Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/07/10
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
from www.mundodeportivo.com.ec, Not PD, may copyvio --shizhao (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No reason this would be PD-ineligible. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
because of no use, please delete it, thanks Misho (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request, not in use, picture of an asshole. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Photo from ebay auction. No proof that the seller agreed to license the file under the given license. 85.177.40.16 05:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The requirement for notification of the creator violates Commons:Licensing. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Per nom. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
because of no use, please delete it, thanks Misho (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request, not in use, picture of an asshole. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Statues in Belgium are not FOP, creator is not dead yet Brbbl (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete - a crap, stupid lack of FOP in Belgium. Multichill (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Record album artwork. --Jorge Barrios (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Record album artwork. --Jorge Barrios (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Record album artwork. --Jorge Barrios (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Outside the Commons:Scope, ie spam. -Nard the Bard 17:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Advertising MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Outside the Commons:Scope and is spam. -Nard the Bard 18:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Advertising MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Consistent image vandal. -Nard the Bard 18:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kanonkas(talk) 20:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Flickr user is clearly not the copyright holder and thus can not release it cc-by-sa. Image is on LoC with "no known restrictions" which is not public domain and no indication that the image is actually PD. BJTalk 18:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep "no known restrictions" is PD. Even though the Flickr user is not the copyright holder, we can keep this anyway. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 18:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)- Keep As clearly stated on the image record, the photographer, Carol Highsmith donated her rights to the LoC. Could do with a licensing change though. -Nard the Bard 18:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn and image properly tagged. BJTalk 19:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Unlicensed and therefore unfree. -Nard the Bard 19:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- DeleteThe source website is full of copyvios and even states "We do not claim ownership in any of the pictures found in this gallery. No copyright infringement is intended. If you want anything removed, please contact me before taking any legal action." Brynn (talk!) 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work Pruneautalk 19:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Image is low definition, duplicates other similar images like Image:Ice_blue_fbriefs.jpg 69.250.186.202 05:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Because oddly we lack pictures of CLOTHED males ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
From its sl page: "This image is the work of Simon Ager, who allows non-commercial publication." OsamaK 06:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
jpg file is replaces by a svg file
Kept. We don't delete images superseded by SVG. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Even though its running a theme with free images, this image contains the non-free Opera web browser. ViperSnake151 (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Fan art. --Jorge Barrios (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
We don't know who is pictured, or if there is permission to picture them. Also important is the fact that the image is also blurry and unusable and unneeded anywhere. Alternatives would be better in any situation. 70.215.221.137 16:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete We also run into fair use issues because this is a cosplay of a most likely copyrighted character, although I don't recognize the series. BrokenSphere 16:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Extremely poor quality image, and therefore useless for almost all purposes. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 02:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. I too fail to recognize the series, but prob derive & such quality that will serve no purpose ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
name of file is wrong Bocaj (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
why is it there? 79.70.111.247 22:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused, No Source, out of scope ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
"This user wants to delete this file" is reason given by Piccadilly Circus who requested deletion. (completing incomplete DR by Piccadilly Circus of July 10, 2008) --Brynn (talk!) 22:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Personal Photo: not in scope Avron (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of Scoped. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Completing incomplete DR by FxJ of July2, 2008. No reason given, although it is out of scope. --Brynn (talk!) 23:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of Scoped. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This image is a dup of Image:TwoLorenzOrbits.jpg. --Ktdreyer (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: duplicate or a scaled down version of Image:TwoLorenzOrbits.jpg
US published pre 1923 not applicable since it's drawn by a british artist for the london based Vanity Fair. Lokal_Profil 23:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm puzzled - does the fact that it originated in London in 1899 mean that its appearance in American periodicals long before 1923 not qualify it for public domain? Rotational (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Right. PD-US applies only to U.S. works. For us, a PD work must be PD in the U.S. and in the source country, which is the UK in this case. In the UK, this painting is copyrighted until the end of 2011 (70 years after the painter's death). Delete Lupo 09:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- P.S.: If you can find a source for a pre-1923 of the painting, you may upload it locally at the English Wikipedia and tag it there as "{{PD-US}}{{Do not move to Commons}}". Lupo 09:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- PD-1923-abroad might be better ;) -Nard the Bard 13:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- P.S.: If you can find a source for a pre-1923 of the painting, you may upload it locally at the English Wikipedia and tag it there as "{{PD-US}}{{Do not move to Commons}}". Lupo 09:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Badseed talk 12:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A completely free image could be made. BJTalk 05:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. We should start treating Wikimedia logos (and by extension, screenshots of web pages of Wikimedia projects) just as we do any other kind of non-free copyrighted logo. That we're obliged (for whatever reason) to host the logos here, doesn't mean that we should allow these logos to spread all over the place, into places where they are REALLY not needed. There are plenty of completely free websites that would do fine for screenshot purposes. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 05:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Good point. We must clean out GPL images from Windows API and Wikimedia logos. BTW, GPL doesn't allow mixing GPL and non-GPL items.--OsamaK 10:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. I ignored this the first time around in hopes someone would create a free version. Times up. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the copyvio history of this uploader, I highly doubt that this image was taken by the uploader. ALE! ¿…? 09:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No proof of copyright violation. --Dezidor (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Neutral. (s)he has a bad uploading log, and image looks like unfree. In the other hand, there is no proof of copyright violation.--OsamaK 10:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. 1st hit of Google Picture Search Cecil (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image looks like a scan to me. If I do not remember wrongly, I think I saw this in the newspaper La Nacion. ALE! ¿…? 09:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No proof of copyright violation. We can´t be paranoid. --Dezidor (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. I would not have deleted that image at first. But than I saw the request immediately above, where Dezidor stated the same paranoia-opinion. That image had a better name, so it took me not even a minute to find the proove of copyvio (it was the first hit at google picture search actually). Sorry, Dezidor, but that user is completly unthrustworthy and if you would have done a small research yourself you would have found that proove too. But sure, telling everybody that they have paranoia is easier. Cecil (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Original research --Pixeltoo (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Original research: a personnal version of the Image:Clash of Civilizations.png uploaded by Monsieur Fou (talk · contribs). --Pixeltoo (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is not wikipedia, so original research does not apply here. Multichill (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Can I invoke that this map doesn't fit to Commons:Scope, considering that this map doesn't contain any relevant content ? --Pixeltoo (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is not wikipedia, so original research does not apply here. Multichill (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You can invoke anything you like, and it still won't make us Wikipedia. Kept. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This map is a bit ridiculous. It considers Russia and South America as a part of western civilization, yet it makes distinctions between Arab-Persian and Chinese-Japanese-Korean. -intranetusa
copy of Image:Diving emperor penguin.jpg (completing incomplete DR of June 25 2008 by FxJ )--Brynn (talk!) 22:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as dupe of Image:Diving emperor penguin.jpg. Please use {{Duplicate}} for those things. Cecil (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
its of no use --Gayathriirugulapati (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. --Dezidor (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Dezidor is right, We don't delete images because it's an orphan. But I think this image is about of scope so Delete--OsamaK 10:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Cbrown1023: : Uploader's request, not used anywhere
1950ies, I can’t believe it’s not copyrighted.Code·is·poetry 04:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep According to the uploader at FindaGrave, it isn't copyrighted anymore. This is possible, see here: http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/tca/PDF/011/CorpCater.pdf -- Waylon (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Findagrave is no reliable source. "Is possible" is not "is public domain". Code·is·poetry 11:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Pst, that case doesn't apply, because of federal copyright legislation. All that case says is TN has no state copyright. -Nard 12:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- To nominator: Believe it or not lots of studio photos were never bothered to be registered for copyright or renewed. What we think of today as historic or classic pictures were at the time just another boring day at the studio. Let's see if we can track down a better source. -Nard 12:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Can't find this one anywhere. Findagrave might be the only online source. Recommend contacting uploader there for sourcing info. In the meantime, Delete no source info. -Nard the Bard 15:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Can't find this one anywhere. Findagrave might be the only online source. Recommend contacting uploader there for sourcing info. In the meantime,
Deleted. As long as we can find no REAL sorce we can not keep it as free. abf /talk to me/ 06:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The fireworks are clearly photoshopped in - that and the small size of the image leads me to doubt own work. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and likely copyright violation - based on sourceless Image:The_Norbreck_Castle_At_Night.jpg. Ian13 (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Yes. The fireworks are photoshoped and likely fake. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 06:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
uploaded under wrong name by mistake Labattblueboy (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC) --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, properly named image is here. You can {{Badname}} your own uploads in cases like this. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 13:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This is obviously no PD-USGov image.Code·is·poetry 11:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
In fact, this photograph is part of the archives of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum -- a United States Government Agency. While, as copyright holder, the museum controls distribution of the photograph, it has freely released it for use in Wikipedia.
- Three problems: PD-USGov doesn't apply to works the US Gov merely owns, just the ones it created. An important, if subtle point. Secondly, we have no evidence that it actually owns the copyright instead of just the physical photo, and third, we have no evidence that it has freely released it for use in Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The image does not appear to be the work of the U.S. government, which means the copyright ostensibly belongs to the original author of the work. --jonny-mt 04:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I imagine the Official Royal Malaysian Air Force PASKAU insignia is copyrighted to the Royal Malaysian Air Force PASKAU, and not released to the public domain. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. See COM:L#Malaysia. PASKAU was not formed until 1993, which means the work is still subject to copyright. --jonny-mt 04:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Highly unlikely that uploader created the crest for the Malay Royal Air Force. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Even if the uploader did create a replica, it qualifies as a derivative work of the original copyrighted image. --jonny-mt 04:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a coat of arms of a living catholic bishop. No PD license is applicable. The copyrights rightfully belong to the Catholic Church in Poland. 78.88.225.143 14:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted A.J. (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a coat of arms of a living catholic archbishop. No PD license is applicable. The copyrights rightfully belong to the Catholic Church in Poland. 78.88.225.143 14:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted A.J. (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a coat of arms of a living catholic bishop. No PD license is applicable. The copyrights rightfully belong to the Catholic Church in Poland. 78.88.225.143 14:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted / A.J. (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a coat of arms of a living catholic hbishop. No PD license is applicable. The copyrights rightfully belong to the Catholic Church in Poland. 78.88.225.143 14:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted / A.J. (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a coat of arms of a living catholic bishop. No PD license is applicable. The copyrights rightfully belong to the Catholic Church in Poland. 78.88.225.143 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted A.J. (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Public domain, due to age, cannot be confirmed without knowing the date of the photo (and when the author died). Ian13 (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Kved: In category Unknown as of 26 September 2008; no license
I removed a no source tag. This could qualify as an anonymous work. -Nard the Bard 15:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- There is not even a source at de. Code·is·poetry 16:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- It can only be kept as anonymous work if we have some evidence that the photographer was never known. --Kam Solusar (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. {{Anonymous-EU}} needs indications that the author is not only unknown to us but anonymous. [[ Forrester ]] 21:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Appears to have been drawn after this copyrighted image: http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/7827/ikkenavngivet6kopilw3.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Imageshack is not a proper source and I'm not sure this line tracing even qualifies for copyright. -Nard 12:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment AFAIK, Imageshack is where FunkMonk puts scans from a book that he personally owns, in order to prove copyright violations, rather than uploading them here for comparison. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Right. -Nard the Bard 15:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it's from a book called "The Ultimate Dinosaur Book" by David Lambert. I believe it's a stock image owned by Dorling Kindersly, in any case, it's non-free. FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Right. -Nard the Bard 15:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I'm looking at the two pictures, and it's not a simple as a tracing. The dinosaurs are looking in different directions, for one thing. I'm not even sure that this was the original; I think the artist of our version could have worked from other pictures to get this result. Given that the concept of a bare headshot isn't copyrighted, and the fact that any two headshots of a real creature designed to exemplify that creature are going to look pretty similar, especially once you abstract away color, I don't think this violates copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- They could had worked from the same skeletal restoration for sure, but what made me believe it was traced is the ridge on the neck, which is pretty much artistic license, since fossils don't show them, so it seemed like too much of a coincidence that they had both drawn it. Other drawings that were much more blatant tracings also had minor differences, like shape of certain organs, but the poses and artistic choices that aren't based on anything but imagination, since fossils don't show them, indicate whether it is a tracing or not. Take these for example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Deinonychus_ByUtah.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Archaeopteryx_ByUtah.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Acrocanthosaurus_ByUtah.jpg It's a sure tracing, but there are minor differences still. FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per FunkMonk MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a coat of arms of a living catholic cardinal. No PD license is applicable. The copyrights rightfully belong to the Catholic Church in Poland. 78.88.225.143 14:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copright holder requested deletion, see OTRS #2008111710023042 ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this, since I don't know how the FBI acts in those cases, but I want a few opinions. This picture was used for FBI-MostWanted-Posters and maybe they have gotten all rights for the picture before using it on their posters (but why would/should they). But the picture itself is not the work of an employee of the FBI as indicated by the licence. Before this incidence, the depicted person was never noticeable in a criminal sence, so there do not exist any mugshots of him. And since he was allready dead by the time they caught him, police officials never had the chance to make pictures of him (as a living person). This is a private picture that was used by employees of the FBI, does that make it a free picture useable under this licence? -- Cecil (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- If everything in the above statement is accurate, then the photo should probably not be included on Commons. However, I think it would still qualify for fair use on Wikipedia's Andrew Cunanan article. So it shouldn't be simply deleted, but rather moved to Wikipedia and relinked to the article, with a fair use rationale. -Peteforsyth (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- That does not help me much since I am working on the article at a wikipedia where there is no fair use. After all there are more than just one Wikipedia (in fact there are hundreds of projects) and many of them create a free encyclopedia, thus only using really free images. -- Cecil (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unless we know who the copyright/licensing of the original the FBI took this from. rootology (T) 07:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine never released its Logo rights Tarawneh (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- What about the Judean People's Front? -Nard the Bard 15:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image is ineligible for copyright due to simple design. -Nard the Bard 18:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative of their logo. /Lokal_Profil 20:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative of copyrighted logo, not simple enough to be ineligible. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Coat of arms of one of the polish living bishops. The copyrights rightfully belong to The Catholic Church in Poland. 78.88.225.143 14:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This is an emblem of a catholic diocese founded in 2004. The copyrights rightfully belong to the Catholic Church in Poland. 78.88.225.143 14:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep Unless the COA was drawn the the author, as stated in the description. --Jarekt (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Even if it was drawn by the author, it still remains a derivative work, similar to Commons:Fan art. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The image has been uploaded as a new version of the original (Image:Human_skeleton_front.svg) TimothyBourke (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. The image is in use on en.wikibooks.org MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
All photos of User:Vietthanh9188 are suspected copyvios.
- Image:Hoahau08L.jpg
- Image:Ngoc31504008.jpg
- Image:11Hoa-Hau-Viet-Nam-1.jpg
- Image:2634562344 086ef8659c.jpg
- Image:2634658034 76f1c5b177.jpg
- Image:2634869827 b6f1d18505.jpg
These are reasons:
- Most of the image from one Flickr source, their file names have Flickr thumbnail file name. So he may copy them from other Flickr accounts.
- Image:Hoahau08L.jpg is viocopy from This website
- Image:2634562344 086ef8659c.jpg is viocopy from This Flickr image.
- Image:2634658034 76f1c5b177.jpg is viocopy because it is logo of an organization.
So, I suspect that the Flickr account viet_thanh1991 is created only for uploading viocopy image to Commons. Vinhtantran (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Appear to have all been deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:FarCry-screen01.png (taken back)
[edit]
The copyright holder should be Crytek, UbiSoft being only the publisher. --Conspiration 23:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC) --Conspiration 23:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please postpone deletion, I told someone to ask Ubisoft about it! --Conspiration 17:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I take back the deletion request. However, please note that the image may or may not be usable in nations like Germany, where not all rights of the author are transferable by a license (even if he wants to). The question about the rights there still remains. I'll add a note when I know about this. --Conspiration 18:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Deletion request retracted Deadstar (msg) 09:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Dupes by Captmondo
[edit]- Image:ArchaeornithomimusAsiaticus-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-DinoReplicaOutsideEntrance-May23-08.png,
- Image:BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-Facade-May23-08.png,
- Image:BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-FacadeDetail-May23-08.png,
- Image:BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-Front-May23-08.png,
- Image:BothriolepisTungseni-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:Confuciusornis-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:ConfusornisSanctus-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:DalinghesaurusLongidigitus-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:ElongatoolithusElongatus-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:EoalligatorHuiningensis-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:HomotheriumCrenatidens-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:HoopterusGracilis-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:HuayangosaurusTaibaii-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:JuxiaSharamurenense-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:MagnirostrisDodsoni(Skull)-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:MionatrixDiatomus-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:MicroraptorGui-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:LycopteraDavidi-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:LaxaspisQujingensis-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:JialingpusYuechiensis(Ichnite)-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:NochelaspisMaeandrine-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:ParalycopteraWui-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:ProbactrosaurusGobiensis-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:TsintaosaurusSpinorhinus-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:YixianornisGrabaui-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:TurfanosuchusDabanensis-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:PlatybelodonGrangeri-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png,
- Image:ProbactrosaurusGobiensis(Skull)-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png &
- Image:NochelaspisMaeandrine-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png - all nominated by the uploader: Location tag in filename ("BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory") is incorrect; new image with the correct location ("PaleozoologicalMuseumOfChina") has been uploaded to WikiCommons to replace this one Captmondo (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory-May23-08.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- One page with all the requests. Multichill (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep the new uploads are scaled down versions. Multichill (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm confused, why delete these again? rootology (T) 07:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. I'm unsure why the rest should be deleted, so I'm calling it kept. Maxim(talk) 21:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted after clarification from Captmondo. Maxim(talk) 14:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you block the uploader, too? Thx. Michael Reschke (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image is of too low a quality, you can see the pixellation in the 'E in hell. -Nard the Bard 18:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per scope. Not currently used and no reasonable expectation that it would be used. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Anger management issues inappropiate in this venue. Just Dumb, too. 75.67.207.185 19:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kanonkas(talk) 19:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll see your derivative works and up you {{Pd-ineligible}} and {{PD-US-no notice}}, so {{Vk}} -Nard the Bard 16:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Sceptical about the {{Pd-ineligible}} (central hands design looks original to me) but agree with {{PD-US-no notice}}. Borderboy: just look at the template linked by Nard the Bard: basically he's using those two as defences for keeping the image. Kelvinc (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Borderboy here.
I am new and do not understand exactly what is going on.
Nard the Bard has made some un-intelligible (to me) remarks - What on earth does, "*I'll see your derivative works and up you {{Pd-ineligible}} and {{PD-US-no notice}}, so {{Vk}}" mean anyway?
___
I have been collecting Political Campaign items since 1960, and have a major collection in this country. I have been a member of the American Political Items Collectors since 1972 and been on the Board of Directors.
We all share photos of campaign items freely and there has never been any conflict with copyright infringement if that is the problem.
I can supply photos from my collection for many other candidates and causes if this does not become a problem.
Thanks for your understanding and I hope to clear this up soon.
Borderboy out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borderboy (talk • contribs) 04:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I was referring to different templates we have here to refer to why something might have no copyright restrictions. You can click the links in my comment to see what my reasons are. To answer your other question, Commons has a much stricter attitude on copyright infringement than most places, and to someone like you who is used to sharing images of buttons without concern for copyright, the policy of Commons may come as an incredibly major surprise. When looking at copyright, most people start with a premise of thinking "oh this won't bother the author" or "everyone copies this, nobody even knows who the author is" or "but I know the guy and he said it was ok" or similar. Which is fine in non-commercial contexts. Most authors/artists have no problems with you using their work to describe it positively or within your fair use rights or in other ways they've given permission.
- Commons starts off with a different approach. Commons does not accept fair use (you can read about this at Commons:Licensing). Commons believes everything has copyright unless proven otherwise. Commons wants images that can be freely used or anything, including commercial use and derivative works. I imagine Hosea would be pretty upset if we replaced the arm giving the victory salute with a sickle and hammer and then sold t-shirts of it. Such a derived use with commercial benefit would not qualify as fair use, and might trigger a copyright lawsuit (and defamation, but that's besides the point). So the only way this image can be on Commons is if it's copyright free. I believe it is, because it was published before 1978 without a copyright notice and the very simplistic design shows little artistic creativity. -Nard the Bard 06:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for making that more understandable to a novice like me.
I certainly understand your concern.
You will find numerous books, both about candidates, showing their campaign items (a recent book on Eugene V. Debs has his "prisoner" button on the cover) and books about political memorabilia, filled with images of items, old and new.
Hosea would probably not be upset as he is long gone.
- S*
And I certainly cannot see "we" (Wikipedia?) selling t-shirts as you described.
Ok.... Thanks again.
Borderboy
- Again I refer you to Commons:Licensing. Files stored here are used on local wikis, yes, but they MUST be free for re-use by ANYONE. That's what Commons stands for. For use only on Wikipedia, such a work is not accepted, or is accepted only if it qualifies as fair use at your local wiki. If so upload it there. Files not completely free for re-use by anyone will be deleted from Commons however. -Nard the Bard 02:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- As no consensus has been reached, I am closing this request and keeping the image. odder 11:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
and
- Image:Gen Con Indy 2007 - costumes 13 (Storm Troopers and Darth Vader).JPG
- Image:Gen Con Indy 2007 - costumes 14 (Storm Troopers and Darth Vader).JPG
- Image:Gen Con Indy 2007 - costumes 15 (Darth Vader and a pirate).JPG
- Image:Jack Sparrow - drawing.jpg
- Image:Jack Sparrow and Boba Fet.jpg
- Image:Jack Sparrow in Tokio.jpg
- Image:Jack Sparrow's head - drawing.jpg
- Image:Jack Sparrow's clone.jpg
- Image:Jack Sparrow's imitator 2.jpg
- Image:Jack Sparrow's imitator 3.jpg
- Image:Jack Sparrow's imitator.jpg
- Image:Pirates of the Caribbean imitators.jpg
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Commons:Derivative works from copyrighted characters. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I do not believe the pirate costume passes the threshold of originality but the Darth Vader and Storm Troopers do. Move to separate the deletion requests. -Nard 14:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's not generic pirate costume, but precise (in some degree) imitation of Jack Sparrow character. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. If we'll go with your logic that all Category:Cosplay should be deleted because the main idea of this movement is to copy some popular (usually copyrigthed) characters... Electron (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment On the other hand Jack Sparrow character and "The Carribean Pitates (move)" are based on the Carribean Pirates world previous intoduced in Disneyland so they are Commons:Derivative works, too. Many of the main stream of the modern arts are based on previous works, too - we should say... So it is very dificult to say what is the orgin of something and what is not... Electron (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is a Disney movie, so I would bet money that the movie producers are licensed to use the designs from the amusement park. --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Commons:Fan art.--Trixt (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete derivative work/Fair use. AnimeFan (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Dressing up in costumes does not violate any copyright. There is a difference between dressing up as a character and dressing up in a 3-D rendering of a cartoon/otherwise character. So long as a person is visible, it's dress, and not a 3-D rendering, and dress is not copyrightable so long as it's being worn by someone. I'm not sure why we keep having this over and over again. Bastique demandez 22:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment There's a wider discussion of the troblem at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan.
- I suggest merging this deletion request there. Electron <Talk?> 07:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll be making a cosplay policy proposal quite soon. Please leave this open until then. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Location tag in filename ("BeijingMuseumOfNaturalHistory") is incorrect; new image with the correct location ("PaleozoologicalMuseumOfChina") has been uploaded to WikiCommons to replace this one Captmondo (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think the "duplicate" Image:LucyprinusLinchiiensis-PaleozoologicalMuseumOfChina-May23-08.jpg is bad, it should be transformed again from this png. --Martin H. (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept, two different files, within Project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
