Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/09/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Totally non-notable person. The picture was used for a nn biography on the English Wiki. De728631 (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC) --De728631 (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Update: the only achievement of Quinton Butler, according to the re-created Wiki article, was creating a new menu for a local eatery. Just for the record. De728631 (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is clearly copyrighted to either RCUV or Oxfam. No evidence that it has a Creative Commons license, or that any permission was given to use it. Moreover, the image, for use on Wikipedia, clearly violates WP:NPOV, its most basic policy. -- Ynhockey (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete It's a duplicate. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, per both. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Deprecated and contains a typo. Universally replaced by Image:Banner Wikipedia silverH.jpg. -Nard the Bard 02:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kimsə (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work? Interestingly, this {{Tobacco logos}} tag is used here which is supposedly should be used with sports images. Kimsə (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted.as obvious copyvio MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Photo which doesn't have the consent of the people in the photograph --Altt311 (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- COM:PEOPLE#Avoiding_problems either says this photograph is acceptable (the faces appear blurred), and isn't (see filename and description). In such a case, I would delete it. Diti (talk to the penguin) 10:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF as attack image. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Photo which doesn't have the consent of the person in the photograph --Altt311 (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image is outside scope. Consent doesn't matter too much since the photo isn't compromising. -Nard the Bard 11:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this image fits te wikimedia commons scope Sterkebaktalk 08:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Personal art of no educational value. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the rights of the images lies by Sea Island Golf Club not bij the flickr account Sterkebaktalk 08:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete To see the full-resolution version of this picture, it's clearly a copyrighted artwork, as it has probably been scanned from some photo belonging to the golf club. Diti (talk to the penguin) 09:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of a copyrighted book cover -- the uploader might be the "author" of the scan, but it does not mean the work is free. --83.208.98.34 08:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Speedy deleted MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Not free enough: use is only allowed for encyclopedic information. Pruneautalk 09:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work composed of many copyrighted book covers. I am not sure this allowed on Commons, so hopefully this discussion will give me the answer. le Korrigan →bla 10:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No, definitely not. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete To the best of my knowledge, scans of first covers from books can only be used thanks to the fair use act, and its usage is restricted. There, we can't allow this picture because Commons doesn't allow this kind of work, hence this vote.
Diti (talk to the penguin) 23:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC) - Delete None of them look old enough to be PD. Zginder (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Эlcobbola talk 02:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but you cannot take a screenshot from your favorite anime and make it GFDL. I call it COPYVIO. -Nard the Bard 11:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio Herby talk thyme 12:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Derivative of es:Axcido. -Nard the Bard 11:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Does this image actually have permission? -Nard the Bard 11:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot from UFC 84 TV broadcast 84.202.164.198 13:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete bullshit --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot from TV broadcast 84.202.164.198 13:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete bullshit. --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Screenshot from TV broadcast 84.202.164.198 13:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete bullshit. --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
FALSE. Uploader is spammer, this "actress" does not exist. Possibly copyright violation Yanguas (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete no license given. --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Probable copyright violation. Yann (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Out of scope. Article on this person has been removed from fr:WP for lack of fame. Pymouss Tchatcher - 15:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Look like a copyvio used for spam, imho... --- Zil (d) 18:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete indeed. --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
screengarab, no free license for the programm provided abf /talk to me/ 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Was soll der Quatsch? Was ist daran bitte geschützt? Kann aber meinetwegen weg. --Marcela (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really understand why the speedy delete tag was removed. It's a fully copyrighted image as far as I can tell. J.smith (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is nothing, what can be copyrightet? --Marcela (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- The text? J.smith (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- The text is too short and doesn´t reach the threshold of originality. Chaddy (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- The text? J.smith (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is nothing, what can be copyrightet? --Marcela (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, there is nothing copyrightable in this image. This is a short technical virus warning text (in German), containing no signs of individual expression resp. authorship; even in the USA where the bar is very low it wouldn't be enough for copyright protection, I think (see en:Threshold of originality). Gestumblindi (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- ACK strongkeep Who the hell can seriously claim copyright protection in any country for this? --Historiograf (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
No link given to corect image. Further, all the images in photostream linked to are all rights reserved. -Nard the Bard 20:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - possible Flickrvio Sterkebaktalk 20:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Low resolution image likely to be copyvio. -Nard the Bard 20:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- updated with high resolution-Jayantanth (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- ...so you uploaded a different copyvio instead that still looks scanned. Bah. -Nard the Bard 10:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete both images probaply copyvios --Tomia (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photo taken 1960. No evidence for pd-old. -Nard the Bard 20:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Clearly the photo is still in copyright. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
It's still a copyvio screenshot of a copyrighted news program even if someone's head is in front of it. --Superm401 - Talk 21:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The genus name is misspelled, the correct is Honckenya. The gallery only contains images of Honckenya peploides. I have therefore copied the two images to that gallery and also categorized the images to Category:Honckenya peploides (they were previously uncategorized). -- Slaunger (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment I hope I have done everything right. It is my first deletion request after +5000 edits ;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Very close indeed! The only remaining thing was to empty the incorrect gallery (galleries in use are generally not deleted). MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
private image of low quality, unused, not in scope of Commons Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 00:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
private image of low quality, unused, not in scope of Commons Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
On German Wikipedia (de:Bild:Annasteinhardt.png) the uploader is Frank Steinhardt. I doubt own work, DÜP on German Wikipedia will ask for permission and then post the results here. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Permission is now available. →Christian.И 18:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Most likely TV screenshot EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Although not impossible, it is not likely that the uploader made this picture himself, and being from 1948 it can therefor not be in de public domain. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative of deleted Image:1000 n a.JPG. No valid license. -Nard the Bard 20:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
derivative work --MB-one (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copied from a website; link not working so licence can't be verified. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
duplicate file --Leaflet (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No duplicate specified. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Images of Viaduc de Millau
[edit]- File:MillauViaductServices8358.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:FR-12-Viaduc de Millau.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:FR-12-Viaduc de Millau1.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Le viaduc de Millau vu de l'aire d'observation du viaduc - The Millau Viaduct - View from the viewing area on the northern side.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Millau Viaduct.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MillauBridge.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Pont de Millau.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Millau7663.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Millau333.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:A75 Approche Viaduc.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:VdM 08 2006.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Viaduc de Millau (march 2008).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Viaduc de Millau August2005 Fahrbahnhoehe.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Viaduc de Millau Detail.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Viaduc de Millau FR (march 2008).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Viaduc de Millau sous les nuages.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Viaduc de Millau.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Viaduc de millau autocar.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Viaduc de millau depuis aire.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Viaduc millau 2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Viaduc millau 3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Viaduct de Millau.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
(Edit: Images that were not listed in this DR but are also concerned.) Esby (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- File:Viaduc de Millau-1.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Viaduc de Millau-2.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
(Edit Note: The following images seems to be covered by exceptions to the copyright (the viaduc in itself not necessarily being the main subject.) Esby (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- File:Foster viaduc de millau.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) now available at de:Bild:Foster Viaduc de millau.jpg
- File:Viaduc de Millau 2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Viaduc-de-millau46.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Wiadukt Millau.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:ViaducdeMillau.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) now available at de:Bild:ViaducDeMillau.jpg
Those images could be possibly kept under Template:FoP-France. ( Esby (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC) )
debate
[edit]There is no Freedom of Panorama in France. The architect Norman Foster is still alive and thus his work copyrighted. In the listed images the bridge is "the main represented or handled subject". Therefore these images are derivative works and must be deleted. We had a similar mass deletion request regarding that topic already. --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Two of the above images are mine- please feel free to delete them in accordance with French law. However, do not delete the category as it contains a subcategory Category:Aire du Viaduc de Millau that would be orphaned. In this case, would a letter to Norman Foster be appropriate to ask him to permit the derivatives, which only glorify his achievement. A letter to the worlds greatest architect from the worlds greatest encyclopedia? Foster and Partners must be aware of, and approve of the photos by OT-Millau in the Aveyron Tourist Literature. A warning should be posted on the Category:Viaduc de Millau. Would you give your opinion on this display board-Image:Millau7641.JPG I feel it is borderline but maybe it is falls on the wrong side! ClemRutter (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Uhh, don't viaducts have utilitarian functions? ViperSnake151 (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Commons:applied art. Utiilitarian functionality trumps art. -Nard the Bard 22:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Bad excuse. Same argument applies for every building. Nevertheless architecture is copyrighted, you wouldn't question this?! --Ikiwaner (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Bizarre, frankly. I'm sure public works of art are copyrighted too but that doesn't extend to photos modern monuments (or buildings) in Paris. How can a bridge be copyrighted anyway? Surely only building a copy of that bridge would infringe copyright - it isn't a logo. Sarah777 (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Concerning buildings, case law (CA Riom, 26 mai 1967) recognizes two criteria for originality: "a definite artistic character" («un caractère artistique certain») and the fact that it does not belong to a series. First criterium does not apply, viaduc Millau has not "a definite artistic character". Moreover - it is an infrastructural instalation, not an artistic building. Keep all pictures. Julo (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is pov to find or not "artistic character" to the Viaduc of Millau. Norman Foster has reselled exclusive right to commercialize the image of the Viaduc to Eiffage Company. Eiffage is doing business with the image (Post card, Pictures...) IMHO, we are not in position to go to court to validate if the viaduc has or not "artistic character". - Zil (d) 21:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Really strange. It's a cable-stayed bridge like many, many others, only a bit taller ... But it seems we have to delete the pictures. Or should we ask Eiffage company, if we can keep the pictures? Mike Switzerland (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're right. In my opinion, there is not that much artistic value in this bridge... But, if you read this article in French, it is stated that Eiffage start to do legal process to remove non-authorized pictures... If it has been to court, we would have a clear statement about the artistic value of the bridge. But we don't have it. - Zil (d) 10:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- It can be good idea to ask Eiffage, if we would get an acceptation for one or two pictures... Dont fight for twenty (or 27), if we could have a hope and chance for two. Julo (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- A chance would mean allowing fair use for the photographs, that would mean that Commons can't host the images but that the local wikis might be able to host these thanks to the fairuse exceptions (either fairuse for en or fairuse architest for fr)... (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC) [edited 09:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)]
- It can be good idea to ask Eiffage, if we would get an acceptation for one or two pictures... Dont fight for twenty (or 27), if we could have a hope and chance for two. Julo (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're right. In my opinion, there is not that much artistic value in this bridge... But, if you read this article in French, it is stated that Eiffage start to do legal process to remove non-authorized pictures... If it has been to court, we would have a clear statement about the artistic value of the bridge. But we don't have it. - Zil (d) 10:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Really strange. It's a cable-stayed bridge like many, many others, only a bit taller ... But it seems we have to delete the pictures. Or should we ask Eiffage company, if we can keep the pictures? Mike Switzerland (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, let us not act ridiculous.
- Keep. We need free images, but I think this is a sort of copyright paranoia. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- This ain't paranoia but the the french law. Architect works are protected by french copyright law (author's right). For the same reason, we can't host most of the images of the BNF, which need deletions regulary. The utilitary argument is nice but not likely going to work as buildings have an utilitary aspect and are still copyrighted. To me, the difference is that you are allowed to take a photograph of the viaduc of Millau to illustrate an exemple of a cable-stayed bridge, but if you are depicting the viaduc for its unicity (placement, impact on the landscape, highest of Europe), refering it as 'the Viaduc of Millau' then the utilitary argument stops working. Esby (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, (for the reasons I invoked earlier.) Esby (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, this request is ridiculous.--Parpan (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unless we get a permission from the architect. /Lokal_Profil 11:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
proposal to change the guidelines
[edit]I see no chance to keep the images under the current guidelines. But why not change them and let Commons ignore french law? At least for the cases where the author of the image is a citizen of a country which knows freedom of panorama? As our servers stay in the US i can't see a danger here. OK there is Wikimedia France but they are not responsible for servers and content so it might be useless for Eiffage to sue them. --Ikiwaner (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- For that to work, technically speaking, that would need to forbid the content violating the french law to french users. Esby (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- ...or to use a general rule: The image must be free in the country where the server stays AND in the current country of residence of the image's author. But not necessarily in all other countries... --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- No,(a more longer answer) the french law is applyable on the american servers if the content distributed is illegal in France. The same goes for nazi symbols being hosted to german ips. Esby (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- ...or to use a general rule: The image must be free in the country where the server stays AND in the current country of residence of the image's author. But not necessarily in all other countries... --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean ignore the en:Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works ? Teofilo (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There is freedom of panorama in France. Only problem the Louvre pyramide. Traumrune (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC) If it were not allowed to photograph it they would have asked for delation but the pictures are in the article fr:Viaduc de Millau. Traumrune (talk)
- There is no Freedom of Panorama in France Check COM:FOP#France ... The Louvre pyramide is the perfect example. The BNF buildings are another one. The Eiffel tower by night (lighting) another one... The Montparnasse tower might be the same...Esby (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- If we are going to start ignoring national laws then why not just pay to have the servers moved to Sealand and then ignore all of the laws. Jokes aside we cannot just pick and mix between the laws that we choose to follow either we follow only US laws (in which case we should rename ourselves en.wiki) or we go for source country and US. /Lokal_Profil 11:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- There is no Freedom of Panorama in France Check COM:FOP#France ... The Louvre pyramide is the perfect example. The BNF buildings are another one. The Eiffel tower by night (lighting) another one... The Montparnasse tower might be the same...Esby (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The servers of the German Wikipedia are also located in Florida, and the Wikipedia accepts French copyrighted buildings. If a Polish creator (Poland has FOP) goes for a French court (France: no FOP) because Commons shows his sculpture erected in Germany (Germany: FOP) he will win the case. In the European Union all creators have the right that they are treated in a foreign country (if its belongs to the European Union) like the national citizen. If the Server argument would count the clear consequence must be No FOP in Europe.
Polling isn't evil. Let us fight for a free Commons and change guidelines that FOP is accepted on Commons worldwide --Historiograf (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- How does that make Commons more free? Surely it makes it less free if osme of the images aren't even free in their source country. If you wan't to strike a blow for freedom then convince the french government to adopt FOP. /Lokal_Profil 16:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Freedom starts in your mind. The images are free in 95% of the countries worldwide including the authors and the servers location. So let's consider them free. Google does the same [1]. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hosting illegal images does not make them Free. If something is protected by copyright law, then you can't release a free image of it. Releasing an image to any licence when you don't have the rights to perform this action is not the proper way to do things... Esby (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Your comment includes several mistakes: If something is protected ... The question here is where it is protected. You'll always find a place on earth where the things you like to do are forbidden. If you take those places as a benchmark you are the most unfree person that is possible. ...when you don't have the rights to perform this action ... You take the easy way out here. Where do you know that I don't have a right to publish a picture of this bridge e.g. in Germany or Switzerland? --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Read the Berne convention? What does me being an unfree person has to do with the discussion? Commons is supposed to host medias that are under a free licence. Here, the entity known as Eiffage is claiming copyright for this bridge, so technically the images are not free. (Like for characters coming from an anime are not free even when they are fanart.) Of course, there is a very low risk to host those images, but since commons can only host free materials, the images can't be here. Now Of course, if you manage to move the bridge to Germany or any place in where FOP does exist, you'll be able to photography it and publish these photographs under a free licence. Esby (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- lol! The fact that somebody claims a copyright in whatever country doesn't mean they have one! --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Still that does not make the image free. I doubt you will warrant any user that the image is free while Eiffage is filling legal action against the ones who tries to make any commercial usage with it. I guess you could say the Image is free for non commercial usage, but again, that would go against Commons guidelines. Esby (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- lol! The fact that somebody claims a copyright in whatever country doesn't mean they have one! --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- There is a difference between the image Image:Wiadukt Millau.jpg showing a landscape with an ordinary bridge and Image:Viaduc de Millau August2005 Fahrbahnhoehe.JPG with a detail. And look at the picture Image:FR-12-Viaduc de Millau1.JPG without this title it could be anywhere in the world. I think there was a judgement lately concerning the outside of a house in France build by an architect and the pictures were alowed. But I can't find it. Traumrune (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well in your example, the bridge could be considered as de minimis, still it is limit, the bridge can still be considered as the main subject. For the judgement, I think you are mixing two cases, The 'Place des Terreaux' one, which allow to make photographs with copyrighted content if they are not the main subject of the photograph, and a case about an house where the inhabitants could not forbid the commercial use of the photo of their house. Please note that the second case is different, inhabitants of an house don't get any copyrgiht related to the house they inhabit, only the architect that build it, if there is one get it. About the bridge focus photograph, I don't know. Esby (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
move the images to your local Wikipedias!
[edit]It looks like just a minority supports my suggestion to change the guidelines so the pictures risk being deleted. You forget that my suggestion is already the well established current guideline in some Wikipedias like de.wikipedia. See the guidelines here and here.
That's why I moved two of the best images to German Wikipedia and added the {{NoCommons}} tag. Feel free to do so for the rest of the images. I'd be glad to hear which other wikipedias also accept the pictures. --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- fr does accept fair use for architect works... - Zil (d) 20:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I did sign under IP, it was me not on my main PC. forgot to check my signature.
- It looks like it's one of the best solution we can find. (The best would be Eiffage allowing those image usage, but I somehow doubt they will). I never forgot that your suggestion is used on other wikis (at least, on 'en', on 'de' also, and partially on 'fr'), but still Commons was created as a free image repositery. If you suggest that Commons should ignore the laws and such, you are sure to fail in supporting any guidelines changes. The best technical compromise would be to accept fair use on Commons under some condition, still it would go against the spirit under which Commons was created. Esby (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Even the French Wikipedia's guidelines allow the images! Looks like we are trying to be more Catholic than the Pope on Commons. I can live with the fair use clause but right now I do not see the difference between fair use and my suggestion to ignore the French FOP paragraph. --Ikiwaner (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Simple: fair use is legal; ignoring the law is not. Rama (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not simple at all: Fair use is a term of US copyright which does not exist in French copyright law. What would the application of US fair use mean in our case? License the pictures under GFDL and putting a tag below "you may not reuse the image in France"? Or making a "for encyclopedias only" license which applies worldwide? --Ikiwaner (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- To answer your question here, neither of the two, "Fair use" does not allow to use a gfdl licence. It is used when you can't use gfdl or any other free licence because of the derivative work issue. "Fair Use" supposes the image can be reused under "Fair Use" (and not under a free licence). For this case, I think Eiffage would not care about non-commercial usage, now they'll probably sue anyone who tries to make a commercial usage without making an agreement with them. Technically the images that are hosted on fr under 'Fair Use architect" are usually photographs for which nobody is claiming their copyright publically. To be totally safe, there should be OTRS tickets allowing the usage on Wikipedia. Also technically, If I remember well fair use is only valid for small resolution and such now I ain't a specialist about "Fair Use". Esby (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not simple at all: Fair use is a term of US copyright which does not exist in French copyright law. What would the application of US fair use mean in our case? License the pictures under GFDL and putting a tag below "you may not reuse the image in France"? Or making a "for encyclopedias only" license which applies worldwide? --Ikiwaner (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep them on commons, according to Historiograf Mutter Erde (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Commons accepts only media which are free in the US and country of origin. The image is not free in its country of origin, thus we delete it. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - No FOP is ridiculous, but happens to be the law in France.... Multichill (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because this is picture of the Millau valley. You can't take any pictures of the valley anymore without the bridge occupant the scenery! Use:
|
Copyright warning: A subject in this image is protected by copyright.
This image features an architectural or artistic work, photographed from a public space in France. There are limited Freedom of Panorama exemptions in France, which means that they cannot be photographed freely for anything other than non-commercial purposes. However, French jurisprudence states that no infringement is constituted when the work is an "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject". If a copyrighted architectural or artistic work is contained in this image and it is a substantial reproduction, this photo cannot be licensed under a free license, and will be deleted. Framing this image to focus on the copyrighted work is also a copyright violation. Before reusing this content, ensure that you have the right to do so. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's copyrights. See our general disclaimer for more information. |
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Hogne (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- This would be true if you were photographying the valley and not the Bridge, now I'd agree that a few pictures could be kept under this argument. (I think there are one full panorama of the valley in this DR.) Esby (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, compare this to this . Can't you just remove the deletion tag on the pictures with the bridge covering less than 50 % of the scenery? For pictures like this the French law seems to apply, I must sadly admit. :=( Hogne (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep These pictures are indeed copyrighted, but not for the reasons done above (such as the non freedom of panorama!!), and the holder of these rights is not Norman Foster, the architect, but "la Compagnie Eiffage" (in association with Norman Foster), the firm which built this bridge. In fact these pictures can be used freely for any action of promoting of the bridge or the region or about the bridges. But it can't be used in a commercial use such as in a book. All details of these rights are here. In the case of Wikipedia, I think that the pictures can be used in an article as soon as the mention “© Compagnie Eiffage du Viaduc de Millau – Foster and partners – name of photograph” is writen in the description in Commons and if there is a link towards this site and this contract on which al users can have a sight on the conditions of use.Roulex 45 (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sadly, the invoked restriction would make the images out of common scope, (We don't allow images on Commons only for non commercial usage - The best solution might be still to move the image to the common wikis (or delete them if nobody move them before a given date.) Esby (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC) PS: I took the liberty of putting the {keep} at the same level like the others ones.
- All depends on the main purpose followed in Commons : is it to make an encyclopedia well illustrated or is it to distribute pictures for all usages, included commercial uses? I think that in that case we could have an evolution of the rule, written in the marble, which says that pictures have to be usable for commercial uses. We could have pictures with the mention of copyright clearly written. I precise that one year ago I had called the director of public relations of The Compagnie Eiffage and had exposed the problem. The answer (oral, not written), was that there was no problem as soon as there was no commercial use, and that all was precised in the contract of copyrighting. If the pictures of the Millau viaduct in Commons had been a problem, we should have had already a letter demanding to keep them off WP.Roulex 45 (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete To reply to the discussion right above, hosting pictures —but with a non-commercial clause— is exactly the same as uploading them to local Wikipedia, since, (for all photos I presume?) they were taken by a French photograph, the French law thus apply to them. It says that FOP can't be invoked. →Diti the penguin — 17:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Further comments
[edit]I commented earlier, but the debate has moved on and I feel justified to make a few further comments.
- All photographers are French. No I have two images and hold hold a British Passport, other contributers originally posted on nl:wikipedia so I assume are Dutch/Vlaams.
- Each image must be considered individually.
- Moving the image to a local wikipedia and display under fair use- having done that for some image on :en:wiki- each would require a fair use statement and fulfill 10 conditions- one being that the photo could not be replicated, and the second to prove it was actually used on a en:wiki main space page where it was integral to the article. Hardly possible.
- French case law makes an exception that I believe that many of these images pass- but many don't. This is the test.
- Case law traditionally admits an exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (CA Paris, 27 octobre 1992, Antenne 2 c/ société Spadem, « la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité »). Thus, ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of arts installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza:
- Because the Court has noticed that, as it was shown in the incriminated images, the works of Mr X... and Z... blended into the architectural ensemble of the Terreaux plaza, of which it was a mere element, the appeals court correctly deduced that this presentation of the litigious work was accessory to the topic depicted, which was the representation of the plaza, so that the image did not constitute a communication of the litigious work to the public
- Case law states that the said artwork must not be intentionally included as an element of the setting: its presence in the picture must be unavoidable (CA Versailles, 26 janvier 1998, Sté Movie box c/ Spadem et a.):
- Can be considered as an illicit representation of a statue by Maillol, the broadcasting of a commercial in which it appears, as it was not included in a film sequence shot in a natural setting—which would explain the brief, and non-essential to the main subject, appearance of the sculpture, which is set in the Tuileries gardens—but used as an element of the setting (« Constitue une représentation illicite d'une statue de Maillol la diffusion d'un film publicitaire dans laquelle elle figure, alors qu'elle a été utilisée, non pas dans une séquence tournée en décor naturel, ce qui justifierait une apparition fugace de la sculpture, placée dans le jardin des Tuileries, totalement accessoire au sujet traité, mais comme un élément du décor. »).
- Put together it seems that it is legitimate to include the viaduct in an image, if the main subject couldn't be taken without including the viaduct.
- If this test can be met it seem prudent to {{FoP-France}}, otherwise French law is clear. What is not clear to me is how we apply this law, in a manner that is consistent with French custom and practice- which is very different and less absolute that the Dutch/Anglo Saxon/ Nordic manner.
Deleted. Per COM:FOP#France, the policy did not change. Some images were agued to be de minimis, but I think it doesn't apply because the viaduc forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, and the photograph was taken deliberately to include the viaduc. –Tryphon☂ 21:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The degree is copyrighted by the school not the graduate. It does not matter if the graduate licenses it, because he does not own the CR. Zginder (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh come on. So-and-so presents a degree in blah to foo. It's fill in the blank, generic, and therefore not artistically inspired, which makes it not a protected product of the mind. -Nard the Bard 03:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- The signature and arrangement used are copyrightable and therefore should be deleted, it could be used under fair use, but that is not allowed in Commons. Zginder (talk)!
- I think the same as Nard the Bard. Gveret Tered (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- The signature and arrangement used are copyrightable and therefore should be deleted, it could be used under fair use, but that is not allowed in Commons. Zginder (talk)!
Signature and arrangement are Not copyrightable. Keep --FrobenChristoph (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The exact words written on it could be copyrighted, but I do not know for sure. Zginder (talk)
- The arrangement of the certificate, the seal at the bottom, the boarder, the choice of typeface and the unique signature are all indivisibly not copyrightable, but together they show a creative arrangement. Bland =/= public domain. J.smith (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I amend my comments with this note... unless you can find a court case ruling that certificates, awards or diplomas are not copyrightable, we gotta assume they are. Or... if you can show that this diploma template has been used since before 1928, then it would make it likely PD. J.smith (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- No bland DOES equal public domain in this case. Please read the copyright office circular[2] on this. -Nard the Bard 10:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting... I stand corrected then. J.smith (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- The seal on the bottom is copyrighted and is used only under fair use on enwikipedia wikipedia:Image:Lewis_and_clark_college_seal.gif. Zginder (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- True. It appears to have been designed 1992. -Nard the Bard 01:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- "The arrangement of the certificate, [...], the boarder, the choice of typeface and the unique signature are all indivisibly not copyrightable, but together they show a creative arrangement." Delete. Geraki TLG 11:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- The arrangement of the certificate, the seal at the bottom, the boarder, the choice of typeface and the unique signature are all indivisibly not copyrightable, but together they show a creative arrangement. Disagree with that. That seems to fly in the face of U.S. Copyright Office guidelines (the arrangement of type on a printed page cannot support a copyright claim). Typeface as typeface is also uncopyrightable. The only thing which may qualify is the seal, if you think it is more then de minimis. Otherwise, the elements you are talking about are more in the realm of "trade dress", which is not a copyright issue (and almost certainly would not apply here either, since that is not a widely-recognized style). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete image doesn't add anything to the article anyway. --86.144.170.57 18:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- If a degree can be copyrightable, then how can graduates present their degrees or photocopies of them to employers and other universities when they ask for evidence of education? Most universities ask for photocopies or even originals of prior degrees, and the same request is made by many employers. But if a degree can be copyrightable, then the student is not allowed to photocopy their degree and give the copy to another school or an employer, or no? Because photocopying degrees is very widespread, I assume that if degrees are copyrightable then there must be some form of licence associated with them. But I have never seen a university giving a degree together with a licence. But if the degree is copyroghtable and there is no licence, then no one could present their degrees to universities and employers. Because this happens, I believe that degrees are probably not copyrightable. Furthermore, I think the purpose of copyright is to secure the income of artists etc, and universities are not in the business of selling degrees (they sell education, not papers, the paper is just a record), so copyrighting degrees wouldn't help a university increase their income so there is no point in copyrighting degrees, so I believe that most probably degrees cannot be copyrighted. But of course it would be much better to ask someone who really knows about this stuff, and if there is some problem with it then obviously it should be taken care of. However, I would be very surprised if someone could prove that a degree can really be copyrighted, although you never can know with the current copyright laws... NSK Nikolaos S. Karastathis (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comments: User NSK, even if it were copyrighted, students could likely still copy it as that would likely be an easy fair use defense: that is using it in this manner would not affect the school's marketplace for it and it is basically a non-commercial use (i.e. the student is not selling the copy). So two of the four main factors for fair use go in favor of the student. And if not fair use, the student could likely claim an implied license and win there (I paid you $100,000 for my diploma so I think its implied I can make a copy to get a job). Or even more to the point, even if it is copyright infringement it is highly unlikely the school is going to do anything. Since it is highly unlikely they registered the work, they can't even sue until they register (assuming they are a US author). And damages would likely be minimal. So the school would gain little, and lose a lot in the PR world if it is suing its alumni (the people who help increase the endowment). Would you want to go to a school who says you can't make a copy of your diploma so you can get a job and pay off the student loans and hopefully make a donation to the school? As to the purpose of copyright in the US, that is to To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. As to there not being a point in copyrighting something, thus there is no copyright? There's no point in copyrighting my 6th grade research paper as I seriously doubt anyone would care to infringe on the copyright. But that doesn't mean it isn't protected by copyright. And by the way folks selection and arrangement are copyrightable, but in this particular case and much like Feist, the task tends to control the arrangement and not originality. Plus its also likely the college copied the layout from other colleges, and thus I'm sure the original layout was created well before 1923, thus PD. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Even assuming the diploma itself is copyrighted, which is a questionable proposition at best, it more than easily meets the test for fair use both under United States law and per standard Wikipedia guidelines. 72.192.255.128 07:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept per Carl Lindberg. The seal is unimportant-enough to qualify as COM:DM IMO. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Duplicate of Image:Atombombe Sicherheitsmechanismen.png. Uploader requested deletion on Help Desk. -Nard the Bard 20:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete confirmed. --ZaDema (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep it looks more readable than Image:Atombombe Sicherheitsmechanismen.png (maybe that's why it was uploaded, the size is a little bit bigger -> the guy rewrote the captions). I would say better to delete Image:Atombombe Sicherheitsmechanismen.png then. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 20:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of time magazine (Although it would be easy to re-create freely). Notice the small print AOL keyword text in upper right corner. -Nard the Bard 22:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep if modified. I don't think there is enough left to qualify as a derivative work in the copyright sense (short phrases, names and titles are not copyrightable). But, the small upper-right text should be removed, certainly -- there could be trademark concerns with that (as in, this image may violate trademark itself, as it may imply it is a product of those companies). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep or transwiki to English Wikipedia. Modify if necessary but I don't think modification is necessary. Disclaimer: I am not a copyright lawyer. Davidwr (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Move to close this very stale discussion. Open it anew if necessary. Davidwr (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. TM concerns are not of relevance to us.MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
This image is a combination of previously deleted Image:Pluto.jpg (deletion request) and [3] which is credited to individuals and not NASA. (Please note: Many images appearing on NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day are not NASA works.) As neither portion of this derivative work is PD-NASA, the resulting combination certainly isn't. Dragons flight (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work? The same uploader:
- File:Warning on the French Cigarettes Pack.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Italian Pack.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Latvian Pack.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:A Pack from the Netherlands.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Luckies portugal.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Cigarettes Pack from South Korea.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Turkishcigpack.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Cig.packet.750pix.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Kimsə (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not so obvious. I think more than a few of these qualify as pd-textlogo. -Nard the Bard 11:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, keep Image:Cig.packet.750pix.jpg for sure, the logo is basic, and the warning labels contain only fact (which is not original enough). ViperSnake151 (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept only those who are only letters/basic design, deleted the others as derivative works - Badseed talk 00:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence on the image description that the author was a NASA employee. Hence this does not appear to be a PD-NASA image. Also note that the "source" HTML link gives a 404 error. Dragons flight (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- The source page moved to SWRI [4]; alternatively, it's still available via archive.org [5]. Not PD-NASA. Source page does have a vague license of "Feel free to use these images as you like". If someone wants to save this (it's used on numerous projects), they could perhaps get a proper permission statement from Buie for OTRS. --dave pape (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Free use with proper credit. I don't see why we need permission, it's already been given. We just need the proper copyleft or whatever license to credit Buie. Kwamikagami (talk) 09:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's probably okay, but the problem with vague statements like "feel free to use it" is that it's not clear that the person has really thought through what they're saying, especially whether they're okay with someone using their work commercially. I don't think we have a hard & fast rule, but other images have been deleted in the past for similarly informal licenses. That's why I recommend OTRS - with that, we can get a clearer affirmation that everything is kosher. --dave pape (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter whether or not it's PD-NASA. Don't delete it. It's a good picture. Whether or not it's PD-NASA is a whole different discussion than whether or not we should delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.11.175 (talk • contribs)
- If it's not PD-NASA it must have permission. The one on the website isn't explicit enough; it must allow commercial use and modification. People interested in keeping this picture here should contact the author and follow the OTRS procedure. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Insufficient permission statement, does not explicitly allow commercial use and modification. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Logo of the African Union.svg
