Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/09/10
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Image date of 2003-04-04 doesn't meet the licence requirement of being published before 1999–01-01. Mzajac (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete There are two claims for being PD on this image, and neither is valid: (1) {{PD-Iraq}} doesn't apply because of the date and (2) unless I'm missing something, just because the Iraqi News Agency doesn't exist anymore doesn't mean that all their work magically became PD. Pruneautalk 09:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)- Delete There is no base in Iraqi law (that I see, and I've read both the 1971 law and the amendment) for this being PD. Assuming it is of corporate authorship, the soonest it will enter PD is 2054. -Nard the Bard 02:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. See no acceptable claim. Wizardman 01:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, no evidence that image has been released into the public domain. Dreadstar (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, violation of said license. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Unused edit submitted @ en wp's FPC. Fletcher6 (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep in scope, used. This cropped version makes it look nicer and could be used someday. -Nard the Bard 02:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Image missed from Commons:Deletion requests/Images from Emil Rensing on Flickr. ----Diniz (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, can't trust that Flickr user. There are a few more:
These should all be deleted too. Pruneautalk 09:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. COM:PRP. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
"He gave me this pic" is not an indication that he freely licensed it. Suggest forwarding permission to OTRS if possible. Giggy (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence that licence is correct. Deleted per Giggy. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Totally overexposed "duplicate" of Image:Opéra de Versalles.JPG. Combined with the extremly low size more or less unuseable. -- Cecil (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
uploaded wrong Litfuse119 (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Herbythyme Yann (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright held by author Don Seidman - page that the image was on has been deleted from the FL USA website, but this is close enough [1] PageantUpdater talk • contribs 09:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Ahonc abf /talk to me/ 19:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
oops, this one wasn't photographed by Jim - no permission Eug (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per uploader's request --Suradnik13 (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
i do not belive in self-made: The image does not have any metadate and looks like if its produced for "professional use" abf /talk to me/ 11:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The uploader, User:Hot123, is, like the previous incarnation User:Wert123, a sockpuppet of User:Axz1v, who uploaded these images in 2007. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 7#Yet another porn uploader. Uploader blocked indefinitely. Lupo 20:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
i do not belive in self-made: The image does not have any metadate and looks like if its produced for "professional use" abf /talk to me/ 11:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The uploader, User:Hot123, is, like the previous incarnation User:Wert123, a sockpuppet of User:Axz1v, who uploaded these images in 2007. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 7#Yet another porn uploader. Uploader blocked indefinitely. Lupo 20:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
i do not belive in self-made: The image does not have any metadate and looks like if its produced for "professional use" abf /talk to me/ 11:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The uploader, User:Hot123, is, like the previous incarnation User:Wert123, a sockpuppet of User:Axz1v, who uploaded these images in 2007. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 7#Yet another porn uploader. Uploader blocked indefinitely. Lupo 20:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
(I changed it to delete as someone put a speedy delete on it. i want it to stay!) --Harris578 (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Info Hello, Firstly I don't see how me having a go at Dodo has any bearing on the merit of this photo. Its irrelevant. Also I find it childish to be included here.
- Secondly, I own this item. Doesn't that count for anything. The manufacturers have given me permission to use any Grogg photos in an e-mail message. But I am not going to bother them further.
- Keep it or delete it its up to you lot but I really am starting to lose faith in all things Wiki when people just go ahead and delete things willy nilly when there are more positive ways to sort things out.
- Also this is a manufactured item, manufactured in the hundreds. Its not a one off work of art so I don't see that I need permission anyway! Harris578 (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. An obvious copyvio of a copyright design, and OK to be speedied. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
REASON. Someone nominated this for speedy delete. I disagree so followed the instructions to change it to this kind of delete. --Harris578 (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. An obvious copyvio of a copyright design, and OK to be speedied. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
REASON. Someone nominated this for speedy delete. I disagree so followed the instructions to change it to this kind of delete. --Harris578 (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. An obvious copyvio of a copyright design, and OK to be speedied MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
What's the copyright status of Mickey Mouse? I had deleted this image, but I was told that it is not obvious that this is a derivative of the copyrighted cartoon character by Disney. Yann (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Poster may indeed be public domain, but the Mouse is not. His first appearance in Steamboat Willie is protected until 2023. (well, theoretically there is a counterargument, but it is not safe [2][3]) Keep only if the Mouse is blanked out. -Nard the Bard 01:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete derivative --Jodo (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Mickey Mouse is not in PD -Suradnik13 (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 19:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is a film poster from 1935, so likely copyrighted until 2030 (if it included copyright notice and was renewed). Undelete in 2031. Platonides (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
While listed as a Voice of America public domain image, this photo has a band up the side that says "AP Photo". Zanimum (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, Photo from VOA website with different source. Martin H. (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Owner of website is most likely not owner of photo. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Definitely not a source from which we can infer this is free. It is a well-known photo. MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
wrong filename, another copy exist Jlundqvi
Dupe of Image:Finntrask kyrka.jpg; please use {{dupe}} in the future. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Correct source link is [4], a non-NASA APOD image. NOAO copyright terms are non-commercial. dave pape (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- The link you provided goes to the nasa.gov domain name. --Haha169 (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Being published on a nasa.gov website does not automatically make something NASA work. APOD is a collection of images, some by NASA, some by other astronomers who hold copyrights. This one's page clearly states its non-NASA origin. --dave pape (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, per request Martin H. (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The photo contains a copyrighted picture 83.85.95.146 17:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probably copyvio. Sdrtirs (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
en:Image:Sumo band 1.jpg says released into to PD by a magazine!?? Sdrtirs (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kimsə (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The uploader may have made the digital image, but probably not the painting Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- After my discussion (in Swedish) with the uploader at User talk:Leavehoped#Jonas Lundh this suspicion grew stronger. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- And the same file is here on the artist's web site. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio Sterkebaktalk 10:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The uploader may have made the digital image, but probably not the painting Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- This suspicion grew stronger after my discussion (in Swedish) with the uploader at User talk:Leavehoped#Jonas Lundh. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- And the same file is here on the artist's web site. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio Sterkebaktalk 11:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
File is misnamed. Jerk chicken is not Cuban food, it is Jamaican. The name needs to be changed to Caribbean food --Marc Averette (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Then rename it. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that we have enough images of penis. Sdrtirs (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Very blurred and not useful image. Deleted per COM:PS: "New and existing files of poor or mediocre quality may or may not be realistically useful for an educational purpose depending on what they illustrate and what other holdings we have of the same subject. Where a subject is rare and/or difficult to capture, even a poor quality file may be of significant educational value, especially if Commons has very few or no similar files already. On the other hand, poor or mediocre files of common and easy to capture subjects may have no realistic educational value, especially if Commons already hosts many similar or better quality examples."MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
There are anough and better quality penis pics available at Commons. Image may probably be of an underage person. Denniss (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete We have enough penis images and there could be legal issues with this photo. Pruneautalk 18:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
RAND employees are not employees of the federal government, but rather independent contractors. Their work is copyrighted and non-free by default. --Superm401 - Talk 00:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It appeared to me when I touched up the original image (en:Image:Bravo RAND Corp.JPG) that although the work was done by an independent contractor, it is owned by the US Federal government, which would put it in the public domain. I don't really care if you delete it or not, but I thought I should explain why I put it here. Thingg⊕⊗ 14:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I understand why you thought that. However, the work of independent contractors is copyrighted by default. Superm401 - Talk 06:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The work of independent contractors may be copyrighted by default, or it may not be, depending on the wording of the contract. If the work was contracted as a work-for-hire, than copyright rests with the contracting authority, not with the independent contractor who created it. If the contracting authority is the Federal government, then it's in the public domain. If this work is in fact owned by the Federal government, then it's not copyrighted, even if created by an independent contractor. If the independent contractor owns the work, then it's copyrighted by default. 130.76.96.19 18:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The author/owner changed his mind on releasing the image. He has requested deletion. Wordbuilder (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Can you explain why, please? What is your connection with the photographer? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- When I moved the image here from the English Wikipedia, I noticed that it was lacking a release registered with OTRS. I emailed the own via a contact form at his website to request that he complete the proper form. He responded asking that the image be deleted. So, since he never formally released it, it should be removed. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, compare http://a.bebo.com/app-image/6896748769/5411656627/PROFILE/i.yaquiz.com/img/q/u/08/04/05/6-escudo.jpg with same number of pixels Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- According to User talk:Leavehoped#Image:6-escudo.gif, this image was probably speedied before. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Copyright violation: Sport club logo
Possible copyrighted work than own work. Sdrtirs (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Quite an amazing amount of hits with tineye. Cecil (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be a version of widely available press photo (can easily be found through using name as a search term in Google images. No proof that uploader is the original author of the image, nonsensical date does not help his or her case to be original author. Possible candidate for fair use on en:wiki but no fair use on Commons. --KTo288 (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies to all Thai users, year 2008 is 2551 in the Thai calender, so is not nonsensical, again apologies for my ignorance. However this undermines the case that this file is the work of this user, as versions of this image elsewhere predates 2008.KTo288 (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cecil (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be a version of widely available press photo (can easily be found through using name as a search term in Google images. No proof that uploader is the original author of the image, nor that he or she is a representative of the subject of this file nonsensical date does not help his or her case to be original author. Possible candidate for fair use on en:wiki but no fair use on Commons. --KTo288 (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies to all Thai users, year 2008 is 2551 in the Thai calender, so is not nonsensical, again apologies for my ignorance. However this undermines the case that this file is the work of this user, as versions of this image elsewhere predates 2008.KTo288 (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cecil (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be a version of widely available press photo (can easily be found through using name as a search term in Google images. No proof that uploader is the original author of the image, nonsensical date does not help his or her case to be original author. Possible candidate for fair use on en:wiki but no fair use on Commons. --KTo288 (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies to all Thai users, year 2008 is 2551 in the Thai calender, so is not nonsensical, again apologies for my ignorance. However this undermines the case that this file is the work of this user, as versions of this image elsewhere predates 2008.KTo288 (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cecil (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be a screen capture, Thai solar year of 2551 is 2008 in the Gregorian calender. The subject was Miss Universe in 1988, and the file appears to date from that time. No evidence that uploader is original author of this image. --KTo288 (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cecil (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
All the images in this category are listed as being PD-ineligible, but they appear to be taken from CS3621 Introduction to Computing with Geometry Notes by Dr. C.-K. Shene. I beleive that the reason given because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. is not valid. While the underlying mathematical equations are PD, there is original authorship in creating the images (colours, position, lighting etc). The date of files on Shene's page predates thouse on wikipedia. Full file hsitory on en was:
Page history
* (diff) 14:25, 8 November 2007 . . SieBot (Talk | contribs | block) (124 bytes) (Exact duplicate on Commons with same name) * (diff) 04:28, 1 September 2005 . . Nv8200p (Talk | contribs | block) (PD-ineligible) * (diff) 23:37, 24 June 2005 . . RedWolf (Talk | contribs | block) (No source) * (diff) 14:03, 27 November 2004 . . Molteanu (Talk | contribs | block) (Ellipsoid)
File history
* 14:03, 27 November 2004 . . Molteanu (Talk | contribs | block) 192×144 (5,184 bytes) (Ellipsoid)
-Salix alba (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any creative choice involved here (other than perhaps rotation). These appear to be the standard result of entering equations into rendering software. However I'm witholding my keep vote on this one because a) the software may be non-free and b) the shapes could easily be re-rendered using freely licensed software. -Nard the Bard 02:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No consensus. Maxim(talk) 15:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Images of Jakubes
[edit]- File:Obecny urad.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kostol v noci.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Povodna stavba.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Prievoz.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Prievoz3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I believe that these User:Jakubes's (sk:User:Jakubes) images of village Starý Tekov in Slovakia are copyvios from municipal website of Straý Tekov. Equally small size of the images, lack of exifs, various author nicknames on the website (cf. the night photo of the church) while User:Jakubes claims ALL the pictures to be his own work - this all seem to support the suspection of copyright violation. I have also strong doubts about rest of images uploaded by him (not mentioned in the list above) but can't provide any evidence (ie. source) for them. --Miaow Miaow (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Checked it out. You are right. They always had exactly the same size as in the source you have given, even though some of them were not the usual size, but obviously cropped by their author, which according to the website is not always the same. Cecil (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Copyrighted encyclopedias
[edit]- File:Focus2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:LA2-picture-dictionary.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Combivisuell3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Book pages show copyrighted illustrations (same reason as here) 83.85.95.146 17:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative of copyright content. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Santerisulo
[edit]The author originally released the image to the PD (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Forest.jpg&oldid=14183563), but is now attempting to claim copyright and assert a non-free (non-commerical) license. Also, it appears he is not the author, as he claimed. The image is not particularly unique, so I propose deletion. --Superm401 - Talk 01:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- This problem applies to the rest of his uploads as well, so I am proposing deletion of all. There is already one active request, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:07 boowaearly02.jpg. Superm401 - Talk 01:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- This one doesn't have the switch from PD to CC-BY, and doesn't explicitly say non-commercial. However, I think it's clear the uploader doesn't understand what CC-BY(-SA) 3.0 means.
Hi friend,
Please check the page and the license in the top of the page:
This work is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported.
I have no idea why you want this images and dhamma talks to be deleted. You would be hindering a good work to educate people on the Thai Forest Tradition and Theravada Buddhism. The pages in Wikipedia on this subject where/are in a very bad shape and I am only trying to do my best to upgrade the standard. If this pages on the Wikipedia can't be upgraded, then they should be removed and deleted, because they are giving a very poor image of the tradition. This is not a joking matter! Please understand that this images and dhamma talks are for FREE DISTRIBUTION. I can safely say, that I have the full permission to use all of this images and dhamma talks. I used to be a monk in this tradition, so I know the Copyrights of this material very well.
- Delete all as copyvios. These files were all taken from various websites and there is no indication that the original authors have released them under a free licence. Pruneautalk 09:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Copyright 2003-2005 © by Venerable Acariya Maha Boowa Ñanasampanno
All contents of Laungta.com, are free gifts of Dhamma, and may not be offered for sale. They may be copied, reprinted or republished in whole or in part — by any means* — for free distribution as gifts of Dhamma.
Permission to reproduce the contents of Laungta.com in whole or in part — by any means*— for free distribution as gifts of Dhamma is hereby granted and no further permission needs to be obtained. However, reproduction of the contents of our website — by any means — for sale or material gain is prohibited. The Venerable Acariya Maha Boowa holds the copyright on all the contents of Laungta.com and he has made clear that:
"The Buddha-Dhamma has a value beyond all wealth and should not be sold like goods in a market place."
— Ven. Acariya Maha Boowa Ñanasampanno
- The reproduction and posting of the contents of Laungta.com for downloading, listening, or viewing upon other websites needs written permission beforehand. Permission can be easily obtained by contacting: webluangta@gmail.com
For Contact please email us: webluangta@gmail.com
From this COPYRIGHT IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THEY SHOULD BE RELEASED UNDER NON-COMMERCIAL AND FREE LICENSE: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported as indicated on the Luang Por Chah webpage
Here is the license of Bhikkhu Bodhi concerning the Nibbana.ogg file (on the bottom of the page) Majjhima Nikāya Lectures:
For free distribution only. You may re-format and redistribute this work provided that you charge no fees for its distribution or use. Otherwise, all rights reserved. © 2008 Bhikkhu Bodhi'
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE E-MAIL ME AT: santerisa@gmail.com.
Best wishes,
Santerisulo
- Delete. Non-commercial-only permissions are insufficient for the Commons. Lupo 20:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
Nothing I can do here, I guess... I have a question. When I upload the images again, how do I indicate properly, that I have the permissions to use them here?
- Please do not reupload them until the person that actually took the photograph emails Commons:OTRS to confirm permission under a free license such as GFDL or CC-BY-SA. Note, this requires they allow commercial reuse, which may be for a profit. Superm401 - Talk 17:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I have requested some help from authorities. What do you mean allowing commercial use? There are many images (i.e The Dalai Lama images, the existing Luang Por Chah images...) that are released under non-commercial licenses? Why can't the images be released as free and non-commercial? I think this is just a matter of finding the correct license... so please bear with me.
Santeri
Hello again,
I am in conversation with the webmasters of Luangta.com. And I am doing some study on the various licenses on similar items in Wikimedia Commons. One possible license that I came across is something like the one on this Dalai Lama image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dalai_Lama_boy.jpg
The difference is that Laungta images are free. But something similar to this license could be considered. Other possible options include the GFDL or CC-BY-SA licenses, but I need to do little bit more research on them first, and discuss them with the webmasters... Meaby we can even release the images and talks without any conditions. Wait and see.
I am think of adding a personality rights warning in to some of the images.
Santeri
- There is no such thing as free and non-commercial. Commons policy requires that all images allow commercial uses. The image you linked is on Wikipedia, which has very different policies from Commons. Superm401 - Talk 03:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No action since September, and still no confirmation that the copyright owners of these images have released them under a licence which is free enough for Commons (which includes allowing commercial use). MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)