Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/07/23
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
very unlikely Disney content is cc-by-sa Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete ugh. And {{Speedy}}-ly. Megapixie (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, {{Copyvio}} this sort of thing in future. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 03:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
album cover? http://metalarea.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t26526.html Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Strange text printthrough as well. Megapixie (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)- Delete At the very least, it's the photo used in the album cover. I think it's a safe bet that's copyrighted as well.... --jonny-mt 12:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Smaller version of Image:Button.jpg. JohnnyMrNinja 01:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thinking on it further, I think these images may be used for some off-project hotlinking, hence "button". Is there a way to tell? They certainly aren't being used on any projects (usage is for other files named button.jpg). JohnnyMrNinja (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
hi, i can´t see the problem. we are a private foundation (gemeinnütziger verein) leading a privat playground for children aged 6 to 14 years, where tey can built woodhouses we call hütten, find freinds, get warm meal, play socker, kicker, baseball and all other funny things for "not the richest" parent´s kids on a field about 6.500 qm area. and "buttonsmall" is definately our own logo, lettered "BSP", with means the name of our "Bauspielplatz Senkelsgraben in Köln- Porz Wahnheide. where is the problem for putting the image away anyway ??? sincerely förderverein
No need for smaller versions of other images. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
looks too recent to be public domain by age Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader is claiming {{PD-self}}, but it looks to me like a pretty obvious screenshot (and thus a copyvio). Their only other upload is Image:Jmonteiro1.png, which is a slightly smaller duplicate of this image that should also be deleted when this one goes. --jonny-mt 12:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The subject was born in 1956, so the PD-old claim is bogus. Clearly a screenshot, not PD-self. Pruneautalk 12:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, not PD. rootology (T) 04:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
unlikely a newspaper is under GFDL Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I see a copyright notice on the newspaper website. Delete as copyvio. --jonny-mt 12:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Rename Category as Colonial Center has been renamed Colonial Life Arena -Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. but redirected to Category:Colonial Life Arena Rocket000(talk) 03:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is copyrighted by me; I took it on 11-16-07 and did not properly fill out the form to indicate that it is a copyrigted image. 75.119.29.75 02:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Since global image review still hasn't been implemented, I've restored the history of the original image at en-wiki (link) for review. The {{GFDL-self}} history item seems to be an attempt to release the image, but since it was a re-upload over an existing image the template never made it onto the description page, and the image was eventually deleted for having no license. Since it was never officially released under a free license, User:UCinternational was incorrect in tagging it as public domain here. Delete. --jonny-mt 12:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Oh, and Geaux Tigers! --jonny-mt 12:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)- Sorry. Wrong Tigers. --jonny-mt 12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, scratch all of that. I think I got mixed up somewhere and wound up at the incorrect image; I've gone ahead and restored this image on en-wiki for review as well (link). Since it was released under {{PD-self}} and is in use, I say
Keep it. --jonny-mt 13:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, scratch all of that. I think I got mixed up somewhere and wound up at the incorrect image; I've gone ahead and restored this image on en-wiki for review as well (link). Since it was released under {{PD-self}} and is in use, I say
- Sorry. Wrong Tigers. --jonny-mt 12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Such licences are non-revocable. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is copyrighted by me. I took it on 11-16-07 and it is copyrighted. When I uploaded and filled out the form, I did not properly add the copyright tag. 75.119.29.75 02:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Actually, this image was originally released under {{PD-Self}} on Wikipedia. I've gone ahead and restored the en-wiki page for review (link). It's in use and in the public domain, so I see no reason to delete. --jonny-mt 12:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep based on the previous release. rootology (T) 04:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
REASON(The Contributor is not Ravel) GuyO 14:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- (désolé, je ne parle pas anglais) ce fichier sert de courte citation pour l'article "Boléro" de Ravel sur la wikipédia française. Ces premières notes permettent de comparer les différents tempos décrits dans le paragraphe. Bien-sûr dans la présentation du fichier, je voulais parler de l'auteur du midifile, pas de la musique! C'est maintenant précisé. -- Hautbois 03:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Very old incomplete deletion request, that I just came across. As Ravel died in 1937, his works were copyrighted when the request was initiated, but are perhaps now PD. --dave pape (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- In reply to myself - according to en:Maurice Ravel, the French wartime extensions mean that his works are still not PD in France. --dave pape (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- What kind of wartime extensions? Did the time counting stop during a war? Julo (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Basically, yes. In France, his works are protected for 78 years and 120 days after his death, so until 2016. See fr:prorogations de guerre. Pruneautalk 12:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- What kind of wartime extensions? Did the time counting stop during a war? Julo (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- In reply to myself - according to en:Maurice Ravel, the French wartime extensions mean that his works are still not PD in France. --dave pape (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Restored as per Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2012-02#Works of Maurice Ravel. Yann (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
logo; likely copyrighted Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
From MarketingMan12: I have full rights to use this logo as it is my own work. Also, I am the Schools administrators son, and my Mom (the administrator) has seen this Wikipedia page and has approved it. She too has full rights to use this logo anywhere she wants as it belongs to her and Excel Christian School.
- It comes from here [1], no copyright info on the page.--Paloma Walker (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Permission via OTRS is needed. Uploader seems to have misunderstanding about what makes someone the copyright holder. Rocket000(talk) 03:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
no source, undated 76.175.162.28 06:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
personallity rights, Project scope, quality abf /talk to me/ 11:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete but not based on personality rights. You can't even tell who anyone is there, and its a public space. But it's a useless/blurred out photo. rootology (T) 04:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Frank Butterweck is actor and ensemble's director at Festspiele Balver Höhle. He is a notable person. Is the problem the blurred photo? Best --Weissmann (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Mostly, and I don't think that can be cleaned up at all. I couldn't tell you if I was looking at Frank Butterweck, Tom Cruise, or myself in that photo. :( rootology (T) 13:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
A little edit. Best --Weissmann (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Too blurred to be useful. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The image is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project. Commons:Deletion guidelines#Regular deletion Pabouk (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep normally you're right, but this photo documents well the face of a dog etc. abf /talk to me/ 11:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep cute. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 17:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Neutral I was just wondering why there are some personal images on Wikipedia. I think that Wikipedia should not server as a storage for private photo albums and this image looks like a personal one - at least according to its description. Thank you for your opinion. --Pabouk (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It would be useful if the breed of the dog is known. I think personal images are not a problem if the image can be used for general purposes. As mentioned above, this does appear to be a good quality image of the face of a dog: for example, it clearly shows the w:nictitating membrane.
- PS: Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. Kelvinc (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
duplicate 88.112.101.144 11:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Tagged as {{Duplicate}}. Pruneautalk 12:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
10:01, July 23, 2008 Cecil (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:En-us-spirits-proper.ogg" (Dupe of Image:En-us-spirits.ogg) (restore)
k tengo muchas Serginho11 (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate of Image:BOCAO.jpg. --V.Riullop (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
tengo muchas Serginho11 (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate of Image:BOCAO.jpg. --V.Riullop (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image shows an incorrect chemical structure and has resided in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams without dispute for more than a month. A correct structure exists at Image:Topiramate.svg Edgar181 (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No need to reupload under the correct name either—we already have plenty of structures of atropine/L-hyoscyamine. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Image shows an incorrect chemical structure and has resided in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams without objection for more than a month. A correct structure exists at Image:Duloxetine chemical structure.png. Edgar181 (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Image shows an incorrect chemical structure and has resided in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams without objection for more than a month. Correct structures exist at Category:Nitric oxide. Edgar181 (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Own work seems unlikely... Megapixie (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yes it does. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 09:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I suspect it's not self made. Also some of User:Boki13's other contributions look suspect. Megapixie (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- See this post here: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=127757&page=3 (date Feb this year). Megapixie (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to be proved wrong on this. Megapixie (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- But looking at http://www.pbase.com/dicus63/image/98881124 and Image:Cenej airshow08 07.jpg seem to agree on the name of the author - but there's a big difference between a Canon DSLR and the camera used with Image:Temple_of_Saint_Nikolaj_Velimirovic.jpg (note the difference in attribution). Megapixie (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Manecke: This image is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of: Image:M-21s rifle.jpg Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this permission acceptable on Commons? It does not explicitly allow commercial use and publication of derivative work and it has a constriction on the usage by anyone for any purpose. -- Cecil (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's not, for each of the specific reasons you mention. That permission does not actually grant any rights; it merely reconfirms the rights granted by law under fair use provisions, which are not applicable on Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
http://www.nexgam.de/ appears to be copyrighted so this is a copyright violation Anonymous101 talk 15:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work of Mario, Sonic and Link. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No proper source given. No indication that the uploader is the creator of the image. Esrever (klaT) 15:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No proper source given. No indication that the uploader is the creator of the image. Esrever (klaT) 15:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No proper source given. No indication that the uploader is the creator of the image. Esrever (klaT) 15:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above, and also no indication license is correct. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No proper source given. No indication that the uploader is the creator of the image. Esrever (klaT) 15:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No proper source given. No indication that the uploader is the creator of the image. Esrever (klaT) 15:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No proper source given. No indication that the uploader is the creator of the image. Esrever (klaT) 15:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
copyright Godix (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Painting by Vélazquez from 1618. Who do you claim has copyright? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy kept, clearly PD-Art. Retagged PD-Art, bogus copyright notice attached to bottom of image cropped off. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
derivative work abf /talk to me/ 18:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- A logo on a beer bottle is not a derivative work of that logo. An image can contain a copyrighted logo and still be free. The only way we cannot host a logo is if it is the logo standing by itself. Then it contains a copyright in and of itself. A beer bottle is not copyrighted. Bastique demandez 18:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete A clear derivative work. There seems to be some confusion about logos. A logo can be and often is protected by copyright, and a photo of a bottle which displays such a copyright logo infringes the copyright in the logo (unless the design is inconspicuous enough to be De minimis). Here, the printed label design is copyright-protected and the photo infringes that copyright. It is true that a beer bottle per se cannot usually be copyrighted, but the printed label certainly can. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- A photo containing a printed label cannot infringe on a copyright of the label. The label is contained in a greater picture and therefore no copyright can be claimed. This is known as a "transformative work" here and in some juridstictions is considered fair dealing. In other words, nature of the label copyright is not one which can be derived by including it in the image at large. The sole copyright belongs to the photographer who is free to do as he wishes. Bastique demandez 19:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It is derivative. De minimis means that the copyrighted material can only be incidental to the overall subject matter of the photograph. This image (and the others below) doesn't meet that standard, since the label is the focus of the picture. (Admittedly, I am not a lawyer.) Esrever (klaT) 20:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- The bottle is the focus of the picture. The label is on the bottle. Bastique demandez 21:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- The printed design is not even close to being de minimis. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Simple typography is not copyrightable. The seal at the bottom right and logo at the top is so small and distorted from the curvature of the bottle that you can barely make out what it is. --ChrisStubbs (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- comment The closest case would be wikisource:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc. which ruled that images of the Image:SkyyVodka750ml.jpg bottle were fine. However the label is more complex in this case so not sure how things would hold up.Genisock2 (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- From the ruling: We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. (...) Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole--a useful article not subject to copyright protection--and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work " within the meaning of the Copyright Act. As such, the photos Ets-Hokin took of the bottle cannot be derivative works. So the complexity of the label does not seem to matter. --Tgr (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep I don't think this would be a derivative, and agree with Bastique and Chris. rootology (T) 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- US case law does not apply here. German law does. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Why so? The photo was taken by a Commons user, so the place of original publication is the US. --Tgr (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- See also: Category:Guinness. rootology (T) 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The design is just to simple and might even pass as {{PD-textlogo}}. --ALE! ¿…? 11:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Three issues have to be considered, in the following order, to determine the copyright status of this image:
- 1) The copyright eligibility of the label. Given the graphic design component of the label, which is an artistic interpretation of a scroll on which type is placed, it is indeed copyright eligible. If a logo/label is copyright eligible, photos of that logo/label are derivative works. (Note: if there were no copyright eligibility because the label is comprised of simple font printed on a coloured paper, we could stop here and say the image is fine for Commons, as we did with the Skyy vodka label)
- 2) If the label is copyright eligible, then we have to consider whether or not the utility of the bottle is dependent on the existence of the label. Can the bottle exist without the label? Well, that’s a silly question - of course it can! Just as it did before the label was applied to it! You can prove this to yourself by turning the bottle to obscure the label, or removing the label. You’ll note the bottle still exists! (Note: if the label is copyright eligible, but the bottle could not exist without the label, we could stop here and say this is a photo of a functional item, just as we do with photos of furniture, etc,, so is okay for Commons)
- 3) If the label is copyright eligible (it is) and the label can exist without the bottle (it can), then we have to consider whether or not it is incidentally included in a larger photo. It isn’t. The label is the primary subject of the photo. If the bottle were the subject, efforts would have been made to minimize the label’s inclusion (IE: the bottle would have been turned) , therefore, a de minimis argument is invalid.
- The label is copyright eligible, the utility of the bottle is not dependent on the presence of the label, and the label is not incidentally included, thus, delete! Cheers! Brynn (talk!) 15:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Contrast with the ruling about the Skyy bottle quoted above. The utility of the bottle is not dependent on the label, it is clearly not incidentally included, and the ruling explicitly states that the copyright eligibility of the label is not relevant; the court still ruled that it was not a derivative work. That ruling applies just as well to this image. --Tgr (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I’m certain your understanding of the US case you point to is correct (as I, too, have read that case and understood it has you have). However, an individual need not approach analysis of this image of a German copyright eligible label with an American bias nor exclusively through the lense of American case law. My analysis is reflective of a widely accepted process of determining whether or not an image is an unauthorized derivative of a pre-existing work. You’ll note I did not make reference to the US case law you’ve pointed to. The German courts may have come to a different conclusion. If you know of similar German case law, please post a link. Regardless, I’m not in the least emotionally attached to this image, nor any other for that matter, so it matters not to me whether this image is kept or deleted. We do, however, need to decide whether we shall apply only US copyright law, or continue to respect the laws of other countries as well. Brynn (talk!) 19:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Based on what I could make out of this article with my limited German, it probably would qualify as a derivative work there. On the other hand, the photo in question has been made by a Commons user, thus the place of original publication is the US, and German law has no special relevance. (It would still apply in Germany, if I understand the Berne Convention correctly, but it's not obvious whether Commons should care about that. It doesn't care about Mexican law (public domain only after author's death + 100 years) applying in Mexico, for example.) --Tgr (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Contrast with the ruling about the Skyy bottle quoted above. The utility of the bottle is not dependent on the label, it is clearly not incidentally included, and the ruling explicitly states that the copyright eligibility of the label is not relevant; the court still ruled that it was not a derivative work. That ruling applies just as well to this image. --Tgr (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment In the German wikipedia, that label would most likely be considered a Gebrauchsgrafik (something like applied art or commercial art), to which the Kleine Münze expressly cannot be applied, meaning the label would have to be of exceptionally high Schöpfungshöhe (threshhold of originality) to be eligible for copyright (urheberrechtlichen Schutz, to be precise). It can always get protected as a Geschmacksmuster, but that's not copyright. --Rosenzweig δ 20:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Brynn. The functional and artistic elements of the bottle are separable, so the label (which I think is clearly eligible for copyright) is dispensable. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Esrever and others. White background and not-copyrightable bottle is not enough to place fully protected trademark (and the label layout and project) in the subject of "free panorama" or any other. Masur (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits. --Kjetil_r 20:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete In certain derivative work. Patrol110 dyskusja 20:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept as per Rosenzweig. Yann (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
derivative work abf /talk to me/ 18:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- A logo on a beer bottle is not a derivative work of that logo. An image can contain a copyrighted logo and still be free. The only way we cannot host a logo is if it is the logo standing by itself. Then it contains a copyright in and of itself. A beer bottle is not copyrighted, Bastique demandez 19:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Possibly De minimis as the logo is not the main focus.
- Keep De minimis will fit --Joergens.mi (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Strongkeep. Nothing copyrighted on the pic --Historiograf (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- ACK Histo - keep - nichts schütbares auf dem Bild --Marcela (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep see De minimis --Herrick (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
derivative work abf /talk to me/ 18:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- A logo on a beer bottle is not a derivative work of that logo. An image can contain a copyrighted logo and still be free. The only way we cannot host a logo is if it is the logo standing by itself. Then it contains a copyright in and of itself. A beer bottle is not copyrighted, Bastique demandez 18:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep I don't think this would be a derivative. rootology (T) 04:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- See also: Category:Guinness. rootology (T) 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- 'keep - The logo in the foreground is typographical only, and therefore permitted here, the one in the background can be assumed as de minimis. --h-stt !? 21:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- keep nichts schützbares --Marcela (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- keep as H-stt, Marcela & Rootology. ChristianBier (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- keep nichts schützbares --Joergens.mi (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Image description lists copyrighted myspace page as source Anonymous101 talk 18:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 09:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unlikely an album cover is GFDL Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 09:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
very unlikely that movie released under GFDL -- Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Tagged Image:Orfeu negro.jpg (the exact same image, no underscore in the name) as a copyvio. --BrokenSphere 00:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Image purports to be from 1959. GFDL 1.2 license did not exist until November 2002. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
photos are likely copyrighted -- Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete http://www.engadget.com/ itself is "© 2003-2008, Weblogs, Inc. All rights reserved". --dave pape (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
if author is "unknown author", can't be under GFDL Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, clear false license, per above. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Image appears to come from a non-governmental scholarly paper. No evidence asserted in either the image description or the paper itself that any content is released under a CC license. --Seidenstud (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- The paper is CC-BY - stated right above the abstract on the "full-text article" page [2]. The illustration is credited to the paper's authors, but it really looks like they've borrowed family photographs of the patient, so for this image the license might not be valid. --dave pape (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for inaccurate license explanation, it's fixed now and the link is here. According to this the authors warrant that this work doesn't infringe any existing copyright or any other third party rights and we have no reason to assume that any copyrights were violated. With regards, Filip em (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No issues at all. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 09:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation http://usa.loccitane.com/FO/Content/About/Our-Values-and-Commitments.aspx --Caspian blue (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
18:18, July 23, 2008 Odder (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:OlivierBaussan.jpg" (Copyright violation) (restore)
Image not used on Wikimedia projects, except on an enwiki userpage. Hamako 20:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. While hard to see for a cat-lover as me, the image has educational value, though currently used only on userpages. --Túrelio (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Turelio, I are dead. ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep Yuck. :( rootology (T) 04:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment :( Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 09:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Perhaps this Deletion request was done in bad faith (note: threw up as soon as I saw this picture). I apologize for that. Hamako 16:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- No need to apologize. It's an open discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Seems to be free licensed, potentially useful, and in use on a user page. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Mgd d --nominated by 86.66.240.170 (talk · contribs)
- What does "Mgd d" mean? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No reason to believe this is public domain or GFDL. This was apparently downloaded from [3], someone's personal site. howcheng {chat} 21:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted false license. No indication of supposed GPL nor any other free license seen at source site. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Software screenshot - copyright belongs to Borland International, Inc. Ytoyoda (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I dont know if you remember back to the DOS days, but every piece of software looked like that. Even the old "edit" (precursor to the very advanced 'notepad'). Everything on this screen is simply ASCII. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- That doesn't stop it from passing the minimum barrier for creativity.Genisock2 (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with ShakataGaNai on this one. Virtually every application/screen/UI from that era looked like this, since they had the same very limited options to work with. rootology (T) 04:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know, even if everything looked like this, there was some GUI design, however minimal. GUI may not have been what it is now, someone had to design it, right? --Ytoyoda (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- That was the funny thing about this stuff--you ever boot your PC to get into BIOS? Same thing. Check out [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10] for more examples. I could see maybe saying the color scheme is unique... but that may be stretching it? rootology (T) 04:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, my point is that if Borland doesn't "own" the look, it was still using the GUI (okay, maybe not GUI) that Microsoft created? I realize it's not quite as clear cut as today's software interface, but I spend enough time with typographers and art directors to know that even basic bare bones stuff like this is work. I do concede that MS-Dos was well before my time. --Ytoyoda (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- This might end up getting trickier, after all. That UI look and 'feel' isn't specifically a MS thing, but they popularized it. Thats the same look for example on the initial boot-up of any number of Linux/Unix distros, and on hardware vendors' hardware level in BIOS, which you can load outside of Windows or any other OS. The look is basically a side effect of the absolutely limited graphical options available to you in that kind of environment. At least, thats how I always understood it. rootology (T) 05:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- One thing to keep in mind. Even to this day we allow screen shots of open source programs on Windows. Even if they include The X, Box, _, Title bar or even an "OK" Button. The copyright elements of Windows are the things like the start button, start menu, desktop wallpaper, etc. This application has none of that. Also, as for the "Well if it isn't Borland GUI, it is Microsoft Copyright". Well what about Linux's use of Windows similar elements for it's GUI, like an X to close. An X is just PD-Text, and a button around that X, well... that is basic common sense, not copyrightable. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 07:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- This might end up getting trickier, after all. That UI look and 'feel' isn't specifically a MS thing, but they popularized it. Thats the same look for example on the initial boot-up of any number of Linux/Unix distros, and on hardware vendors' hardware level in BIOS, which you can load outside of Windows or any other OS. The look is basically a side effect of the absolutely limited graphical options available to you in that kind of environment. At least, thats how I always understood it. rootology (T) 05:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, my point is that if Borland doesn't "own" the look, it was still using the GUI (okay, maybe not GUI) that Microsoft created? I realize it's not quite as clear cut as today's software interface, but I spend enough time with typographers and art directors to know that even basic bare bones stuff like this is work. I do concede that MS-Dos was well before my time. --Ytoyoda (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- That was the funny thing about this stuff--you ever boot your PC to get into BIOS? Same thing. Check out [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10] for more examples. I could see maybe saying the color scheme is unique... but that may be stretching it? rootology (T) 04:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know, even if everything looked like this, there was some GUI design, however minimal. GUI may not have been what it is now, someone had to design it, right? --Ytoyoda (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The limitations of DOS notwithstanding, the threshold of originality is easily crossed by the color choices and use of design elements like the drop shadow and shapes. It has a copyright notice right there, for Pete's sake. Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- It has a copyright notice because the application (the code, how it works) is copyright. They of course have copyrighted what they can. The question here is if the design elements (if you can even call them that) are copyrightable. An IEEE standard isn't copyright, is it? Same thing goes for a "standard looking" GUI. It is standard looking because these applications all created their GUI (read: ASCII art) individually. Not until Windows come along was there a true standard. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 07:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - IT'S GOT A COPYRIGHT NOTICE. RIGHT. IN. your. face. Regardless. ViperSnake151 (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete While threshold of originality may be argued over, the fact that there is a clear copyright notice visible is an indication that the creator (credited as Borland International) is asserting copyright. Uploader does not become the "creator" of this by taking a screenshot, and cannot release it under GFDL without permission of the original copyright holder. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Per last few arguments. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
not a photograph, no source Jarekt (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete inappropriate licence, per above. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unlikely an album cover is GFDL ChrisStubbs (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment That's why I marked it as a {{copyvio}} :) --jonny-mt 13:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:20020730092044_-_FreePascal_IDE.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PCBoard_150_01.png){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FASM.PNG){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spinrite-6.0.png){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spinrite-2.0.png){kind=link}
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sidekick-plus-1.0.png){kind=link}
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ezywfc.png){kind=link}
Deleted. Cecil (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
spelling mistake, replaced by Category:Grebbeberg War Cemetery --Tjipke de Vries (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Mattbuck: Incorrectly named: content was: '{{delete|spelling mistake, replaced by Category:Grebbeberg War Cemetery}}' (and the only contributor was 'Tdevries')
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probable copyvio. Don't know the exact source but this at least is older. JohnnyMrNinja (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 08:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Collard: Copyright violation
A photographic reproduction of an expired work of art, but unfortunately PD-art does not apply in Denmark and the image is copyright-protected as a simple photograph in its country of origin. Hemmingsen (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- The print is Danish, but where was the photo taken? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's an important bit I forgot to mention, so thanks for asking. According to this page, it was taken at the Danish National Library of Science and Medicine (now a part of the University Library of Copenhagen), so the photograph is Danish too.
- A note to the closing administrator, though: The debate on PD-art pictures (at Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag/Straw Poll and Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag) is currently leaning towards allowing them regardless of their copyright status in the country of origin, so we probably shouldn't delete anything without waiting for a conclusion on that debate. Hemmingsen (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Request withdrawn as Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag was changed to allow these pictures regardless of source country (non-admin close). Hemmingsen (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
A photographic reproduction of an expired work of art, but unfortunately PD-art does not apply in Denmark and the image is copyright-protected (as a simple photograph) in its country of origin. Hemmingsen (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Request withdrawn as Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag was changed to allow these pictures regardless of source country (non-admin close). Hemmingsen (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
If this is free in Germany, Ok. But would it not still be copyright in the US as it is a copanies logo. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep COM:FOP#Germany (only my oppinnion) abf /talk to me/ 11:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per abf — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Needs to be free in US to keep on Commons. Unfortunately this is 2D artwork created in US, and copyright has not expired. Copy displayed in Germany does not mean override US copyright. --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep no problem with freedom of Panorama in Germany and the AMD Logo fits {{PD-textlogo}} anyway. --Denniss (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well "AMD" does, but that funny green thing on their logo, that isn't covered by {{PD-textlogo}}. So actually it doesn't work. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Quote from PD-textlogo: Simple geometric shapes are also not protected. The funny green thing is nothing more than a simle geometric shape. The only restriction this image had missing was {{Trademark}} --Denniss (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well "AMD" does, but that funny green thing on their logo, that isn't covered by {{PD-textlogo}}. So actually it doesn't work. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Many more images of this logo in Category:AMD. Rocket000(talk) 03:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep FOP and pd-ineligible. Note that Germany has a higher standard for when simple designs qualify for copyright. -Nard the Bard 19:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Cecil (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
No valid proof that PD-Old applies; publication date is not the same as date of author's death BrokenSphere 23:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- There's no way to find out who the author was, so I changed the copyright to Anonymous-EU, ok now? --Koroesu (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- There is text on the lower corners of the poster that is ineligible due to the size of the image. I would suspect that that may mention authorship. BrokenSphere 14:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I found the author of the work: [11] It is a certain J. Martínez whose date of death I couldn't find out (since I don't know the first name). I think it can be deleted. --Koroesu (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- There is text on the lower corners of the poster that is ineligible due to the size of the image. I would suspect that that may mention authorship. BrokenSphere 14:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cecil (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio - scan from a 1999 book. Object is 3D, so not PD-Art.
Additional non-PD-Art scans from same uploader (some may be borderline):
- Image:Western Han Lacquer Wares and Chop Sticks.JPG
- Image:Augustus Statue.JPG --> image found ina book in PD by --Sailko (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Chu State Lacquer Coffin.JPG
- Image:Han Dynasty Basket.JPG
- Image:Han Dynasty Galloping Horse.JPG
- Image:Han Dynasty Model Tower.JPG (an older photo, but WorldCat says the source book was published in 1954 by Cambridge University Press)
- Image:5 Dynasties 10 Kingdoms Relief.JPG
- Image:Western Han Chinese Silk.JPG (although primarily 2D, I don't believe this silk object really fits under the PD-Art exception)
- Image:Northern Wei Stone Sarcophagus.JPG (almost 2D, but incised artwork on stone may qualify as 3D similar to coins)
-dave pape (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hello. I realize now that all of those images are questionable, but your tagging of Image:Western Han Chinese Silk.JPG I find rather inappropriate, since it is a flat, 2 dimensional painting on silk. It is not 3 dimensional. The others perhaps need to be deleted, but not this image, it is perfectly acceptable.--PericlesofAthens (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I realize it's a borderline case, but as I said, in my opinion the silk painting lies outside what PD-Art covers. Bridgeman was about straight-on, "2D" photos of paintings, for which there is effectively just one way to photograph them; I prefer to be wary of too liberally extending it's application. As the silk object is not strictly flat & rigid (it's described as having been draped over a coffin), the photographer had some choice in how to present it.--dave pape (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- If one were to follow that logic, then every single hanging scroll painting on Wikimedia would have to be removed, since you could theoretically roll them up and take pictures of them as three-dimensional scrolls instead of spreading them out flat. The painting seen in Image:Western Han Chinese Silk.JPG was originally draped over a coffin, but is it draped over a coffin as presented in this photo? Nope. In that case, your argument doesn't hold much weight, in my opinion.--PericlesofAthens (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Likewise tapestries, prints & drawings, and any painting on canvas, which can be rolled up. The question is not must the object always be 3D (ie is it rigid), but has it been photographed as a 2 or 3D object? Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Would you agree, HéctorTabaré?--PericlesofAthens (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- If one were to follow that logic, then every single hanging scroll painting on Wikimedia would have to be removed, since you could theoretically roll them up and take pictures of them as three-dimensional scrolls instead of spreading them out flat. The painting seen in Image:Western Han Chinese Silk.JPG was originally draped over a coffin, but is it draped over a coffin as presented in this photo? Nope. In that case, your argument doesn't hold much weight, in my opinion.--PericlesofAthens (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think a majority of these pictures are fine (many of them are scans from books; provide more details and references to the book would be nice), not to mention they are very beautiful. I think it would be beneficial to keep them.--HéctorTabaré (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think all of them except Image:Western Han Chinese Silk.JPG will be deleted as per the rule about three-dimensional works of art. Therefore, I have improved the source information for Image:Western Han Chinese Silk.JPG by adding the title of Ebrey's book (Cambridge Illustrated History of China) and the year of publication (1999).--PericlesofAthens (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I found Image:Augustus Statue.JPG in abook in PD. The picture is very old. I changed the template and licence, please do not delete in now! Thank you --Sailko (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- All should go except Augustus on date and Image:Western Han Chinese Silk.JPG, which is 2D and is photographed hanging in a museum like a picture. It has been photo-ed as a 2D object & no doubt any request by the photographer to pose it otherwise would have received a very dusty answer. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Why is this still unresolved? At least the image of the silk banner should stay; there is nothing wrong with it.--PericlesofAthens (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:PDART. Image:Western Han Chinese Silk.JPG is kept.--Trixt (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Not really a deletion request. Although I think that this painting is surely in the public domain, it would still be good to know who the painter was and more importantly, when he died. ALE! ¿…? 11:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. Anatoliy (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
personallity rights abf /talk to me/ 11:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Please specify. Best --Weissmann (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Is this a public space? It seems to be the inside of a tent, but given that it seems to be a fair or something, perhaps still public. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
→Christian.И 21:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)User:Mike.lifeguard wrote here: Is this a public space? - It is. Everyone can go behind the stage and visit the tents after the show. I am experienced, believe me. Ask Stephan Haarmann. Best --Weissmann (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hah! Thats a nice definition of "public space" *g* I wont imagine what a lot is public space in your oppinnion. abf /talk to me/ 17:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I see no problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify: This is behind the stages, so it is not at all "public space" so for be it stays. It will have to be deleted. Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 10:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Taken in a public space where people have no reasonable expectation of privacy. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 07:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Civil Ensign and Roundel of Luxembourg
[edit]
derivative of a copyrighted image --Caranorn (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- [Note—I have added this page to the deletion requests page as it appears the nominator neglected to do so back when they nominated the images in July. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)]
- I have asked the nominator to indicate why he believes the images in question to be non-free. So far he has offered no proof for that they are "derivative[s] of a copyrighted image", and furthermore merely being under copyright does not mean the images are not free. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good question, wish you had asked me in July (note I asked an admin in July whether I had followed correct procedure, sorry seems something went awry). I just did a rapid websearch and found the following link [12]. Our image dates to 2006, theirs to 2005 it seems (has to be verified of course), I think there can be no doubt that ours is a derivative of theirs. Of course it could be that both are derivatives of the Album des Pavillons, but that would not make this less of a copyright violation. It has to be assumed images on FOTW are copyrighted and therefore unfree unless a specific image was released otherwise.--Caranorn (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I would be stunned to discover that FOTW owns the intellectual property rights to the Civil Ensign of Luxembourg. They may well have made a particular electronic version of the ensign (and possibly issued a copyright claim to that image) but ultimately the images listed above are derived from the original design which may, or may not be copyrighted (probably not I would guess). As it stands there is no evidence of a copyright violation and there is plenty of evidence of various parties making copies of the Civil Ensign of Luxembourg with any other party seeking legal sanction against them. 87.113.25.22 13:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Oops - didn't realize I was not logged in. Greenshed (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good question, wish you had asked me in July (note I asked an admin in July whether I had followed correct procedure, sorry seems something went awry). I just did a rapid websearch and found the following link [12]. Our image dates to 2006, theirs to 2005 it seems (has to be verified of course), I think there can be no doubt that ours is a derivative of theirs. Of course it could be that both are derivatives of the Album des Pavillons, but that would not make this less of a copyright violation. It has to be assumed images on FOTW are copyrighted and therefore unfree unless a specific image was released otherwise.--Caranorn (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I did not copy this image from FOTW. -- Denelson83 (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
kept Julo (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Very low quality image without any description, zero value for Wikipedia -- nominated by Karelj (talk • contribs)
- Comment; rather poor image but illustrates a now uncommon type of pre-WWII auto windshield design. Unless it can be shown we have multiple better illustrations of the same type of thing, weak keep. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
