Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/08/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Out of COM:SCOPE, used for deleted vanity article on :en (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matt_Baron&action=edit&redlink=1) Túrelio (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope for sure - attack image. Herby talk thyme 08:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio -- album cover Renata3 (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio -- album cover Renata3 (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
wrong name Roberta F. (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: User request
At best a derivative non-free image -- but this actually appears to be a grainy screen cap -EEMIV (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, used for deleted vanity article on :en:Jason Day (Dick) Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: Out of project scope
Deletion request also includes Image:Accidente T4 Barajas (primeras imagenes).jpg and Image:Accidente T4 Barajas (primeras imagenes) 3.jpg.
It seems that this is not own work by the Flickr uploader, and thus cannot be put under a free license by him. If I remember correctly this is a Flickr problem - it's hard to decide the license of photographs on a single-photograph basis, only licensing all one's photos is relatively easy.
Here some links to news articles using the same photos, sometimes crediting them to press agencies: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. - Andre Engels (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- I checked all the photo evidences by Andre Engels. I can suppose the photo, Accidente T4 Barajas (primeras imagenes) 2.jpg is the ORIGINAL PHOTO(it means this photo is not a copy from the news agency's site). Because the other photos on those journals DON'T SHOW the part of the crane top. though this supected photo SHOWS the part of the the crane's top. it is the the secret that the Authenticated only knows. and...if my memory is correct, Flilckr's photo is freely usable on the Wikipdia. Because Flickr's user permitted that those uploaded photos can be freely in use by someone. (but...we might have some restrictions... I don't know well...) so I don't think this photo violates for the reason by Andre Engels, isn't it? --Carl Daniels (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Adambro (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bad name --Pudelek (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Empty. Rocket000(talk) 06:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that the uploader is the creator of this publicity shot. A little comparison in the Gimp shows that it's from the same photo as this higher quality image used at www.firstlinepoetry.com. The same photo also shows up on other sites, all credited to a "J Allen". dave pape (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
vulgar Chrisjustus (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. No. ViperSnake151 (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
vulgar Chrisjustus (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. No. ViperSnake151 (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
vulgar Chrisjustus (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. No. ViperSnake151 (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The odds that the flickr user is the author of this photo seem awfully slim. dave pape (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
probable copyright violation Yann (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ChristianBier: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
The page has an incorrect name, and a page with a correct name exists. ->Image:Koburger Siebmacher212 - Ehrbare Nürnberg.jpg --Technokrat (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Duplicated file: unused, wrongly name dupe of Image:Koburger Siebmacher213 - Ehrbare Nürnberg.jpg
same as Image:Flag of Esztergom.svg Villy (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept per COM:SUP — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Has a better SVG version. The PNG version is not used anymore. Tieum p (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. per COM:SUP Herr Kriss (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
not sufficient information on its copyright status - seven days up after the copyright notice 118.94.211.133 08:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Over seven days after nld. Herr Kriss (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
probable copyright violation Yann (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- see here. Could be speedydeleted. --Isderion (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: copyrighted and taken from http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3748270
out of project scope Isderion (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kimse (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
it was a mistake to upload it Hurls (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
this is not my own work it is a copywrite violation Hurls (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
If it's a copyvio, from where did you take it? --Túrelio (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
it was a mistake to upload it Hurls (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
this is not my own work it is a copywrite violation Hurls (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
If it's a copyvio, from where did you take it? --Túrelio (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
"Used by permission" of the owner of the print, with "all rights reserved" - incompatible with free licence; and no evidence that the owner of the print is the owner of the copyright over the image, since the owner of the print is identified as being someone other than the photographer. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Added no permission tag instead. Kimse (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio -- a logo Renata3 (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kimse (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The uploader asserts it is his own work but this appears to be a copy of [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 2008-08-21T21:23:41 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
wrong name is replaced by Image:Gewelfschildering_Martinikerk_Groningen.jpg Gouwenaar (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment Use {{Badname|Image:Gewelfschildering_Martinikerk_Groningen.jpg}} next time. --Dezidor (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rlevse: Dupe of Image:Gewelfschildering Martinikerk Groningen.jpg
wrong name replaced by Image:Het voorgesneden paradepaard door Marijke Gemessy Folkingestraat Groningen.jpg Gouwenaar (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Tagged as {{Duplicate}}. Pruneautalk 17:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rlevse: Dupe of Image:Het voorgesneden paradepaard door Marijke Gemessy Folkingestraat Groningen.jpg
The original photo at Flickr is under a noncommercial license. No evidence that the uploader at en Wikipedia is the same person as the Flickr user. Kelly (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep--Starscream (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I do not know what does not fit. I used this tool, to bring from English Wikipedia. I her did not photograph. And very I would like.
- I've asked the original uploader on his talkpage on :en. --Túrelio (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Original uploader had no edits on :en since August 16, 2008. --Túrelio (talk) 09:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless it can be released under a license permitting commercial reuse. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. |EPO| da: 17:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This image is wrong licencend and a copyvio like all other images from this user on en wp and on commons. The image is made by MC2 Drae Parker maybe it is something of this pd-us-gov, marines, airfoce, i dont know, the metadata should give the answers. If this couldnt be fixed this image is a copyvio. Martin H. (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep MC2 == Mass Communications Specialist 2nd Class. This is PD-USGov-Military-Navy. I could not find this image, but there are other images by Drae Parker (such as here), who is a U.S. Navy photographer. Should fix author, license, and claim of self-made, etc., of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- KeepThanks for the link and the licence, i found the original source and i think i fixed it, we can now keep the image. --Martin H. (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept, licence is corrected. --Martin H. (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
upload and format problems Manutaust (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request. Martin H. (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
No author, no date, insufficient source information. High Contrast (talk) 09:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Appears copied from this site, or maybe somewhere else. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or this site. --Martin H. (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
_2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
This image Image:ThutmoseI.jpg has no author or source identified. In fact it is actually a copyright violation from this site http://images.suite101.com/390585_com_thutmosei.jpg which is banned by your spam web filters. The people from the banned web site tagged it as Thutmose I when it is actually Thutmose III as it comes from a temple built by Queen Hatshepsut and Thutmose III. It would be like calling a photo of President George Bush II as George Bush I instead--just historically inaccurate. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please specify: Please read Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. As this is a faithful 2D-reproduction, it is not a copyright violation. But you claim, that the description is wrong and in fact the painting shows Thutmosel III, instead of Thutmosel I? Do you have any further information to support this? --h-stt !? 05:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- A different and quite legitimate picture of the same relief appears here: Image:Luxor, hieroglyphic decorations inside the Temple of Hatshepsut, Egypt, Oct 2004 A.jpg In it, you can see the rectangular shaped box above the beetle in the king's royal cartouche. It reads as king (royal name) 'Menkheperre' as in 'Menkheperre' Thutmose III. In contrast, the royal name of Thutmose I was 'Akheperenre' as this photo of his cartouche shows: Image:Thutmose I Family-83d40m-highContrast.jpg The dubious web source mislabelled the copyviolated image. Besides, do we want images from the web sites of spammers. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- OK, so the picture is wrongly labeled and should be moved to a name that expresses the correct description. And with PD-art, I don't care the least where the picture is from, but that is of course specific for this license. --h-stt !? 16:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- If an administrator wants to alter the title to ThutmoseIII.jpg, I have no objections...as there is no image with this title at present. You wouldn't call Bush II as Bush I now would you? But if this move can't be done, please delete it. Thank You --Leoboudv (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- It's not critical that the image be renamed, so long as the description page is accurate (consider that many perfectly usable images have nonsense names like P9876785.jpg). I also note that it's used by at least 9 different wikis, so we're not going to delete until all those are taken care of in any case. Stan Shebs (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If the name is changed, then historical accuracy is preserved. Unless people access the details of this image, people will automatically assume its Thutmose III. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Stan, Did you know that all 9 different language wiki's are using this image of Thutmose III for their articles on Thutmose I according to this: [8] This is why the image has to be renamed Image:ThutmoseIII.jpg. It is causing endless confusion and people on the non-English language sites ALL think it is Thutmose I, not III. Its like using a picture of Bush II for an article on Bush I. Just historically inaccurate. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
![[8]](http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=ThutmoseI.jpg&w=_100000#end){kind=link}
- Like I said, upload a copy under the correct name, fix all the wikis to use the new image, and then I'll be happy to delete that one. No point in complaining until you do at least that much - only the deletion requires any admin powers. Stan Shebs (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- rename it please, Leoboudv is right. – Alensha SL egy cica :) 20:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have removed the image from all the different language wiki sites. It is used in only some Emirjp sites. You know I can't upload an image when I don't know the source or license. The best solution is just to rename it as ThutmoseIII.jpg (or else delete it) --Leoboudv (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, since not used in article space anymore. (It was still used in nl:Portaal:Egyptologie/Galerie when I checked, again labelled Thutmose I...) Please do not re-upload this image, not even under a correct name. If you must, use a crop of the far superior Image:Luxor, hieroglyphic decorations inside the Temple of Hatshepsut, Egypt, Oct 2004 A.jpg instead, which is moreover properly sourced and licensed. Or simply use that file unchanged. Lupo 13:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo/shield of an organization. Nearly all sorority and fraternity shields are copyrighted. As a national organization, the shield should have a source. But, it does not. The site says that the sorority is copyrighted. And, we don't know if this is the shield. --miranda 06:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted we have to expect the image is copyrighted and the license is sure wrong as this is sure not own-work abf /talk to me/ 21:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Since we don't know who the photographer was, we can't prove that they have been dead for 70 years yet Rlandmann (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep de:Wilhelm Kress died 1913. But since the photographer is not mentioned in the caption, maybe it is better to change to template:Anonymous-EU. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- "Anonymous" doesn't simply mean that we don't know who the creator of the work was. The uploader has identified this image as having been taken from a website; which in turn contains samples from a book of antique images published in 2004. We're a couple of steps removed from the original publication, so we can't reliably say what the original circumstances of publication were, much less whether the photographer was credited at the time. The date of Kress' death is irrelevant, unless there is some compelling reason to believe that he himself took this photo. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Photo from 1901? I hope this is bad joke. --Dezidor (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Not at all. Let's say that the person who took it was 25 at the time. If they lived to be 75 years of age, they would have died in 1951, and the photo would not enter the public domain until 2022 if it was published during the photographer's lifetime. On the other hand, this particular image has been taken from a book first published in 1984. If this photo had been languishing in someone's family collection for the past 83 years and this was its first publication, it will enter the public domain next year (ie, 25 years after publication) under the EU Directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection. But, the simple fact is, we don't know the copyright status of this photo. Of course, if you can provide details of its first publication, we could be sure. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is rather obvious that the 2003 book is a collection of previously plublished postcards and old news photographs, keeping original captions. What was 1984? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry - 1984 was my mistake from misreading a bibliography - first publication of the book was actually 2003. I agree - it's obvious that these photos have previously been published. Unfortunately, in this case, we don't know when or where this took place, and without this, the copyright status is unknowable. Like I said above, it's quite reasonable to think that this photographer lived well into the middle of the twentieth century and therefore that her or his works are protected for another 20 years or so. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is rather obvious that the 2003 book is a collection of previously plublished postcards and old news photographs, keeping original captions. What was 1984? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not at all. Let's say that the person who took it was 25 at the time. If they lived to be 75 years of age, they would have died in 1951, and the photo would not enter the public domain until 2022 if it was published during the photographer's lifetime. On the other hand, this particular image has been taken from a book first published in 1984. If this photo had been languishing in someone's family collection for the past 83 years and this was its first publication, it will enter the public domain next year (ie, 25 years after publication) under the EU Directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection. But, the simple fact is, we don't know the copyright status of this photo. Of course, if you can provide details of its first publication, we could be sure. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like an old postcard to me. Photos for postcards usually don't get storaged somewhere to publish them somewhen. The text on the webside on the given source says "Das obere Wiental in alten Ansichten (1858 - 1918)." whih would be The upper vale of Vienna in old views (1858 - 1918). I don't think that this image didn't get published before 1918 and would thereby be {{Anonymous-EU}} --D-Kuru (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Close as kept per discussion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Same structure as Image:Oxaloacetic acid.png but a low-resolution jpeg. - TimVickers (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Are those really close enough that we want to get rid of the jpg? Perhaps we should replace it with a higher quality version first. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Good enough quality for use (even if it is often not preferable), so no reason to delete it. In fact it is in use on fr-wiki. Can also illustrate different ways to show the same structure. The only reason for deletion is if the image were not usable at all, which is not the case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Note, I've replaced the use of the jpg on French Wiki with the better-quality PNG version (which also shows the correct stereochemistry), so is preferable on two counts. TimVickers (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, but "preferable" is a matter of context. We only delete if it is not usable, which is different -- and obviously it is usable, since it has been used for some time. Commons does not get into issues of which is preferable; we host both images and let editors choose what is best for their context. We try to keep as many versions as possible, unless they are completely redundant (meaning the same exact image, or a scaled version). These two images are clearly different though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Note, I've replaced the use of the jpg on French Wiki with the better-quality PNG version (which also shows the correct stereochemistry), so is preferable on two counts. TimVickers (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments by uploader suggests that MightJebus is not the creator. No indication that it is PD. Megapixie (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- delete. Maybe, use {{subst:npd}}, its faster than a deletion. ~ bayo or talk 22:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- The source link is not enough to verify any pd, so a source is missing, you can use {{subst:nsd}} additional. Asides from possible copyvio it is out of scope imo (or the description does not say anything). --Martin H. (talk)
- Please delete --DuLithgow (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Sketch London
[edit]- image:Sketch Home.jpg
- Image:Sketch logo.JPG
- Image:Inchan-hwang.JPG
- Image:Chris-newbrook.JPG
- Image:Anita-arndt.JPG
- Image:Aniano-h-areco.JPG
- Image:Alec Shelmerdine.jpg
Copyvios from http://www.sketchlondon.com/gallery.php --Renata3 (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Image from fas.org. It is not under GNU licence! High Contrast (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Help
[edit]
I didn't know were to put it i need help because fas is a government website isnt' it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinger 5 (talk • contribs)
- No - FAS is a private website, and there is no evidence on the source page as to where FAS.org got this photo on and what the copyright status is. Delete .Nigel Ish (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Alright i thought it was a government site we should try to find another picture since almost every Wikipedia's article in this aircraft uses the same picture.Delete .--Stinger 5 (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- 6 months and yet this image is still here? Delete as no permission is evidenced. --russavia (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Anonymous101 talk 08:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
It is 70 years p.m.a. not 50. Image not old enough to be pd-old. -- BLueFiSH 01:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The photographer is unknown and the photo is more than 70 years old. According to the Bern Convention and the law of most countries, this photo is in the public domain. Yann 20:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- delete The photographer is not unknown. He is just not mentioned here, maybe because of individual laziness or disadvantages of google’s image search. --Polarlys 01:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Author unknown. Wojsyl 08:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete We don't know the author (yet), but I see no proof that this is truly anonymous work. --88.134.140.64 16:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Full Ack Polarlys! --Flominator 15:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Yann. Julo 16:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Renomination. The uploader claimed that the author is unknown and tagged it as {{Anonymous-EU}}, although there is a clearly visible signature in the lower right part of the photo. Research in the online database of the Bavarian state library showed that the photo was taken by German photographer Ernst Sandau (there's currently also another deletion request for a Sandau photo). A larger scan of the image can be seen here (I still haven't found a way to permanently link to individual search results, use this site, check the "Bildarchive" box on the right side, enter "Beseler" into the first input field and press "Suchen").
User:Lupo already did some thorough research to find out Sandau's date of death, but couldn't find it (see his talk page if you speak German). So unless someone can find out his date of death, we have no proof that the image is PD. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Eh, 'scuse me, but that was not "thorough" research. Just some googling around. I had indicated a number of books that I would have liked to check (such as [9], [10], [11], [12]), but couldn't because they're not available to me. Sellin/Sandau were well-known enough at the time: I consider the chances of actually finding their lifedates in some specialized real-paper publications not too bad. But someone would have to go to a good library in Berlin and check. (User:Mutter Erde already tried the FU library, but apparently didn't get these books either.) Another possibility would be to ask at some institute specialized on photography at a University or Museum in Berlin. For instance, someone could try asking Mr. Peter Herrmann at the Potsdam Museum (Haus der Brandenburgischen Geschichte)[13]. I suspect Mr. Herrmann might be a treasury trove of knowledge about early photographers in Berlin... Lupo 16:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Just to be clear: Delete unless someone can come up with Ernst Sandau's death date and we can thus confirm the PD status. Lupo 20:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, maybe not "thorough research". More like "more research than 95% of the users usually participating in such deletion requests will be able to do". ;-) --Kam Solusar (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per Lupo. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
No clear source information - given rarity of the creature and uploaders problematic contribution record http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Movieman85 seems likely a copyvio. --Megapixie (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Also http://original.britannica.com/eb/article-9068578/solenodon Megapixie (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be a copyvio of J.A. Hancock/Photo Researchers, Inc., by the above link. It also appears on Encarta links here and here with the same image credit. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
see also: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2404/8-species-once-though-extince-back-dead?page=0%2C1
Deleted. No source MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
no author, no source, not even a description AndreasPraefcke (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Derrivative work of a copyrighted logo Renata3 (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- {{Pd-ineligible}}? ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Don't think so. The way they play with the red dot - that's not part of fonts and even though small make it copyrightable. Renata3 (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- By U.S. rules, that would be PD-ineligible, I'm pretty sure. It is not just fonts, but common geometric shapes, and simple combinations of the same, are also not eligible (this would be "aesthetically pleasing" but still not copyrightable expression, I think). However, I have no clue what Chile's standards are. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
obsoleted, misnamed or poorer quality Scout maps
[edit]- File:WOSMMap-World.png
- File:WOSM-Interamerican Region map.svg
- File:WOSM New WorldF0E68C.png
- File:WOSM New World.png
- File:WAGGGSMap-World.png
- File:WAGGGS-Western Hemisphere Region map.svg
- File:WAGGGS-WOSMWestHemMap-World.png
- File:Still Pink.svg
superseded-these maps are obsolete and need deleted, I am the Scout Project member who originally commissioned them. Again there is no valid reason to keep a map that has been superceded by a better quality, newer or cleaner map. Faulty logic on the part of the editor who keeps removing my deletion tags. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- From my talkpage:
- == Superseeded images ==
- Hi. Please note that just because an image is superseeded doesn't mean it should be deleted. Instead tag the image with {{superseded|New image.ext}}. Remember that there might be more projects then en.wiki that wants to use the iamges. /Lokal_Profil 15:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- {{Superseded}} should of course only be used when the two images display the same thing. An image which is no longer used by the Scouting Project should merly be left as it is. /Lokal_Profil 15:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- That is hogwash. Why should anyone want to use a substandard image? That is a waste of server space. These should have been left alone to be speedied. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, we have to keep them in order to comply with the GFDL. We must keep all earlier revisions, unless the copyright holder allows it. ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Specifically where does it say that in the GFDL, and how can unlabeled, colored maps be copyrighted? If that is so, why do we even have a process for deletion of images on here? They're no longer useful, they take up space... Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- They take up that space anyway. When an image gets deleted it just gets "hidden" from non-admins. It still remains stored on the servers taking up the same space. /Lokal_Profil 19:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Specifically where does it say that in the GFDL, and how can unlabeled, colored maps be copyrighted? If that is so, why do we even have a process for deletion of images on here? They're no longer useful, they take up space... Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
If they are similar enough to the new image to be considered a dupe, you can tag them with "dupe". Otherwise there is no harm in keeping them. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Rlevse. No harm keeping these and not much benefit from removing.++Lar: t/c 02:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Redundant to Image:Medal of Honor ribbon.svg -- — MrDolomite • Talk 18:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We do not delete superseded images, particularly bitmap sources of vector versions. I marked it with {{Vva}} though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm new to the commons processes. From what I read at COM:DG#Regular_deletion, that should probably be improved upon by someone in the know to include your info above, so that other images are not erroneously nominated. Because this one seems like it is the perfect example of "The file has a low image quality/resolution (e.g. out of focus, too small)." and "The file/page is redundant through a better but not identical one.". Thx. — MrDolomite • Talk 03:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no permission to use this image. Although the design is old this particular (copyrighted) version/rendition/interpretation is newer. Made this a DR request du to persistent reverting of the original no permission tag Lokal_Profil 15:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If a derivative of a PD work was copyrightable, we wouldn't have Template:Vector-images.com, which currently applies to 3094 images. The real author of the image died in 1857. Thus, it is in PD. Óðinn (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Its a vector version so its not bound by anyhting ~ Zirguezi 22:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, a derivative of a copyrighted work as can be seen on the site given as source.--Caranorn (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Who is the copyright holder then? Copyright is not claimed anywhere on that site. Terms of use state "The above logo design and the artwork you are about to download is the intellectual property of the copyright and/or trademark holder". Since no one can claim copyright for the Cuban CoA due to its age (and no one does), the image is free. Óðinn (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Furthermore, mere vectorization is a trivial action, which does not create a new copyright.Óðinn (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Although mere vectorization can be a trivial action it doesn't mean that it erases the copyright of the image being vectorised. /Lokal_Profil 15:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Which is around 150 years old in our case... Óðinn (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Although mere vectorization can be a trivial action it doesn't mean that it erases the copyright of the image being vectorised. /Lokal_Profil 15:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Furthermore, mere vectorization is a trivial action, which does not create a new copyright.Óðinn (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Who is the copyright holder then? Copyright is not claimed anywhere on that site. Terms of use state "The above logo design and the artwork you are about to download is the intellectual property of the copyright and/or trademark holder". Since no one can claim copyright for the Cuban CoA due to its age (and no one does), the image is free. Óðinn (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep following Óðinn & Zirguezi. --Oren neu dag (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
There's no copyright in a 150-year-old coat of arms, but there can be copyright in one particular modern artistic interpretation of a 150-year-old coat of arms. In traditional European-based forms of heraldry, coats of arms are actually defined by their textual description or "blazon". In this situation, many different artistic visual renderings of a single coat of arms (based on its textual blazon) might be considered acceptable versions -- and if you make a new visual rendering of the coat of arms from scratch based on the textual blazon, then you would own the copyright to your particular rendering.
P.S. This image is actually not all that great, anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, feel welcome to upload a better one :-) Anyway, please review Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Vector-Images.com (2nd request). It was decided that there cannot be any new copyright for the heraldic images that are in the PD. Óðinn (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- No thats not what it says. If you create an image which is (copyrightably) different from the original then it aquires a new copyright. However some countries have additional laws that make coats of arms PD, in these cases it was argued that vector-images.com could not claim copyright. /01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh? Then what is that? Óðinn (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
{{Vector-Images.com|PD-old}}
- You can stick any parameter into the Vector-images.com template, that doesn't mean that it's right. I can write {{Vector-Images.com|FirefoxWiki}} that doesn't mean FirefoxWiki is a suitable parameter for it. If you are going to use the PD-old paramterer then you need to prove that the Vector-images.com version (or the brands of the world image in this case) is identical to the image created 70 years or more ago. If there is a sufficent difference between the images then vector-images.com (or in this case the brands of the world uploader or cuban agency which he copied) can claim copyright on it. /Lokal_Profil 16:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- You deny Vector-images.com's right to assert copyright on heraldic images that are in the PD due to the local laws, no matter how artistically different they might be from the official versions, and yet for old images this principle doesn't apply? That's odd. There aren't distinct public domains for images that are out of copyright due to age and that are ineligible for copyright at all. The key argument that my opponents seem to offer is the concept of "artistic visual renderings" that can somehow create a new copyright. However, no matter how you draw the Coat of Arms of Belarus, it will always remain ineligible for copyright. And the same should apply to the Coat of Arms of Cuba. Óðinn (talk) 05:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't deny or allow them anything. If there is local law governing if VI.com can copyright their artistically unique images then we have to respect that (even though it's stupid and probably wouldn't hold in a court of law). By your reasoning any image depicting something that is PD is automatically PD. That means any photograph of the Pyramids, of an ant or most Documentary films about nature would be PD. This is obviously not true. If you instead want to debate whether or not Belarus or Russia has the right to make any artistically independent interpretation of their CoAs PD then you should start that discussion elsewhere and I would be amongst the first to add my support to the "no they can't" side. On the other hand, for such images we don't need the VI.com version since we can just get the original instead. /Lokal_Profil 15:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- You deny Vector-images.com's right to assert copyright on heraldic images that are in the PD due to the local laws, no matter how artistically different they might be from the official versions, and yet for old images this principle doesn't apply? That's odd. There aren't distinct public domains for images that are out of copyright due to age and that are ineligible for copyright at all. The key argument that my opponents seem to offer is the concept of "artistic visual renderings" that can somehow create a new copyright. However, no matter how you draw the Coat of Arms of Belarus, it will always remain ineligible for copyright. And the same should apply to the Coat of Arms of Cuba. Óðinn (talk) 05:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- You can stick any parameter into the Vector-images.com template, that doesn't mean that it's right. I can write {{Vector-Images.com|FirefoxWiki}} that doesn't mean FirefoxWiki is a suitable parameter for it. If you are going to use the PD-old paramterer then you need to prove that the Vector-images.com version (or the brands of the world image in this case) is identical to the image created 70 years or more ago. If there is a sufficent difference between the images then vector-images.com (or in this case the brands of the world uploader or cuban agency which he copied) can claim copyright on it. /Lokal_Profil 16:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of permission from creator of murals. --Superm401 - Talk 00:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, maybe when I submitted it I should have just entitled it "Interior of the Church of the Advocate.png"!--76.124.130.206 23:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Infringes copyrighted sculpture by Claes Oldenburg. --Superm401 - Talk 00:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I could not find the photo on the website cited as the source. ALE! ¿…? 07:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I'm the uploader of the photograph. I took it from the website of the spanish newspaper 20minutos, minutes after the crash. The photograph appeared as one of the first pictures of the crash, and 20minutos.es appeared as author. Minutes later, when international press agences like Reuters, EFE or EuroPress reported new photographs of the crash, they removed this one, so I can't find the url in the website. Greetings Rastrojo (D•ES) 09:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Are the pictured published on 20minutos.es really CC-licensed? Even when they come from news agencies? --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- For more information on the license policy of 20minutos, please read http://www.20minutos.es/licencia_20_minutos/ --ALE! ¿…? 11:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Are the pictured published on 20minutos.es really CC-licensed? Even when they come from news agencies? --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Only photographs done by 20minutos.es can be uploaded. EFE, EuroPress or other photographs are copyrigthed. The CC license only applies on 20minutos photographs, like this one. Rastrojo (D•ES) 22:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Could you try to find the source again? Did 20minutos remove it from the website? --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think that they have removed it... --Rastrojo (D•ES) 02:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No proper source link, license infrigement (20minutos is not the author of the photo). --Dodo (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Infringes copyrighted sculpture by Claes Oldenburg. --Superm401 - Talk 00:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- I am the photographer and the uploader. The picture doesn't show the entire sculpture; furthermore I would argue that it's fair use since it's intended to illustrate the relationship of the sculpture to the building in the background. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC) (use my talk page on en.wikipedia)
- It doesn't matter that not all of the sculpture is shown, and Commons does not accept fair use images. Superm401 - Talk 02:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete
Keep- It's not a derivative work. Yes, a sculpture happens to be in the photo of the city hall, butifthat thing is placed prominently in front of the building(as it appears), then it would be highly difficult to ever get a photo without the sculpture. There is letter of the law and intent of the law. In this case, the intent is that someone is not going to cause harm to the sculptor who created the work. This photo does not do that, even it it was reused in a commercial manner. Further more, a sculpture placed that prominently in front of a major public building is asking to be photographed. These discussions get overly picky a lot of the time. The Commons needs to exercise a little common sense. Note that if the photo was predominantly of the statue, my opinion would probably be very different. It all depends upon the given situation, and this one seems pretty cut and dry. Though others obviously don't see it the same way. ;-) --Willscrlt (Talk) 12:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- See Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States. There is no freedom of panorama in the United States, regardless of how much we might prefer there was. It is of course possible (not that it would matter if it were impossible) to take a photo of the city hall without the sculpture, by standing in front of it. This photo would harm the sculptor if released commercially, because it harms the market for their own photos of the sculpture. Superm401 - Talk 15:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Again, I disagree. I realize that there's no FOP in the US, but we are not talking about a photo of the statue. We are talking about a photo of the city hall, in which a large statue close to the building happens to appear in the same shot. As to commercial use harming the market, I don't see that either, because if this were a photo of the statue, it's a very poor one because there's a big building that steals most of the photo's attention. Like I said, if if the photo featured the statue more than the building, I could certainly see the argument and vote the opposite. --Willscrlt (Talk) 20:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter whether the building or statue is more prominent. There is no law to consider that as a factor. Superm401 - Talk 06:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Again, I disagree. I realize that there's no FOP in the US, but we are not talking about a photo of the statue. We are talking about a photo of the city hall, in which a large statue close to the building happens to appear in the same shot. As to commercial use harming the market, I don't see that either, because if this were a photo of the statue, it's a very poor one because there's a big building that steals most of the photo's attention. Like I said, if if the photo featured the statue more than the building, I could certainly see the argument and vote the opposite. --Willscrlt (Talk) 20:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - It is mainly a photo of the city hall and not the Oldenburg sculpture which in this case is simply a kind of staffage. --Eva K. tell me about it 13:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I disagree with the previous assessments: this is a photo of both the City hall and the clothespin sculpture. Just look at the title of the image! De minimis cannot be invoked here; this image violates the copyright of the sculptor. And by the way, it is possible to photograph the hall without the sculpture: see Image:Philadelphia-CityHall-2006.jpg. Pruneautalk 17:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Pruneau, the excellent photo you found is an excellent one (better than the one under discussion, actually) that avoids the whole issue, so I now agree with deleting one that has potential problems. --Willscrlt (Talk) 02:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - The main subject of photo is the city hall. --Dezidor (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - If somebody decided to delete the photo, (s)he would crop the city hall to new photo. --Dezidor (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think things like this (it is a sculpture in public) don't matter a damn bit. Now that the economy has gone belly up, give me a break. Does an artist place a work in the public eye, and then not wish it is viewed? Ridiculous. the useless hunk of scrap metal, if not to be see by as many as possible, should be destroyed or locked away out of sight. (destroying it would probably be the biggest mistake because the ugly thing would probably become some international symbol of artists pain and suffering) I think if any tax money is being used in any way, (NEA?) then it should be removed immediately. The picture in and of itself is great BTW.
Budman, former resident of Philly ,and lover of that building, many fond memories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.123.162 (talk • contribs)
- Just a note -- lawsuits have happened, even with a statue on the National Mall in Washington D.C.[14] That particular case was settled out of court, so there was no precedent set, and to be sure courts have ruled in different ways, but there are reasons for concern. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm skeptical that the sculpture is copyrightable—how does its form deviate from a generic clothespin? Its difference in size can't be a basis for copyright. Postdlf (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hrrm. This was installed in 1976; it would require a copyright notice on it to still be copyrighted. The SIRIS entry[15] is pretty detailed but does not mention any inscriptions at all. They also have an earlier 4-foot model of the same from 1974[16] which is signed and dated by the artist but again no copyright notice. May well be {{PD-US-no notice}} even if it is copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
