Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/09/07
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
most certainly a copyright violating derivative of a copyrighted image Everyme (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete Like other contributions of this user too, e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bud Spencer.jpg --Martin H. (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Mike.lifeguard Yann (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The Logo has changed making this picture out of date, and do not wish to upload the new logo at this stage. --Cammo attard (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
wrong name, Duplicate Quissamã (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Wrong name. Duplicate Quissamã (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Next time use {{Duplicate}} ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
out of commons project scope --Martin H. (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
According to NBI a youtube video, out of commons project scope. Martin H. (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- deleted, and Image:Counterfiet.jpg too,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This picture is a copyvio of copyrighted book first page. --Pmx (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Licence is wrong and usually ESA images are not available for all purposes as requested by Commons --Poppy (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - As much as it kills me, and to think that this is a work of a government agency (therefore in my opinion it ought to be in the public domain), the ESA has a really weird attribution non-commercial-only license for any of its project images. This is something that has been brought up several times in the past, and only wikimedians from EU countries that also support the ESA may have any likelihood of getting this license changed. There was some high-level discussions between some WMF board members in the EU and the ESA to deal with this issue, but it is the ESA that has to change their mind on this at some point... with some discussion that the ESA may go to a CC-by-SA type license at some point in the future. But that hasn't happened yet. Until the change happens, this image and others like it simply must go. Thank goodness we still have NASA images that are free (beer/freedom). --Robert Horning (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Terms and conditions of use: "Most images have been released publicly from ESA. You may use ESA images or videos for educational or informational purposes. The publicly released ESA images may be reproduced without fee, on the following conditions:... etc etc" [1] --Peltimikko (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete- Per the ESA site: "You may freely use the images you find on our site, as long as it is not for commercial use."[2] If it's not available for commercial use, then it's not compatible with Commons' licensing- Period. Elipongo (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete as above. -- Wo st 01 (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Definitely not a free license image. Kaldari (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep Frédéric (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC) The ESA formally accepts the use of this image in Wikipedia. See license : [3] :
Most images have been released publicly from ESA. You may use ESA images or videos for educational or informational purposes. The publicly released ESA images may be reproduced without fee, on the following conditions:
1) Credit ESA as the source of the images:
Examples: Photo: ESA; Photo: ESA/Cluster; Image: ESA/NASA - SOHO/LASCO
2) ESA images may not be used to state or imply the endorsement by ESA or any ESA employee of a commercial product, process or service, or used in any other manner that might mislead.
3) If an image includes an identifiable person, using that image for commercial purposes may infringe that person‘s right of privacy, and separate permission should be obtained from the individual.
4) If these images are to be used in advertising or any commercial promotion, layout and copy must be submitted to ESA beforehand for approval to ESA.
The restrictions 1-3 are the same as those of NASA. The restriction 4 is because of the European Law. If you delete this picture YOU SHALL ALSO DELETE ALL pictures comming FROM ANY EUROPEAN source, even a private photography, and even if the photographer says he releases his picture in the public domain : this is not legal under Eu law !!!
Note that, notwistanding the "authorisation" of the NASA to release their pictures in the public, the US law still keeps an eye on those pictures. You will be prosecuted if you really make something weird from their pictures ! Therefore the license is not really that public.
CONCLUSION : as for the ESA Logo that is kept on the french Wikipedia (and not on Commons), transfer this image to fr.wikipedia.org ! At least the french will have the picture of Steins => this will retribute their effort in financing the Rosetta mission !
- Delete "for educational or informational purposes." and "must be submitted to ESA beforehand for approval to ESA." are clearly not the same as CC-BY-SA. Usage is restricted and derivative works aren't even mentioned. Those restrictions are not "because of the European law", there's no law that forbids releasing their images under a free license. In some(?) EU countries, you can't legally release your images into the public domain (law grants authors some unalienable rights), but you can certainly allow anyone to use your images for any purpose - which ESA didn't do. --Kam Solusar (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Probably copyrighted logo Jeses (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of protected charcter/toy design --Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
artist died 1962, http://www.exil-archiv.de/html/biografien/bieber.htm --Polarlys (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure it's not by Emilie Bieber or someone else of the "E. Bieber" Studio (see de:Emil Bieber)? Emil would have been 16 or younger when this photo was taken (subject died in 1894). --dave pape (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep See comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ita Wegman vor1900.jpg. Lupo 07:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)- Keep From date this would not have been copyrighted by the younger Bieber but by the studio's older generation. -- Infrogmation (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
kept, thanks to Lupo for ({{Creator:E. Bieber}}). You are our best man ;) --Polarlys (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
As there is no freedom of panorama in Russia, it's not self-evident that this image is free enough to live on commons. A cursory check did not find the architect's name or the date of construction. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Whilst the photo may have been taken from Russian soil, the building itself is situated on North Korean territory under international law, so evidence needs to be provided that North Korean FOP has been violated. --russavia (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Industrial design, not eligible for copyright. Yann (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
As there is no freedom of panorama in Russia, it's not self-evident that this image is free enough to live on commons. A cursory check did not find the architect's name or the date of construction. There are rather more trees than building, so perhaps this is ok? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Whilst the photo may have been taken from Russian soil, the building itself is situated on Nicaraguan territory under international law, so evidence needs to be provided that Nicaraguan FOP has been violated. --russavia (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Industrial design, ineligible for copyright. Yann (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
As there is no freedom of panorama in Russia, it's not self-evident that this image is free enough to live on commons. A cursory check did not find the architect's name or the date of construction. Looks like a post-GPW/WWII building. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Whilst the photo may have been taken from Russian soil, the building itself is situated on Libyan territory under international law, so evidence needs to be provided that Libyan FOP has been violated. --russavia (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Industrial design, ineligible for copyright. Yann (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
As there is no freedom of panorama in Russia, it's not self-evident that this image is free enough to live on commons. A cursory check did not find the architect's name or the date of construction. Style looks fairly modern. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Whilst the photo may have been taken from Russian soil, the building itself is situated on Bosnian territory under international law, so evidence needs to be provided that Bosnia FOP has been violated. --russavia (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Building is of industrial, not artistic design, making it ineligible for copyright. See Commons:Applied art. -Nard the Bard 22:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Industrial design, ineligible for copyright. Yann (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
As there is no freedom of panorama in Russia, it's not self-evident that this image is free enough to live on commons. A cursory check did not find the architect's name or the date of construction. Again, a fairly modern appearance. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Whilst the photo may have been taken from Russian soil, the building itself is regarded as German territory under international law, so German freedom of panorama now has to come into play. --russavia (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
As there is no freedom of panorama in Russia, it's not self-evident that this image is free enough to live on commons. A cursory check did not find the architect's name or the date of construction. Again looks fairly modern. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Whilst the photo may have been taken from Russian soil, the building itself is situated on Hungarian territory under international law, so Hungarian freedom of panorama now has to come into play. --russavia (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Industrial design, ineligible for copyright. Yann (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
As there is no freedom of panorama in Russia, it's not self-evident that this image is free enough to live on commons. A cursory check did not find the architect's name or the date of construction. Yet another modern building, so no reason to presume that this would not be protected by Russian law. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Most of the image is fences and gates, greenery, and a flag. This is getting out of hand. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Whilst the photo may have been taken from Russian soil, the building itself is situated on Kuwaiti territory under international law, so evidence needs to be provided that Kuwaiti FOP has been violated. --russavia (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
As there is no freedom of panorama in Russia, it's not self-evident that this image is free enough to live on commons. A cursory check did not find the architect's name or the date of construction. Style again seems quite modern. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete along with all other photos in Category:Embassies of Romania (including the US one) as the building is located on Romanian territory under internationa law, and Romanian FOP doesn't allow it. Yes, it is getting out of hand. --russavia (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Is it? If it was simple bloody-mindedness I'd have nominated Image:Kievsky Rail Terminal facade.jpg as well, but I checked that and FOP is irrelevant due to the age of the building, likewise several others of Denghu's recent uploads which ended up here. The ones I've nominated are worth discussing. I could be wrong, it's been known to happen, but my simplistic reading of FOP says there's a problem here. As you know, there are a lot more of these. This is just a sample. Either FOP matters, and there's certainly been enough stuff deleted on FOP grounds before now, or it doesn't. That's for you commons bods to figure out. Throwing your toys out of the pram helps nobody. Neither does getting the burden of proof wrong way round. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I would argue that this is a photo of an embassy. The architecture of the building is not relevant. If these were the offices of an insurance company, the photo would not be here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Industrial design, ineligible for copyright. Yann (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Commonwealth of Independent States, there is no freedom of panorama in Russia. This image is presumably not suitable for commons unless the dates of construction and the lifetime of the architect are known. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Whilst the photo may have been taken from Russian soil, the building itself is situated on UAE territory under international law, so evidence needs to be provided that UAE FOP has been violated. --russavia (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think you mean "evidence needs to be provided that UAE FOP has not been violated". But the photograph was taken on Russian soil, so I think an appeal to UAE law would be at best debatable and there's no evidence at COM:FOP that the UAE has taken a position on freedom of panorama. If you think FOP shouldn't be considered on commons, that's another matter. But as things stand, I don't see any grounds for assuming that FOP exists here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Industrial design, ineligible for copyright. Yann (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia, so this image cannot be presumed to be free under Russian law Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Just a very ordinary office building. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- COM:FOP says nothing about architectural merit: "a rule that allows for photographs to be freely taken of buildings permanently located in a public place, even buildings that (as works of architecture) may still be be in copyright". If this is in copyright, and it is a reasonable presumption that it is based on the apparent age of the building, it is not a free image unless freedom of panorama applies, which it does not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Whilst the photo may have been taken from Russian soil, the building itself is situated on Nicaraguan territory under international law, so evidence needs to be provided that Nicaraguan FOP has been violated. --russavia (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- There's no evidence at COM:FOP that Nicaraguan law recognises freedom of panorama. There's no certainty that Nicaraguan law applies to a picture taken on Russian soil. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep does not pass the threshold of originality. Building is of industrial design, which makes it uncopyrightable applied art. -Nard the Bard 22:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Another image which is certainly free if freedom of panorama applies, but COM:FOP says that it does not apply under Russian law. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete along with all other photos in Category:Embassies of Bulgaria (including those located in countries where FOP exists) as the building is located on Bulgarian territory under international law, and Bulgarian FOP doesn't allow it. --russavia (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment @Russavia: er... e.g. the Bulgarian Embassy in Berlin is not located on Bulgarian teritory, an embassy is always placed on the teritory of the hosting country, the territory of course is specially protected by the international law, but this doesnt have anything in common with copyrights. --Martin H. (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Please do a single del-req for each other image in that category you want to have deleted. abf /talk to me/ 14:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
derivative work - sign is copyrighted 24.128.49.25 15:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I uploaded this image with a wrong name. Whooym (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader-requested. abf /talk to me/ 15:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
non free screenshot 85.240.106.92 16:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Obviously defective picture, and the creator doesn't seem to fixed it for months...--Yikrazuul (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Firefox renders this correctly. Some problem with the commons rendering machine? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Right, seems to be defective, if displayed within Commons. Didn't noticed this before und am not able to fix it. If anyone else knows how to do this, he may tell me or do it on his own. If there is no solution, I think, we must delete it. —Markus Prokott (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC) (Author of the image.)
- Keep According to http://validator.w3.org/ your code is valid. I put it in Category:Pictures showing a librsvg bug. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Links are also rendered by Inkscape. Platonides (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Right, seems to be defective, if displayed within Commons. Didn't noticed this before und am not able to fix it. If anyone else knows how to do this, he may tell me or do it on his own. If there is no solution, I think, we must delete it. —Markus Prokott (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC) (Author of the image.)
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Out of use, there are better images 81.40.80.154 19:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, it will be deleted,---PePeEfe (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep What is wrong with it? Looks very useful to me. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot of [4] which is a copyrighted webpage. All the Best, Mifter (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This was temporary picture aimed at specific request in discussion of PL:Wiki page of Solec nad Wisłą. Now it is not needed, as I uploaded better picture of the table (Image:Solec_Tablica.jpg) Slawomir D-K (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed a "no source" tag. The uploader did his best and linked to the source he had. Still I'm concerned by the lack of author info (although perhaps it qualifies as an anonymous work). -Nard the Bard 19:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Evidently scanned from some book. Which book? Do they indicate any photographers in that book? And we don't have the "100-years" rule of the German WP. The text on the image page says "Author unknown to me"... that's nowhere near "anonymous". That's just lazy. Lupo 07:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Poor quality, large filesize, not used on any project, though it was uploaded over a year ago « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's a hive full of bees. Amateur shots of that are probably quite rare. In fact, it appears to be the only freely licensed photo of its type on Commons. -Nard the Bard 19:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Within a scope. Herr Kriss (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I have removed a speedy deletion tag. I believe the majority of this packaging design is ineligible for copyright and the remaining portion is de minimis. -Nard the Bard 20:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The photographic images are clearly copyright and are an integral part of the packaging. I would have speedy deleted this. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The speedy deletion request came from me. There is a picture on it and so there is no way to keep ist. Pictures are always copyrighted even if it is only a fruit. --Jodo (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not even a close call. We don't allow commercial packaging; this wrapper contains visual elements (e.g. chocolate and fruit) very much eligible for copyright protection. If the image were this, it would be a different story. Эlcobbola talk 13:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
(Also includes File:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log))
Disputed copyright violation (soon here). O (谈 • висчвын) 20:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image is public domain in Poland, where it is publicly on display in a museum at Auschwitz and was published without a copyright notice before 1994, making it PD. -Nard the Bard 21:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep A prisoner identification by the SS in Nazi-occupied Poland of 1943 makes the original work PD under Polish law. JGHowes talk - 22:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The image, made by an unknown prisoner (wild guess: Wilhelm Brasse of Poland) is in public domain according to Polish copyright law regardless of where it was obtained from. Schutzstaffel was the slave-labour employer of the author (for further guidance see: Forced labor in Germany during World War II) who remains unspecified. Technically speaking, image is owned by the SS. It was made not by a German photographer, but by a foreign prisoner, and it does not fall under Berne Convention as an intellectual creation (see: the European Community (EC): Copyright (Harmonization Duration of Protection), Council Directive, 29/10/1993, No. 93/98). --Poeticbent talk 00:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. No known notice, and that combined with {{PD-1996}} is all you need (since Poland's cutoff was 1994, two years prior). ViperSnake151 (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Re: above statements: These are still disputed claims re: this image: see the "PD-Poland" or "PD-Polish" (in Wikipedia) template messages: Uploader(s) still provide no information about "where and when this image was first published": "No known notice" does not support the claim that the photographic source of this image (with captions) from which this cropped portion was made, was "first published" without or without a copyright notice; as per current templates on page and pertinent discussion of it, which first user above keeps deleting from related talk pages (e.g., Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg. It may have been or may not have been; the evidence for the claims of when and where the source for this image (with or without Museum captions) was first published still needs to be supplied by uploader[s] of this particular image and related ones.
- (cont.) See w:Wikipedia:Public domain and discussion on its talk page re: recent edits to that "policy page" re: "content guideline" in Wikipedia (reverted by another editor); same image as this one w/o the Museum caption from its indoor exhibit: Block no. 6: Exhibition: The Life of the Prisoners is duplicated in Wikipedia with same name as this image. (Photographs of the exhibit are not permitted by the Museum. This image is a portion of a photograph of the exhibit; not of the original photograph itself.) The image in Wikipedia without the captions is still also listed in various copyright- and "non-free use" reviews. This version of the image is a copy of a part of a photograph in the Museum exhibit, and the actual "source" used by the uploader(s) is not clearly identified in this image page description. Sources provided in w:Wilhem Brasse (the photographer of the image), who discusses the version without the Museum's captions from its exhibit in w:The Portraitist and other sources published or produced on film from 2005 to 2007. See the comments pertaining to cropped version made from part of this photograph in its reviews. The duplicate images in Wikipedia have the templates and links. See also: Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is quite obviously a prisoner identification photo. Subsequent or derivative uses thereafter are irrelevant and do not alter the PD status of the original SS photo. Regarding your mention of Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg, you omitted that the decision on 13 September was Keep, so I'll do it for you: "The arguments for keep are strong and there is clear consensus to keep". JGHowes talk - 18:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image is one of a deceased prisoner in a Nazi extermination camp. The work was done commissioned by Nazi Germany, created through force with both an unwilling subject and an unwilling creator. Nazi works are exempt from copyright for a number of reasons not the least of which is the illegality of their actions, their current status as defunct, and the illegal nature of the organization in its home country. The only person with even a remote claim to copyright died 12 March 1943 and never likely claimed it while she was still alive. There has been no evidence to suggest that it is copyrighted and NYScholar is the only individual seeking its deletion. Community concensus and US law, the only things that carry any real weight on Wikipedia are both in favor of keeping this image. - 67.166.132.47 07:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Just for kicks and giggles, the creator of this work risked his very life to smuggle this image out of official Nazi documents so that its subject would not be forgotten. The suggestion that the image is copyright and should therefore be deleted from an encyclopedia is counter not only to US and Polish copyright law and common sense, it goes against the stated wishes of the photos creator (and, I'd be willing to bet, it's subject as well). - 67.166.132.47 07:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept PD under Polish law. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Penis_met_namen.jpg
- Image:Penis met namen 2.jpg
- Image:Penis mit Namen.jpg
- Image:Penis mit Namen 2.jpg
Are explicit images of 16 year olds legal in the State of Florida? --RMHED (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- KeepThis isn't explicit, this is educational. It would be explicit if it would have a sexual tone. If it's not legal in the US leave it on the Dutch wikipedia at least.Astanak (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete self-made work by a minor without parental consent. Not illegal porn but I'm still uncomfortable with allowing minors to upload pictures of themselves without parental consent. -Nard the Bard 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Here in the Netherlands it's legal when you're 16. So no parental consent is needed. Maybe in the US but not here.Astanak (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- KeepThis is indeed educational. This is to show that during puberty the flaccid penis is much smaller than a grown man's flaccid penis.Zaheer12a (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- But is it legal in the State of Florida? RMHED (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment That is a very good point. No, it is not illegal for someone in Netherlands to take such a picture, but it could be any such image is against US child pornography laws if displayed on a website. I think this needs to be looked at closely from a legal standpoint, before a decision is made, regardless of the fact that the image could be educational. Ariel♥Gold 03:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- But this isn't pornography. Does this picture make you think of sex?Astanak (talk) 04:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- To the right people, yes. Even if you and me don't think of the image in sexual terms, UserExample:ABCDEFG12345 might see the pic and masturbate to it, UserExample:religiousfanaticOMGBANITALL might try and get Wikicommons in trouble with the FBI, and so forth, and so on.... Frankly speaking, there needs to be a major overhaul of the rules on Wikicommons in relation to legal matters, but thats another point entirely.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- It should be noted that is not up to Wiki to decide what is, or is not "pornogrphy", but to abide by US Federal and State laws. Per UNESCO: "Child pornography is the consequence of the exploitation or sexual abuse perpetrated against a child. It can be defined as any means of depicting or promoting sexual abuse of a child, including print and/or audio, centred on sex acts, or the genital organs of children." The issue here is that the child in the image is not from the US, and so, is the image still considered child pornography per US laws if published online in the US? I really think that a Steward or 'crat, or someone else well-versed in the laws needs to take a look at this, and clear up the issue. Ariel♥Gold 00:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is not porn. It is not made with prurient intent, nor does it depict a sexual act. Simple nudity is never porn. Which is why those "naturist" websites with pics of little kids are legal. -Nard the Bard 00:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- It should be noted that is not up to Wiki to decide what is, or is not "pornogrphy", but to abide by US Federal and State laws. Per UNESCO: "Child pornography is the consequence of the exploitation or sexual abuse perpetrated against a child. It can be defined as any means of depicting or promoting sexual abuse of a child, including print and/or audio, centred on sex acts, or the genital organs of children." The issue here is that the child in the image is not from the US, and so, is the image still considered child pornography per US laws if published online in the US? I really think that a Steward or 'crat, or someone else well-versed in the laws needs to take a look at this, and clear up the issue. Ariel♥Gold 00:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- To the right people, yes. Even if you and me don't think of the image in sexual terms, UserExample:ABCDEFG12345 might see the pic and masturbate to it, UserExample:religiousfanaticOMGBANITALL might try and get Wikicommons in trouble with the FBI, and so forth, and so on.... Frankly speaking, there needs to be a major overhaul of the rules on Wikicommons in relation to legal matters, but thats another point entirely.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- But this isn't pornography. Does this picture make you think of sex?Astanak (talk) 04:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and other uploads by this user (the ones not claiming to be self pics have copyvio issues). The focus on sexual organs and the inclusion of various items related to them and the focus on the subject to the exclusion of all else by the unloader means we are getting into seriously dicey territory in trying to claim no prurient intent. Additionally there is the problem that the penis is depicted as erect which generally implies some form of sex act has taken place. finally commons has adequate amounts of penis including various bits of historic photography that portray adolescents so there is nothing particularly lost in deleteing these rather low quality pics.Genisock2 (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all This user has had two images, Image:Dog penis.jpg and Whale_penis.jpg as copyvios. That and the issue herein about these nude photos show a pattern. It does not matter what the law in the Netherlands is as wikicommons servers are in Florida, USA. It is USA law that matters here due to that fact. In the USA these images are a problem under USA law, so I've added others to this nom due to that reason. The erect ones are especially problematic. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- DeleteReally a questionable legal ground to be on and redundant to so many legal images we already have. MBisanz talk 01:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, images and uploader's apparent focus definitely a problem under Florida Statute 847.001(3). Image depicts nudity and sexual excitement without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. Dreadstar (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Cut-and-paste job of what's probably Sony Ericsson press images. Easily verified by googling "Sony Ericsson K850". Magnus Bäck (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This image is tagged as public domain "as a work of the US Federal Government", which made me immediately suspicious - it's a famous photograph. It seems to have been taken from here, which lists it as credited to NARA, but they're very unlikely to be the copyright holders!
Here's the original (as far as I'm aware) use of it - in a British newspaper, late 1940. Not entirely clear when it would become public domain, but I strongly suspect not yet. --Shimgray (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- That link credits the photo to Herbert Mason. If it's the same Herbert Mason mentioned here[5], he died 1960, making this photo still copyrighted in the UK. -Nard the Bard 01:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I have strong doubts that pictures shown on the Aftonbladed webpage are free --Mazbln (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Associated Press photo from [6]. Thuresson (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BiljanaPlavsic.jpg
svg file cannot be rendered Homonihilis (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Firefox can render it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- I use firefox myself. I cannot see the image neither on the commons page nor on the articles that the image is attached. (tried at two different config.) But if it can be rendered on other machines, let it stay. Homonihilis (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Click on the link on the commons page or here, and you should see a map of an ancient city. But http://validator.w3.org/ says it contains errors. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- This link is OK, but there is a problem here and here. I don't know why. Whatever, I've uploaded a png version. Homonihilis (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Click on the link on the commons page or here, and you should see a map of an ancient city. But http://validator.w3.org/ says it contains errors. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- I use firefox myself. I cannot see the image neither on the commons page nor on the articles that the image is attached. (tried at two different config.) But if it can be rendered on other machines, let it stay. Homonihilis (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep works for me. Safari and MediaWiki can render it. Wronkiew (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Giggy (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright for the film was renewed in 1981, so this film is actually copyrighted until 2048 at the minimum. Original uploader used copyright information from this site which has no idea what it is talking about as far as I can tell. The site asserts that trailers are separately copyrighted from the film because they come out before the film does—without any legal reference backing this up, and without even addressing the fact that trailers are clearly derivative works from the films themselves (and thus fall under its copyright). It's bollucks and wouldn't stand up five minutes in court—certainly not free enough by Commons standards. Material copyrighted between 1923 and 1963 with a renewal is copyrighted until 95 years after publication date (ref). You can look up the renewal record (RE0000094825, in 1981) at the US Copyright Office website. Sorry dudes. --Fastfission (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Note also that if this is deleted based on the above reasoning (which unless someone has a real good reason to think that a scene from a trailer is going to be different than a scene from the film the trailer is of), then there are a number of other such images that should probably go up on the chopping block. --Fastfission (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The reasoning that trailers cannot be claimed as derivative works by copyrightholders of the movie because they are published before the movie sounds very plausible. The assertion that that this would not stand up in court comes without any legal reference backing this up. Clearly, sabucat.com is still offering these trailers. Has Hollywood taken any successful legal action against them? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- 1. The idea that the trailer is published "before" the movie is, IMO, pretty scanty ground. The issue is in any event definitely poorly defined—which makes it dangerously "unfree" by Commons standards. There isn't any case law on it to guide us. Note that "published" is a pretty specific legal term when it comes to US copyright law—taking an ad hoc "that feels plausible" approach is not really a good strategy.
- 2. The reasoning of this one company is, IMO, not good enough for Commons. Note that on copyright discussion mailing lists the issue is far from clear.
- 3. Who cares if Hollywood has taken action? That's not the philosophy of Commons, which is about guaranteeing that things are really free. Nobody's sued half of the copyright infringement on the internet, it doesn't make a drop of difference. We shouldn't be getting into legal areas where there is no case law. We have no idea how a judge would rule or what they would consider an acceptable argument.
- 4. Frankly, this is the sort of issue that I think one would, indeed, want to consult a lawyer about before doing anything major with in one's own professional life. Which probably means that it's not clear-cut enough for Commons.
- --Fastfission (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- First derivatives of non PD work can fall into the public domain even when the non PD work was released first so the derivative works argument is pretty meaningless. The result tends to be a nightmarish mess mind with "It's a Wonderful Life" being the classic case. The images are not protected but the story is. If the derivative works argument held any weight a copyrighted version of the script of Night of the Living Dead would have been published years ago to recapture the copyright. So onto publication. Given how widespread showing of trailers is I don't think the not published argument holds water. Sure some highly obscure film for which the trailer was only shown at a couple of festivals might trigger issues but for anything mainstream it is unlikely to be a problem.Geni (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Publication in the US is defined as distributing or even offering copies to the public (that's one of the definitions). Showing a trailer to thousands of people qualifies. And this is definitely done before the movie is out (sometimes even before the movie is finished). Unless you can show the trailer carried a proper copyright notice (almost none ever did) this work was published directly into the public domain by lack of copyright notice. -Nard the Bard 19:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Let's fix that reasoning: "Showing a trailer to thousands of people qualifies" is wrong. That does not qualify per 17 USC 101, definition of "publication": "A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." However, to have that trailer broadcast, the studio had to give out copies of the trailer to the TV companies, and that counts as publication: "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication." Lupo 12:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- And the movie theatres are what, chopped liver? I agree, merely showing the work at a film festival or a conference is not publication, but distributing copies to the public, as I said, constitutes publication. Movie theatres are engaged in the business of further public performance and display. -Nard the Bard 22:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment According to what I am reading on http://chart.copyrightdata.com/ch10.html : A scene from a movie that also appears in a coming-attraction trailer can be regarded as enjoying the copyright protection of the movie, in cases where (as is common) the movie was copyrighted but the coming-attraction trailer was not. Because trailers are not "copies" of the film, but "derivative works", the requirement to include a copyright notice "in all copies" doesn't exist. This means that only the rare scenes which appear in the trailer, without appearing in the film are in the public domain. The wording of the Copyright Act, 1978, concerning derivative works is : "The copyright in such work (...) does not affect (...) the (...) subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.". One needs to think a little bit about the meaning of "preexisting". If that website is correct, a preexisting work is not a work "published earlier", but a work "made earlier". So, even if the trailer is released first, the movie is preexisting the trailer if the film maker can show that the trailer was made later. Teofilo (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- That is not right, and I'll tell you why. Anything published without a copyright notice was public domain. In the case of footage from a trailer, there is no pre-existing material which already enjoys published copyright protection. They lost it by publishing it without a copyright notice. The opposite is therefore true. The copyrighted movie contains some footage which is public domain. -Nard the Bard 12:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- What this website's author seems to be saying, is that when you see a work, you must first check if there is a copyright notice. If there is no copyright notice, you must then check if the publisher said something implying that it is a derivative of some earlier work. And only if that kind of "declaration of derivative work" is lacking, you can consider that the work is safe for making your own unauthorised copies. Teofilo (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is not right, and I'll tell you why. Anything published without a copyright notice was public domain. In the case of footage from a trailer, there is no pre-existing material which already enjoys published copyright protection. They lost it by publishing it without a copyright notice. The opposite is therefore true. The copyrighted movie contains some footage which is public domain. -Nard the Bard 12:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- This stuff gets messy. In the U.S. "publication" was not defined until the 1976 Act (effective Jan 1 1978), though I think the case-law definition prior to that was essentially the same -- publication of motion pictures were when copies were distributed to theater owners, etc. The 1970 example given at the bottom of this page is when prints of a theatrical film are sent out to distributors for rental to exhibitors. That would also presumably apply to a trailer distributed the same way. The public display was/is not relevant, but in most cases it was already "published" by that time. There was a distinction between "limited" and "general" publication, so pre-screenings of movies to a few people to gauge audience reaction, or just distributing to one theater, was "limited". This mattered because before 1978, perpetual common-law copyright persisted until the moment of general publication, at which point federal law, including registration and notice requirements, took over. For works created in 1978 and later, there is no common-law copyright, and statutory copyright persists from creation. Before though, the length of copyright was based on the moment of first publication. This paper goes into the topic in detail. If a trailer was published without a notice, then its material would have immediately lost its common-law protection (since it was published) and also its statutory protection (since there was no copyright notice). Courts were unforgiving about such technicalities; many simple mistakes resulted in loss of copyright. From that perspective... it could very easily be argued that the material in the trailer is published first, and has a different copyright term, then the other portions published later in the actual movie (thus the movie could be a derivative work of the trailer, different than the post-1978 situation). This would especially matter if the trailer was published in a different year; the copyright term would expire at different times. Movie studios could have gotten around the issue by registering the movie for copyright before the trailer was distributed (and the copyright term was then based on the registration date), but I'm not sure that was generally done. If the trailer did have a notice but was not explicitly renewed separately... that may get fuzzier. Did the renewal of the movie count to renew the scenes also in the trailer? Seems unlikely, since the date of publication also defined the window where a work could be renewed and was therefore different, but obviously courts were liable to rule different ways. Looking at the trailer here, I don't see a copyright notice anywhere. Presuming that the trailer was published at an earlier date than the final film, I would say to Keep based on PD-US-no_notice. Note that video clips get dicier... material which could be considered derivative of an original book, play, or screenplay (which were often registered as unpublished works) such as a lot of dialog, could mean the clip was non-free. In some cases where the copyright on the movie itself (visual material) has expired, distribution was prevented based on the derivative rights of those underlying works (but those would almost never apply to a screenshot). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, since there was no copyright notice... it wouldn't matter if it was published before or after the full movie, just that it was published at all. Under the 1909 Act, all published copies had to have the copyright notice, or else it would fall into the public domain. The only way this screenshot is a problem is if you could argue that the trailer was never legally published at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Closing as Kept. Policy on film trailers without seperate copyright may bear further review, but this seems to fit to policy of a number of such images considered PD-US. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Images of Principito singh
[edit]I believe that all images of User:Principito singh are copyvios, because all medicine related images look different, I doubt he draw them himself therefore, they look like copies from books or websites. I have already deleted two of his images Special:DeletedContributions/Principito_singh, one was copied from another website, the other one was clearly a copy from a book, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 02:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted all. A wide variety of images, all at very low resolution without EXIF, many clearly professional photos, and all except one claimed PD-Self. The exception is a low-res PD-Art image that is on en.W at much higher resolution. User has not responed to warning on talk page and appears to be inactive. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
derivative work Polarlys (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
derivative work Polarlys (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
duplicate --Navy Blue (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
duplicate bear62 (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kimse (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The phographer died 1962 (!) http://www.exil-archiv.de/html/biografien/bieber.htm --Polarlys (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment "E. Bieber, Hofphotograph" isn't that simple. Pre-1904 (or maybe pre-1902)photos are from either Emilie Bieber (1810-1884), Emil's great-aunt who had founded the studio, or from his father Leonhard (1841-1931), who kept using the name "E. Bieber" when he took over the studio. Emil became a co-owner of the studio in 1904 (or in 1902 according to the second source). See also User talk:Crux#Bilder von Emil Bieber, Hofphotograph, and [7] (p. 356). I do wonder though whether this is really a pre-1900 image. Ita Wegman was born 1876: is the woman in this picture really only at most 24 years old? Lupo 07:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If not c. 1900, I think not too long after from the fashion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Per the date, assuming that the photographer was either Emilie or Leohnard. Lupo 19:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Insufficient permission, artist died in 1962 (http://www.exil-archiv.de/html/biografien/bieber.htm) Polarlys (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- According to the source, photo from "about 1900". See comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ita Wegman vor1900.jpg. Lupo 08:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Per the dating; assuming the photographer was either Emilie Bieber (1810-1884), Emil's great-aunt who had founded the studio, or his father Leonhard (1841-1931), who kept using the name "E. Bieber" when he took over the studio. Lupo 19:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
