Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/08/30
 |
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.
clearly not pd-sweden, sourced to copyrighted website, all of user's other uploads on en.wiki have been deleted as possibly unfree (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images&oldid=20074182 and deleted contribs page) 76.175.162.28 02:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted photographer posts a copyright notice on the source page. Durova (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
No copyright, also another penis picture. *sigh* Soxred93 (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ChristianBier (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Flickr permission for this file omits commercial use Appraiser (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- You're mistaken. Permission for this image is not based on Flickr. It is based on OTRS permission of the owner. See https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs-2.1.3/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=1651996
- The image is fine for Wikimedia Commons.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. It seems that you have not mentioned this deletion request (or your reason for it) at the image page.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not very familiar with the procedure for drawing attention to questionable copyright issues on Commons. But whenever I use Flickr images, I make sure that images are OK for commercial use. I don't have an OTRS account and so don't know what it says there, but I trust you have checked it.--Appraiser (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. It seems that you have not mentioned this deletion request (or your reason for it) at the image page.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I uploaded this image using OTRS, after obtaining specific written permission of the owner. So, the image should not be deleted. You can learn more about OTRS here.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- The page was protected from non admin editing. I don't know why. I added {{delete|reason}} for you. —Giggy 08:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I just checked the associated OTRS ticket and everything looks just fine. It's been GFDL released by the owner - Alison ❤ 09:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- It was protected for just a few days because it's on the enwiki main page as a news item, and subject to likely vandalism. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Per OTRS verification of GFDL as confirmed by Alison (talk · contribs). - Cirt (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Indoor sculpture in Germany, FOP does not apply. Sculptor is still alive. Lupo 09:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- that's right. the image should be deleted. i thought FOP applies, because the sculpture stands in the main entrance of a hospital. --Z thomas (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Delet, Because of wrong name Marco Kaiser (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC) --Marco Kaiser (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
06:10, 31 August 2008 ChristianBier (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:4rd Panzer Division logo.svg" (incorrectly name) (restore)
This can hardly be GFDL. No evidence for PD-old. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like this was government produced? In any case it's not signed, I should think it would qualify as an anonymous work. -Nard the Bard 19:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- First, not produced by a government. It's an invitation card to some ball of a de:Studentenverbindung. Second, pray tell why this should be an anonymous work? I see the drawing is signed by "Alois Waldner, Prag".
{{subst:vd}}(If it's Schlesinger or Kukula, it'd be ok, of course) Lupo 23:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)- Ah. I misread then. I wonder who he was? Google produces a match for a gentleman who died in 1925[1]. Given the age of the work I think it's safe to assume the author is dead 70 years. -Nard the Bard 00:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- "Waldner" is a rather common name in Austria. What makes you think the person in that Google hit was the person who made this drawing? Lupo 08:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say there was a connection. I am done with this discussion. It is quite obvious this work will be deleted even though it is highly unlikely someone would claim rights on a one-off invitation. -Nard the Bard 14:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- It is unlikely that anyone will claim copyright. However, Commons is a collection of free media and not of likely free media. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, I uploaded it. Alois Waldner was the printer, not the artist. The artist was i) Albert Schlesinger (+ 1917) or ii) Richard Kukula (+ 1919). I wrote "unknown" because I am not sure whether Schlesinger or Kukula painted it, but it is sure that the artist is more then 70 years dead. --Hollan (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep Please write Albert Schlesinger († 1917) or Richard Kukula († 1919) as author. --Herbert Ortner (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)- Yes, please do so. Also, how do you know it was Schlesinger or Kukula? Lupo 19:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hint. I' ve added "Albert Schlesinger († 1917) or Richard Kukula († 1919)". The card is on the back side signed with "xx". XX is the symbol/sign of the so called subsenior of a students fraternity. In June 1881 the subsenior of the Corps Austria in Prag (from which is the invitation to the ball) was Schlesinger or Kukula (see: Jürgen Herrlein, Corps Austria. Corpsliste 1861-2001, Frankfurt 2001, pages 55 and 56). --Hollan (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, I uploaded it. Alois Waldner was the printer, not the artist. The artist was i) Albert Schlesinger (+ 1917) or ii) Richard Kukula (+ 1919). I wrote "unknown" because I am not sure whether Schlesinger or Kukula painted it, but it is sure that the artist is more then 70 years dead. --Hollan (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is unlikely that anyone will claim copyright. However, Commons is a collection of free media and not of likely free media. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say there was a connection. I am done with this discussion. It is quite obvious this work will be deleted even though it is highly unlikely someone would claim rights on a one-off invitation. -Nard the Bard 14:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- "Waldner" is a rather common name in Austria. What makes you think the person in that Google hit was the person who made this drawing? Lupo 08:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ah. I misread then. I wonder who he was? Google produces a match for a gentleman who died in 1925[1]. Given the age of the work I think it's safe to assume the author is dead 70 years. -Nard the Bard 00:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- First, not produced by a government. It's an invitation card to some ball of a de:Studentenverbindung. Second, pray tell why this should be an anonymous work? I see the drawing is signed by "Alois Waldner, Prag".
and Image:GhibliMuseum 1.jpg, Image:Princess Mononoke Window.JPG.
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Japan. Copyrighted character. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This image is not a photo of Mitchell Street nor Darwin, NT, Australia. Most likely a copyvio and a lame joke Bidgee (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is the real Mitchell Street in Darwin. The above image looks to be European. Bidgee (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 22:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I've just created Category:Biblical manuscript, but Category:Biblical manuscripts already exists (most of biblical manuscripts did not have this category, I'm correctig that). Sorry for the inconvenience. Xic667 (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Embedded in copyrighted page: "Tutti i diritti riservati." Jtir (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This appears to be a slightly cropped version of an image taken at the 2006 Los Angeles Film Festival by John Sciulli/WireImage.[3] --Jtir (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Upgraded to speedy. --Jtir (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. →Christian.И 21:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
NO FOP in USA. -Nard the Bard 20:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
No FOP in USA. -Nard the Bard 20:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Unlikely to be uploader's own work; screenshot, see en:Image:Claypool.jpg. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
spam or copyvio. -Nard the Bard 22:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wikipedia screenshot is under GFDL not PD. What's the copyright of Ubiquity? Sdrtirs (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ubiquity is licenced under GPL/MPL/LGPL tri-license(Introducing Ubiquity), what license should I put this image under? Ryanli (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've changed the license to GFDL. Ryanli (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Screenshot includes copyrighted album cover (en:Image:Greyboy shadesofgrey.jpg, fair use on en.WP). --Kam Solusar (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
![[2]](http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r296/keeleyson/fs_or_2008-01-15T110436Z_01_ROM100_.jpg){kind=link}
- Image Replaced, please review the newer version.Ryanli (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- The Commons and Wikipedia logos are not free :'( — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This is not a picture which depicts a cup-style, this is not a picture which depicts a certain coffee-drink. This is a picture which depicts a starbucks-coffee-cup, and only a starbucks-coffee-cup. It might be a COM:DW since the starbuckslogo might be copyrighted and it is not COM:DM since the logo is an essential part of the image. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 08:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- The same can be said for most of the drinks in Category:Starbucks. Want to delete those as well?? Raysonho (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes!! "There are other files like this one" is not a valid reason. Say something about my argumentation... Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 16:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I am not going to waste time on arguing. If you just want to pick on this image and ignore all others, GO AHEAD!!! Raysonho (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you sould read what I wrote. Most of those other files are covered by COM:DM, but this one isn't. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 18:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyvio of the logo, which is essential to the picture. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - clearly not de minimis — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 13:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
There is another reproduction of this painting with better quality: Image:Grand Duke's bride by Repin.jpg --J.M.Domingo (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant now. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Superseded images do not get deleted. abf /talk to me/ 13:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Image is really to bad to be used anyway. abf /talk to me/ 11:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Dubious copyright info. FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It does look copyrighted or at least it is uncertain if the uploader holds the copyright. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 13:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no description, not in scope: "self created artwork", not used Avron (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see why someone couldn't use this icon. Part of the scope is being a repository for potentially usable free media...which this image fulfills. -Nard the Bard 19:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Commons is not a repository for user-created art without obvious educational value. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not used, out of scope. abf /talk to me/ 13:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Unused photo, confusing licensing. -Nard the Bard 19:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per request. abf /talk to me/ 13:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is not a picture which depicts a cup-style, this is not a picture which depicts a certain coffee-drink. This is a picture which depicts a starbucks-coffee-cup, and only a starbucks-coffee-cup. It might be a COM:DW since the starbuckslogo might be copyrighted and it is not COM:DM since the logo is an essential part of the image. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 20:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The logo is copyright, and is not de minimis. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. derivative work, not com:dm abf /talk to me/ 13:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Garbled audio 88.112.105.228 08:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Unlinked and removed. // tsca [re] 23:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Tsca: Corrupt or empty image
I contacted OTRS; they haven't received any permission. Licensing information cannot be positively determined. WODUP 23:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Mardetanha: In category Unknown as of 31 August 2008; not edited for 8 days
duplicate of Image:I-35W new 080830 25.JPG Appraiser (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I wanted to change the name so distinguish it from the original Image:I-35W_new_080830_2.JPG which exists on Wikipedia by that name.--Appraiser (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cecil (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Cover of a music cassette; nothing proves that the uploader owned the copyright. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate file; spelling mistake in filename Ycdkwm (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate to Image:Intaglio example 2.svg. --Martin H. (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
unused rubbish Avron (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
OpposeThat's not a real reason.--Sanandros (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- So it's not in scope COM:SCOPE, it dosn't provide knowledge; it istn't instructional or informative--Avron (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete "Must be realistically useful..." - this is not. naerii 23:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
wrong name, is replaced by Image:Ruiten_Aa3.jpg Gouwenaar (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not free of copyright restrictions --64.231.244.237 18:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, contains non-free images. --Martin H. (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
No reason why this should be PD-old. Probably not created about 1900, but later. See also de:Wikipedia:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder/Archiv2006/19#Bf. Schöllenbach 22. November 2006 - 6. Dezember 2006 - CONTRA. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. abf /talk to me/ 10:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Delet, Because of wrong name--Marco Kaiser (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept, use {{Rename}} instead or upload it under a better name and deleted this with {{Duplicate}}. --Martin H. (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio, Рисунок Н.Насыбулиной. Разрешение от автора на PD нет. (auto-translate: Picture N. Nasybulinoy, 2004 year. Permission from the author at Public Domain no, only uploared)sk (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Удалить, ASAP. 96.232.150.132 01:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, no permission from the author. --Testus (talk) 06:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Butko: Copyright violation: Рисунок Н.Насыбулиной
COM:DW, not COM:DM since it exactly about showing those London-BigBen-Cups. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 17:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The uploader claims that this is his own work, without any proof that he worked in 1972 for Ackerman photo studio; en:Image:KarenAnnQuinlan.jpg Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Unused image, replaced by higher quality version: Image:Erythropoietin.png. --Egg (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Daniel Baránek (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: Duplicated file: Image:Erythropoietin.png
Derivative of copyrighted Starbucks logo. Logo is IMHO not COM:DM. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a shot of a coffee shop in context, not a shot of the logo itself. -Nard the Bard 19:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete You can't really claim that you would know that this building is actually a coffee shot if there would not be the logo. >> not COM:DM Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 23:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Except for the people sitting around drinking coffee? And since when is it required that the subject of the photo be obvious? -Nard the Bard 00:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- You would only recognize the coffee when you look very close. That logo changes the character of the image and is therefor not a incidental inclusion. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 07:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, it is a photo of a coffee shop and of people drinking coffee, not (primarily) of a copyrighted logo. --Kjetil_r 16:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is a photo of a Starbucks coffee shop. Any without that logo you could not even say at once that it is a coffee shop. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 16:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per Forrester and ChrisiPK. This image is definitly not COM:DM. The logo is a majority part of the image --~/w /Talk - Usefull stuff 17:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It is the copyright logo that gives the picture its strength. It is not de minimis in my view. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The shop is the subject of the photograph and the logo is only incidental, and occupies a small percentage o fthe image -- about 5% of the area DGG (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is not the percentage area that matters but the subjective effect. Try blanking the logo out and see if you think the photo still worth taking. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete As MichaelMaggs and Forrester, the image would not have the same quality or give the same initial perception without the logo. It would not be at all obvious that it is a coffee shop without the logo. So in a sense the logo defines the picture, which means it does not qualify as DM (in my opinion). naerii 23:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The image needs the logo to establish the setting. This makes the logo not an incidental inclusion. As well, the image is not of superior quality so no great loss. And it is not something that is unique enough to warrant overlooking the breach in policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Same motive, better quality here: Image:Gedenktafel Kurfürstendamm 27 Kempinski.jpg axel (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- two reasons to perhaps keep the image: one can see the facing tiles and if somebody wants to know, which image was in the article before the one which is now to find there - not really major points; I would like to see the image still here, but I don't have a problem if you delete it--the newer one is for sure the better one; greetings, -- Schusch (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept, per Schusch. Kameraad Pjotr 19:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
authors date of death is not specified. abf /talk to me/ 17:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Weissman the original uploader released it on a free license....but his talkpage is full of copy vio warnings and he/she has now been banned indefinitely. On the assumption of facts, this is probably a copy vio. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- That was not exactly what I meant, but that could also be possible. I meant the death of the artist who made the window. Besides I belive many of Weissmanns Images are copyvios even if we cant proove. abf /talk to me/ 13:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, per abf. Kameraad Pjotr 19:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
derivative work abf /talk to me/ 20:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Keep All I see is pd-ineligible text. -Nard the Bard 20:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Like Nard the Bard. --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 04:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept, per Nard the Bard. Kameraad Pjotr 19:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
The copyright wording, as Yahoo!® Babelfish guesses, "Non commercial business utilization", if it is true, Akabei.svg is licensed under an non-free license, namely an non-commercial licence. --96.251.134.253 21:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment. This file is copyrighted by Aizu-Wakamatsu City Sightseeing Association. This file seems to be copied from [4], and there is a statement that any commercial and/or business use must be confirmed to the Association. According to COM:L, this image should be removed from Commons. --59.133.121.189 01:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 19:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- File:Palinphotocropped.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Palinphotocropped2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
source website gives no credit. To be PD, it must have been created by a govt. employee while in official capacity. There's no evidense of that. Appraiser (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- i dunno what to say, i just resized that image , which was from Image:Palinphotocropped.jpg, with this source : http://donyoung.house.gov/PhotoGalleries.aspx
- Maybe you could contact the webmaster if you want more information about the author of the photo ? Lilyu (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with the cropped close-up, if the parent image is okay. Why hasn't a deletion notice been placed on the parent image Image:Donyounggovpalin.jpg instead? If there is no objection to the parent image, then the cropped close-up should not be deleted.Ferrylodge (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct. I've nominated the parent image as well.--Appraiser (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Then you need to put a notice at Image:Donyounggovpalin.jpg.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- The photographer responded to my webmaster email saying that Wikipedia could use the photo but other use requires approval. Thus it is restricted and photo is mislabeled. Photographer did not state if he is a federal employee; if he is, then the photo actually is PD, but the best info we have is that it is restricted. -- SEWilco (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- SEWilco, you wrote "Photographer did not state if he is a federal employee." Why not ask him? You seem to be in contact with this person, so why not inquire? It seems premature to delete the image if you can simply ask this person a yes-or-no question.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per SEWilco unless we can confirm the photographer was a federal employee. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Please, this discussion should not been here, but rather on the original photo posted here on commons : Image:Donyounggovpalin.jpg--Lilyu (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Sanbec (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
photo is mis-labeled. It is not in the public domain. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_Republican_National_Convention Appraiser (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- The image page is protected from editing so I cannot add a suspected copyright violation tag there. See User:SEWilco'snote above.--Appraiser (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Because "above" is not obvious if you reached here by clicking on the image's warning: The photographer claims reuse is restricted, so the photo is being treated as if it is not PD, thus the PD claim seems erroneous. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- SEWilco, you wrote "The photographer did not state whether he works for Young as a contractor, state employee, or federal employee, so his status is unknown." Why not ask him? You seem to be in contact with this person, so why not inquire? It seems premature to delete the image if you can simply ask this person a yes-or-no question.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- SEWilco: Where did you send the email request to? What email address sent the response? If you send the request to Young's official house email, chances are 99% that it was a staffer who responded--thus an employee of the US Congress. Therefore, it is public domain, in spite of any claims to the contrary. Same situation if the email responce came from a .gov email address. If this person was using a .gov email address and is not a congressional staffer, then that is a violation of the w:Hatch Act of 1939, which prevents mixing of political and governmental staff and monies. Seriously, the picture is from Young's official House website, it is PD.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Because "above" is not obvious if you reached here by clicking on the image's warning: The photographer claims reuse is restricted, so the photo is being treated as if it is not PD, thus the PD claim seems erroneous. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Isn't the fact that it appears on an official Congressional webpage make it pretty clear that it is public domain? I don't think we are required to get a notarized statement by the Congressman stating that his staff took the photo. Let's avoid absurdities here. This should be considered public domain until proven otherwise.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - per TheZachMorrisExperience.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Sanbec (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Japan's famous Big Buddha to cite three cases, "the Buddha of Nara" and "Buddha of Kamakura," it is absolutely not the one about the various theories, this figure depicted as "Buddha Takaoka" Few of those people saw this figure could be misleading. （日本で有名な大仏を3つ挙げる場合、「奈良の大仏」と「鎌倉の大仏」は確実に挙げられますが、もう一つについては諸説あるため、この図で描かれているように「高岡大仏」を挙げるのは、この図を見た人に誤解を与える恐れがあります。）-Tail furry (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No objection, and not in use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
