Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/07/15
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Sorry about the broken URL below - the spam protection filter blocked my nomination because of it.
This file came from http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:DancingHitler.gif which says it came from http://encyclopedia dramatica.com/Image:DancingHitler.gif (no spaces) which mentions it coming from Fox 11. The license on the description page is most probably wrong; the image seems to be copyrighted. --Kimse (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
...and Fox 11 got it from one of the chan sites (4chan, etc, wherein this image has been around for roughly forever). There's no way of telling who the author is, and we certainly can't say that it's freely licensed, so deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 01:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Business ad one page Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
wrong persons picture, can be deleted --Motopark (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. —Giggy 04:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This image is extracted from the Fashion TV online gallery Brynn (talk!) 03:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. —Giggy 03:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Non-free promotional. Sdrtirs (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative of copyright work ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfree - Faithful depiction of 2-dimensional, copyrighted, work of art. Seidenstud (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No FOP in the USA - unfortunately ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfree - Faithful depiction of 2-dimensional, copyrighted, work of art. Seidenstud (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No FOP in the USA - unfortunately ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
there is no reason to believe, that the CoS is involved in the operations of this boat... en:WP:CS --79.223.116.67 07:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for telling us. Check out the "edit" button while you're here, and WP:NOT. Also, Kept. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 08:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
When I seen this image, I knew that I have seen it elsewhere before seeing here on Wikimedia Commons. A red flag than popped up. So I decided to check Google Images to if other sites have used this image and it is quite true. I seen that StarPulse.com, DailyGalaxy.com, StageFrontTickets.com, VideoMusicMP3.com, among others have used it. That doesn't necessarily mean they have the rights to the picture. But seeing the date of the upload, I do suspect Gameswalkthrough don't have the rights to that picture either. Now if anyone including Gameswalkthrough can find the rights to the picture and get the proper permission to upload it than by all means re-upload it --Mr. C.C. (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, blatant copyvio. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 08:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
this image has a non-descriptive name (Bls 018.jpg). I already uploaded the same image with a better name. Jiří Kadlec (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, you can use {{Badname}} for things like this in future. :) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 08:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Used in a subject that has been uncovered as a hoax, see nl:Overleg_gebruiker:Dinx#Jean_Fran.C3.A7ois_Moufot. As such, I don't see how this can be considered more than the portrait of an unknown man by an unknown painter. -- Andre Engels (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no reliable source verifying this image and its description. That weblog can not be considered as a reliable source. en:wp:v
Wayiran (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep Commons is not Wikipedia. From looking through the Flickr user's photostream, it seems that they did indeed take this picture, which means they were indeed there, which means they probably know what they're looking at. Yes, we risk having incorrect descriptions, but descriptions alone are not enough to warrant deleting a potentially valuable image that has been made freely-available. If you disagree with the description, feel free to take it up on the image talk page. --jonny-mt 12:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep In this case the flickr account in question seems to be genuine - not a copyvio thus keep. Commons is not wikipedia. Megapixie (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. // Liftarn (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept, per Megapixie & jonny-mt. Kameraad Pjotr 19:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
i do know 3L1323R (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader requested ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Gravestone contains a work of art (the guy and his dog). The graveyard is in United States, where there is no COM:FOP for work of art. You need the permission of the sculpteur to use the image under a free licence. -- Cecil (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Monument was installed in 2007. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, FOP does not apply. Kameraad Pjotr 19:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Poorly sourced; myspace site is a "tribute" site, not actual site of musician pictured. If authorship and date of photo are unknown, how can copyright status be known? --Infrogmation (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Not in the public domain, as it was published in Germany in 1929. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept, author died in 1926, but the image was only published in 1929. Kameraad Pjotr 19:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
one half of this collage was deleted as a copyright violation --SVTCobra (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know that this girl has given or would give her consent to the guy who pierced her nipple and took a photo (in what it likely a private room at the piercing shop) to put her photo on the internet. Brynn (talk!) 17:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Brynn (talk!) 17:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. COM:PEOPLE MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment I don't challenge this deletion, but I see nothing impossible about someone giving permission to distribute a photo of their nipple piercing. I might have asked for OTRS permission rather than speedy deleting. If the uploader reuploads with OTRS confirmation of consent by the person photographed, I would have no objection. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
IMHO the original license of en.wiki is not credible. The photo is probably a copyvio but I could not find the original photo so far in Google. ALE! ¿…? 09:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'm inclined to agree--the uploading user on en-wiki also uploaded en:Image:Buenos_aires.jpg with a claim that they took it themselves, ignoring the fact that en:Image:9 de julio ba.jpg was uploaded first. So it looks like they're either a copyright violator or a sockpuppeteer--regardless, I'm going on a little hunt. --jonny-mt 15:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete I found the image at http://www.mdzol.com/mdz/nota/52162 so the image can be deleted quickly as a copyvio. I do not want to do it, as I started the nomination. --ALE! ¿…? 08:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Tagged as a {{Copyvio}}--good find! Incidentally, the two images I linked above are now up for deletion at en-wiki; hopefully I can sort that out tonight. --jonny-mt 09:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I removed a speedy deletion tag. I do not believe the minimal amounts of windows xp interface are copyrightable, per apple v. microsoft (which was settled when they both discovered they had ripped off the xerox park design) and the fact that there is only de minimis inclusion. -Nard the Bard 21:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Info Besides the apparent Windows XP icons, the screenshot also has Firefox's logo. --Kimse (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Info I cropped the image to remove the Windows interface and the Firefox and Google logos. Only the Wikipedia logo remains. Pruneautalk 10:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept after cropping. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
OTRS pending for 10 days. -Nard the Bard 22:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but 10 days is not so long - please be patient, we have a constant backlog. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- The mail for OTRS have been send... for a lot of days ! --Garfieldairlines (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept per {{PermissionOTRS|ticket=https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=1687333&ArticleID=2078093#2078093}} — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a professional image (copyvio?), promotional material, out of project scope Trixt (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC) its not, i took it!
This is certainly
Violating copyright
It is not "own work".
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Questionable copyright claim. Even if "the state of Tennessee no longer recognizes its common law copyright", may not be relevent, photographer or publisher (listed as "unknown") may have filed for US (Federal) copyright. Note also intermediate source website makes no claim of public domain stauts. --Infrogmation (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh. I gave the user that rationale to support a audio recording as {{PD-US record}} since pre 1972 audio recordings do not fall under federal copyright law. This file here could qualify as {{PD-US-not renewed}} but without original source we cannot know. -Nard the Bard 22:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 06:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Off-center file, does not render properly. Useless. -Nard the Bard 22:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- {{sofixit}}? — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Fixed it. Problem resolved. Kept. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 06:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Own work seems very doubtful, it looks like a promotional photo to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: One problem I have is the lack of copyright status. For all we know it could be the uploaders photo. Maybe the uploader was hired to take the photo? You never know. Mr. C.C. (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - true, but in those cases copyright is generally held by whoever hired the photographer. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Ahonc: In category Unknown as of 15 July 2008; no license
Outside project scope. -Nard 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- KEEP This is educational and can relate to various articles. It ws a good read WayneRay 18:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
- Delete after moving to Wikisource, if they'll take it. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Despite requests to the uploader images 1, 3 and 4 are missing proove of being public domain. Image 2 is not in public domain, so it has to be removed from the collage anyway. -- Cecil (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless all images in the collage are sourced and shown to be free licensed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, nothing happend. --Martin H. (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Illuminations of the Eiffel tower are considered to be copyrighted work of art under French law. Unless uploader has permission to publish the image, which is unlikely, thing might consitute a copyvio. --Rama (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Plus there is a watermark in the lower right corner. I have read that Wiki Commons doesn't like watermarks of the artist. Mr. C.C. (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I transfered the image from en.wikipedia to commons. Sorry if I did wrong with this image. The original uploader is en:User:Beivushtang. It appears that many of his images (that can be seen on his user page) have been transfered to Commons by bots with no problems, and there are watermarks on some of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TA_DH_208.jpg or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Littleuni_13.jpg ,...). Cordialy MaCRoEco (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- You are right in saying that Commons "doesn't like watermarks", but not to the point of deleting any image with a watermark, especially when it would be so easy to crop the watermark out. As far as the copyvio is concerned, I'm leaning towards Keep: the company that lights the Eiffel Tower does claim copyright over the lighting, but this isn't a photo of the usual lighting. Instead, it shows fireworks, and the Image casebook suggests that this isn't copyrightable. Pruneautalk 13:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- You are right in saying that Commons "doesn't like watermarks", but not to the point of deleting any image with a watermark, especially when it would be so easy to crop the watermark out. As far as the copyvio is concerned, I'm leaning towards
- I transfered the image from en.wikipedia to commons. Sorry if I did wrong with this image. The original uploader is en:User:Beivushtang. It appears that many of his images (that can be seen on his user page) have been transfered to Commons by bots with no problems, and there are watermarks on some of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TA_DH_208.jpg or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Littleuni_13.jpg ,...). Cordialy MaCRoEco (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
That was a general comment about the watermark. Mr. C.C. (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree. This is not the usual lighting arrangement on which copyright has been claimed, and a still image of fireworks infringes no copyright. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Despite request to the uploader no source provided for any of the images. No proove that there exists any permission to use and register them under a free licence. -- Cecil (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No sources MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work given the ~100% likelihood this is a recorded performance, and the image on-screen is not de minimis. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - there is nothing derivative about it nor copyrighted. It was taken by a fan at a live event you can ask the fan your self at his talk page on en. This photo is completely free use without any strings attached. And there is no chance at all that this is a recorded performance cause everything WWE airs has their logo in the bottom left hand corner of the screen...also that is the ring announcer singing the US national anthem before the show went on the air.-- † ChristianMan16 19:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as I agree with ChristianMan. This is not derivative. By the definition of derivative, than wouldn't fall under being derivative. It wouldn't even come close as a reproduction either. Mr. C.C. (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Ignoring the honking great TV in the middle of the picture. I'm sure that the person who took the photo paid to gain entrance to the Arena. Conditions of entry on the ticket probably preclude the distribution of any photographs/videos taken at the event. Megapixie (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Which is irrelevant to us; if the uploader wants to take these sorts of risks it's up to him. The copyright issue is the only one at hand. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Someone (the producing company of the show?) owns the copyright to the image on the screen in the middle, making this a derivative work. Pruneautalk 09:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment no one owns copyright to the image on the screen cause it's not part of the show airing. But if it will make you feel better the screen can be blanked in editing.-- † ChristianMan16 17:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to be aired to be copyrighted. As long as WWE simply recorded it, they have copyright. Without strong evidence to the contrary, we should assume they record everything when the live show is going, for potential use in broadcasts, DVDs, etc. --dave pape (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- They don't record that...it's ONLY for the fans in attendance to see.-- † ChristianMan16 19:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- If I remember my laws correctly, it is copyright if it is PUBLISHED. Now, what exactly constitutes published in this case is questionable, but if they weren't releasing that video - it was indeed just for the stadium attendee's, then it wouldn't be copyright because it hasn't been published. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- They don't record that...it's ONLY for the fans in attendance to see.-- † ChristianMan16 19:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to be aired to be copyrighted. As long as WWE simply recorded it, they have copyright. Without strong evidence to the contrary, we should assume they record everything when the live show is going, for potential use in broadcasts, DVDs, etc. --dave pape (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The image on the screen is basically the subject of the image so not de minimis. Copyvio. Anonymous101 (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- CommentHow many times do I have to say it...The screen content can be edited out....it's not imperative to the meaning of this image. And we've also been through the copyvio thing before.......it's not. (On a personal note from me to you I HATE it when people vote on wrestling stuff when they know nothing about wrestling.)-- † ChristianMan16 16:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, this has nothing to do with wrestling and everything to do with copyrights. Would you mind letting us know your rationale for asserting that the anthem was not being recorded, but was simply shown on the screen? — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The fact that it never is except for one instance about 3 years ago which is on WWE.com...that is never meant to be aired. And it has everything to do with wrestling cause if y'all watched y'all would know this.They have the recording from three years ago...why would they need another?-- † ChristianMan16 21:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Just look at it's article use. It's being used in articles to highlight what the set looks like. It is not being used to highlight Lillian Garcia. Mshake3 (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment as this was never shown on Monday Night Raw. On very special occasions will they have someone sing the national anthem on Raw. The only real time that a national anthem will be sung at an event or show and get recorded is Wrestlemania. For the most part, the WWE gets a guest, not an employee such as Lilian Garica who is in the picture, to perform America The Beautiful at Wrestlemania. The debate of this issue has gotten trivial. As ChristianMan has said, if it is not recorded than there is no copyrights. If nothing has been in any form such as the picture and the event or show involved before it went on air, than copyrights don't apply. Besides a lot of fans take pictures at events that gone to air. If you watch Raw, Smackdown, or ECW, you will see flashes going off. Mr. C.C. (talk) 06:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Are you agreeing with me or them?-- † ChristianMan16 17:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Is the issue the image on the screen? If so, then this picture should be OK because it's about the set design, and not who happens to be on the screen. Mshake3 (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as I agree with ChristianMan. This is not derivative. --TheHellraiser (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: We do agree with you ChristianMan. This debate should be archived now. Mr. C.C. (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment No the deletion request isn't going to be archived now, for now we should comment more on the deletion request and we will see. --Kanonkas(talk) 16:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I disagree I think it should as this thing has been open for almost a month. The result should be Keep or No Consensus.-- † ChristianMan16 23:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: As the original uploader of this image, I can tell you that Lilian Garcia IS NOT singing the National Anthem. What you are seeing on the screen is her entrance video as she walks to the ring before the show starts. User:JBZA2003 (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well the screen can be blacked out.-- † ChristianMan16 02:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Info I have edited out the screen. Now can we close this RfD?-- † ChristianMan16 18:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. OK now that the screen has been blanked. I have deleted the old version. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
This picture was uploaded with CommonsHelper from de.wiki, but it was aquired from a book by scanner. I do not know if the copyright is violated, sorry --gian_d (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, this is a period painting of someone who died in 1811. The photo in the book is therefore derivative mechanical copy of public domain art, so copyright status of book (intermediate source not originating image) does not matter. Unless I'm wrong about something there, it is PD-Art, so Keep -- Infrogmation 00:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sally Fairfax died as an old woman in 1811. Therefore the historic painting of an unknown painter of the 18th century is public domain art. And the twodimensional copy of a book repro does not matter, because Ross, Shelley: Präsidenten und Affären. Skandale und Korruption in der amerikanischen Politik. Eine Chronik über die Kehrseite der Macht, München 1989. refers no "Bildnachweis" - (evidence of image source). Keep --Herrick (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sally Fairfax died as an old woman in 1811. Therefore the historic painting of an unknown painter of the 18th century is public domain art. And the twodimensional copy of a book repro does not matter, because Ross, Shelley: Präsidenten und Affären. Skandale und Korruption in der amerikanischen Politik. Eine Chronik über die Kehrseite der Macht, München 1989. refers no "Bildnachweis" - (evidence of image source).
Kept. Fine, as PD-art. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Vague inspecific sourcing. This 1920s (?) image might be PD for some reason or another, but the tagging as "anonyous work" is not valid for US works (as the tag text clearly states). --Infrogmation (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
This Deletion request is written in German so that the uploader is able to answer. If someone wants an english translation of the discussion, he may just ask me... ...Forrester 22:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Auf Wunsch des Uploaders wird diese Löschbegründung im Deutschen gehalten. Es gibt genug Admins, die deutsch können und außerdem müssen die auch keine Ahnung von Urheberrecht haben, denn das muss ja nicht sein, um auf den Commons Admin zu werden (Quelle).
Also:
Hier liegt gleich in zwei Fällen eine Urheberrechtsverletzung vor:
- Es wurde ein Foto hochgelanden, das ein architektonisches Werk von Friedensreich Hundertwasser († 19. Februar 2000) zeigt, welches (noch) urheberrechtlich geschützt ist. Ein Recht, diese Fotografie doch hochzuladen, das sich auf § 59 UrhG beruft, ist nach I ZR 192/00 (BGH) nicht statthaft (vlg. "Das Recht, ein urheberrechtlich geschütztes Bauwerk durch Lichtbild zu vervielfältigen, umfaßt nur Fotografien, die von einem für das Publikum allgemein zugänglichen Ort aus aufgenommen worden sind.", I ZR 192/00)
- Es wurde ein Foto hochgeladen, das sich stark an ein noch geschütztes Lichtbildwerk anlehnt und somit unter dessen Schutz fällt (vereinfacht, "Die in einem Lichtbildwerk liegende schöpferische Leistung kann auch dadurchübernommen werden, daß das auf der geschützten Fotografie abgebildete Objekt nachgestellt und auf dieselbe Weise fotografiert wird.", Ebd.)
Eine Aufhebung dieses Schutzes durch die Aufführung in einem nach § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG gemeinfreiem, amtlichen Werk ist nicht anzunehmen, da dies
- nicht mit dem konkreten des Urteils an sich vereinbar wäre (Selbstwiderspruch)
- aufgrund von § 5 Abs. 3 ("Das Urheberrecht an privaten Normwerken wird durch die Absätze 1 und 2 nicht berührt") ist ferner eine gesetztliche Einschränkung dieser Interpretation gegeben, die iirc auch von Schrickers Kommentar unterstützt wird.
>>>>>>>>> Löschen. ...Forrester 21:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Das Foto ist einem amtlichen Werk entnommen: BGH-Urteil | Hundertwasserentscheidung (PDF) und somit amtliches Werk. --Marcela (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ich verweise nochmal auf meine letzten beiden Punkte: Nur weil ein privates Normwerk in einem amtlichen Werk auftaucht, wird es nicht auch gemeinfrei. ...Forrester 21:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Und dass es sicht um ein privates Normwerk handelt, lässt sich aus dem Kontext des urteils ableiten, da fehlt mir jetzt leider die Literatur. ...Forrester 21:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete Wir müssen uns weder mit einer streitwilligen Witwe, noch mit den unklaren Rechtsverhältnissen von geschützten, privaten Werken in amtlichen Werken rumärgern und eine Risiko für die Foundation provozieren, wenn wir genügend Bilder des Hundertwasserhauses haben. Der Uploader sollte sich fragen, inwieweit sein Handeln dem Projekt hilflich ist. --Kolossos (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Zumindest war es dein letzter Satz nicht. Sowas ist unnötig. ...Forrester 19:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Irgendwie hatte ich halt eben den Eindruck, dass das Bild nur ein Testballon war, um in Commons irgendwelche theoretischen Rechtsfragen aufzuwerfen die kein Mensch braucht. Das Bild war ja anfangs noch nicht mal als amtliches Werk gekennzeichnet. Dabei hat das Gericht die Nutzung per Urteil untersagt. Die Nutzung des Bildes bei Commons ist etwas absolut anderes, als das was das Gericht macht um den Gegenstand des Verfahren zu darzustellen. Soll das jetzt der neue Weg sein, um an mehr freie Bilder zu kommen, man läßt sich wegen URV verklagen und über den Weg des Urteilsschreibens erhält man ein freies Bild. Nein Danke, das ist außerhalb von Commons:Scope. --Kolossos (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Nein, ich hatte keine Hintergedanken, wirklich nicht. Ausgangspunkt war eine Diskussion auf Wikiversity, als ich dann das Bild im Urteil entdeckt habe, habe ich es hier hochgeladen. Zitat aus dem deutschen Artikel "Amtliches Werk": Unter einem amtlichen Werk versteht man im Urheberrecht ein vom Urheberrechtsschutz ausgenommenes Werk amtlichen Charakters (vor allem Gesetze, Gerichtsentscheidungen),... (erster Satz) - deshalb habe ich es hochgeladen. Es kann sein, daß Forrester Recht hat, ich kann das nicht 100%ig einschätzen und wenn es gelöscht wird, werde ich das ohne jeden Groll akzeptieren. Im Gegensatz zu ihm habe ich Schricker (noch) nicht zur Verfügung. Ich habe das Urteil so interpretiert, daß ein Beamteter ein Foto des Corpus delicti gemacht hat, daß es ganz absichtlich im Urteil verkleinert und schwarzweiß wiedergegeben wird (das wird extra erwähnt). Es hat auf mich den Eindruck gemacht, daß sich der Schreiber des Urteils durchaus bewußt war, daß er ein amtliches Werk schafft und daß deshalb das Bild qualitativ unverwertbar gemacht wurde. Original: Kunstdruck für 199 Euro, s/w-Bild: nicht vermarktbar. Und: ja, ich möchte Bilder beschaffen, die wir nicht haben. Deshalb habe ich den Startschuß bei 1923 gemacht, der akzeptiert wurde, deshalb haben wir gestern Nacht eine Preußen-Karte von 1806 mit 12.000x7.000 "organisiert" - und ich bin kurz davor, ein weltbekanntes Bild unter freier Lizenz zu bekommen: die brennende Synagoge von Eberswalde, die fälschlicherweise weltweit als Bildbeispiel für die Reichskristallnacht herhält. Letzteres lade ich aber erst hier hoch, wenn alle Fragen beantwortet sind. --Marcela (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ralf hier Hintergedanken vorzuwerfen halte ich erstmal für eine Verletzung von AGF. ...Forrester 22:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Dank Ralfs Kommentar, ist ja langsam auch seine Motivation bei dem Bild erkennbar. Damit ist meine Frage vom Tisch. Irgendwo gibt es halt für Bilder hier eine weiche Grenze aus Risiko/Nutzen, im konkrete Fall bin ich halt für löschen. Wir können ja noch ein paar Stimmen mal abwarten und dann mal sehen. --Kolossos (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ralf hier Hintergedanken vorzuwerfen halte ich erstmal für eine Verletzung von AGF. ...Forrester 22:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Gut. ...Forrester 18:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Behalten, wenn der Urteilskontext noch im Bild ergänzt wird. Sicherheitshalber sollte bei Integration von Bildern in gemeinfreie amtliche Werke der Kontext erkennbar sein. Country of Origin ist offenbar Austria (sofern der Urheber Österreicher ist), da ist es PD. In den USA gilt für Architektur Panoramafreiheit, daher entspricht es den Commons-Grundsätzen. Was das höchste Zivilgericht eines belanglosen Drittstates dazu sagt, ist hier nicht relevant --Historiograf (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ich habe jetzt den Screenshot aus der PDF als Quelle /andere Version eingebunden. --Marcela (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Das würde das Urteil ad absurdum führen. ...Forrester 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Das Urteil behandelt einen hochauflösenden farbigen Kunstdruck, dieser wurde untersagt. Dies hier ist das gleiche Motiv, aber ein anderes Bild. --Marcela (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Das erschließt sich mir aus dem Urteil nicht so bzw. ich neige dazu, das anders zu deuten:
- 1. Man beachte Ralf: "ist das gleiche Motiv, aber ein anderes Bild." und man beachte BGH: "Die in einem Lichtbildwerk liegende schöpferische Leistung kann auch dadurch übernommen werden, daß das auf der geschützten Fotografie abgebildete Objekt nachgestellt und auf dieselbe Weise fotografiert wird."
- 2. BGH: "Der Kläger ließ seit Jahren eine von ihm besonders bearbeitete Fotografie des Hundertwasser-Hauses als Postkarte vertreiben, die die beiden über Eck liegenden Frontseiten des Hauses wiedergibt. [...] Die Beklagte ist das Großhandelsunternehmen M. . Sie vertreibt eine nicht vom Kläger stammende Abbildung des Hundertwasser-Hauses als gerahmten Druck [...] Diese [Hervorhebung von mir, F.] Aufnahme des Hundertwasser-Hauses ist ebenfalls aus einer gegenüber dem Straßenniveau erhöhten Perspektive gemacht worden, und zwar aus einer in einem oberen Stockwerk des gegenüberliegenden Hauses Löwengasse 28 befindlichen Privatwohnung. Die gerahmte Abbildung ist nachstehend verkleinert und in schwarz-weiß wiedergegeben: [An dieser Stelle das Bild, F.]".
- ...Forrester 13:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Löschen - offensichtliche URV, Amtliches Werk ist abwegig. --h-stt !? 19:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Was bitte ist an einem Gerichtsurteil nicht amtlich? --Marcela (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Niemand bestreitet, dass das Urteil ein amtliches Werk ist. Daraus folgt aber nicht, dass das Bild eines ist. Das würde ja schon fast an Enteignung grenzen. ...Forrester 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Das Urteil ist ein amtliches Werk, darin gemäß §45 UrhG zitierte Werke werden dadurch aber nicht gemeinfrei. --h-stt !? 05:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Und jetzt? ...Forrester 12:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Löschen. Wir sollten uns auf Commons Werke suchen, wo nicht gleich 2 Urheber entrechtet werden. Schon weil eine Berufung gegen die Amtshandlung der "Urheberrechtsfreimachung" nicht möglich wäre, erscheint diese Auslegung abwägig. Ich denke die Einwände von H-stt sind ausreichend. --Kolossos (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Vorschlag: Lupo entscheidet? --Marcela (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Vorschlag: Argumente entscheiden? Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 09:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wenn ein Picasso auf einer amtlichen Briefmarke erscheinen würde, wäre die Marke trotzdem gemeinfrei. Es gibt da auch irgendein Urteil, ich finde das aber grad nicht (gedruckte, aber nicht ausgegebene Marke). --Marcela (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Die Marke, aber nicht der Picasso selbst. Überleg doch mal, was das jetzt bedeuten würde: Das Großhandelsunternehmen M. dürfte urheberrechtlich gesehen nach einem Urteil, das festgestellt hat, dass es das Recht an der geistigen Leistung, die dahintersteckt, verletzt hat, die geistige Leistung voll kommerziell nutzen. Extrem unsinnig, daher sicherlich nicht Amtliches Werk und somit löschen. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 10:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Du sagst es, die Marke wäre amtliches Werk, nicht der Picasso. Damit könnten wie diese (fiktive) Marke auch abbilden. behalten --Marcela (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
-
James Rizzi, lebt noch
- Die Marke (das Urteil) ist in amtliches Werk, der Picasso (das Foto) ist es nicht. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 11:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ja eben, die Abbildung im Urteil ist amtliches Werk, der Kunstdruck nicht. --Marcela (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Dann können wir es ja jetzt löschen. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 13:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, behalten, die Gründe wurde hinreichend dargelegt. --Eva K. tell me about it 14:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Soll ich mal lachen? Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 14:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Auf den Briefmarken werden zweifellos geschützte Werke gezeigt, als Briefmarke werden sie gemeinfrei (die Abbildung der Kunstwerks, nicht das Kunstwerk selbst). Amtliche Werke sind in erster Linie Gesetze und Urteile, Briefmarken nur nebenbei. Ob der Briefmarkengestalter jeweils zugesagt hat, ist uninteresant. Ob der Beamte, der den Kunstdruck fotografiert hat und ihn ins Urteil eingefügt hat, dazu berechtigt war, ist ebenso uninteressant. Das Schwarzweiß-Foto wurde als amtliches Werk veröffentlicht. --Marcela (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nein, und mittlerweile zum letzten mal: Das Urteil wurde als amtliches Werk veröffentlicht. Der Screenshort, der das Urteil mit dem Bild zeigt, kann bleiben, da das Bild eben im Urteil enthalten ist. Eine davon losgelöste Verwendung lässt sich nicht rechtfertigen. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 20:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Warum liest hier eigentlich niemand den von mir verlinkten §45 UrhG? Dieser Paragraph ist eine Schrankenbestimmung, die wie alle Schrankenbestimmungen eng auszulegen ist. Danach ist zwar die Wiedergabe eines Werkes in einem Urteil zulässig, damit wird das Werk aber nicht zum Teil des (gemeinfreien) Urteils. Ich bleibe bei löschen - sowohl das Foto, wie den Auszug aus dem Urteil. --h-stt !? 05:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ich habe nie behauptet, daß das Werk (der Kunstdruck) gemeinfrei ist. Es geht nur um die Darstellung im Urteil. Die Werke auf den Briefmarken werden durch die Marke ja auch nicht frei. Es geht ausschließlich um die Darstellug aus dem Urteil. Wenn die Darstellung in einem BGH-Urteil kein amtliches Werk ist, können wir gleich alle amtlichen Werke kippen. --Marcela (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Warum liest hier eigentlich niemand den von mir verlinkten §45 UrhG? Dieser Paragraph ist eine Schrankenbestimmung, die wie alle Schrankenbestimmungen eng auszulegen ist. Danach ist zwar die Wiedergabe eines Werkes in einem Urteil zulässig, damit wird das Werk aber nicht zum Teil des (gemeinfreien) Urteils. Ich bleibe bei löschen - sowohl das Foto, wie den Auszug aus dem Urteil. --h-stt !? 05:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Im Gegensatz zu den Briefmarken hat beim Urteil die staatliche Insitution (in diesem Fall das BGH) keine Nutzungsrechte an dem Bild. Das Bild wird nur zitiert und dadurch nicht selbst zum amtlichen Werk. Die Post dagegen hat wohl Nutzungsrechte an den Bildern, sonst könnte sie diese nicht auf ihre Breifmarken drucken. Ergo löschen. Chaddy (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
behalten Urteil ist amtliches Werk und daher Bild in diesem Kontext OK --Historiograf (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Wollten wir nicht sowas wie freie Werke, die in jedem Kontext ok sind? Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 07:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Löschen, das ist wie mit den Scans von Briefmarken bei denen eine angebliche Gemeinfreiheit über das Zitat(!) in amtlichen Werken herbeiargumentiert wird. ---jha- (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Per Forrester. Just because a copyrighted work appears in the public record of a court case, it doesn't lose its copyright. Also per this comment :-) Besides, the photo is an Austrian work, and the Austrian photographer has a copyright on it. Lupo 09:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
No sources at all despite requests to the uploader: for image 1, 2 and 5 the proove of public domain is missing, too. Image 6 is not in the public domain and has to be removed from the collage. -- Cecil (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless all images in the banner are sourced and shown to be free licensed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I've uploaded a new version with images all from commons. Now, I hope there won't be problems with licensing. Keep Waylon (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please add the sources in the image description. And example can be seen at Image:BannerPortalMetal.jpg. -- Cecil (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It is completely possible to have something that is not free made up completely of different PD material (compilation). No evidence the end product is PD and it certainly has creative content.--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 04:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what's the fault, all images are from Commons and are publishe under a free license. What's the matter? Waylon (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Looks fine for me, only the license of the background is missing. If you can show it to us, I don't see why we should not keep this. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- You mean the wooden background? I think it's ineligible for copyright; we could ask at Commons:Licensing. Waylon (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Bluegrass instrumentos2.JPG was deleted, copyvio uploader. --Polarlys (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, time to use another picture on the banner. Waylon (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 21:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The source is a blog, which shows a small solution but also links to its source at flickr, which states "All rights reserved". -- Cecil (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- This cannot be, the file is of course PD, as it reads in a book I had. Waylon (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The Flickr user, of course, is not the originator of the image. From a quick look at the Flickr upload and adjacent images, it seems to be a scan from an old Victor Records catalog, though I didn't see a visible date. US publication; if pre-1923 it is PD-US and so are the derivative scans on Flickr. If pre 1923 date can be established, keep and replace the current thumbnail with the largest resolution scan availible on Flickr. If date cannot be established nor other proof of PD status offered, delete. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Additional info: Per [1] musician Helen Louise pictured died (or "disappeared" off a ship at sea) in December of 1919. Record catalogs of the era commonly had photos of artists on new records, not back catalog numbers, making it unlikely that she would have been featured with a photo in a Victor catalog later than 1920. Circumstantial dating, but pretty strong circumstantial dating IMO. PD-US; Keep -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Larger version from Flickr uploaded over small version. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Additional info: Per [1] musician Helen Louise pictured died (or "disappeared" off a ship at sea) in December of 1919. Record catalogs of the era commonly had photos of artists on new records, not back catalog numbers, making it unlikely that she would have been featured with a photo in a Victor catalog later than 1920. Circumstantial dating, but pretty strong circumstantial dating IMO. PD-US;
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This screenshot includes copyrighted elements since a proprietary mod was added to this game. Therefore, the tanks etc. are non-GPL. We're trying to find an adequate replacement which shows something similar, but is entirely GPL. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Which mod? I ask because several mods have been released freely. -Nard the Bard 21:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I was told it is a proprietary mod; perhaps someone could comment on this issue? — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Unsure either way. Maintain status quo. Maxim(talk) 21:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Images uploaded by Africa Festival
[edit]- File:Tkhuphe.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Metrosnewsblogo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Sitelogo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mdc party logo.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Movement forDemocratic Change logo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Movement forDemocratic Changelogo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:HARVEST HOUSE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Harvest-house-ransacked.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:LOVEMORE MOYO.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Thokozani Khuphe2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Thokozani Khuphe.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Nelson beaten2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Morgan in Hospital.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mdc party logo.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Morgan Tsvangirai.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Solusi2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Asher.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- User:Africa Festival's uploads are all copyright violations, often from http://zimbabwemetro.com/ which he admits himself in the source of many of his uploads. He has also uploaded commercial and political party logos under the GFDL without any justification as to why this may be the case. He has already had many problems with copyright as you can see by his user page. Jackaranga (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. All as copyvio. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Useless (imo). --WeHaWoe (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted: Already Deleted Jarekt (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)