Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/09/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
No good source Sterkebaktalk 04:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Obviously random image from google Badseed talk 06:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Please send the permission to Commons:OTRS so we can check it. Sterkebaktalk 04:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Already sent 1 hour ago attached with e-mails permission from the office of Placido Domingo. If you looked at the middle of the image, I have already pasted {{Otrs pending}} indicating that the mail has been sent - Jay (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry it's still early :) Sterkebaktalk 04:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- So, can we please remove this "deletion request" then? "The deletion request" shouldnt be here in the first place until OTRS read the mail and make a decision. - Jay (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe a admin wil close it someday soon. Sterkebaktalk 04:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- So, can we please remove this "deletion request" then? "The deletion request" shouldnt be here in the first place until OTRS read the mail and make a decision. - Jay (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. OTRS 2008091810002899 MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
corrupt image Frogger3140 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe out of scope.
The same to:
Sdrtirs (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's the english version of a sample of a tiny mushroom character made for Micology project on french wikipedia. This sample is actually used for the announcement of the opening of the project on the french wikipedia village pump.
- I would also pleade that there is a consensus amoung wikimedia projects communities to use small humoristic cartoons related to wikipedia or a wikimedia project, they are a part of what build and keep together a community. I could show you many of those images, being here for years on Commons and used a lot, and no one argue to get them delete : there is a long time consensus of that kind of usage. It helps releasing the pressure of wikimedia projects communities so that village pumps and discussion pages dont end being only trolling topics and ad hominem attacks.
- I do upload encyclopedic and usefull images, and edit images as a wikigraphist... and from time to time, i make a little funny character for the community. Some of my art worck has been translate into english, espanol, portuguese and russian, and used on those other sister projects.
- if the final decision is to delete it, please gimme a delay between that decision and the deletion, so that i can transfert my work on wikipedia.--Lilyu (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep : Commons is already hosting a large variety of images related to Wikimedia projects, including satirical cartoons, some of a very good quality. Please have a look at Category:Wikipedia french humour and related categories for an overview. le Korrigan →bla 09:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would rather point Category:Humor & Category:Cartoons on Wikipedia. And point that one of my cartoons about wikipedia has already been used once to illustrate an article by a journalist about wikipedia and vandalism (and for once in french newspaper, it was explaining rather than condamning WIkipedia => who knows where the "educational purpose"'s limit start or end ). --Lilyu (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, on manque d'humour ici. Daniel*D 09:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep strongly, is humor banned here ? Keep cool, guy and eat mushrooms !
Pymouss Tchatcher - 13:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC) - Keep image en rapport avec un projet de fr.wikipedia (i.e. not out of scope). Nanoxyde (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
useless 85.177.190.182 05:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Image:Agathon Léonard00.jpg, Image:Agathon Léonard01.jpg,Image:Agathon Léonard02.jpg, Image:Agathon Léonard04.jpg. CRV. Uploader is not the photographer. And Image:Agathon Léonard05.jpg is too poor to use it in a wp-project. Mutter Erde (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Next time please use {{Copyvio}} for obvious cases. abf /talk to me/ 13:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any debate about the image in this "archive". I was invited to take part in a discussion on the "proposed" deletion of the image by Mutter Erde only to find that the image had already been deleted. Someone needs to pay attention somewhere because the system is in obvious need of improvement!! Rotational (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Sk-nr)ck.gif Geronimo9632 (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploaders request... even if I do not understand the reason... abf /talk to me/ 13:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate of Image:Ruiten-Aa Theater van de natuur-bij Sellingen.jpg Gouwenaar (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Duplicate is reason for speedy deletion. You can tag it by {{Duplicate|othername.jpg}}. Sterkebaktalk 15:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Duplicaat bestand kan je beter markeren met {{Duplicate|naam.jpg}} dan word hij zo snel mogelijk verwijderd. Ik heb het nu gedaan. groetjes, Sterkebaktalk 15:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Gouwenaar (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: Dupe of Image:Ruiten-Aa Theater van de natuur-bij Sellingen.jpg
The logos and images of Barcelona metro are copyrighted.
Check Copyright policy of Barcelona Metro.
Delete per nomination abf /talk to me/ 14:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- If it is just "L2" over a purple background, will it be against copyright laws?
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
loocks much like a copyvio, e.g. no metatdata abf /talk to me/ 14:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I am in doubt.. Is this own work? looks like a press picture to me Sterkebaktalk 16:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
No good source Sterkebaktalk 16:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Solved tagged as {{Nsd}} because thats the normall progress, it does not need a week of discussion. abf /talk to me/ 16:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright violation - image rights from the person in the image - remove it asap 189.102.87.73 17:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Well. I never realy know if photo like that can be free or not. Its a composition of video game box. Thanks for your help. - ~ bayo or talk 16:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Speedy deletion. Obvious copyvio MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
From looking at the full resolution copy on flickr, this is clearly a photo of a video screen. dave pape (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
too small to be used, poor quality, blue shade Deerhunter (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Very poor quality, out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Not work by the US goverment, taken in 1938, not PD-old yet. Multichill (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to say http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/action/ShowFullRecord?tab=init/showFullDescriptionTabs/details&mn=resultsDetailPageModel&goto=0&%24submitId=1&%24showFullDescriptionTabs.selectedPaneId=&%24resultsDetailPageModel.pageSize=1&%24resultsDetailPageModel.search=true&%24showArchivalDescriptionsTabs.selectedPaneId=&%24highlight=false&%24digiSummaryPageModel.targetModel=true&%24digiDetailPageModel.currentPage=0&%24resultsPartitionPageModel.search=true&%24resultsPartitionPageModel.targetModel=true&%24resultsSummaryPageModel.pageSize=10&%24resultsSummaryPageModel.targetModel=true&%24searchId=8&%24partitionIndex=0&%24sort=RELEVANCE_ASC&%24digiDetailPageModel.resultPageModel=true&%24resultsDetailPageModel.currentPage=0 says it is and there are no use restrictions (please check link)--Windwhistler (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- The link isnt working. That's not the original author anyway, just some agency collecting images. Multichill (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Added a working link to the Nara-image template on the image description. Why do you think this image might not be taken by an American photographer? They were allowed in Germany as late as 1938. -Nard the Bard 21:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- The Office of War Information (OWI) was established in the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) by an Executive Order of June 13, 1942. The News and Features Bureau was established December 17, 1942, and the Picture Division formed one of four units within the Bureau. It received original prints from U.S. armed forces and civilian government agencies, allied governments and commercial news picture sources for distribution to other units of OWI. The OWI was terminated December 31, 1945, by Executive Order and overseas operations were transferred to the Department of State.
- That's wy. Multichill (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Added a working link to the Nara-image template on the image description. Why do you think this image might not be taken by an American photographer? They were allowed in Germany as late as 1938. -Nard the Bard 21:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image is from a Nazi publication [1]. Maybe it will qualify as anonymous in a year or two. -Nard the Bard 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Badseed: pd in us only see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anschlusstears.jpg
access denied to source. unable to check Sterkebaktalk 04:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Closed. Already deleted MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete {{Derivative}}. Some users disagree, however. Dodo (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Mmmm, beer. I see a generic life ring and an anchor and some words. And some cold frosty goodness. -Nard the Bard 10:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment Are you saying the design shown in the packaging is simple enough not to be copyrightable? The manufacturer seems not to think the same. --Dodo (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- That says their trademark may not be abused, and everything on their website is copyrighted. It does not say "the design of our can of beer is copyrighted" (just trademarked!). -Nard the Bard 18:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, it does: "El contenido de los sitios muestra [...] diseños, textos e imágenes propiedad de GRUPO MODELO, S.A.B. de C.V., y/o de alguna de sus empresas [...] CERVECERÍA DEL PACÍFICO, S.A. DE C.V." --Dodo (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it does say their website shows their designs, texts, and images that are their property. -Nard the Bard 19:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment the problem here is that we have a category(beers of México) full of thats "desings", then what we gonna do?. i guess that "Cuahutemoc Moctezuma" say the same. "i'm sorry my spell, i don't speak english" User talk:Elbeta
- Pues la realidad diseños muy sencillos no tienen derechos de autor, solo derechos de marca de comercio, que son distintas y que no son problemas para Commons. Hasta la ley de Mexico dice que las letras o colores no son objetos de copyright (articulo 14[2] que es parecido a nuestro {{PD-textlogo}} y {{PD-shape}}. El articulo 14 tambien dice que los emblemas de organizaciones internacionales o reconocidas no son objeto de copyright. Pero se supone que eso abriga organizaciones sin fines de lucro, tal como Image:Assemblies of God Logo.jpg. -Nard the Bard 20:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment ¿Cómo decides qué es sencillo y qué no? En el caso de un logotipo formado solo por texto está claro ({{PD-textlogo}}), pero cuando hay dibujos, ¿en base a qué contradices las afirmaciones del fabricante? EMHO, la diseño de esta lata no es una "forma simple" ({{PD-shape}}), por lo que... --Dodo (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- De acuerdo. Tal vez solo me hago abogado del diablo. -Nard the Bard 21:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Pues la realidad diseños muy sencillos no tienen derechos de autor, solo derechos de marca de comercio, que son distintas y que no son problemas para Commons. Hasta la ley de Mexico dice que las letras o colores no son objetos de copyright (articulo 14[2] que es parecido a nuestro {{PD-textlogo}} y {{PD-shape}}. El articulo 14 tambien dice que los emblemas de organizaciones internacionales o reconocidas no son objeto de copyright. Pero se supone que eso abriga organizaciones sin fines de lucro, tal como Image:Assemblies of God Logo.jpg. -Nard the Bard 20:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it does say their website shows their designs, texts, and images that are their property. -Nard the Bard 19:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- That says their trademark may not be abused, and everything on their website is copyrighted. It does not say "the design of our can of beer is copyrighted" (just trademarked!). -Nard the Bard 18:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete COM:DW, not COM:DM. But I'd like to have a beer now as well :P abf /talk to me/ 13:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative of an image which contains original authorship (i.e. it's not PD-ineligible). /Lokal_Profil 20:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Diseño con derechos de autor. -Nard the Bard 21:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Info Please take a look to Image talk:Turrón.jpg. Some people seem to feel unconfortable about the fast deletion of this kind of images and claim no explicit mention to package designs is actually made in Commons:Derivative works. Any ideas? --Dodo (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
ck.gif){kind=link}
ck.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
ck.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
ck.gif){kind=link}
ck.gif){kind=link}
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anschlusstears.jpg){kind=link}
- A discussion at Commons talk:Derivative works appears to be relevant.[3] Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Good grief. Just because a copyright graphic design is printed on to a can, that does not allow us to infringe that copyright. The copyright design does not look old, and we have no licence. Absent that, this is a clear copyvio, and indeed falls squarely within the speedy deletion policy. COM:CB#Product packaging. See also COM:CB#Trademarks for anyone who thinks that a trademark (or logo) cannot also attract copyright protection. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted - license not present. The last post articulated it well. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
This was uploaded as "copyrightedfreeuse". I changed it to the (much more likely) pd-ineligible. Comments? I'm not sure this qualifies as pd-ineligible, I'm not sure if it's in scope, and I'm not even sure it's a Homer burp. But I think it staying on Commons would be awesome. -Nard the Bard 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wait... you opened a DR because you DON'T want to delete this? What is this, backwards world? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. I'm just as confused, but an audio clip from a TV show is hardly PD-Inelidgeable. You may feel free to record your own burn and release it to PD though. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Possible copyvio Sterkebaktalk 16:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. NFL photo; a small version is at http://www.nfl.com/players/rayrice/profile?id=RIC154451 --dave pape (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. --Martin H. (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Copyright Violation --189.24.2.241 16:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
©2004 Antonio Carlos de Barros Carvalho Lopes
Deleted by Herbythyme: Unfree Flickr license: http://www.flickr.com/photos/acbc/30439398/
I think that this image is a logo of German rock band which goes beyond of what might qualify as {{PD-textlogo}} and it is definitivly not free as a GFDL image. ALE! ¿…? 20:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, the de.wp uses a local duplicate which is qualified as Logo and should not be moved to commons. --Martin H. (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Lacks permission - I could not find the statement "You can use the images of this page freely" on the source page, and the copyright page does not give any such permission. Uploader removed "no permission" tag and changed license to self-GFDL/CC, despite image being sourced to a website. dave pape (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Tarawneh (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Does this asserts in PD-textlogo or PD-shapes? Sdrtirs (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- PD-shape for sure. I already changed it. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
likely copyvio abf /talk to me/ 13:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
likely copyvio abf /talk to me/ 13:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- same opinion, delete--Motopark (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Licence is lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.218.255 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No licence provided. MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Image credited to the US administration, yet at the same time said to have an unknown author. Possibly, and probably, not a work of the United States Federal Government. Hosting are NARA is not relevant to copyright status. --Rama (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hitler in Reichstag 1938.jpg. Multichill (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, no new element put forwards to claim public domain. This seems to be part of the US pattern of claiming anything coming from the Third Reich to be Public Domain; while the Third Reich does not have my sympathy, there is no legal ground for the US claim. Rama (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This license is erroneous and contains misleading information. The copyright page to which it links says "Not all images are in the public domain; some images may be protected by the U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.)". It does not say, as the template wrongly asserts, that "[images are] in the public domain unless other copyright information is given". United States images can become PD for several reasons, but hosting on this site, in and of itself, is not a sufficient PD rationale. Note that the Wikipedia version is being deleted. --ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Images tagged with this template are not established as images in the public domain since the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress does not provide the copyright status for most of the images posted to that site. That site's copyright notice says "Not all images are in the public domain" and, for any questions, contact the "U.S. House of Representatives Collection" and "U.S. Senate Historical Office." I contact both offices. The "U.S. House of Representatives Collection" replied "Images posted on Members of the House of Representatives and Members of the Continental Congress should have credit lines below the image on the Biographical Directory." (They are not for the images loaded into Wikipedia) The "U.S. Senate Historical Office" replied "It is a complicated issue." I'll continue to work with the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, but this license needs to be deleted. -- Suntag ☼ 14:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The text of the tag is severely misleading and does not reflect the wording of the source website. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I uploaded a much higher quality version of the same picture Djh57 (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You uploaded many images of baseball. These files are licensed {{self|cc-by-3.0}}. But they are available on Flickr under the cc-by-2.0 license. Are you the same person as SD Dirk on Flickr? Or, did you mistake copyright tags? I'm sorry for my poor English. --59.157.118.205 09:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Yes - I am the same person as SD Dirk on Flickr. The 2 files are from the same original photo that I took, just different file names. The newer file is higher resolution.
Thanks ~~Dirk
- Are you talking about this picture? There is no reason to delete, cropped version is also useful. Yarl ✉ 16:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see where the image is about. The t-shirt? is it in our scope? --Sterkebaktalk 15:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete: out of scope, this is not Flickr II, so we dont need a transfer of personal Flickr images to Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Even if the seal was originally designed in 1686 or 1784 there has since been many different copyrigtable interpretations [4][5]. This particular one is copyrighted by vector-images.com and as such should be deleted. A scanned in original of any sufficiently old version would be PD-old but not a new interpretation is not. Lokal_Profil 16:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- From the apperence and lack of source for Image:Seal of New York City.png it should probably be included in this request. Also Image:Flag of San Francisco.svg (see talk page) is in the same situation. /Lokal_Profil 16:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep for this image and Image:Flag of San Francisco.svg (if it will ever be nominated to deletion). for reason of: Over 100 years passed since creation of the image. --Oren neu dag (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There is nothing artistically new about the vi version. See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Vector-Images.com (2nd request). -Nard the Bard 17:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry what exactly should we see in that deletion discussion? That all vector-images.com images are copyrighted unless the design (here all possible interpretations of a description of an coat of arm/seal/flag) is explicitly made free by a national law? Sorry there is no law making US state flags and seals PD by default. If you want a PD-US or PD-old image upload the original not this copyrighted derivative. /Lokal_Profil 20:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep, Actually All state and federal seals and flags are PD.. please do some fact checking— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.166.220 (talk • contribs)
Keep, per Oren neu dag. It Is Me Here (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Giggy (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the Flickr uploader is not actually the photographer of this image, and that the license is therefore bogus. Rosenzweig δ 22:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Images of sports
[edit]- File:Zukas.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bjelica.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Milisavljevic.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Prekeviciuss.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Anisimovas.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bajramovic.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KingJasaitis.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Gary Glove Payton.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Gecevicius.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Einikis.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:PaytonHeat.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:JavtokasDinamo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:LinasKleizaLT.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MattNielsen.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Nielsen.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Eidson.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Lukauskis.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:LKLbasket.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I believe that User:Belevicius's images are all copyright violations because they look like he took pictures of the his TV and said that it was his work, which would violate the copyrighted broadcast.--CPacker (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think so, too. --High Contrast (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Author is unknown and could have died less than 70 years ago: PD-old doesn't apply. Pruneau 15:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I uploaded this on the assumption that Gallica files are PD. So far my experience with Gallica has been that whenever this isn't the case, text files are blocked with a warning that they cannot be downloaded for legal reasons, and image files are simply blanked. Mu 20:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Assuming this was a handout photo (it is autographed after all) it very well may have been an anonymous work (when have you ever bought an autographed picture that included the name of the photographer?) and French law presupposes that the name on the work is the intellectual property owner. "Authorship shall belong, unless proved otherwise, to the person or persons under whose name the work has been disclosed." [6]. The person whose name appears on the photo did in fact die more than 70 years ago. -Nard 21:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Gallica only makes PD images available, as Mu says. Yann (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Reopened by Multichill (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Copy from [7]
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=14668563#Image:Eug.C3.A8ne_Gigout_1910.jpg){kind=link}
I am not quite sure what to do about this image. It was kept after a deletion request. 10 minutes later Rama put a no source tag on it. When I reverted and removed the tag, he accused the deletion request of being essentially a popularity contest[8]. Surely this isn't allowed? (Incidentally I think my argument in the deletion discussion was quite clever, even if no one commented on it. French law presumes the author is the person whose name is affixed to the work, so in the case of autographed picture the name affixed to the work is the person in the photo). -Nard the Bard 22:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is quite known that Rama applies rules and procedures as he likes. He lacks the courage to accept his own responsibilities, and would rely on the illusion that there is some bright line behind which they could feel absolutely protected. I reverted him. Yann (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- This image has no author, and it is recent. Therefore, per standing policy, it must be tagged with nsd, as any unsourced image is. Deletion requests about undocumented images are irrelevant, it is not the question.
- I notice that Yann is furthering his pattern of provocative behaviour [9] [10] Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Alain fournier.jpg in his personal crusade against copyright that goes beyond Wikimedia projects and attempts to instrumentalise them. Rama (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- French law presumes the author is the name affixed to the work unless proved otherwise. There is a name affixed to this work. Prove he is not the copyright holder. -Nard the Bard 23:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- And independent from that I do not think that {{No source since}} is appropriate in this case as the source link is provided to Gallica at the Bibliothèque Nationale and the author is simply unknown or, as Nard the Bard has pointed out, Eugène Gigout is technically the copyright holder in this case. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- French law presumes the author is the name affixed to the work unless proved otherwise. There is a name affixed to this work. Prove he is not the copyright holder. -Nard the Bard 23:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Nard the Bard, you are acting in deliberate bad faith, not towards Commons, but towards French law. How could the subject of the photograph be the author, in a photograph of 1910? Rationals are not supposed to be lame excuses, they are to be, you know, true. Your behaviour is reminiscent of the worst of what can be seen with Fair Use in the Wikipedias that autorise it.
- AFBorchert, the nsd template is used to request a source or an author. Here, the author is not given. It is not my fault if the template is named like this.
- Yann, as for "applies rules and procedures as he likes",
- I do not like deleting images. I would like to keep as many images as possible. The problem is the images we cannot keep. I am applying rules as I dislike.
- I am not the one who's been desysoped from his home project for abuse of admin right [11][12], nor have I been unilaterally restoring deleted images uploaded by me on Commons Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Alain fournier.jpg. I refrain from taking decisions about the matters in which I am involved, and I am not furthering an agenda [13]. If you see what I mean.
- This image is part of a general pattern of activism for our acceptance of works of unknown status older simply if older than 70 years, in the framework of a campaign to bend and game copyright laws that goes well beyond Wikimedia projects, and for which Commons is being intrumentalised. For this, people like Yann are willing to deliberately upload undocumented photographs, and fight any questioning of the copyright status of offending images by
- gaming licence templates: for instance, stating simultaneously "the author of the image has been dead for over 70 years" and "author unknown" (!)
- changing nsd tags into delete tags, effectively changing the question from "who is the author of the image" into "hey buddies, do ya wanna keep that picture"; some images are then "voted" for keeping without their status being known even after supposed scrutiny! (the problem is not so much the "popularity contest"; it is that a question is being asked, left unanswered in complete disregard for rules, and people satisfy themselves with that)
- vote for keeping offending images by arguing precedents, kept images then constituting a corpus of images of unknown status that serve as precedents, in a vicious circle.
- What is at stakes, here, is the highjacking of respectable but naive sentiments that we want images by a politically motivated minority. There is a very deliberate and calculated attempt to induce Commons into acting irresponsibly with images between 70 and 170 old. If some people can seriously argue that an author that they do not know has "probably been dead for over 70 years", what stops them from uploading random contemporary images as "probably under a Free licence"? What next, Fair Use on Commons? This nonsensical subversion has to stop. Rama (talk) 07:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- This image is part of a general pattern of activism for our acceptance of works of unknown status older simply if older than 70 years, in the framework of a campaign to bend and game copyright laws that goes well beyond Wikimedia projects, and for which Commons is being intrumentalised. For this, people like Yann are willing to deliberately upload undocumented photographs, and fight any questioning of the copyright status of offending images by
- The French National Library (BNF) has a very strict rule on copyright issues. The BNF doesn't publish anything without mentioning the author if it is known, and without carefully checking the copyright status of a work. So you pretend that you know better than the BNF what is the copyright status of their work? That you know better than the BNF what copyright rules should be apply to this image? You are just making yourself ridiculous.
- The problem is your crusade against orphan images, not mine. The problem is your aggressive behaviour towards almost everybody. Rama, you should restrain yourself to subject you know. Here you don't know what you are talking about. Your attacks against me on completely unrelated subjects do not prove anything.
- You are not even consistent with yourself. There are thousands of orphan works on Commons. Picking a few images here and there won't lead you anywhere. Yann (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Very interesting how the strict policies of Commons about copyright become "[my] crusade against orphan images" in your mouth. Orphan images do not belong on Commons, and that has nothing to with me.
- The so-called "completely unrelated subjects" are an answer to your contention that I "appl[y] rules and procedures as [I] like"; coming from you (sanctioned abuser of sysop rights on fr:, further abusing your sysop rights on Commons), that accusation is especially funny.
- That the BNF be serious about copyright does not warrant tagging an image as "author unknown" and "author dead for over 70 years" simultaneously. It must be possible to verify and check licences and their rational. Putting such incoherent and deceptive rationals prevents these checks, but also shows how you think only in terms of lame excuses and wishful thinking, rather than truth and solid facts. Rama (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
While I generally agree that such recent photos are most problematic if we can't provide evidence for the work being PD (such as unknown author), I think in this particular case we may keep the image. If the Bibliothèque Nationale de France says "Copyright:domaine public", I consider that sufficient, even if I don't know how they determined that. (Click on "Full record" (top-left) here to see that statement.) Like the U.S. Library of Congress, I consider the BNF a reliable source. If they say the image was PD in France, I won't second-guess them. (And since the image was published in 1900, it's also PD in the U.S.) Lupo 09:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that might be a case of "anonymous" author where we could not decide that the work is public domain, but where we could shelter ourselves behind the fact that the BNF says so ("so sue them"). I would be agreed with that, but with three caveat:
- 1) the image must be properly documented to reflect the actual reason that makes us keep it. "The author, whom we do not know, is dead for over 70 years" is pure non-sense. We should have a PD-because or PD-BNF template for such cases
- 2) there are cases where an institution similar to the BNF will tag as Public Domain works that clearly cannot be public domain. I am thinking of if the photographs of the Scharnhorst. The present case is not akin, but critical distance must be kept.
- 3) images kept for this sort of reason must not be used as excuses to keep about anything. That joins point 1).
- And in general, the state of mind must be to find the actual copyright status of the images, not make up lame excuses. Rama (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree about the BNF. Their digitization people are very concerned about copyright and I think we can rely on them. I've been in meetings with some of these people and they kept emphasizing their conservative approach to copyright issues. This is in contrast to some of the Eastern-European national libraries. One digitization guy from there told me that the unofficial slogan of his department was: "We break the law, for your convenience" :) Haukurth (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
End of copy Multichill (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep under the condition that a template be made about the BNF, and the ridiculous "author-unknown-yet-dead-for-over-70-years" rational be killed with fire (and hopefully never seen ever again on any image). Else, Delete. Rama (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Do you want to keep or to delete it? You should really stop your dRama, it is just ridiculous. Yann (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I want to keep images. And to keep images, we must have proper sources and rationals. "Author unknown but, hey, I still can guarantee that he died over 70 years ago" is not a proper rational. That the BNF took upon itself to label that file "public domain" might be a proper rational, but it must be stated as such precisely; else, people like you will use this file as a precedent for littering Commons with undocumented images, as you have repeatedly stated is your intention. Rama (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Where did I say that? Bigger the lie, better it is. Can you STOP it now! Yann (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I want to keep images. And to keep images, we must have proper sources and rationals. "Author unknown but, hey, I still can guarantee that he died over 70 years ago" is not a proper rational. That the BNF took upon itself to label that file "public domain" might be a proper rational, but it must be stated as such precisely; else, people like you will use this file as a precedent for littering Commons with undocumented images, as you have repeatedly stated is your intention. Rama (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Abuse of French law? I want you to retract that. You have said, and I quote "According to law X (paragraph X1, section X2) of country Y, works which fulfill condition Z are considered to be anonymous. Since this work was publisher over 70 years ago, since it fulfills condition Z, and since country Y exercises a copyright term of 70 years after the work was made available to the public if the author never disclosed his identity, this work is now in the public domain". Now either fill in X, Y and Z, or delete this image. But stop the wishful thinking and petty accumulation of irrelevant personal appreciations. Rama (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Konigstein81.jpg What does this mean? Huh? It means find out what the relevant law regarding presumption of authorship and anonymity and apply it. Ok buster. I found the law. French law presumes the name signed on the work is the author. PERIOD. There is a name signed on this work. That legally makes him the author under French law. French law further says that this is the presumed author "unless proven otherwise". So now you who want to delete this, prove the signature on the image does not belong to the owner of copyright. Go ahead, prove it. -Nard the Bard 18:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please give the exact reference to that law you claim you have found? Title, article, etc. The first thing is for you to prove that this law of your does exist and that you have understood it properly -- and by the look of it, I am not convinced. Rama (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Article L113-1 [19]. -Nard the Bard 18:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Funny, I was almost wondering whether you were actually talking about this article. Of course, it doesn't say anything like what you said.
- "La qualité d'auteur appartient, sauf preuve contraire, à celui ou à ceux sous le nom de qui l'oeuvre est divulguée." (article L113-1 du code de la propriété intellectuelle)
- That does not say that you can take a portrait, read its caption and decide that it is automatically a self-portrait. Rama (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Article L113-1 [19]. -Nard the Bard 18:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please give the exact reference to that law you claim you have found? Title, article, etc. The first thing is for you to prove that this law of your does exist and that you have understood it properly -- and by the look of it, I am not convinced. Rama (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Everyone take a deep breath; let's focus on the image rather than on your dislike of each other. I don't know about the law that Nard is citing (I'm guessing it was designed for paintings; I find it strange that it would apply to photographs too, but that wouldn't be the first time French law is strange). However, I'm more than happy to trust the BNF with this issue: they know their stuff and they are careful about copyright. I've created {{PD-BNF}}, which needs editing but could be used in cases like this, where the BNF has done the checking. Keep Pruneautalk 18:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I will gladly support keeping the file with this template. Rama (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I like the template but I worry it may lead to linking to the actual image URL rather than the information page. -Nard the Bard 18:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've altered the template so that it's (hopefully) clearer that the information page should be included. If you can think of a better wording, go ahead. Pruneautalk 21:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I like the template but I worry it may lead to linking to the actual image URL rather than the information page. -Nard the Bard 18:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I will gladly support keeping the file with this template. Rama (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. There seems to be a consensus about considering BNF as a good enough source to believe something is in the public domain; thank you Pruneau for the template. Rama and Yann: you will keep your tone mellow in future discussions; ad hominem arguments as you have both done on this page are unacceptable. Please set the example, you are both adults and experienced users. Patrícia msg 16:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
If not PD-old, probably copyvio. Sdrtirs (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dodo (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Dervied design - Flagged as WP:PUI on English Wikipedia. --Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC) {{PD-BulgarianGov}}
Deleted. No source (apart from "Wikipedia"), and no evidence that the design is PD anyway. The tag appears to be wrong.MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
