Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/08/12
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not sure how user can claim to be the copyright owner of this logo. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rootology: Copyright violation
No FOP in United States. Sculpture is dated 1967 and Picasso died in 1973 (i.e. not PD). --ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- The Chicago Picasso is a special case, and has been declared PD in a U.S. court case - see Category:Chicago Picasso. --dave pape (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep --Dezidor (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Withdraw; will add note to image to prevent possible repeats (why would this not be mentioned in the summary in the first place?) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bogus "ineligible for copyright" claim. Most likely taken from news. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio from [1] (very slow link), credit: "Foto DPA" (Deutsche Presse Agentur). Lupo 15:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
i´m dont´using this photo. anywere --Dzucherato 19:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Completed by Cbrown1023 talk 01:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. The image is in use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: COmmons is not private photoalbum. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, same opinion--Motopark (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Business Mission Statement file not in Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Delete per nom. --Svens Welt (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Obtained permission to use it by the Museum, but they didnt create the models, only borrowed them, so I don't think the image can stay here. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This image was taken from http://www.lagoons.ae/ (click on "Media Centre," then "Construction of ...," then select the first image. Nothing on the website states that the image is under the GFDL or the CC 3.0. I think it is evident that the image is a copyright violation. LoverOfDubai (talk|contributions) 22:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
image has been requested for deletion. I will upload it again with a copyright at some stage-Apprentice23 (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. In the future you can request speedy deletion using the {{Copyvio}} tag. --jonny-mt 14:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Wrong licence Arno.Ho (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
kept, uploader vandalised the description and license-information himself. --Ra'ike T C 23:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Wrong licence Arno.Ho (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
kept, uploader vandalised the description and license-information himself. --Ra'ike T C 23:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Wrong licence Arno.Ho (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
kept, uploader vandalised the description and license-information himself. --Ra'ike T C 23:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Wrong licence Arno.Ho (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand the deletion requests you made. This versions seems to be ok... --Isderion (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
kept, uploader vandalised the description and license-information himself. --Ra'ike T C 23:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Wrong licence is copyrightes Arno.Ho (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please explain. This revision seems to be ok. --Isderion (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
kept, uploader vandalised the description and license-information himself. --Ra'ike T C 23:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Wrong licence is copyrightes Arno.Ho (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
kept, uploader vandalised the description and license-information himself. --Ra'ike T C 23:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Wrong licence is copyrightes Arno.Ho (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
kept, uploader vandalised the description and license-information himself. --Ra'ike T C 23:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Date on photo is clearly incorrect, as the photo is from 2003, appears to be press photo Ytoyoda (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Strange license; image seems to be a screenshot of a movie. Svens Welt (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
useless, out of ps --Szczepan talk 01:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Also noting this image has been deleted on three previous occasions, all from the same uploader. Having a closer look: either there's a language barrier or there may be other problematic uploads. Durova (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Follow-up: Most if not all of this uploader's images presented problems. The majority appear to have been personal abstract artwork, for use as computer wallpaper and as graphic art for a DJ business. An older set of uploads relates to the Argentine air force, and claims to have been the uploader's own work althouogh most of it lacks camera metadata and one includes an inset of a government logo. I have deleted the majority and will open a separate noticeboard thread for the remainder. A few images previously deleted by other admins are included in the list below. Durova (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Oceanica2WPx.jpg
- Image:F2KLogoFondoBlack.jpg
- Image:F2KFONDO.jpg
- Image:Vidrio6.jpg
- Image:Vidrio.jpg
- Image:Eaumira.jpg
- Image:Neohwp.jpg
- Image:Zygnusblackstries.jpg
- Image:Oceanica2WP.jpg
- Image:Zygnuswhite.jpg
- Image:Zygnusblack.jpg
- Image:Oceanicajpg1.jpg
- Image:Zpg1F.jpg
- Image:ZPFONDOFIN.jpg
- Image:Zygnusradio.jpg
- Image:ZYGNUS11.jpg
- Image:ZYGNUS1.jpg
- Image:V3.jpg
- Image:F15argarg.jpg
- Image:AE-520 1.jpg
- Image:PucaraA571.jpg
- Image:Fragatalibertad1.jpg
- Image:Altee.jpg
- Image:Pat13-1-.jpg
- Image:Heli12.jpg
- Image:Tr1700-1.jpg
- Image:MP1000.jpg
Please clarify the copyright status of this image from Studio Roosegaarde as the main page states that the site is copyrighted under cc-nc-nd-2.5 which is not acceptable on Commons. See Licensing for more info. Kimse (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kimse (talk) 07:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
User is claiming to be copyright owner of Official logo of Far East Broadcasting Company. Unless verification of this is provided, this image should be deleted. Cirt (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like {{PD-textlogo}} to me. --Kam Solusar (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- There appears to be some minor graphic design/coloring along with the text. Cirt (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Maxim: Deleted because "In category Unknown as of 10 September 2008; missing license/permission/source information". using TW
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This "original painting" is evidently derived from this photo. As a derivative work, the painting can only be published under a free license if the photo is under a license that allows doing so, or if there is the express permission of the copyright owner of the photograph to create and publish such derivative works. Lupo 08:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kimsə (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replaced --Navy Blue (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I uploaded this, but someone has since uploaded two better images visible at James Carville. The framing of the door around his head is strange, and I've replaced this photo in all instances with one of the other two. Chaser (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept, We can keep it additional. --Martin H. (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Has watermark, no source, incorrectly dubbed {{Copyrightbywikimedia}} ViperSnake151 (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Svens Welt (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
orphaned, the chemical structure is incorrect, and it is replaced by a SVG JaGa (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The chemical structure is indeed incorrect and the image has been superceded by an image with correct chemical structure. Edgar181 (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No reason to keep if we have a corrected vector image. nneonneo (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from can design. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
because it is a reversed version of a copyrighted drawing by Susan Seddon Boulet http://www.arachnology.be/pages/Art.html. It would seem that the uploader is claiming the art as owned by same.
Comment Can someone with an OTRS account go and see if the permission is from Susan Seddon Boulet herself please? --Moonian (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. And delete also all these please. --Nyo (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please discuss that matter in its corresponding page, thanks. --Moonian (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Obvious copyvio, deleted. Rama (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
en:Iron Man is copyrightes. COM:DW. Syrcro (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. [[ Forrester ]] 19:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Evidently this drawing is based on this photo. As a derivative work, the drawing can only be published under a free license if the photo is under a license that allows doing so, or if there is the express permission of the copyright owner of the photograph to create and publish such derivative works. Lupo 08:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - While I understand wikipedia's need for its extensive set of rules, sometimes they strike me as just authoritarian. What comprises a "derivative" work is debatable in all cases, and in this one, I'd say that the artist did enough of his own work for it to bypass the rule you're citing. I mean, what did you do, go looking for the reference photo? Who cares? I doubt even Miyazaki himself would care. He might even be honored that someone cared enough to put that kind of work in. Keep, keep, KEEP. Godheval (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- We're not the collection of images we can get away with hosting because nobody cares. We're (supposed to be) the collection of truly free images. Besides, the photographer of the photo might care if he knew about it. Publishing this drawing may even legally be fine under "fair use" and similar doctrines (parody...), but that still doesn't make it PD, and thus it is unsuitable for the Commons. Lupo 06:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- But the problem is that you can't even say for sure that the drawing was based on that particular photo. Maybe it was another photo of Miyazaki wearing the same suit somewhere else. Maybe the artist knows Miyazaki personally and drew from direct reference. Your assumption that it came from that particular photo isn't a good enough reason to delete it. And furthermore, it is different enough from the photo to constitute an original work. No one owns the right to Miyazaki's likeness, except Miyazaki himself, and even he can't prevent someone from taking a photograph, or drawing a picture. The real issue here is whether the owner of THIS work - the drawing - has given WP permission to use it, and he/she has. The rest is irrelevant. Godheval (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- We're not the collection of images we can get away with hosting because nobody cares. We're (supposed to be) the collection of truly free images. Besides, the photographer of the photo might care if he knew about it. Publishing this drawing may even legally be fine under "fair use" and similar doctrines (parody...), but that still doesn't make it PD, and thus it is unsuitable for the Commons. Lupo 06:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Lupo, you have no case. The photograph clearly has not been replicated. It arguably has been an inspiration for the drawing. The drawing could be said to be an w:allusion in the artistic sense of the word, which would make it a generally sanctioned artistic activity and denote creating new art in its own right. Rather, we should be talking about a variation on a theme. "Black Flame" by w:Renaissance (band) is a rip-off of a well-known classical piece from the Baroque. Yet even that is not a derivative work in the legal sense you are imputing. In general, you would have a case if this was a straightworward digital transformation by mechanical means of someone's iconic work. It isn't, and the work you claim as infringed upon is not at all iconic, either, and it remains unclear, that the two are even related. In fact, I think you are guilty of overpolicying Commons and employing OR to do so. Just let it be. --Mareklug talk 09:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. This drawing was not "evidently" based on the linked photo. It certainly isn't evident to me. What evidence are you referring to? And why do you believe the drawing is based on this particular picture, as opposed to numerous other images I have seen of Miyazaki? I can think of a number of ways this portrait could have been drawn. It could have been drawn "live" while Miyazaki sat on a Q&A panel at a convention. It could have been drawn from a copy of a personal low-quality photograph. It could have been drawn from a video frame capture. Who knows, the author may be a personal friend of Miyazaki, or maybe Miyazaki sat for it and gave the author rights to it? Or maybe the author drew it from memory. Even if the drawing is based on the suggested photograph, I strongly disagree that this is a "derivative work". It's simply a likeness, and nobody owns a copyright on their appearance. The accuser has a burden of proof to show that a relationship to a specific photo exists, and that proof has not been given. All that matters, as has been stated above, is that the author of this work has given permission. Anachronist (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's not clear that the drawing was necessarily based on this image, and even if it were, the differences add up to copying non-copyrighted facts (what the guy looks like) rather than copyrighted expression (exactly how he looked at that instant under the photographer's chosen lighting, at the angle of the photographer's choice). We should be encouraging the creation of free portraits such as this. Mangostar (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The drawing is evidentely based on that photo. In fact, it's drawing over that particular photo. I've merged them in Photoshop, adjusted the lower opacity of drawing over the photo - they match exactly. --Lošmi (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Remove. I so badly wanted to jump in on the 'keep' to slap down some anal license gnome, but I just did the Photoshop test and it does match perfectly without even needing to scale either image. It is clearly an attempt to circumvent license issues and not new individual work. I'll try to find someone to draw one from multiple sources -- perhaps some sort of lame contest; but a genuinely fair free work. -- Raulcleary
- I must agree: remove. If you line up the photo and drawing and flip back and forth, it's crystal clear that the drawing was simply traced from the photo. Tualha (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- I must disagree 'Keep. Let me say this, Tualha, if you had an actual photo of yourself on Wikipedia, and someone uses it for their own whim, how would you feel? Ryou-kun16 (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reasons already mentioned by others. Do these discussions always last for 3 months? This discussion needs to be closed. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 04:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
This is very clearly a trace, as explained adequately. Thus, it is a derivative work. Unless the photo is free, the image is deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Most likely CD/DVD cover from music band. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
and: Image:Slika1rrrrrr-1.jpg, Image:Angel.jpg, Image:Vertigobird.jpg - most likely band logo. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Advertisement campaign image and copyrighted corporate logo of the Vertigo Bird brand. Brynn (talk!) 02:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all the uploads. They were created for an promotion article [2], which was speedied. She didn't have permission for at least some of the images (OTRS 2008082610010956). Platonides (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as this image includes copyrighted logos of http://www.vertigo-bird.com/ and there is no permission given. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Unless the uploader as a user is the same individual as the author, then the uploader cannot assert to be the copyright holder. In either case, verificaiton/permission would need to be provided. Cirt (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No permission after more than a week. --Svens Welt (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Possible derivative work of [3]. Background image likely copyrighted NAB or NBC Universal. --Kelvinc (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- This picture is my own work product and this is no reason to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete fa brown (talk • contribs) 09:41, 12 August, 2008 (UTC)
- You edited the photo of Tim Russert, yes, but the photo itself was taken by someone else. You cannot upload it here, unless you are claiming that you took the photo on behalf of NBC Universal or NAB and said organization has allowed you to release this image as public domain: see Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Fan art. I haven't marked this one for speedy deletion only because I don't know who exactly owns the copyright. Given the file name and description, the Tim Russert photo is not some small incidental element of the image, but a major aspect, so Commons:De minimis does not apply.
- Also, do not erase deletion requests and my comments: the deletion request will be removed if your image is kept after a consensus here. Arbitarily erasing others' comments is vandalism.
- Finally, there are plenty of Tim Russert images already available. You should use one of those for your banner. Kelvinc (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The art product is my creative work. I disagree with your representation of my work. You are probably a bit biased because the picture contains a Christian symbol. The product was made to honor a man I looked up to you jerk! I hereby assert that I am the creator of this work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete fa brown (talk • contribs) 00:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly cannot be allowed unless permission is supplied from the original photographer. A wish to honour someone does not allow you to infringe the photographer's copyright. Please be polite. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete because of the Russert background; alse the rainbow is in many place, for example here here; another component not likely to be own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Please lookup the word Collage and orginal work. wiki collagePete_fa_brown
- en:Collage#Legal issues talks about derivative works and about fair use, but Commons policies do not allow works with fair use claims. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, missing essential source information for images used in the collage. --Martin H. (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wikipedia (with its non-free logo), rendered by Trident, with Windows XP titlebar, an input field, and a button. Not useful enough to have the non-free parts. AVRS (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, nonfree screenshot, not used anywhere. --Martin H. (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work of this photo. What's the license of the photo? Lupo 10:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The drawing is allowed because the only thing it uses from the copyrighted photo is the person's position while in a public place.--Natl1 (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The photo is linked from this page and the thumbnail is captioned "Photo/AP". I doubt the AP is in the habit of releasing their photos under free licenses. As for the drawing, it is very clearly traced from the photo - scale the photo to about 330 pixels wide, line them up and flip between the two, everything matches up. Tualha (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, per Tualha. --Martin H. (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
looks like a scan to me (i.e. a copyvio) Megapixie (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is the image PD-old? Arguedas died in 1969 and he looks not that young on the picture. Svens Welt (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, missing essential license information, pd-old (live of the author +70) can not apply. --Martin H. (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
If as claimed, image is the sidebar of the soccer club's website, then it is fair use; otherwise, the image is so ineligible as to have no use otherwise. BrokenSphere 21:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, per nom. --Martin H. (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Corrupt image. Nominating it to see if anyone else can see it. Rocket000(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Yup, the image isn't there anymore, I am not sure how that happened. Delete it! Fossiliferous (talk)
- Delete Nothing there to see. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep repaired it by downloading, editing and save (changed the brightnes -1% just to make any change). --Martin H. (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. It works now. rimshottalk 20:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
British artist Harry George Theaker died in 1954. Image is from Children's Stories From the Northern Legends, Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd, London; ca. 1920. Theaker's works are definitely not yet in the public domain in the source country (the UK). Move back to en-WP, where it could be tagged as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, and delete the image here. Lupo 07:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Same for Image:Idun and Thiazi.jpg, which furthermore doesn't have a source. Lupo 07:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- I Will be more careful about that. Thanks for the heads up. Cheers, Gizmo II ¿Eu? 13:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
If the Apple Logo is copyrighted, there is no doubt that this file is a derivative work. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 14:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out this is a silver apple, the apple logo is an apply with a bite out, that is white & gray with a line across the middle. 86.18.248.30 16:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Absolutely not a derivative work since (1) the apple is a different shape, (2) a different color, and (3) does not have a bite out of it. There are dozens of apple-logos. Simply visit TESS (the US Trademark search engine), type in "apple" and look at all the apples that are registered there. If none of those apples are considered to be in conflict with the very famous Apple or any of the other apple logos, then this apple certainly is not in violation. After all, just how many variations can there be on a simple fruit shape? Even the title does not state that it is an Apple Computer logo (presumably the one you're concerned with). I get tired of people thinking that generic objects that happen to have been used in marketing by big companies somehow become off limits to everyone else just because the big company has expensive lawyers on retainer. Apples have been used in art for centuries, and this an an apple as art. Apple Computer's logo doesn't change that. --Willscrlt (Talk) 20:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not the logo or derived from it. Rocket000(talk) 05:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The question we must ask is: Would the character of the image change when there would not be any Apple (logo) at all? Or would the uploader even make such an image? (cf. "A graphic I made [...] to represent Apple but not being copyright inflicting"). Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 07:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with creating an image to represent something. Copyrights protect expressions, not ideas. As long as you don't use any part of the expression, it's fine. It's not a derivative work. Apple does not have exclusive rights to an apple silhouette (with or without a bite). Yes, they have trademark rights over it, but they only have copyrights over their unique expression of an apple, not everyone's. Rocket000(talk) 22:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Rocket000. You're absolutely right. Sometimes it's easy to get trademarks and copyrights confused. In no way at all is the image in question a copyright violation. It's an apple. Yes. So what? It's not a derivative work. It's just a computer generated apple. The other potential problem is whether or not it's a trademark infringement. Given the variety of trademarked apple logos you will find registered (searchable from within TESS), it is very clear that just because a piece of art happens to contain an apple, that doesn't mean it infringes upon a company's trademark. If an ordinary person could reasonably be expected to confuse the image in question with a registered trademark, then the image might be infringing. I seriously doubt anyone would reasonably confuse this image with Apple Computer's (or any other one at which I looked). Therefore, this image should be kept as a piece of clipart of an apple. It might be a good idea to rename the image to something that does not imply that this is an "apple logo", but I think it's fine as-is. --Willscrlt (Talk) 08:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with creating an image to represent something. Copyrights protect expressions, not ideas. As long as you don't use any part of the expression, it's fine. It's not a derivative work. Apple does not have exclusive rights to an apple silhouette (with or without a bite). Yes, they have trademark rights over it, but they only have copyrights over their unique expression of an apple, not everyone's. Rocket000(talk) 22:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 07:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
useless --Magnus123 (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 07:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work. dave pape (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Contested—not a derivative work
[edit]
I, as the photographer, person who processed the photo, uploader, and license granter contest the claim that the photo is a derivative work. I have contacted Davepape [4] in an attempt to resolve this. Earth2marsh (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- See Commons:Derivative works for an explanation of the issues. The poster was created by Shepard Fairey, so he holds the copyright on it, and his permission is required to release a photograph of it under a free license. --dave pape (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Images uploaded by Nenet
[edit]- File:Tinynini.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Eugenie.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
(etc)
Out of project scope, not a personal repository per the pages I deleted on en Wikipedia, which fellow admins can see here. WilliamH (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Images of Silvia-pco
[edit]- File:Waterrollercoaster.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Foam.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Whitefall.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Wavepool.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Map Aquashow.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Uploader is lifting images from the Aqua Show Park website and claiming that they are copyrighted free use. Image viewing windows that pop up on the website to view larger versions of the pics state that all content is copyrighted. BrokenSphere 21:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment 13.08.08 - I'm the uploader of this images. I'm sorry for creating this problem, I don't have that much experience here on Commons. I've been investigating and I realized that I must forward the permission e-mail I got from the marketing director of Aquashow allowing me to use this images in Wikipedia to the OTRS volunteers. I'll tag all this images with an OTRS pending tag and forward the e-mail right away. Silvia-pco
- Comment I would be concerned that these images were intended for promotional use on pt wiki (possibly others). --Herby talk thyme 13:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment No, that was never my intent. I'm just a girl who enjoyed going to this park and so decided to expand the article that already existed about it. No intent to make publicity here :) Silvia-pco 20:58, 13 August 2008 (GMT)
- Comment I decided to replace these photos with other ones, which are entirely my work. This being said, I'd apreciate if one of the administrators could delete this images. Thanks. Silvia-pco 13:58, 16 August 2008 (GMT)
Deleted. No permission received via OTRS. Uploader was contacted on 09/24/2008 and no response received. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Images of Nolan
[edit]- File:Sidney Nolan 2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Sidney Nolan 3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Sidney Nolan 4.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Sidney Nolan 5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Sidney Nolan 6.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Sidney Nolan 7.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Sidney Nolan 8.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Sidney Nolan 9.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Sidney Nolan 10.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Australian artist Sidney Nolan died in 1992, making his paintings still copyrighted. BrokenSphere 22:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless the uploader, User:Nolan, sends a clear OTRS release from the e-mail address lanyon.homestead
act.gov.au to our e-mail address permissions-commonswikimedia.org confirming the license and that he is the owner of the copyright (or acts with the consent of the owner of the copyright). Lupo 08:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, commercial use is not allowed according to http://www.pictureaustralia.org/nolan/c_right.html. Martin H. (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside of project scope. Also nominated are Image:Against Substitutionism.pdf, Image:Singur Timeline (18 May 2006 - 15 June 2008).pdf and Image:Nandigram Timeline (22 August 2005 - 17 June 2008).pdf. See also w:WP:ANI#Political promotion via commons and EL (permanent link). MER-C 08:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This should not be deleted at all. The owner of the work has himself given the rights for this work to be freely distributed and this is an important public document and should be made available on Wikipedia.
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an unnecessary copy of an already-existing image, and poorly made. 24.126.210.79 08:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I agree WayneRay (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
This is a good picture.. Why delete?
- Delete I Disagree 17:50, 16 September 2008 (UCT)
Never seen a penis before?? why delete
- Delete I agree --201.212.140.93 04:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Commons is not censored, but already has enough educational home-made examples of over-age-25 caucasian penises (in all circumcused/uncircumcised and shaved/hairy varieties) Outsider80 (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept, used on 2 wikis. Kameraad Pjotr 20:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
While the drawing is very stylized and amateurish, it is nevertheless based on this photo (used here). The drawing is derivative work and can thus be published only under a free license if the photo itself is under a license that allows this, or the copyright owner of the photo has expressly consented to the publication of this derivative work. The image also appears to be unused, and I'd say it will remain so because it's not really suitable for any informational purpose on Wikimedia projects. Lupo 10:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep it is definetly artistically different from the supposed original mentioned above. it is hand drawn (by a mouse i presume) depiction of the man. --Oren neu dag (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept, passes imho the treshold of originality. Kameraad Pjotr 20:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
