivative works and cannot be considered free images. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It is common for public art to be included in wikipedia articles about the artwork, the artists who created them, and museums and galleries where they are displayed. These images are being used in an article about an open air gallery.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete See COM:FAIRUSE and COM:FOP#USA. Images of US copyrighted art can be uploaded onto English Wikipedia as fair use for commentary on a specific exhibit, but definitely not onto Commons for general use of open air art exhibits in general, or Chase Promenade in general. Kelvinc (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- O.K. I did not know I had to put them on WP.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 06:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Images of Cape of Good Hope
[edit]- File:Castle Of Good Hope Gateway.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:VOC Castle of Good Hope Courtyard.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Castle of Good Hope Entrance.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Castle of good hope.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I believe that all these images (uploaded by User:Riaandb7) are all copyright violations from http://www.castleofgoodhope.co.za/. This is increasingly evident with Image:VOC Castle of Good Hope Courtyard.jpg, which, if it really is a copy of a VOC document, is hundreds of years old (an exact dating might place it in the public domain, even). Anrie (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. [[ Forrester ]] 14:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Advertisement should be blanked. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Both China and Hong Kong have FOP and you can't even tell what the ads are. -Nard 01:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that advertisement is permanently installed. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Maybe you don't know what they are. Actually it is a permanently installed signage. You should find the floor numbers if you look at the image at original size. Baycrest(Talk) 18:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Baycrest. -- Kevinhksouth (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Take a photo in a public area in Hong Kong does not contravene anyone's copyright. --✉Hello World! 16:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, please check about Category:Advertising as well. And, I don't think the signboards (or Ads) is the main body of the photo. Stewart~惡龍 13:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Kept - Monobi (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
proper rights not arranged Artaxerxes (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It says self made. The images quality and metadata doesn't lead me to believe otherwise. --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- On hold Lol, first Google image ("Billy_Cardin") is this one. Emailed them. [[ Forrester ]] 22:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. [[ Forrester ]] 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Render422
[edit]- File:Rudolf Hoss.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Auschwitz horno.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Himmler.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Himmler gestapo head.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Himmler dachau 1936.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Himmler Mauthausen 1941.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:NaziPartyDay 1934.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:TMorell.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Stumpfegger.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
All uploads were taken during World War II and in all cases most likely by German sources, thus it is likely that they are still copyrighted under German law. However the uploader is claiming a blanket PD for all without even specifying sources or offering proof that this licensing applies. BrokenSphere 23:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
These, and many others, deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
June 14
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a pdf file that contains 133 pages and has problems at downloading. The user is a novice and probably does not know the Commons download rules. -Michael Romanov (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I categorized this and put it in an appropriate PDF Category. It is art and history and is important and just needs further categories for people to use it. WayneRay (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
- Delete Outside project scope. Self-written text works by unknown authors are not in scope. -Nard 19:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I don't see the right licensing info, since the current {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} license is not appropriate. Not to mention problems of misusing the Information template and missing English image info including its source. --Michael Romanov (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why is the current license inappropriate? I don't doubt uploader wrote it. -Nard 01:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the uploader is not the only author of this publication. The full list of authors includes Ryszard Bogdan Kucharczyk, Henryk Przerwa and Roman Jułkowski. Moreover, this does not look like a private publication. On the other hand, you might be right because there is a copyright disclaimer saying:
- Why is the current license inappropriate? I don't doubt uploader wrote it. -Nard 01:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone we wszystkich tomach Ryszard Bogdan Kucharczyk Żadna część publikacji nie może być reprodukowana, przechowywana jako źródło danych, przekazywana w jakiejkolwiek formie zapisu (elektronicznej, mechanicznej, fotograficznej lub innej) - bez pisemnej zgody posiadacza praw.
If translated into English, that means:
All rights reserved in all volumes Ryszard Bogdan Kucharczyk No part of the publication can be reproduced, stored as a data source, transmitted in any form (electronic, mechanical, photographic or otherwise) - without the written consent of the holder of rights.
Anyway, I don't know whether the current Wikimedia policy permits to store the media file like this at Commons without following the Commons:OTRS procedure. --Michael Romanov (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Giggy: Out of project scope
Deleted by Giggy: Out of project scope
This is another Peter Klashorst image which is of a possibly underage model with no evidence of permission or proof of age. ++Lar: t/c 01:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Commons is not censored & I am happy about that. I think we should be looking for real confirmation of release by the model. In the absence of that deletion is the only option. I think for any such material where there may be questions there should be explicit OTRS permission at the very least --Herby talk thyme 12:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The publication without explicit consent of photographs of identifiable nudes in a private setting is particularly intrusive and damaging to the subject, and we should insist on proper OTRS permission in every such case. Here, there is also the very real possibility that she may be under age, but regardless of her age the photograph clearly has to go. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Peter Klashorst is a prolific publisher of nude photos. How exactly is this equivalent to being photographed in a "private setting"? That's like being photographed by Hugh Hefner and expecting it not be in Playboy. -Nard 20:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- We have no idea what he told these girls he was going to do with the images he took. Most of the photographs appear to have been taken in cheap hotel bedrooms and bathrooms. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Striking own vote. After thinking this over some more I believe there may indeed be some issues concerning personality rights. In doubt I no longer feel confident in voting either Keep or Delete at this time and feel a more in debt discussion might be in order.--Caranorn (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless model release and age confirmation will obtained. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep again there's NO reason to believe she's underage (at least no more reason than any other nude picture on Commons). And there's no reason to think it's a private picture (therefore no need of consent) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:29, 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 collections. 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) 17:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Please see my comments on the Image:Fuck_you!_(nude).jpg deletion request. Brynn(talk) 04:09, 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 (:> )=| ∇ 18:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, No model permission, no model release, no evidence of age of majority, no real usefulness for image. Bastique demandez 18:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
This is another Peter Klashorst image which is of a possibly underage model with no evidence of permission or proof of age. ++Lar: t/c 01:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Possibly underage. Pruneau (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Commons is not censored & I am happy about that. I think we should be looking for real confirmation of release by the model. In the absence of that deletion is the only option. I think for any such material where there may be questions there should be explicit OTRS permission at the very least --Herby talk thyme 12:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Peter Klashorst is a genius and there is no reason to delete this. -Nard 19:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The publication without explicit consent of photographs of identifiable nudes in a private setting is particularly intrusive and damaging to the subject, and we should insist on proper OTRS permission in every such case. Here, there is also the very real possibility that she may be under age, but regardless of her age the photograph clearly has to go. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- How exactly is a commercial photograph made with a known publisher of nude photos a "private setting" like someone's house you expect privacy in? If you had a nude photo taken at the Playboy Mansion would you expect it to be "private"? -Nard 20:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- We have no idea what he told these girls he was going to do with the images he took. Most of the photographs appear to have been taken in cheap hotel bedrooms and bathrooms. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Striking own vote. After thinking this over some more I believe there may indeed be some issues concerning personality rights. In doubt I no longer feel confident in voting either Keep or Delete at this time and feel a more in debt discussion might be in order.--Caranorn (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I can only echo Herby's comment above: "For a project that takes licensing so seriously I find it incredible that some people are so unconcerned about the validity of that licensing. For such quasi pornographic images I think it is incumbent on us to establish to the best of our ability that the model gives consent & is an adult. The photographer has failed to give that information". --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless model release and age confirmation will obtained. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep again there's NO reason to believe she's underage (at least no more reason than any other nude picture on Commons). And there's no reason to think it's a private picture (therefore no need of consent). Private place doesn't mean private situation. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:32, 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) 17:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Please see my comments on the Image:Fuck_you!_(nude).jpg deletion request. Brynn(talk) 04:12, 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 (:> )=| ∇ 18:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This is another Peter Klashorst image which is of a possibly underage model with no evidence of permission or proof of age. ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Possibly underage. Pruneau (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Commons is not censored & I am happy about that. I think we should be looking for real confirmation of release by the model. In the absence of that deletion is the only option. I think for any such material where there may be questions there should be explicit OTRS permission at the very least --Herby talk thyme 12:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We have no proof of age? That might be right, but when do we ever have a proof of age. I don't see many pictures were you find comments like "the model is ** years old". And even if she was underage: so what. This picture is no pornography, she is just being naked. We even have a Category for naked children. This is just as pornographic as a teenager at a nudist beach. Conclusion: even if we had proof that she was underage (which we don't have), this wouldn't be a reason for deletion! As long as it's not clearly pornographic, age is not an argument.--Lamilli (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- For a project that takes licensing so seriously I find it incredible that some people are so unconcerned about the validity of that licensing. For such quasi pornographic images I think it is incumbent on us to establish to the best of our ability that the model gives consent & is an adult. The photographer has failed to give that information --Herby talk thyme 08:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The publication without explicit consent of photographs of identifiable nudes in a private setting is particularly intrusive and damaging to the subject, and we should insist on proper OTRS permission in every such case. Here, there is also the very real possibility that she may be under age, but regardless of her age the photograph clearly has to go. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Peter Klashorst is a prolific publisher of nude photos. How exactly is this equivalent to being photographed in a "private setting"? That's like being photographed by Hugh Hefner and expecting it not be in Playboy. -Nard 20:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- We have no idea what he told these girls he was going to do with the images he took. Most of the photographs appear to have been taken in cheap hotel bedrooms and bathrooms. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Striking own vote. After thinking this over some more I believe there may indeed be some issues concerning personality rights. In doubt I no longer feel confident in voting either Keep or Delete at this time and feel a more in debt discussion might be in order.--Caranorn (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Peter Klashorst is a prolific publisher of nude photos. They don't appear to be pornographic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denis Moura dos Santos (talk • contribs) 22:24, 14 Jun 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I see no porn and I see no underage woman. (Perhaps I have to buy me a new de:Brille, pehaps some of the contributors have to buy a new one). See also: Peter Klashorst photos. Mutter Erde (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: From my point of view the whole issue is ridiculous. It's about prudish people trying to delete pictures depicting nudity. The question of the model being +18 or not would be of importance if we were talking about pornography. Indeed, we don't want any kiddy porn around here. But this picture is NOT pornographic, it's not ever quasi pornographic (some pictures of Klashorst might be considered pornographic, this one certainly not).--Lamilli (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless model release and age confirmation will obtained. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep again there's NO reason to believe she's underage (at least no more reason than any other nude picture on Commons). And there's no reason to think it's a private picture (therefore no need of consent). Private place doesn't mean private situation. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:32, 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) 17:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'd think it's a little harder to judge about the artistic value of a photograph. It's not just about renting a studio model. If you start talking bout the SG-Girls: I really enjoy them but I would't call it art, it's rather alternative playboyish Pin-up. Now take a guy like Terry Richardson who is probably one of the most renowned photographers in the world. If you show one of his works to an ordinary person on the street, he wouldn't believe that this is considered art. In fact most people wouldn't dream about this being art. Still galleries pay millions to get a polaroid of his cock. What I'm saying is: if something is art or not is a rather difficult question. And it's not a question of the model being a third world hooker or a professional model. To me it's a beautiful nude. And no: I don't think that this is pornography and you certainly won't end up in jail for this picture.--Lamilli (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, it's not, and I never said that renting a studio model would make one an artistic photographer. I was responding, specifically, to the point that these are studio models and therefore there's some kind of implied consent to having their pictures all over the Internet. Likewise, the fact that Peter Klashorst is a mediocre photographer is a response to the point that he's some kind of artistic photographer, when he clearly isn't. Spare me the "who are we to judge what's art and what's not" stuff; if we can call Klashorst's photography "art" and pretend that makes everything OK, then we may as well ditch altogether our policy on photographs of identifiable people. That was my point. And I never suggested that you would end up in jail for this picture. Again, I was responding to a specific line of argument (and a specific person) that suggested the age issue was irrelevant, because these pictures would be fine if the models were underage. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 02:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Please see my comments on the Image:Fuck_you!_(nude).jpg deletion request. Brynn(talk) 04:14, 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 (:> )=| ∇ 18:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not PD-old: author (Dmitrii Zelenin) died in 1954 Ahonc (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not in the PD in the country of origin (Russia or Ukraine). Botev (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Info The uploading user has removed the {{Delete}} tag more than once and started changing who the author was, and what country the PD was from. So I've roll'd it back & full protected the image. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Pretty clear delete. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. -Nard 01:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete appears to be clear copyvio Anonymous101 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 00:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This is another Peter Klashorst image which is of a possibly underage model with no evidence of permission or proof of age. ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Possibly underage. Pruneau (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Caution: an allegation, that a wellknown photographer as Peter Klashorst produces child porn (aka: pics of underage models) might be expensive in most areas of the world Mutter Erde (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not a question of whether he produces child porn, just whether we can have real confirmation that models are over age --Herby talk thyme 12:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's the same allegation, maybe some dollars cheaper Mutter Erde (talk)
- I am making no allegations at all. I am suggesting that if we, hosting this images, have not ensured that there was consent by the model & confirmation that they are adult, we are probably in breach of the law --Herby talk thyme 14:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's pretty simple. Personality rights related images taken in non public places require consent of the model. No consent has been shown, despite a request. Images that depict people that a reasonable person would reasonably believe MIGHT be underage require proof of age. No proof of age has been shown, despite a request. There is no allegation here that Peter Klashorst is guilty of anything at all, other than choosing (as is his right) not to respond to a query. He MIGHT be guilty of something, but it's not being alleged here, at this time. He is not the uploader, so he's not being censored. We are just protecting Commons from possible legal issues. The pictures can be hosted elsewhere and it is then that site's issue, not ours. But we need to do what is prudent. Mutter Erde, your comments in general are not helpful, because you seem not to care about the ramifications to the site, you just stridently repeat the same baseless statements, or try to slant the matter in such a way as to draw attention away from the substantive issues. I would ask the closing admin to disregard your comments in this matter and in any other matter where you show such disregard. ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is really a pity that not all people are voting in your sense, but I can't help you, sorry. Mutter Erde (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't a vote, so no worries there. ++Lar: t/c 01:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is really a pity that not all people are voting in your sense, but I can't help you, sorry. Mutter Erde (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's pretty simple. Personality rights related images taken in non public places require consent of the model. No consent has been shown, despite a request. Images that depict people that a reasonable person would reasonably believe MIGHT be underage require proof of age. No proof of age has been shown, despite a request. There is no allegation here that Peter Klashorst is guilty of anything at all, other than choosing (as is his right) not to respond to a query. He MIGHT be guilty of something, but it's not being alleged here, at this time. He is not the uploader, so he's not being censored. We are just protecting Commons from possible legal issues. The pictures can be hosted elsewhere and it is then that site's issue, not ours. But we need to do what is prudent. Mutter Erde, your comments in general are not helpful, because you seem not to care about the ramifications to the site, you just stridently repeat the same baseless statements, or try to slant the matter in such a way as to draw attention away from the substantive issues. I would ask the closing admin to disregard your comments in this matter and in any other matter where you show such disregard. ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am making no allegations at all. I am suggesting that if we, hosting this images, have not ensured that there was consent by the model & confirmation that they are adult, we are probably in breach of the law --Herby talk thyme 14:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's the same allegation, maybe some dollars cheaper Mutter Erde (talk)
- Delete Commons is not censored & I am happy about that. I think we should be looking for real confirmation of release by the model. In the absence of that deletion is the only option. I think for any such material where there may be questions there should be explicit OTRS permission at the very least --Herby talk thyme 12:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We have no proof of age? That might be right, but when do we ever have a proof of age. I don't see many pictures were you find comments like "the model is ** years old". And even if she was underage: so what. This picture is no pornography, she is just being naked. We even have a Category for naked children. This is just as pornographic as a teenager at a nudist beach. Conclusion: even if we had proof that she was underage (which we don't have), this wouldn't be a reason for deletion! As long as it's not clearly pornographic, age is not an argument.--Lamilli (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- No offense, Lamilli but ... You've got matters the wrong way around. In this case and cases like it, we need positive proof of consent and of age. That there are other pics where this is an issue, or where the documentation isn't present, is no reason to keep this one. I think you are going to see this start to be enforced quite a bit more strictly going forward. ++Lar: t/c 21:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The publication without explicit consent of photographs of identifiable nudes in a private setting is particularly intrusive and damaging to the subject, and we should insist on proper OTRS permission in every such case. Here, there is also the very real possibility that she may be under age, but regardless of her age the photograph clearly has to go. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Peter Klashorst is a prolific publisher of nude photos. How exactly is this equivalent to being photographed in a "private setting"? That's like being photographed by Hugh Hefner and expecting it not be in Playboy. -Nard 20:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- We have no idea what he told these girls he was going to do with the images he took. Most of the photographs appear to have been taken in cheap hotel bedrooms and bathrooms. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- For a project that takes licensing so seriously I find it incredible that some people are so unconcerned about the validity of that licensing. For such quasi pornographic images I think it is incumbent on us to establish to the best of our ability that the model gives consent & is an adult. The photographer has failed to give that information --Herby talk thyme 08:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- We have no idea what he told these girls he was going to do with the images he took. Most of the photographs appear to have been taken in cheap hotel bedrooms and bathrooms. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Striking own vote. After thinking this over some more I believe there may indeed be some issues concerning personality rights. In doubt I no longer feel confident in voting either Keep or Delete at this time and feel a more in debt discussion might be in order.--Caranorn (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- As I said to Lamilli, you've got matters the wrong way around. Positive proof is needed. ++Lar: t/c 21:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: From my point of view the whole issue is ridiculous. It's about prudish people trying to delete pictures depicting nudity. The question of the model being +18 or not would be of importance if we were talking about pornography. Indeed, we don't want any kiddy porn around here. But this picture is NOT pornographic, it's not ever quasi pornographic (some pictures of Klashorst might be considered pornographic, this one certainly not).--Lamilli (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, but I'm far from a prude, and I'm quite happy to see nudes on Commons. I do care to see us satisfy our legal (and moral) obligations in hosting such things. Let me get your position correct: nudes of potentially under-aged girls are okay if they're not "pornographic"? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 16:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless model release and age confirmation will obtained. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep again there's NO reason to believe she's underage (at least no more reason than any other nude picture on Commons). And there's no reason to think it's a private picture (therefore no need of consent). Private place doesn't mean private situation. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- no reason to believe doesn't cut it. We need positive proof. This applies to every image that is possibly taken in a private place. whether or not nudity or partial nudity is involved, but it's especially important when nudity IS involved, whether or not the image is judged "pornographic", which is a difficult metric to apply, and which is irrelevant with respect to rights. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 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) 17:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- a little correction: Please change "but that's pretty much what the keepers are doing" in "that's pretty much what the deleters are doing". Thank you Mutter Erde (talk)
- No, I meant the keepers are doing it. I'm not going to see this issue zerg-rushed away. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 03:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- a little correction: Please change "but that's pretty much what the keepers are doing" in "that's pretty much what the deleters are doing". Thank you Mutter Erde (talk)
.jpg&diff=12250727&oldid=12249983){kind=link}
- Delete Please see my comments on the Image:Fuck_you!_(nude).jpg deletion request. Brynn(talk) 04:16, 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 (:> )=| ∇ 18:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Original license unfree. See http://flickr.com/photos/gremio/243796552/ -Nard 01:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto.Music Biography Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 04:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Every picture needs a category, galleries are not replacements for categories. Galleries and categories are two different systems and should be used concurrently. --Multichill (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete – all images should be in a real category. Even COM:TOL images should be in a higher level category. Finavon (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I know this is a troublesome one on Commons. In a perfect world we would have great, up to date, well annotated galleries as real showcases for everything. However we do not have the workers to deal with it. As such categories are a very good way indeed to allow people to find media here on Commons (& remember our function here is to provide high quality media that people can find easily). Categories are not perfect - people often "dump" pictures in inappropriate categories. However I think they would be as likely to dump them in inappropriate galleries anyway. I've done some work of categories for some time now (& there is plenty to do to make them better) & they are essential. --Herby talk thyme 11:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete ... every image requires at least one non hidden, non housekeeping related category. Not a debatable point. This category doesn't count. Therefore it needs to go. But before it does, every image in it probably needs review. ++Lar: t/c 12:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per everyone above --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 15:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Empty and obviously no consensus to begin with. Rocket000 (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source does not link to a page with this picture on, nor can I see a copyright notice on that website. Furthermore, this looks to be an official portrait of sorts, so I doubt that it is free. --J Milburn (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No real source, and most likely a newspaper is copyright. ShakataGaNai Talk 00:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I copied this image from en-wiki to commons 3 years ago, was tagged as GFDl, which as of today looks pretty suspiciuos to me. The original uploader was blocked at en-wiki for faking permissions and uploading images with wrong licence [66], so please delete this one as most likely tagged wrong schlendrian •λ• 13:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
commons:Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 Reed (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry I made a mistake with permission format
- Delete : i checked on Flickr => "non commercial use" => uncompatible with Commons. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 14:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative Work --jynus (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Also: Image:Autobots Logo.jpg --jynus (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
and Image:Andres gabrtiel 027.jpg, Image:Andres gabrtiel 005.jpg, Image:Andres gabrtiel 009.jpg, Image:Andres gabrtiel 007.jpg
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per out of scope; Commons is not a personal repository. WilliamH (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation, no permission and no license. Diti (talk to the penguin) 17:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. {{Copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation, no permission and no license. Diti (talk to the penguin) 17:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Speedy copyvio. Just speedy-tag such files Badseed talk 17:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation, no permission and no license. Diti (talk to the penguin) 17:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Badseed talk 17:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation, no permission and no license. Diti (talk to the penguin) 17:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Speeding it, as well as other user contributions Badseed talk 17:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll think about it. Diti (talk to the penguin) 18:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio. Previously deleted as such. -Nard 18:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Only souce was Wikipedia with fair use claim MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I doubt the claim of being self-made. -Nard 20:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Well, he probably made the image digitalization, but as he hasn't made the cover itself... Platonides (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Shows copyighted interface and copyrighted album covers. Image is either fair use (as copyrighted parts) or a copyvio so is not permitted on Wikimedia Commons. Anonymous101 (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Those tiny blurs? Oh come on. They let you download the tiny blurs freely to your ipod. The tiny versions are given away freely and do not infringe the copyright holder's rights at all (note: I am aware there is probably some kind of restrictive license with them. It still doesn't affect my argument that these versions are not usuable to create derivative works, hence are not derivative works.). -Nard 20:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Those tiny blurs are 1 percent of the photo. There's nothing about the interface, a clock, a battery level indicator and time remaining, that is unique, individual or creative. Thuresson (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Zirland (In category Copyright violations; no license) Rocket000 (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside project scope. No source. -Nard 21:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted by ShakataGaNai — Monobi (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of a copyrighted belt design. -Nard 21:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- This image is free-use on enWP I don't know why it's considered any different here.-- † ChristianMan16 21:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Commons doesn't allow fair use, and this image is a copyright violation. --Kanonkas(talk) 21:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai Talk 21:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dupe of Image:Flag of Malaya Purga Region.svg --Хинт (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
GIFs and PNGs do not delete as dupes of SVG (see Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded). But it may be deleted as image with no source.--Ahonc (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Kept. This is not a "dupe" (GIF != SVG) - Feel free to NSD though ShakataGaNai Talk 00:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation, no permission and no license. Diti (talk to the penguin) 17:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ahonc (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation, no permission and no license. Diti (talk to the penguin) 17:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio.--Ahonc (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. speedy Badseed talk 17:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
commons:Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 Reed (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry I made a mistake with permission format same problem as with this Image:Stone_gods_rich.jpg
Kept. ONLY because I am tagging the images {{npd}} instead - since he seems to have gotten the authors permission. ShakataGaNai Talk 00:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
commons:Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 Reed (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry I made a mistake with permission format same problem as with this Image:Stone_gods_rich.jpg
Kept. ONLY because I am tagging the images {{npd}} instead - since he seems to have gotten the authors permission. ShakataGaNai Talk 00:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
commons:Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 Reed (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry I made a mistake with permission format same problem as with this Image:Stone_gods_rich.jpg
Kept. ONLY because I am tagging the images {{npd}} instead - since he seems to have gotten the authors permission. ShakataGaNai Talk 00:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Delete This is tagged with the deprecated {{PD-LOC}} template, and the image source is now a dead link. Therefore, if we cannot verify the exact copyright status, it might be better to delete this. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- It might be better just to accept it as! We decided to deprecate and grandfather the template, not treat everything marked with it as a copyvio. -Nard 01:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- A cropped version of this image is available here: [67]. It states that the image is a 1963 image from Associated Press. Pruneau (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- The rights page with that collection http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/076_nyw.html says they do not know the source of the wire photos in the collection. So it could easily be a copyvio. -Nard 12:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment cph.3c21368 is a different photo. ::shrug:: Evrik (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I say we grandfather it. Evrik (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No proove for PD, but a lot of doubt was issued by Pruneau and N. Cecil (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Per Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 12#My recent uploads I question if this photo can be free. --141.84.69.20 23:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, the image is fine. Object in question is the aircraft. It only becomes derivative if you zoom in on the Pokemon. --Denniss (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Technically or contextually?--141.84.69.20 23:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Image as of now = fine. Zooming in/close shot with only the big Pokemons = derivative. --Denniss (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Technically or contextually?--141.84.69.20 23:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not enough to be deriv. --ShakataGaNai Talk 06:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Seems no problem at all. also picture is fine.--Namazu-tron (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If this isn't allowed, then I suggest the deletion of Image:BWFE plan.JPG, Image:Dengekisoko Somashop.jpg, Image:FreakShowConeyIsland.jpg, and Image:Chine carrefour.jpg, among many others. --Haha169 (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
probably copyrighted, as per Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Spain Gabbe (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep That policy does not enjoy universal consensus and I refuse to believe non-creative works enjoy new copyrights. Besides, that section of Spain's copyright law is open to interpretation... I believe it applies to simple photographies below the threshold of individuality, not reproductions of PD works. -Nard 22:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Spain has 'Simple Photograph' provisions that protect all photographs for a shorter term than normal copyright. Many other countries have similar provisions, eg the Nordic countries. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-Art}}
Andros64 (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Ecemaml: Copyright violation: Likely copyright violation, as long as it does not provide sources, the uploader does not live there and is a known and disruptive troll, used to employ sockpuppets
Seems to be some kind of official portrait. I doubt the uploader has the rights to the image. --J Milburn (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It looks like a painting actually. So that would make it a deriv. --ShakataGaNai Talk 00:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"i bought pic" says the summary, so Deleted. Badseed talk 02:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Copyright not clear, http://www.pdscl.org/ doesn't show any Public Domain license on footer or something Diti (talk to the penguin) 17:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Badseed talk 02:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Personal gallery categorized and named as a non-personal gallery with incorrect capitalization and useless scope filled with images "I" (aka User:Menetekel) found in a dumpster and claimed as his own work. Most look like they are PD-old, but who knows. -Rocket000 (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Category and all images. Copyright holder unknown, and there is no proof they have been previously published, so they could easily be under 120 year anonymous unpublished copyright in the USA. -Nard 19:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Good point. I had not thought about them possibly not being published before. 1888 is a long-ass time ago. Although, being postcards (if that's really what they are) probably means they were published. Rocket000 (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- They're clearly not postcards (I mean the single baby is not going to be a postcard). It looks more like someone's private album. -Nard 12:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Good point. I had not thought about them possibly not being published before. 1888 is a long-ass time ago. Although, being postcards (if that's really what they are) probably means they were published. Rocket000 (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I have a collection of World War I postcards that are made from family photos. There is documentation from about 1913 to 1923 that they paid $1 to have postcards made from family photos at a business in Toronto Ontario. I have already uploaded several old postcards similar to these and credited properly, I see no reason for these really old photo/postcards to be deleted. WayneRay (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
Deleted. [[ Forrester ]] 00:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Reichstagsbrand.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:TKL Station Imformation.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gaming (nude).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fuck you! (nude).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Roche.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-magic Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Coat of Arms of Alnashi Reg (Udmurtia).gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of Alnashi Reg (Udmurtia).gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Coat of Arms of Malaya Purga rayon (Udmurtia) (2002).png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Richard y Grecia.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Labirinto.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fox at congress.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Venera 3.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BicanSlaviaPrague.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ukrainnska tkalya, Poltava rigeon, 1980.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
_(2002).png){kind=link}
June 15
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:One Stop Piercing Shop 1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Historia.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Down Under1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Caminhos do sertão.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Excelmoon.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nude on rainy day.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nude on rainy day 3.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SA.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:IE7 search box.PNG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wpcandy.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Iskolahataron.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Ukrainian Handicrafts Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Ukrainian Crafts Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Light Eyes Map1 .jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tomas Rosicky 7.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Calhoun Ann Marie.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Glenfiddich 12yo.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Verrocchio David.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pla de Busa - Cinglera de l'Areny.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Coat of Arms of Johannesburg v3.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Metro Mustakilliq Maydoni.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Universidad de los lagos.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:LOL Smug Bastards.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Mountains of New Hampshire Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mascotte2008.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Berck - Musée.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Lost (video game) Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Map-of-US-state-cannabis-decriminalization-laws.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:800px-Samesex marriage in USA-temp.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pigmentation Hair & Eyes .jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:TOYOTA ist Pikachu Car.jpg «second request» Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ErnstKaltenbrunner.jpg (2nd nomination) Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Marijuana Small Amount.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Henize 70.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Illyria1.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Skulptur-Paris-11.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Artworks in the MOMA
June 16
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Poitou-Esel Sam.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Auschwitz Souvenir T-shirt.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:GeorgeUtter.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ENG 352- Jack Jolly and Son.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Satin.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fellation.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ejaculation.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Penetration.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Anal-hétéro.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Puri-map.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BiografiaSaavedra.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:EDduo-sociedade.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:UNC JOMC Carroll Hall.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sabine Gruber Wien2008.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ukrainian Kushnir.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tsvetaeva.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Honda Jazz Blau August 2005.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ki-84-3.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Aab-gagarin-portrait3.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bellanca 14-9.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Schematische weergave fluorimeter.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Aab-gagarin-pilot.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Aab-gagarin-peace-pigeon.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Aab-gagarin-portrait1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Aab-yuri-gagarin-spacesuite.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gagarin space suite.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gagarin-Pravda-1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Human Micropenis.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Castello ferrara salettagiochi.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:GENIV cluster Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fl-resultaat.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sergey Pavlovich Korolyov.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SSLTCOL.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tsiolkovsky.jpg
June 17
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Coldplay 177057m.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Media needing categories as of 3 June 2008 Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Media needing categories as of 1 June 2008 Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Media needing categories as of 5 January 2008 Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Megamag06.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Media needing categories as of 1 December 2007 Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tower 1984.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Guinnessurkunde.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:CPSU.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:StRelProf2.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Margo Harshman 0007.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rondon01234567.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lilíde Mónico.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Milan World Champions 2007.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SSN-23 Sea trails.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ukrainskie pisanki.jpeg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:0101.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-LOC Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cascade Dam Thornapple River Fish StoryDSCN0090.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Parksosaurus v1 Steveoc.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pablo Neruda (1966).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Banklogo.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Belarus dress.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Willis james.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Willis james.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:W C Fields 02.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Burleigh-image1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cole Porter.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Magnitogorsk Panorama 2003.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:WomenAircraftWorkers.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Map Canada political-geo.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:USS Jimmy Carter SSN-23.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:USS Seawolf;08002123.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ONeill-Eugene-LOC.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Johnwork.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Leadbelly.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lewis wade jones.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Loeffler-image1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fields-WC-LOC.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Degrelle.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Leadbelly with his Guitar.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Crestaulta Keramik.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Skopje night.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Boggiani.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Adolfgallanddog.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Albert Kesselring portrait.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Spare seife aber wie.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Janicot Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Selma to Montgomery marches.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fate Directs the Faltering.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:France TV92.PNG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gabriela Mistral-01.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:The Ships of Columbus.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vampirkrabbe.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
June 18
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:H.W. Temple -RPTS Class of 1887.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Marg Harshman1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Margo.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Margo Harshman 1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tila Tequila arrives to the 2008 MTV Movie Awards on June 1, 2008.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pfeiffer uni 250x150.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Recorridotorreblanca.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Phoenix Lander Mars possible Ice.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Charliebuhlermisssouthdakota.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Charliebuhler.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Swimsuit.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ja mi editted up.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Victor Trevino & Irma Prishker.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Charle II Maundy 1674 73001269.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ben barnes.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Emblema CNI.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:PointlessFamilyPhotooftheYear.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Graciela Alejandra Brigatti.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Oomph.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pene.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sólfar, Reykjavik.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Aab-eleven-cosmonauts.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Acs.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Modificacion.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ntep.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FAP.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Historia.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dados WIKIPédia.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lenguaje Periodistico.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Systemtheorie.Luhmann.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mainz-Neustadt.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ANDRES JIMENEZ GARCIA1.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Daniel Vélez Heredia.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Unidad 1 ANDRAGOGIA.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fer web 1.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fundación Tláloc AC.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ESTUDIO DE COMUNICACION.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Teoría del Todo.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Introduccion al Derecho.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Article tank test.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nectar 2.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Grupo nectar.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Croquis del accidente nectar.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:713px-Blade runner special ed layout.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Crp-that shit.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Drunkman 2168.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cape verde coa.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Stonesoft Corporation.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Peter Klashorst Photos Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sebring Winners 448860439.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sorghaghtani Beki.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:The children - victims of adult vices (propaganda).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vigdis Finnbogadottir.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Akureyri Cathedral windows Commons:Deletion requests/Image:2.8-cm-sPzB-41-ammunition.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Images from mk-wiki Commons:Deletion requests/Signs of Venezuelan marines Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Candidatu a logu pala Güiquipeya en estremeñu 3.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Logobillboard.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
June 19
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mamiya-C330.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Aletta Jacobs.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:718smiley.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:MNS violence map.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BattlestarGalacticaWP.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Category:CJK stroke order/Characters Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Thompson-hrt.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Anzac Irak.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chimpavaca.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Higman sims garph.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Modugno 8.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Narnia combined different maps (2nd nomination).gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Stonesoft Corporation.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Monument to Yuri Gagarin in Moscow.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wehrmachtfahne.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Albizu Campos.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mermaid-sirene-bedel.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Will Dockery's Zorro.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Swords-Plowshares.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Happiehap.png
.gif){kind=link}
June 20
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Amero symbol.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Liga-fpm-.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dassault Falcon 7X by Rui Alves via airliners.net.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Now You're Gone BSHR.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Toys zerine.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ヤンママP6014882a.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Shivarbide.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Schivarbide.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:PLEO.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nri.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mexicankaz.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Christine Yvette.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:WisconsinRiverDamFloodingJune2008.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:LindsayLohanSousVetement.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chalumeau.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Interpol4.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Plpart.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Unclescrooge.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Andriy Voronin.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Clockwise he.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Typhoon Chaba 26804.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:London Lyceum Theatre before performance.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bébé Phoque de Weddell - Baby Weddell Seal.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chechens19.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Claire Clairmont, by Amelia Curran.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:USS Kidd DDG-100.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pat Douthwaite - Homage to Brian Jones.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Make way for ducklings statue.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Varunafoto.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ólafur.Grímsson.Island.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Front view.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Roos Van Acker.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Makó map.PNG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Propensity score matching sample.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Izyum WW2 Memorial Bombs.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Swflorida poramic.JPG
June 21
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Estação Corcovado.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:676634280 l.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pauly.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SuG.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FONDNICO-2-.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Goliathusbsingle.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:NE1 - Light of Life (cover).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:LionsofBabylon-TheirLastStand.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Freeman, Fox, Wilbur & Associates - Mass Transportation Study (1967).PNG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FamArabs.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:AAIL Logo.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pamela Moore.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eddie Jackson.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Scott Rockenfield.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Sinus (mathematics) Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Angelina Kitten.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rameses Mascot.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chipknives.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:The best damn thing.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Image-Second Avenue Subway Line.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Shower girl.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Maja sub.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Schach Matt.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Boston Duckling Sculpture 2005.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Estação Corcovado.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:The best damn thing.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:676634280 l.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pauly.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SuG.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FONDNICO-2-.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Goliathusbsingle.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:NE1 - Light of Life (cover).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:LionsofBabylon-TheirLastStand.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FamArabs.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:AAIL Logo.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pamela Moore.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eddie Jackson.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Scott Rockenfield.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Sinus (mathematics) Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Freeman, Fox, Wilbur & Associates - Mass Transportation Study (1967).PNG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mass Transportation Study 1967.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eni1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Jacinto Benavente.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Doppio-espresso.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Chao Phraya River Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Belanova.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:MTRInitialProposalRouteMap.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:En-us-aight.ogg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:CSS.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bond logo.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hellogoodbye logo.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Raul L. Martinez.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vista-desktop.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ErbmestaMyjava.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
June 22
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:2d0.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Castro Market 16th.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:MarkKeppel 187.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mural at Night.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:IMG 2182 Mural by Anton Refregier Rincon Center San Francisco.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:San luis thanka.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Our Lady of Guadalupe--graffiti in East Los Angeles.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:East West Bank, Lincoln Heights, Los Angeles.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hollywood mural.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Castro Market 16th.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:RPTS Class of 1887 edit.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:H.W. Temple-RPTS Class of 1887 2.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Modern Greek dialects.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ERT SAT-1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Flag of Gerpinnes.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Kurpiowska.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Conception Arguello and Nikolai Rezanov.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cala Mesquida placard.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Debiensko wielkie herb.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Debiensko stare herb.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Kurpiowska.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Skwer Kościuszki.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Christian Meier o.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Alchimie espagne wiki1.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:HPNX1504.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Trisha Krishnan Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eguzman.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Formule 1 2008.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ronprus.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Villa-Savoye.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Villa-Savoye-teras4.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:The Five Points.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Villa Savoye.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Order the Great Victory.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wasserman.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Villa-Savoye-piliers.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Oil Rig NT3.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Il va bientôt être l'heure d'aller se coucher.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flaga Ostródy.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bertulfo.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:View of the Stanza della Segnatura.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Emacs Tetris (detail).png Commons:Deletion requests/Images from wek.kiev.ua
.png){kind=link}
June 23
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tarchia1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Los Mochis Airport1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:My penis!.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:1000 dolars.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Owen2.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:My Penis.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Andreasl.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:9555 - Milano - Graffiti - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto 25-Apr-2007.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Joseph Cotton in .gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:GuyMoquet.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:27-0800a.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lataaminen suoritettu loppuun.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tiedostoa ladataan.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Allison-Mack.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Semen3.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gurwitsch.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Extractor-hood air gets out.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Extractor-hood air gets in.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:CarterFamily.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:The black thing (Klashorst).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Semen2.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Riboflavin penicillinamide.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Édouard Vuillard 001.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gigifoma.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Stephano Sabetti 4c.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mariannesmit-concertgebouw.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Map-of-dictatorships.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Elperico.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FamousEthnicRussians.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:MB 1017.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Postava pred oknem se zatazenymi zavesy II.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sperm.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Berto Barbarani.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Studio.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Zoie.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gallimimus2.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Semen.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Femalenude4.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Images from en.wiki from User:Tannin Commons:Deletion requests/Image:New Brunswick License Plate 2004.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Commemorative plaque for Konstantin Batyushkov.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Commemorative plaque for Konstantin Batyushkov.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Commemorative plaque for Konstantin Batyushkov.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
June 24
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Aristarchus logo big.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FamkeJanssen.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fathi.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:JPraptor.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Jam Hsiao 2007 bookcover.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Universitäts Brücke in Breslau.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dog Breath 13.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Amazon Forest.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Caudipteryx.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dilong.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Beipiaosaurus.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sinosauropteryx.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Citipatiamnh1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vraptoramnh1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Shuvuuiaamnh1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Herreramodel.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sinornis model FMNH.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Arthropleura model FMNH.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SuebrainCTscan2.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Scan001psoi6.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Barosaurus.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pleurocoelus.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SpinoJP.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:DiloJP.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:DMNS38L StygimolochSpinifer.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dinosaurs at CMNH 41.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Newmexico naturalhistorymuseum gorgosaurus.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Jackalope wyo.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fightsabertoothtiger.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:La Brea Tar Pits Mastadons.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:La Brea Saber-tooth Model.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Diplodocus carnegii statue.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Iguanodon sculpture brussels email.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Daspletosaurus model.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Albertosaurus model.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BostonMuseumSciOldTRexC.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dd penta big.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dinny1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:DinoOgdenPark.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:TriceratopsWisconsinDells1960s.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Triceratops toy.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Peabody dinosaur.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:N73black.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Maaspoort Sports & Events.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:CVJimmyPeve.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Roberto Donadoni.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cache-Michael-Haneke.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pinkdinosaur VernalUT.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Juegosdeguerra.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:British Empire Games - logo.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BarcelonaSC1925.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Oscar Wilde tomb.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Koczkodan koroniasty.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Confucius 02.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Heiligendamm G8 2007.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Celm.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Angler Fish.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Carnegie Library Dinosaur with scarf.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sante Geronimo Caserio.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SANDLINE logo.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Utahraptor Model.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Scipionyx model.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Triceratops brussels email.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Europasaurus2.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Phoenix skyline panorama.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Skyline of Phoenix.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Korolyow Barry Kent.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sql2.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Martinikerk en Walburgkerk Groningen.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Castelli Logo.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gandhi statue Washington DC.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Abi sized.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Roza-Shanina profile.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pachycephalosaurus-01-ZOO.Dvur.Kralove.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pachycephalosaurus-02-ZOO.Dvur.Kralove.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Scan00tri14.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pachycephalosaurus-01-ZOO.Dvur.Kralove.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pachycephalosaurus-02-ZOO.Dvur.Kralove.jpg
June 25
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cariamanga II.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Greening Australia 72dpi.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Weinmannia racemosa flowers.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pachyrhinosaurus Statues.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rpo wp.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Logo EKG.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Žalud ve stopoření.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ronprus.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:27-0919a.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gambia Banjul-Serekunda Highway 0011.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SOLAF.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hansolav.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SZDSZ.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Triceratops and Oxalis (1).JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Triceratops-and-Oxalis (1a).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:WIKINEWS 2007 12 003.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ted Slampyak.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:South Broadway Cultural Center mural and auditorium.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Maps by Jacob vsn Deventer Commons:Deletion requests/Image:F104-1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Plantacafe.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:DeutschesSprachgebiet962.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Branigan Library Las Cruces childrens mural.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Image:Logo STW Gruppe.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Canusium 1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Yot uc lc.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Popsci9.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Un mundo feliz.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nike Box (71580052).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Kintra 2004-Les Plaies Singles Cover.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flaga powiatu brzeskiego (opolskiego).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:NGC 6960.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FG-737KLM.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chest.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Plankton satellite image.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:MolotovRibbentropStalin.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:2008 Republican primary results.PNG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hjerten-ateljéinterior.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Steam.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sept 11 Victims Mural DC RIP.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mural YMCA.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:LuisGerardoSerrato 1.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:WesternLowland.gorillas.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:9113 - Milano, Museo storia naturale - Diorama di triceratropo - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto 22-Apr-2007.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:9114 - Milano, Museo storia naturale - Diorama di triceratropo - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto 22-Apr-2007.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Zdzisław Konieczny (historyk).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:For Knitwear mural on brick wall, 2005-02.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Brookston, Indiana mural.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Logo STW Gruppe.jpg
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
June 26
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/badly photoshopped, not used, probable copyvio Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mercury capri.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:GeneralRelativityTheoryManuscript.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Coovidset.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tai.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:The Cosmopolitan Resort.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tibutoro.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:JFK Express brochure.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:IPhone 2008.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Rhardo Commons:Deletion requests/Image:苦榮.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Renato Simoni.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ejaculationvideomarc.ogg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ejaculation video.ogg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:F84f-1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Images of Warren, Illinois Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SNS Heinlein.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ceres-env-pk-hdst-mkt-gdn.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ARTWANTED BOOK PAGE.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SL380415.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hkm1553.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Soyuz 33 Crew.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:15- Rainha D. Catarina.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wikipe-tan full length.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Koenigsberger Schloss Karte.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Osx.zipeg.1.640x480.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vista.zipeg.2.640x480.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gadhafi Carpet.jpeg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nan01defi.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:IPhone.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Juice Leskisen hauta kesäkuussa 2008.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Iphone 4.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Abelali-mouada.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wappen von Ringgau.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nickolai Ebersbacheichel.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/No FOP in France
June 27
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bored.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Friends (nude).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nude woman on couch.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Warembo.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Current 2008 US Electoral College Polling Map.PNG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Guelph CoA.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ludu U Hla portrait.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Foto de Fotolog.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Logofnvbondgenoten.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Benzinninegrado.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Benzini Girls.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ap7B10220121.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Picardcat.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Atyndall93-FullBody.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Paris Hilton of Palm Beach.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rolando Bianchi.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Idiota (alfonso).JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Atyndall93-FaceCloseup.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Loic Barisset.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Stadio Romeo Neri.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:POL COA Glemp.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Its the Old Army Game.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:I am onision art 2.sized.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Daniel González Güiza.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tolopedia 092 gambar.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Jorge Fuentes .jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Amado.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Jordglob.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gina Lynn, Travis Knight.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:070922.Great Pyramid Diagram.png Commons:Deletion requests/Images from Planiglobe.com Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dardel-selfportrait.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ArrowTre.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Szeptycki-Lwow-SoborSwJura.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cheryl Chin Wiki.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Portail Sylvipedia Illustration.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Funnel cloud symbol.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:1969 Dodge Super Bee.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mexico City metro logo.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
June 28
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mozilla Thunderbird.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Logotipodaepp.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sonic.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gripen1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ingame.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Yyyp.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sanstefano2.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Victor Pecci.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:TopGearNews.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Awesome blue robot.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cot co.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sidetrip cover- Baguio (first issue).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:IMG0027A.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Maiz54.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Poblac cultivand.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:JanKarczewski 1945.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Alto Parana-py.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Topfree group at Barton Creek.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:James.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chris Adler.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nyastølfossen no.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Linda Lovelace.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Para de minas6.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pinkysavika 1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:HelgavanLeur426.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dvirgala10.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Jerg.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cover5.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Grifo.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:伊丹廃寺跡伽藍.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Canindeyu-py.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Caazapa-py.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Manisha Koirala Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lubbocklakelandmark1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gs4 sugar all (1).png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ESPN wordmark.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:TaputapuateaMarae01.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:TaputapuateaMarae02.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:TaputapuateaMarae03.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:TaputapuateaMarae04.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Contact.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Shrapnel from rocket attack on Haifa on hand.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:George Kettmann, ca. 1960.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Margot Warnsinck, 1949-1950.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Amnh30.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:嘉悦授業棟連絡道.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Cloud Gate Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel Kirzner.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Famicom Zelda Disk.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nicole seibert big.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Illustratie uit Piccarts Verborgene Antiquiteiten 1660.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Giraelviajed.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:HelloKittywithwoman.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:RPG Toolkit logo.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:La Brea Tar Pits.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Questionable Ramones pics Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Auschwitz Souvenir T-shirt.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Kettmann, 'Zinnebeelden'.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:George Kettmann, Stadstuin.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Omslag 'De verdrevene', 1944.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Omslag 'Bloed in de sneeuw', 1943.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Omslag 'Jong groen om den helm', 1941.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tankxf8.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:WP-QS.png
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
June 29
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Robert Ullmann.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Jean-richard fredeling Commons:Deletion requests/The Banaynay Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Carnotaurus02.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ozwell spencer family emblem.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:CarlosRelvas.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nadien (3).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Pastor alemany.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:3rdeye logo..jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Creaciones Eduarda Mansilla 1883 .jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Fire engine Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Megazostrodon-bronze.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Snapshot9.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bandiera della Pace (reduced).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Topless women on the beach.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Canosa panorama.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pack of playing cards greenbg.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Crohnie sores 4.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Brain Logo.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Brain Death.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BRAINDEATH.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Father Dennis Kelleher, The Healing Redemptorist Priest.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Maps of France with communes Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ícono del Mozilla Suite.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Huddle.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Kawakita.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Osaka Station - third depot - 1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Osaka Station - third depot - 1 cropped.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:2-3 strom - struktura vyhledavani2.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SGD20.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gregory, John.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sayers Dorothy young.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Image-upload-4-738608.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Histology of normal lung tissue in patients with hamartochondroma2.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Kocmoc An-12 RA-12957.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Burgschaubeck.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Muirhouse Living Memories.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:CJones.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Thueringen-Neustadt-Orla-Fleischbaenke-Infotafel.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eddie-Powerslave.png Commons:Deletion requests/Carlos Botelho Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Carlos Botelho Commons:Deletion requests/Image:LennartMork 102.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
June 30
[edit]Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sidney Govou.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:M59.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:NWorksGroupLogo.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fraenkischer Tag 2006.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Elektrik keyboard catalog 1of6.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Esqueixada.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:PAUG.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bobry.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ard elsalam.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Manuel+Cepeda+Vargas.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:LuisCarlosGalan.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BernardoJaramillo.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Carloscastaño.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Galan.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:JaimePardoLeal.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Carlos Pizarro Leongómez.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Circaetus Pectoralis.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cuban postage stamps with paintings by Wifredo Lam.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:AdelaideAirportSkyline.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Discworld-Lu-Tze-Janet-Chui.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lapband on stomach.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ricardo Pereira.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Carnosa11062005.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Image-John Boswell.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eric Cantona.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:画像1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wentworth Miller Dominic Purcell.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Arkansas Toothpick vs. Bowie.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Arge.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Coves del Drac Mallorca 2008 6.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dolomitenbad Lienz.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Raptor1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Blick von Thumersbach nach Zell am See.PNG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gainer.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Stratocaster 003.png Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FLAH 02.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cdnppinside.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ciego.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ladies Skort 123001 (Large).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Template:ITTF Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sandigan Falls in Sorsogon.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BanderaCuellar.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chrysiridia Cigarette card.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Перетин фігури1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:WIKI ACT FOF 02.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gen de laito.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bertolt Brecht, 1931.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Heimlichco.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Wifredo Lam paintings Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nuvola apps important orange.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mosmetro.svg
.jpg){kind=link}
