Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/09/01
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
Copyvio from http://anthony-lapaglia.net/visuals/displayimage.php?album=342&pos=9 Somno (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio from anthony-lapaglia.net (even has watermark) Somno (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio from anthony-lapaglia.net Somno (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Copyrighted screenshot from TV show Somno (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not believe this is "own work". -Nard the Bard 08:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious copyvio. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Author="Ford Motor Company" making this a probable copyvio. -Nard the Bard 09:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
12:44, 1 September 2008 EugeneZelenko (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:06FUSI FltFrnt 5099.jpg" (Copyright violation: Car advertisement) (restore)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of Apple and Andy Warhol themes. -Nard the Bard 09:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
12:34, 1 September 2008 EugeneZelenko (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Wallpapers.jpg" (Copyright violation: iPod advertisement) (restore)
j.dhkdthgrò6uarturkr7oujphòdbbbhgbwkghbnlgninnl 78.13.152.186 14:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It's stuff like this that makes me wish only logged in users should be able to request deletion.
Invalid request. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
This image is blank. Jwinius (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I can see it just fine. -Nard the Bard 15:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- So can I. Keep. --Kjetil_r 16:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, you're right! However, there's still something wrong with. I've tried to access it with a number of browsers and here are the results:
- Konqueror -- no
- Firefox -- no
- Mozilla -- no
- Epiphany -- yes
- Galeon -- yes
- Internet Explorer -- yes
- So, you're right, it does work, but only under certain cases. That's not good. Later, I'll try converting back and forth to another format and then upload it again to overwrite this one. Hopefully, that will fix things. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed! --Jwinius (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
bad name, new file at Image:Li Shanshan.jpg--Tksteven (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{dupe}} next time. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyrighted music. FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
mispelling --FieldMarine (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
'Deleted by Infrogmation: content was: '{{db|mispelling}}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Appears to be screenshot based on artifacts, unlikely that this is the Flickr user's own work based on other uploaded images. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Kimse: Copyright violation
unused; redundant to other noticeboards -- — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is also – in some ways – redundant to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems; however, I do believe that the idea of a page Administrator intervention is quite good as I think that the Administrators' noticeboard should really only be used by us administrators to organize all of us. If it would be used only this way, we would need a Administrator intervention page. But obviously, it is not used this way. --my name 05:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Yes, it's definitely not needed as shown by it's use. We already have 5 admin noticeboard pages. Having too many is confusing for newcomers, decentralizes discussion, and is more pages to watch. On that note, it would also be nice to merge COM:AN and COM:AN/A. Rocket000(talk) 07:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh yes, please do! — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with the above. Lupo 06:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that admins are not really noticing a huge honking {{delete}} on a noticeboard seems to prove my point :D — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't seem to be used much and its scope is covered by other noticeboards. I don't think the other noticeboards are backlogged enough that this one is justified. naerii 12:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination and unanimous input. Durova (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I admire his creativity but don't think it is encyclopedic. Sdrtirs (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Outside project scope, appears to be a tribute to an underage girl. -Nard the Bard 00:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Also lacks model permission. Durova (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
"Official logo" is not public domain Somno (talk) 06:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Hi there,
Sorry if this is the wrong way of doing this - I've not done it much! In terms of this image, how is the best way of using it on the page then? I designed it myself using elements from the official AFL logo, we have clearance to use it from the AFL, and make use of it on the offical national website.
Thanks, glenoxo--193.129.67.237 08:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Polarlys Yann (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Not available under a free license, as the terms do not permit derivative works. The first thing in the text of the GFDL says:
Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
As such, it is not available under a free license, and this spoken version is (at best) not available under a license compatible with Commons. Stifle (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I love it, we can host non-free content copyrighted by Wikimedia but not the GFDL in spoken form? This is absurd. It is very important that the GFDL is hosted on this site in as many forms as possible, and it should also be available in a spoken format for the visually impaired. ViperSnake151 (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as long as it is a verbatim copy, leave it. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Normally, we only host stuff that can have derivative works, but stuff like this is obviously an exception. If it were not, then we would have to delete the text of the GFDL from the site too. — Erin (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment That's not a correct conclusion I think: the license explicitly permits distributing copies but the quote above doesn't mention derivatives. - Simeon87 (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Erin and all. Bastique demandez 02:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if OTRS is received, this is a derivative work showing a copyrighted interface. -Nard the Bard 09:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kimse (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Quality and resolution of the image, as well as the fact that the Flickr uploader has no other images suggest this is a copyvio. This image is likely part of an AFP/Getty Images set (searchable at gettyimages.com as #52611716). Ytoyoda (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
No evidence for PD license, appears to be news photo Ytoyoda (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
From [1], linked here. Their copyright statement reads: "Any person is hereby authorized to view, copy, print, and distribute documents on this site without condition. We ask you to extend the courtesy of crediting the material to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Any distributed copy of a web document, or portion thereof, is a reproduction and any changes made to any Iowa Department of Natural Resources material will invalidate the document." Shall we treat this as {{Attribution}}? Lupo 07:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Or {{Copyrighted free use}}? The wording doesn't state clearly that you must give attribution, but kindly asks for it. I'd prefer the {{Attribution}} template in this case, to be on the safe side. "Without condition" does the trick for Commons compatibility. As far as I can interpret this, the second sentence ("Any distributed copy of a web document, or portion thereof, is a reproduction and any changes made to any Iowa Department of Natural Resources material will invalidate the document.") is a mere statement of "if people do derivative works with our stuff, they're not endorsed by us", which isn't a copyright requirement. So I'd say Keep with {{Attribution}}. Patrícia msg 13:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
missing information, very likely not a free image --Simeon87 (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Was previously deleted as a copyright violation: 17:31, 19 August 2008 Ra'ike (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Jiang Yuyuan.jpg" (Copyright violation: copyright violation on image owned by the Chinese Gymnastics Assosciation) (restore) — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- The picture is indeed taken by myself in the Flag Rising Ceremony on 30th Aug 2008. You may refer to the technical information of my other approved pictures as evidence that these pictures are all from the same digital camera.--Tksteven (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Elcobbola: Copyright violation: see first deletion of Image:Jiang Yuyuan.jpg
No good source given Sterkebaktalk 17:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
What's the problem with the source? It says: "Extracted from Image:LA2-Blitz-0189.jpg".--qwertyytrewqqwerty (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- i changed the location of the source. All fine now. Sterkebaktalk 20:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
spelling will change to "Post offices in Virginia" to stick with naming convention --FieldMarine (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
wrong picture under wrong title -- I'll re-load correct picture with correct title as soon as this one is deleted. Thanks --FieldMarine (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Mardetanha: User request
Likely copyvio at Flickr source. Kelly (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just delete everything I ever uploaded.
- I tracked down the official state photographer for the state of Arkansas and found that Mike Huckabee's official gubernatorial portrait was public domain. Didn't matter. I posted a painting from, get this, the MIDDLE AGES. But apparently that's not enough reason to think the painter was dead the required 80 years. A.J.A. (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Flikr image has been removed. Not by any means clear that this is legitimate. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Suspected copyvio. User has images of Danny Yanga with different cameras and has obvious copyvios in Flickr photostream[2]. Other files are
-Nard the Bard 08:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as suspected copyvios. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Marked as derivative but the lettering is not eligible for copyright. -Nard the Bard 09:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is a well-known and copyrighted work of art, even though some people believe it to be not "art", most of the art community does. --rogerd (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I have removed a derivative tag. I don't think this qualifies for copyright so I submit to the community for voting. It's just the word "love" written out which isn't very creative. -Nard the Bard 09:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted sculpture. Arrangement of elements etc. is all copyrightable. Lupo 06:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It is a derivative work, so it a copyvio. --rogerd (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As Nard the Bard... Electron (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
OTRS premission needed Sterkebaktalk 09:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- graphic was uploaded 2 years ago, at that time there was no OTRS DingirXul (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- When you uploaded the image there was otrs. Sterkebaktalk 14:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- you are wrong DingirXul (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Otrs Started in september 11 2006 the image is from october. So there was otrs. Please send the premission now to otrs than the problem is solved Sterkebaktalk 15:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. We cannot keep this without proper permission. Can be restored if a valid OTRS email is received. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unfree on Flickr...nominating for regular deletion because of time between upload and review (1 year) -Nard the Bard 10:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It's difficult to say if the license has been changed on Flickr or if it was a violation since the time of upload here. There are hundreds if not thousands of images like that. I think there has to be a consensus on Commons before taking any action on such images. --Kimse (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. When Flikr is given as the source and the image fails Flikr review we have no basis on which to keep it as we have no way of telling whether it was ever released under an acceptable licence. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Premission to OTRS Sterkebaktalk 11:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission, and nothing received via OTRS. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation, it depicts a copyrighted work which is not published under a free license --TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio: No Freedom of panorama for this type of work in the USA. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation, it depicts a copyrighted work which is not published under a free license --TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio: No Freedom of panorama for this type of work in the USA. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation, it depicts a copyrighted work which is not published under a free license --TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio: No Freedom of panorama for this type of work in the USA. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation, it depicts a copyrighted work which is not published under a free license --TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio: No Freedom of panorama for this type of work in the USA. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation, it depicts a copyrighted work which is not published under a free license --TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio: No Freedom of panorama for this type of work in the USA. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Host website licenses for redistribution only, not commercial use and derivative works. -Nard the Bard 21:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- The website states in Italian "testi e foto sono riproducibili a patto che sia citata la fonte empolifc.com" which computer translation shows as "Text and photos are reproduced provided the source is acknowledged empolifc.com." Since we don't know if they allow commercial and derivative works, I emailed the webmaster to clarify. If there's no answer, we can delete it after Sept. 16. --Kimsə (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No reply to my inquiry, no reply from the uploader. Kimsə (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Explicit: Not linked to and probably will never be - no obvious medical illustration --Leevanjackson (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Too many penises, too many va-jay-jay's. ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep appears to be strange medical condition...not sure what (there is no vaginal opening or something?) -Nard the Bard 00:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep when an article is written on this condition this would be the illustration.DGG (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept, per DGG (article already exists, see ) Martin H. (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Belgium had no FOP, sculptor died in 1967 Brbbl (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- As to "freedom of panaroma" in Belgium, can you show me the legal texts ? I found this in the law of 30 june 1994 : Chapter I, section 3, article 9 : (in Dutch) "Tenzij anders is overeengekomen of tenzij andere gebruiken heersen, heeft de overdracht van een werk van (grafische of) beeldende kunst het verbod tot gevolg om er andere identieke exemplaren van te maken.". This states that it is forbidden to make identical copies of statues. [3] This is not an identical copy but a photo of the statue of its surroundings, made by me. Furthermore Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag states : "When a photograph demonstrates originality (typically, through the choice of framing, lighting, point of view and so on), it qualifies for copyright (by the maker of the photo) even if the photographed subject is itself uncopyrighted. This is typically the case for photographs of three-dimensional objects". JoJan (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- COM:FOP#Belgium states that there is no FOP in Belgium. PD-Art has nothing to do with our case here as the artwork represented is copyrighted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Belgium has no FOP, sculptor died in 1967 Brbbl (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- As to "freedom of panaroma" in Belgium, can you show me the legal texts ? I found this in the law of 30 june 1994 : Chapter I, section 3, article 9 : (in Dutch) "Tenzij anders is overeengekomen of tenzij andere gebruiken heersen, heeft de overdracht van een werk van (grafische of) beeldende kunst het verbod tot gevolg om er andere identieke exemplaren van te maken.". This states that it is forbidden to make identical copies of statues. [4] This is not an identical copy but a photo of the statue of its surroundings, made by me. Furthermore Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag states : "When a photograph demonstrates originality (typically, through the choice of framing, lighting, point of view and so on), it qualifies for copyright (by the maker of the photo) even if the photographed subject is itself uncopyrighted. This is typically the case for photographs of three-dimensional objects". JoJan (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Our current position/opinion/knowledge about FOP in Belgium is stated here. --Túrelio (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I asked for more details here (in the Dutch village pump). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Article 9 can be read in full (and in English) here. It says that when a work of art is sold or otherwise transferred, the copyrights are not transferred. However, the new owner of the work has the right to exhibit the work, but not to make identical copies. It is entirely irrelevant to these images. OTOH, article 1(1) is relevant: "Alleen de auteur van een werk van letterkunde of kunst heeft het recht om het op welke wijze of in welke vorm ook (, direct of indirect, tijdelijk of duurzaam, volledig of gedeeltelijk) te reproduceren of te laten reproduceren." (In English: "The author of a literary or artistic work alone shall have the right to reproduce his work or to have it reproduced in any manner or form whatsoever.") Photography is a form of reproduction, otherwise article 22(2) would not be necessary. Article 22(2) says that such photos are fine if the depicted work is not the main subject of the photo. Lupo 13:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. The same goes even for Atomium. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- This deletion debate goes about several images, marked by the same person for deletion. If we take Image:Oostende.Leopold_II_(01).jpg ,it depicts a famous spot "De Drie Gapers" in Oostende, Belgium, that even has its own article nl:Drie Gapers in the nl.wikipedia. It is simply impossible to photograph this spot without the imposing statue. Certainly in this case Art. 22(2) should apply. If one also takes into account, numerous touristic happenings at this same spot, shown on TV and reported in the press and the media (with photos) - all without any discussion about copyright - and if one knows that during all these years perhaps more than a million photos have been made at this same spot, then I wonder why this photo is not allowed. If we have to strictly apply these rules, then a great deal of photos of monuments, and sculptures and statues in public places in Belgium, uploaded to the Commons, will have to be deleted with disastrous consequences for their articles. And if one decides to delete, then I wonder what is the value of the statement in Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag " "When a photograph demonstrates originality (typically, through the choice of framing, lighting, point of view and so on), it qualifies for copyright (by the maker of the photo) even if the photographed subject is itself uncopyrighted. This is typically the case for photographs of three-dimensional objects"." ? Isn't this a contradiction ? JoJan (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. The same goes even for Atomium. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Our current position/opinion/knowledge about FOP in Belgium is stated here. --Túrelio (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with taking photos, but according to Belgian law you are not allowed to sell these images as postcards without the sculptor's heirs' permission. And while Belgian law would allow educational use etcetera sufficient for wikipedia, commons in its wisdom has decided it only wants to have images that businessmen can make a profit of. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Article 22(2) does not apply to Image:Oostende.Leopold_II_(01).jpg. The sculpture is clearly the main subject of the photo. If there are other images of copyrighted Belgian sculptures here at the Commons, they should also be deleted. Lupo 15:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Belgium has no FOP, Sculptor died in 1967 Brbbl (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- As to "freedom of panaroma" in Belgium, can you show me the legal texts ? I found this in the law of 30 june 1994 : Chapter I, section 3, article 9 : (in Dutch) "Tenzij anders is overeengekomen of tenzij andere gebruiken heersen, heeft de overdracht van een werk van (grafische of) beeldende kunst het verbod tot gevolg om er andere identieke exemplaren van te maken.". This states that it is forbidden to make identical copies of statues. [5] This is not an identical copy but a photo of the statue of its surroundings, made by me. Furthermore Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag states : "When a photograph demonstrates originality (typically, through the choice of framing, lighting, point of view and so on), it qualifies for copyright (by the maker of the photo) even if the photographed subject is itself uncopyrighted. This is typically the case for photographs of three-dimensional objects". JoJan (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Belgium has no FOP, Sculptor died in 1967 Brbbl (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- As to "freedom of panaroma" in Belgium, can you show me the legal texts ? I found this in the law of 30 june 1994 : Chapter I, section 3, article 9 : (in Dutch) "Tenzij anders is overeengekomen of tenzij andere gebruiken heersen, heeft de overdracht van een werk van (grafische of) beeldende kunst het verbod tot gevolg om er andere identieke exemplaren van te maken.". This states that it is forbidden to make identical copies of statues. [6] This is not an identical copy but a photo of the statue of its surroundings, made by me. Furthermore Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag states : "When a photograph demonstrates originality (typically, through the choice of framing, lighting, point of view and so on), it qualifies for copyright (by the maker of the photo) even if the photographed subject is itself uncopyrighted. This is typically the case for photographs of three-dimensional objects". JoJan (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Belgium has no FOP, Sculptor died in 1967 Brbbl (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- As to "freedom of panaroma" in Belgium, can you show me the legal texts ? I found this in the law of 30 june 1994 : Chapter I, section 3, article 9 : (in Dutch) "Tenzij anders is overeengekomen of tenzij andere gebruiken heersen, heeft de overdracht van een werk van (grafische of) beeldende kunst het verbod tot gevolg om er andere identieke exemplaren van te maken.". This states that it is forbidden to make identical copies of statues. [7] This is not an identical copy but a photo of the statue of its surroundings, made by me. Furthermore Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag states : "When a photograph demonstrates originality (typically, through the choice of framing, lighting, point of view and so on), it qualifies for copyright (by the maker of the photo) even if the photographed subject is itself uncopyrighted. This is typically the case for photographs of three-dimensional objects". JoJan (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Image was obviously not made by the US Government thus not PD-USGov. Those Bismarck images heve been deleted very often although they reappear from time to time. (and Bismarck was not a battlecruiser) Denniss (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC) ps. Image:Bismarck astern.jpg is a copy of this file and should also be considered in this voting. Masur (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2006/07#All_pictures_of_DKM_Bismarck and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bismarck h59671.jpg. The NHC doesn't give any information about author or source, so copyright status can't be verified. Most likely still copyrighted (maybe PD in the US due to being seized, but not in its country of origin). --Kam Solusar (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be club portrait, no evidence for free license Ytoyoda (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Die Karte zeigt einen völlig veralteten, über 120 Jahr alten Forschungsstand. Trotz Bitte, die Karte nicht mehr zu verwenden, wird sie aber immer wieder in verschiedene Wikipedia-Artikel eingebunden. Siehe ausführliche Begründung auf der Diskussionsseite des Artikels. Krtek76 (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Kein Grund, die Datei hier zu loeschen. →Christian.И 20:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Ich verstehe Euer Problem, aber das Löschen des nicht mehr den aktuellen Forschungsstand entsprechenden Bilds ist keine Lösung. Prinzipiell könnten auch wissenschaftlich veraltete Werke interessant sein, um die wissenschaftliche Entwicklung nachzuzeichnen. Ich würde stattdessen empfehlen, einen belegten Warnhinweis hinzuzufügen. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Kein Löschgrund. In der Bildbeschreibung um die Informationen erweitern, alles andere liegt dann im Ermessen der Weiternutzer. Cecil (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It is doubtful whether PD-US is admissible as this is probably not a US work 83.85.95.146 17:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Georges Méliès died in 1938, no indication of when/where the image was made so I doubt that this is PD .--Paloma Walker (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source and no publication information, so it cannot be said that this is PD. MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work. -Nard the Bard 08:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- What does it derive from? I don't understand what the picture represents or means. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Giggy (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted slogan. -Nard the Bard 10:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Giggy (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Shows nothing, out of COM:SCOPE --Sombrero (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
See also User:Ijanderson977/Gallery/Greater Europe. --Sombrero (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete A map which actually showed specific Croatian irredentist aspirations might be quite relevant here, but this map just shows Slovenia and B&H next to Croatia, so I fail to see the point... AnonMoos (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It shows Croatia's territories during WW2 Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: no, it doesnt, see Image:Croatia1942.jpg, Image:NezavisnaDrzavaHrvatska.png, w:en:Image:Map of ndh.jpg, w:en:Independent State of Croatia. --Martin H. (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Giggy (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
"Le Voyage dans la Lune" is not a US work, so PD-US cannot apply. And Lucien Tainguy, the cinematographer, only died in 1971 according to IMDB 83.85.95.146 17:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Does the cinematographer count as an author, under French law? Article L113-7 at [8] only identifies the writers, composer, and director as authors of an audiovisual work. (Note that, even if the cinematographer doesn't hold part of the copyright, Le Voyage isn't PD until at least 1 Jan of next year - Melies died in early 1938.) --dave pape (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- It should still be in public domain in the US (despite being a non-US work) according to {{PD-1996}}. Dream out loud (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes - it's fine to upload to en.wp as PD-US-1923-abroad, but being copyrighted in its source country means it's not okay on Commons. And I'm still interested in the answer to my question above; if it's going to become PD next January, we can plan to undelete it then. --dave pape (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- No it's fine for Commons since PD-OLD says:
This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.
France is in the EU, so it's available for Commons. --92.22.77.126 21:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- That would be the case if all the authors died before 1938, which is not true. Again, it might be PD-old two months from now, if the cinematographer doesn't count as an author. --dave pape (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would advise us to just delay closing this until next year, then. Giggy (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I hate auteur theory, but this film is in the public domain, regardless of the specifications of the law. Why am I so sure of myself? The film has been released on DVD by numerous companies, including competitors. To name a only a few, Image Entertainment, Kino Video (with mention of the Film Preservation Associates and the British Film Institute), and Flicker Alley have included Le voyage dans la lune in anthologies. I think that's darn good evidence, if not proof, that it's in the public domain. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good point. Also, there's no point deleting the image as this is an encyclopedia, and copyrighted images used here are protected under fair use. It's almost certainly out of copyright, and if it isn't, why should we delete it unless someone makes a claim that they own the copyright (unlikely) and sends a cease and desist order (even less likely.) 66.41.68.239 21:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Under French law, the following (and only the following) can claim copyright on an audiovisual work: the director, the scenarist, the author of the dialogs and the soundtrack composer. There are no dialogs nor soundtrack in Le Voyage dans la Lune. The director and scenarist, Georges Méliès, died in 1938. The only possible issue is that the scenario is apparently loosely inspired by a book by Jules Verne (died 1905, no problem here) and a book by H.G. Wells, who died in 1946. Wells' descendants might be able to claim copyright (in Europe) on the film, but i doubt that this particular still is a derivative from Wells' work. Pruneautalk 15:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request - This is not just "a car", but a work of art, protected as such by author's right - and the German Commons:Freedom of panorama does not apply in that case. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- All cars (even ugly ones) are designed so they can all be seen as "a work of art", but they are also meant to be used so it's industrial design. // Liftarn (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Usually, yes, but that thing is more a work of art than a car. Have a look at the picture. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- If it can take you from A to B it's a tool, not an artwork. // Liftarn (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is such thing as the protection of works of applied arts. Furniture are a kind of tool, yet some pieces of furniture are artworks. Same thing for teapots, weapons or clothes. Anyway, isn't the car here a derivative work after the comics? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- If it can take you from A to B it's a tool, not an artwork. // Liftarn (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Usually, yes, but that thing is more a work of art than a car. Have a look at the picture. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative Work. Not only comes from a comic, but also is no industrial used design (at least I have not seen them driving around on the street like everyday cars). And depending on who designed a furniture even some quite simple looking designs can be artwork (check out Alvar Aalto). Cecil (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Basketball images
[edit]- Image:Basketball 29082008666 (9).jpg
- Image:Basketball 29082008666 (8).jpg
- Image:Basketball 29082008666 (7).jpg
- Image:Basketball 29082008666 (5).jpg
- Image:Basketball29082008666 (3).jpg
Apart from the fact that we had server problems on the last two of these and the license got lost, all these images are also so blurry that they are unusable. Lupo 08:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. COM:PS. Too blurred to be of realistic educational scope. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
License violation. You cannot make a derivative work of a GPL image (the base clock) and license it under CC-BY. Because the globe is CC-BY-SA, the entire work would have to be CC-BY-SA, which is not legally possible for this image, because it is incompatible with the GPL. ViperSnake151 (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert on the various types on free licenses, but if it's impossible to use that clock, half of all images in Category:Clock_icons would be deleted. I'm looking forward to hear what other people have to say. If the conclusion is that the use of the clock in this image is illegal, please don't delete immediately. I'll rather change the clock. - Ssolbergj (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Maybe the situation was different in September, but now, the clock is PD and the globe is dual licensed CC-By-SA-3.0 and GFDL-1.2+, so combining them into a CC-BY-SA file is fine. Pruneautalk 15:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)