Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/07/31
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This image is tagged as a US federal government image, but seems to be Ohio state government instead. Thus possibly not PD. -Chick Bowen (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete Description says from " Ohio Lake Erie Commission, a state of Ohio government organization". I can find nothing that says Ohio government works are in teh public domain. So I believe this wll have to be deleted. Anonymous101 talk 13:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 16:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Request of Uploader(Uploader Ramendra is me). Deletion request by User:Ananda, 07:17, 18 May 2008 completed by --Martin H. (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
No reason given for PD status, source link dead, can't be bothered to research. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 08:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
khalid 41.249.12.253 03:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep According to W:Bonampak the painting dates from 790 (painting not copyrighted). The photo was taken by Jacob Rus (User:Jacobolus) who seems to have a good understanding of copyright and has released his photo under a free license. I see no problem. Anonymous101 talk 14:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Nick (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair use logo from [1] company www --Masur (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - obvious copyvio of logo. No proof that uploader had right to release image under free license. Anonymous101 talk 14:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Nick (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
unlikely cover would be released to public domain Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. *hands Rat a {{Copyvio}} tag* Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 08:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fotograph of interpretive screen at the dam - sure not own work 84.142.119.113 06:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, indeed. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 08:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Photo is of wax sculpture, not of the person. Therefore, it is a faithful reproduction of a 3-d artwork, made recently enought not to be PD. Seidenstud (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- At Madame Tussaud's per chance? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 07:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently. See the flickr source. -Seidenstud (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Tussauds in Las Vegas, to be precise (it's in a set called "Nevada", and per en:Madame_Tussauds), so no Freedom of Panorama. --dave pape (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Very well then. Deleted -- if this had been at Tussauds in London, there might have been a case for keeping it. But it's not, and there's not. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 16:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I was told this imag is of a sculptur not in the public domain...my mistake Lvklock (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem. :) Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 08:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Corrupt image. Ian13 (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Corrupt image, no good version to revert to. Nick (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
double - same pic in better quality here: Image:Gedenktafel Kreuznacher Str 34 Erich Weinert.JPG (i am the photographer of the pic, that should be deleted) axel (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
deleted Julo (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
and other contributions by Chinese capitalist no 1 (talk · contribs). In most cases thumbnails without EXIF. Most likely taken from Web. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a crop of a larger copy of http://exopolitics.blogs.com/exopolitics/images/2007/04/14/mckinnontrafalgarsquare.jpg. (Consider the fact that the same people are in the background and the birds are in the same position) Anonymous101 talk 15:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
One of the images in this collage credits AP (which never uses a free license) and it seems reasonable to presume that the other images are also copyrighted based on this obvious copyvio Anonymous101 talk 13:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Nick (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I Uploaded it twice by accident: same as Image:Esztergom - Jazztergom 08 - Charlie.JPG Villy (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Dschwen: Duplicated file
I don't believe that this image was made by the uploader. For this (s)he would have to be over 85 years old and a few of his other uploads don't fit to that age. -- Cecil (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- When checking another upload of the user I found this page, where three of his uploads are from. Tagged it as copyvio. -- Cecil (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Kameraad Pjotr: Copyright violation
User has uploaded several copyvios already. This one definitely also looks like one. Cecil (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader has history of copyvios - this image looks like another as low res with no metadata. Anonymous101 talk 20:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Definitely looks copyvio to me. KveD (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
xenophobe fake flag --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 21:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Otourly (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- You are twisted, that's not xenophobe at all. There's about 1.7 million of Turkish people in Germany and this flag was just meant to represent the union of both communities... since as you can see there are the both flags in one. (Sorry if my english sounds too bad by the way; I'm french) Hoplaaaa (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen a flag like this on TV a few times when Germany played against Turkey during the European Football Championship last month. So it exists, though I don't know if it is really used by anyone. --Kam Solusar (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- This image was only use on the french's user page of Hoplaaaa with a text who said "I was send in Holy War by God for fighting against the rap [the music], the rascals, the verlan [french idiom use in suburbs] and all that came with...". For me he assimilate the German turkish people to rascals that he should eliminate... But you, what do you means about that ??? --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 22:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- The user informed me (on my french talk page) that he take the idea from http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Germany... and this image http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:!0German_flag.png --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 22:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- After some discussion on IRC channel, we found some others pictures using this flags like Image:Deutsch-Türkisch.jpg. So the usage exist... the problem of the bad use on french wikipedia has already been solved... --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 23:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - The fact that this is not a "real" flag isn't an issue, nor is its use. If it is freely licenced and properly sourced, then it's no more unreasonable than 100 other "fake" flags we have. What is important is to ensure it is identified as a "fake". Just because you don't like an image is no reason to DR it. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: "xenophobe fake flag" isn't a valid delete criteria. I cannot think of a valid reason for this image to be hosted on commons. If I get what this flag symbolizes correctly, I would use a Turkish and German flag side by side instead. Then again I cannot think of a delete reason. In any case please use SVG instead of JPG for flags. -- Cat ちぃ？ 22:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- KeepI like to confirm Kam's statement about the EUFA matches. The flag was used during the Euro 2008 tournament by fans. We host flag variants all of the time on the Commons, so there is nothing wrong hosting this image here. I just suggest to make it a SVG file and that is it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep usage could be found to illustrate the German turkisch minority integration. So we should keep it --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 23:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete"xenophobe fake flag"--Capitano007 (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Commons is media repositary, not a censorship organisation. --Foroa (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. There's no conceivable problem with it. I don't see how it could possibly be xenophobic. Enough drama, please. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 02:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
xenophobe fake flag Otourly (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. The flag is really in use, see Image:Deutsch-Türkisch.jpg. And Image:Flag of the Germany-Turks.png for more explanation. This SVG is just a variant of those. Simply because one person was using it in a xenophobic manner doesn't make the flag wrong. Bastique demandez 23:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- You're right I haven't got verify this. Sorry. Otourly (talk) 10:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. This is silly. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 02:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
License on Flickr is Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic which is incompatible with Commons -Nv8200p (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
License on Flickr is Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic which is incompatible with Commons --Nv8200p (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Named wrong, it should have included NJ in the name to differenciate it from Ocean Drive somewhere else. User:Carpetmaster101 (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- fixed deletion request --Martin H. (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Nominator: I suggest you use {{Rename}} instead. Thanks , Anonymous101 talk 13:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept, {{Rename}} tag placed. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that this image was not made by the flickr-user. It is totally different from all his other uploads (couldn't find other metal-pics or portraits of that kind). It is used on a lot of pages in the net, sometimes with the RIP, sometimes without. There is even a colour-version, which also is missing at the flickr-account. -- Cecil (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Cecil (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Really long Mathematical thesis Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. -Nard 23:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Two page Biography Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete COM:SCOPE says that "files uploaded to the Commons have to be useful for some Wikimedia project. Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons." This text file in PDF format is not an original document of the sort that could be used to illustrate an article in Wikipedia. A site such as Kevo may be more appropriate.[2] Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
English: A homophobic insult ("Zapatero is a fag") Capitano007 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, that's the whole point. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 02:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete is used on voice Forza Nuova New Force (Forza Nuova, FN) is an Italian far right political party, often described as neo-fascist, to repeat the insult.--Capitano007 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Commons is not censored. Showing a photo is not endorsing the political party, it is jsut providing a factual representation of its viewpoint. Anonymous101 talk 15:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Lewis. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Commons is not censored. Anonymous101 talk 15:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Is in use on it.WP. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Commons is not a personal repository File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Commons is not a personal repository File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
and Image:Taji.jpg
Commons is not a personal repository File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Both deleted as Commons does not host personal photography. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This is about analysis of undervalued shares done as a partial fullfillemt of Summer Internship Programme Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 19:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Picture is "Photo courtesy Lockheed-Martin" and thus not taken by employee of US Gov and thus not PD schlendrian •λ• 17:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- copyrightsreleased --Matrek (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- who says this? The picture was released by the Navy, which means that it isn't classified in any way, but the copyright is held by Lockheed and thus the picture can't be released by the Navy. See also en:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government: Unlike works of the U.S. Government, works produced by contractors under government contracts (or submitted in anticipation of such contracts) are protected and restricted under U.S. copyright law. --schlendrian •λ• 15:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Okey, I have wrote to Lockheed Martin and I received a direct permission from Lockheed Martin to publish all photo materials they showed me. "...the picture may be posted to the website, but photo credit must be given to Lockheed Martin." --Matrek (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- may be posted to the website (which most likely means Commons and Wikipedia) just isn't enough. You need full written permission to release the pictures under a free license which allows commercial use and derative works. See Commons:OTRS --schlendrian •λ• 19:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Okey, I have wrote to Lockheed Martin and I received a direct permission from Lockheed Martin to publish all photo materials they showed me. "...the picture may be posted to the website, but photo credit must be given to Lockheed Martin." --Matrek (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- who says this? The picture was released by the Navy, which means that it isn't classified in any way, but the copyright is held by Lockheed and thus the picture can't be released by the Navy. See also en:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government: Unlike works of the U.S. Government, works produced by contractors under government contracts (or submitted in anticipation of such contracts) are protected and restricted under U.S. copyright law. --schlendrian •λ• 15:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Admin, please consider also all images in Freedom (LCS-1) first days, which are based on the same rationale --schlendrian •λ• 20:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- + Image:080728-O-XXXXX-009.jpg and Image:080728-O-XXXXX-008.jpg --schlendrian •λ• 20:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- see also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:USS San Antonio LPD17.jpg, where the US Navy explicitly answered to a similar request: This image is provided on Navy.mil for news and information, and as such Wikipedia would be an appropriate venue. However, this is not a U.S. Navy photo.. --schlendrian •λ• 12:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no reaction to the insufficient permission, and there are first real free navy images of Freedom. I will contact the uploader and ask him for a reaction. --schlendrian •λ• 20:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I have talked to Lockheed Martin about full permission, including commercial use. Text of permission posted bellow of picture, is just Lockheed Martin's answer for complete question. Full text of correspondence - let's say importand part for this issue - bellow:
This is text of my request:
I would like to ask for Lockheed Martin's permission for publishing USS Freedom (LCS-1) picture shown at US Navy web site http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=61889 at international Wikipedia's site Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/) and subsequently at many national versions of Wikipedia websites. I'm gonna be extremely grateful for Lockheed Martin's permission, but of course I will understand if you will refuse, especially because all contents of Wikipedia is free to use for any purpose, including commercial - same like US government public materials (including Navy materials). Of course there are some rules of using Wikipedia contents, especially everyone must to emphasize Wikipedia as the source of taken materials and your materials at Wikipedia website must have information about your website as the original source of materials and their authors. If you will let me to publish your company's picture, it will be published under rules of US law with one of these kind of licenses http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags#United_States
And this is an answer:
"Yes, the picture may be posted to the website, but photo credit must be given to Lockheed Martin. There are additional pictures available at [...]" diana.massing@lmco.com
--Matrek (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- hm, I'm not fully convinced, but unsure myself, if this may be sufficent. I will see if I can get some kind of admin and/or OTRS user have a look at this --schlendrian •λ• 09:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No, that is definitely not enough, it is indeed far away from being enough. First the request-email by Matrek contained a restriction to "Wikipedia-only"-usage (not telling the copyright owner, that subsequentely his images will be used also outside of WP) and is missing a proper clarification of the whole licence-thing. And second, the answering-email from Lockheed misses not only an aknowledgement that they have understood the whole-licence thing (like irrevocable, free also for commercial use, ...) but they also have not specified the licence they want to publish their image under. Thus it was Matrek and not Lockheed who decided that the images will be published under CC-by-sa, which is not within his right to do. Please be aware that there are templates provided by COM:OTRS to use for permissions. They are not here just for fun, but because this is a difficult issue that is not easy to explain to outstanders in your own words, especially when you are not an expert yourself. -- Cecil (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Picture is "Photo courtesy Lockheed-Martin" and thus not taken by employee of US Gov and thus not PD schlendrian •λ• 17:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- copyrights released--Matrek (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:LCS-1_trial.jpg
Picture is "Photo courtesy Lockheed-Martin" and thus not taken by employee of US Gov and thus not PD schlendrian •λ• 17:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- But copyrights have been released.--Matrek (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:LCS-1_trial.jpg
The image is licenced under cc-by on 20minutos (the are signed with Foto: 20MINUTOS.ES), i belive that this licence is not valid because it is taken from the tv production w:es:La que se avecina. --Martin H. (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- this also concerns:
- Deleted by Mardetanha: In category Unknown - No timestamp given; not edited for 18 days
- Not deleted, only the first one. Deletion request reopened --Martin H. (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted by Mardetanha: In category Unknown - No timestamp given; not edited for 18 days
Deleted by Mardetanha: In category Unknown - No timestamp given; not edited for 18 days
double - same pic in better quality here: Image:Gedenktafel Kurfürstendamm 27 Kempinski.jpg (i am the photographer of the pic, that should be deleted) axel (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Author's request; other image indeed virtually identical. Lupo 14:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Possible personal rights problems. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 14:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
personal un connected File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- All uploads of this user should be deleted, Commons is not an image dump for personal images. --Denniss (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 14:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 14:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Personal Biography Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 14:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Picture is "Photo courtesy Lockheed-Martin" and thus not taken by employee of US Gov and thus not PD schlendrian •λ• 17:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
and also Image:080728-O-XXXXX-009.jpg. An explanation why such pictures are not PD can be found at [3] --schlendrian •λ• 15:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- My bad, i thought that since they were given to USN they would be released from their copyrights by the company. Delete. --Alaniaris (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 14:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; image could be, but is actually not used for userpage on any Wikimedia project. Túrelio (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, Userpage image not used on any userpage. --Martin H. (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
no description, bad name, no usages -> unusable for commons ChristianBier (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's a state flag of Colima, Mexico. C.f. Image:Escudo de Colima.svg. Might be an old version or a proposal for the state flag, see es:Colima#Banderas Colimenses. BTW, Image:Escudo colima municipio.png doesn't look self-made. See also es:Escudo de Colima... Image:Escudo de Colima Version 2.png also is not self-made. All these coats of arms come from this official web site: www.planeacion.gob.mx. It states at the bottom "© 2007 Secretaría de Planeación". What's the copyright status of these files? Lupo 10:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- thx for the description. --Martin H. (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It is a derivative work of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Buddenbrooks tree.JPG Hidro (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
deleted - Derivative of unknown picture. Yuval Y § Chat § 23:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It contains copyrighted Firefox logo. Ksiom (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Wrong license-information given, contains a lot of copyrighted stuff, del-req was open for ages. Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 11:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The arms are not those of the municipality as claimed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knorrepoes (talk • contribs) 13:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Proper arms have been added as Aalsmeer.jpgKnorrepoes (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Aalsmeer.jpg was deleted because Image:Aalsmeer.gif was better. The lion should be red, according to the blasoning. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. [[ Forrester ]] 09:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
and other uploads by Seth Cohen (talk · contribs). Most likely copyvio. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Please consider this. Other images:
[[ Forrester ]] 09:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Well he had enough time to get a permission... [[ Forrester ]] 09:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate Asdfjk (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Dupe of what? Please use {{dupe}} next time. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Similar photo on en:Image:Tabitha Suzuma 2008 (4).jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. No valid reason to delete given, en.WP file marked witn NowCommons. [[ Forrester ]] 09:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
picture taken by phone, no quality! No category! Deletion request by User:FxJ, 08:27, 2 July 2008 completed by --Martin H. (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- File:LER.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:LER2.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Shrug. I've seen worse... Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 08:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Neutral No quality is not a valid reason for deletion (as long as the image falls within the project scope and is good enoguh quality to be usable). No category is not a valid reason for deletion, they can just be added. I am only neutral, however, as the uploader doesn't seem to understand copyright as many of his uploads have been deleted as copyvios (and this may also be a copyvio). Anonymous101 talk 14:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)- -No Trash- It isn't copyrighted! I've made this picture my own. Want me to make a vid to be Sure? I Really made them my own. JaiMe`HardStyle (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Funny image, but not encyclopedical. GeorgHH • talk 11:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- What does encyclopedical mean to you? --Lamilli 14:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can't imagine which wikipedia page this image can illustrate. Please don't say it is appropriate for en:Heat. --GeorgHH • talk 14:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- You might think about en:Vulva or en:Nudity or en:History of erotic photography or en:Peter Klashorst. Whatever. Heat is maybe not the best option.--Lamilli 15:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Work by artist Peter Klashorst. No reason to delete it. And illustrates shaved genitalia of a black woman. Etc. And maybe exhibitionism. I'm sick of those kind of deletion requests. --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.199 08:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This is nice pic but it has no informational value. Tuohirulla 21:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep (weighing in rather than closing without consensus) - agree with TwoWings, and Lamilli that it can be useful in several ways. — Giggy 13:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete really unencyclopedic... __ ABF __ ϑ 13:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Ireas talk•de•en 13:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete. Potentally useful in lots of areas, like the Photography Wikibook. Rama 01:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Let me explain: Its not used and I belive it will not be used. The name is not good and i belive it only should be funny and not encyclopedic. We have enough such photos and we do not need one with a ventilator. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Taken 1967 can't be PD, can it? Greverod 21:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Request completed by Cbrown1023 talk 00:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it can, never heard about {{PD-Sweden-photo}}? The limit for "fotografisk bild" is 1969. The picture is correctly tagged with it:
{{Fritt foto}} --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Of course this is PD, just read the licensing information Huggorm (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep PD-Sweden. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 07:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that Flickr user "Magnafica" is identical with the South african photo artist en:Kendell Geers. Thuresson (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2008/07/20#Image:KGbh.jpg ChrisiPK (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 16:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that Flickr user "Magnafica" is identical with the South african photo artist en:Kendell Geers. Thuresson (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2008/07/20#Image:KGFFace.jpg ChrisiPK (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Nick. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 16:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
No indication for PD-old. Without name and date of death of the author {{PD-old}} can't be used. GeorgHH • talk 18:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Photo more than 100 year old. And actually, your argument is contrary to the actual policy. Photos are kept even if the author is unknown is there are more than 100 years old. Yann 09:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- They aren't. This rule is for pictures older than 150 years, PD-old-100 exists on de. Code·is·poetry 13:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if that's true, but it is silly anyway. This image is obviously in the public domain, and nobody cares about the author anyway. There is no valid argument since last January, so I will close this case soon. Yann 15:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- "obviously in the public domain"? This image was taken in 1904, a photographer of lets say 40 years (fairly old) could easily have reached an age of 74, not to mention these special french rules about WWI soldiers ... sorry, but this is not even probably public domain. Code·is·poetry 18:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if that's true, but it is silly anyway. This image is obviously in the public domain, and nobody cares about the author anyway. There is no valid argument since last January, so I will close this case soon. Yann 15:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- They aren't. This rule is for pictures older than 150 years, PD-old-100 exists on de. Code·is·poetry 13:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. No proove of PD and is probably not. Commons does not work with 'maybe'. Cecil 18:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
For this licence Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication. which was not done. This image was now uploaded the third time by Yann without any respect for previous deletions. (Where actually he was the only one, who was for 'keep' (see above) and miss-used his admin-rights by just restoring the image immediately after its deletion by a neutral admin, see deletion-log). -- Cecil (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I think that you are abusing here. What's wrong with the licence now? Yann (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think I marked that by writing it in bold font. And I didn't recreate/restore my own image just because an admin made a decision against it. And I would like to hear where I am miss-using my admin-rights here. -- Cecil (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- What's more, we need the date of publication, not the date that it was made, in order to take publication right out of play. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 02:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete: So far I haven't seen any information on the image page telling us where this image has been published more than 70 years ago. As long this is missing, {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} is inappropriate. In addition, simply telling that the photographer is unknown is likewise not acceptable as long as no indication is given why this is the case and/or what you have done to research the photographer's name. Why was this image restored after the previous deletion? --AFBorchert (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that this request for deletion is pure bullshit. But I am ready for a compromise. Will you follow the French Wikipedia contributors who are certainly the most competent to work out if the image is in the public domain in France? So I will accept the deletion if the image would be deleted on the French Wikipedia for a copyright violation. Yann (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Äh, no. Just in July I've seen that there are a lot of French contributors who would prefer to ignore the laws of their country and keep things that are a copyright violation just to have something to illustrate their articles. There were a few who understood and encouraged the deletion request, but the majority just called the law stupid. So I would prefer someone neutral. -- Cecil (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Who is neutral? People who request completely irrelevant criteria? Or normal people who try to use their common sense? There are thousand of images like this one on Commons. Do not single out one. If you really mean it, make a list and a deletion request for them all. In a side note, you didn't said why {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} would be "inappropriate". Yann (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- So because we're not deleting everything erroneously claimed as an anonymous work, we should delete none of them at all? By the same logic, we'd never delete anything (because after all, we're never going to eliminate every copyright violation from here). Anyway, if the author is truly anonymous, then present some evidence that the author never claimed authorship of the work, or demonstrate that it can not be found with a reasonable amount of effort. Either that, or ask some fr.wp users to do it for you if you like (and no, zerging the deletion request will not work). There is nothing "bullshit" about demanding this. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Collard, don't expect to much from Yann. After all, he creates his own rules: Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Synagoga_Głogów_1.jpg. Commons has no 100-years rule, but still he keeps them with that rationale. -- Cecil (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Your gratuitous hostility is disturbing, as it was told you before. It is not the first time that you attack other contributors (Commons:Deletion_requests/French_architects). This is a warning. Yann (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's not hostility, that is severe concern of seeing an admin regularly miss-using his admin-rights by restoring images and using invalid rationals. -- Cecil (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- When do you stop accusing me for what you do yourself? Yann (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Where did I use my extra rights as admin in the wrong way? I have not restored images that were deleted by other admins and I don't keep/delete images with my own private rationale. With this deletion request I just took the rights every user has. I doubt that it would have been miss-use to delete the image again with reference to the previous request, but instead decided to get a few more opinions which currently all look approving to me. -- Cecil (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- When do you stop accusing me for what you do yourself? Yann (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's not hostility, that is severe concern of seeing an admin regularly miss-using his admin-rights by restoring images and using invalid rationals. -- Cecil (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Your gratuitous hostility is disturbing, as it was told you before. It is not the first time that you attack other contributors (Commons:Deletion_requests/French_architects). This is a warning. Yann (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Collard, don't expect to much from Yann. After all, he creates his own rules: Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Synagoga_Głogów_1.jpg. Commons has no 100-years rule, but still he keeps them with that rationale. -- Cecil (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- So because we're not deleting everything erroneously claimed as an anonymous work, we should delete none of them at all? By the same logic, we'd never delete anything (because after all, we're never going to eliminate every copyright violation from here). Anyway, if the author is truly anonymous, then present some evidence that the author never claimed authorship of the work, or demonstrate that it can not be found with a reasonable amount of effort. Either that, or ask some fr.wp users to do it for you if you like (and no, zerging the deletion request will not work). There is nothing "bullshit" about demanding this. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Who is neutral? People who request completely irrelevant criteria? Or normal people who try to use their common sense? There are thousand of images like this one on Commons. Do not single out one. If you really mean it, make a list and a deletion request for them all. In a side note, you didn't said why {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} would be "inappropriate". Yann (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't restore this image. I uploaded another one with another template, because I think there is a misunderstanding on the rationale for keeping this image, which is available on several Wikipedias with exactly the rationale I advocate here. So yes, you attack me with wrong facts and false allegations, and you abuse your admin rights in deleting this image. Yann (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- You restored the image one time. This time you just waited a few weeks before trying it with a different licence for which you have not yet brought a proove that it is valid. -- Cecil (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Previous deletion requests accepted the rationale that old photos without an author can be considered as PD (see Commons:Deletion requests/World War I era images (02/08/2006)). Why not now for this one, which is even older than WWI images in the RfD mentioned? See also Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Anonymous_work... and I forgot Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Anonymous-EU and many others. I think that double standard is applied here. Yann (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- You should consider taking up acrobatics; the contortions through which you have gone to avoid the issue would be impressive were it not for the fact that you're an administrator and really should know better. Again: Where is the evidence that the author of this work was never known or is undeterminable with a reasonable amount of effort? "I haven't bothered to try and find out the author" is not the same thing as "the author was anonymous". Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 03:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Previous deletion requests accepted the rationale that old photos without an author can be considered as PD (see Commons:Deletion requests/World War I era images (02/08/2006)). Why not now for this one, which is even older than WWI images in the RfD mentioned? See also Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Anonymous_work... and I forgot Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Anonymous-EU and many others. I think that double standard is applied here. Yann (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
And this is not the only missing point, Lewis Collard, as we still have no proof that this image was published 70 years ago as required by {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}:
- Notice to uploaders: To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions: (1) published over 70 years ago, and (2) the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. Images that lack either of these two conditions should not use this template.
Please note that some countries grant copyright for editio princeps that extend for some years (in Germany 25 years) independent from the time of the author's death. In other words: Even if the author is dead for more than 70 years, it might still be copyright protected if it has been published for the first time just some years ago. I would recommend to hunt for images in old publications and not on random web sites as these proofs become much easier if you scan these images from old prints. Another option is, of course, to correspond with the maintainers of the referenced web site to inquire where this image has been taken from. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Now a claim that it wasn't published... and I was told to "take up acrobatics"... Ah! Ah! Ah! Yann (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- I do not claim that it wasn't published. It has obviously been published on the web site you have copied that image from. The question is whether you have any proof that this image was already published 70 years ago which is one of the preconditions to take advantage of the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} template. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Now a claim that it wasn't published... and I was told to "take up acrobatics"... Ah! Ah! Ah! Yann (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
For reason unknown, the image was not properly deleted. I deleted it again. Rama (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rama. Lupo 14:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Images of Praktikant Kartographie (talk · contributions · Statistics)
[edit]- File:Welt Mercator Pazifik.png ()
- File:800px-Welt Mercator Atlantik-1.png ()
- see also Image:Welt Mercator Atlantik.png
- File:Europe States.png ()
- see also File:Image:Europe_Staates.png ()
- File:Germany Federal States.png ()
- and File:Dmap.PNG ()
The images of user Praktikant Kartographie are copyvios or at least missing permission. -- 85.177.55.191 15:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 14:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the gravestone design is subject to copyright, which is not owned by the photographer. JD {æ} 19:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's a GRAVESTONE, something publicly displayed, thus a picture of it is not copyrighted in any sort of way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.101.80.14 (talk • contribs) (UTC)
- Since it is displayed publicly it's not under the jurisdiction of a copyright. Just like if someone takes a picture of the Statue of Liberty they're not breaking copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.143.73 (talk • contribs) (UTC)
- so you better explain this to the person who deleted my upload of this gravestone before... see User_talk:JD#Image:Dimebag_Pantera.jpg. --JD {æ} 14:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Law of Public Preformance - section added by user:71.80.112.224
(same as public desplay)
The public performance right allows the copyright holder to control the public performance of certain copyrighted works. The scope of the performance right is limited to the following types of works:
* literary works, * musical works, * dramatic works, * choreographic works, * pantomimes, * motion pictures, and * audio visual works.
Under the public performance right, a copyright holder is allowed to control when the work is performed "publicly." A performance is considered "public" when the work is performed in a "place open to the public or at a place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances are gathered." A performance is also considered to be public if it is transmitted to multiple locations, such as through television and radio. Thus, it would be a violation of the public performance right in a motion picture to rent a video and to show it in a public park or theater without obtaining a license from the copyright holder. In contrast, the performance of the video on a home TV where friends and family are gathered would not be considered a "public" performance and would not be prohibited under the Copyright Act.
The public performance right is generally held to cover computer software, since software is considered a literary work under the Copyright Act. In addition, many software programs fall under the definition of an audio visual work. The application of the public performance right to software has not be fully developed, except that it is clear that a publicly available video game is controlled by this right.
source
[edit]
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html
Deleted.
- A) This is a derivative work. The United States does not have Freedom of Panorama.
- B) This image has been deleted from Flickr. It did not receive a Flickr review, so not even the license of the derivative photo can be verified. Эlcobbola talk 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work of the photo shown here. (Yes, the sash runs the other way, but still a derivative.) Lupo 11:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Lupo, that drawing is not a derivative work of the image that you pointed to. Course I draw Gyanendra himself in an "official" pose, and therefore I think it would resemble to a some other official portraits of him on the web. Nevertheless I was inspired by a different military uniform of the (former) King of Nepal and Nepalese army chief. I know my drawing is in b/w but also the colour of the uniform and the cap themselves (not the sash only) were different. Unfortunately I can't tell you more because I am not so expert in nepalese military uniforms. Instead, I have some doubts about the copyright of the photo on that page: please note that it was an official portrait permanently installed in public places. --Duvilar (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It doesn't look like a DW, it seems entirely original.--Trixt (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept, original work. Kameraad Pjotr 17:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
