Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/09/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unused; cropped from a superseeded png image;this image itself is superseeded Officer781 (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete - As said above, unused and there is a better version available. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep We do not delete superseded images. Unused is also not a deletion reason. See Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)- Keep per the fact that deleting superseded images has been suspended indefinitely, as said on the page Carl linked as well. garden 21:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
© 2006 Sun-Krad Co., Ltd. & Free-Will America, LLC I don't think the uploader had the right to upload it Franczeska (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete looks like a press photo. Sterkebaktalk 16:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - obviously not a free photo - I'd vote for a speedy deletion. garden 21:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 01:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete i don't see the subject of the photo. Sterkebaktalk 16:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete, contains a logo {{Copyright by Wikimedia}}, with no OTRS permission given. Since the copyright status on such images are unclear (hopefully this will get fixed), they should be removed, since they are considered as non-free. See Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Firefox_1_5_0_3.png. 
Diti (talk to the penguin) 01:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I think Jimmy's consent is good enough in this case ;0 -Nard the Bard 02:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, but I'm just applying Commons' policy; Image:Tampa meetup Jimbo1.jpg has received a written authorisation, while this one hasn't (on OTRS or there). Besides, I don't know whether the Foundation would be really happy to know that this photograph has been included in some paid project, and people are making money of it. Diti (talk to the penguin) 10:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We could use {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} but it's only a detail in the picture. It is not the main topic. (like the brand of the PC) For Jimbo consent, it seems that it is outside probably in the US, so consent is not required... - Zil (d) 16:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- {{CopyrightByWikimedia}}'s talk page states that this template is only there to be used by the Foundation, as a mean to keep them on the servers (otherwise, they would be deleted, because of no license tag). The fact that this logo is only a part of the picture doesn't mean we can keep it, see en:Fair use#Amount_and_substantiality and Commons:Fair use#Material_under_the_fair_use_clause_is_not_allowed_on_Commons.
Diti (talk to the penguin) 18:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- {{CopyrightByWikimedia}}'s talk page states that this template is only there to be used by the Foundation, as a mean to keep them on the servers (otherwise, they would be deleted, because of no license tag). The fact that this logo is only a part of the picture doesn't mean we can keep it, see en:Fair use#Amount_and_substantiality and Commons:Fair use#Material_under_the_fair_use_clause_is_not_allowed_on_Commons.
- Keep The logo is de minimis I think, but I can see how that is debatable. Since the photo was taken in a public place, privacy rights do not apply either (no expectation of privacy). The computer screen could certainly be blanked of course, but I don't think there is any good reason to delete the entire picture. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Because of WP:POINT. I've been told that this kind of behavior, even though it's intended to help, is against the projects' development. I'm sorry for that, I will learn of my mistakes. Diti (talk to the penguin) 15:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation. -Nard the Bard 02:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Screenshot of tv show is copyvio. Sterkebaktalk 16:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 02:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - please delete speedy. Sterkebaktalk 16:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Personal attack. See [1]. -Nard the Bard 02:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not a personal attack. That image was made on my behalf for my userpage on en.wikipedia. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If Ritzman, the "target" of this image, say he's fine with it, then this DR is pointless. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I was requested to make the change to that image simply to add transparency to it. The original was a jpeg and therefore unable to hold transparency. I don't appreciate being accused of a personal attack. Iceflow (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Not a personal attack. Maxim(talk) 02:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Not work of the US gov't. User removed a previous deletion tag without fixing the problem. -Nard the Bard 03:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Gnangarra Yann (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Not public domain. User removed a previous deletion tag. -Nard the Bard 03:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Gnangarra Yann (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Not public domain. User removed a previous deletion tag. -Nard the Bard 03:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Gnangarra Yann (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Not public domain. User removed a previous deletion tag. -Nard the Bard 03:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Gnangarra Yann (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
No reason given for this 1977 photo to be public domain. -Nard the Bard 03:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Gnangarra Yann (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Wrong license. Uploader asserts he has copyright but image appears to belong to be a non-free image belonging to City of Darebin (http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au) --AussieLegend (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. copy right violation Gnangarra 07:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't speek greek but this doesn't look good to me ~/w /Talk 11:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Ψιψινέλ is the Greek common name for the cat. Every child in Greece knows Azrael as Ψιψινελ (Psipsinel) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charischri (talk • contribs) 11:43, 21. Sep. 2008 (UTC)
- But still this image isn't created by you. --~/w /Talk 11:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyrighted material from the Smurfs. Please see Commons:Licensing and Commons:Derivative worksBadseed talk 11:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: Wrong filename, replaced by Omar_Gomez_Rey-0001.jpg -Jaegerandi (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: Wrong filename -Jaegerandi (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: Wrong names, replaced by Omar_Gomez_Rey-0003.jpg -Jaegerandi (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: Wrong filename, replaced by Omar_Gomez_Rey-0004.jpg -Jaegerandi (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: Wrong filename, replace by Omar_Gomez_Rey-0005.jpg -Jaegerandi (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The image description says that it's under copyright to TerraMetrics and that they've given permission, but there's no OTRS ticket. Additionally TerraMetrics is the supplier of ocean imaging for Google Earth- judging from the crosshairs and the placemarks, this is a Google Earth screenshot and thus under copyright. Elipongo (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, per request, seems to be from GoogleEarth. --Martin H. (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
If uploader owns the copyright to this he's gonna have to prove it. -Nard the Bard 14:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Also applies to image:Svartspel.jpg and image:Detsvartaspelet.jpg. The user name suggests that the uploader is the author of the book. However, the copyright of the cover is probably owned by its designer and/or the publishing company. 217.209.198.110 14:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by ABF Yann (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Photoshopt. Out of Scope Sterkebaktalk 16:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Herbythyme Yann (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Contains copyrighted image (http://www.gamefeeling.com). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsdo1980 (talk • contribs) 14:25, March 8, 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
bad name—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibidibtibo (talk • contribs) 16:46, June 2, 2008 (UTC)
Kept, no image with a better name found. --Martin H. (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This map is obviously an original research and it should be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Olahus (talk • contribs) 19:19, May 5, 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. That's Wikipedia policy. We need a COM:NOT, and the first one should be "Commons is not Wikipedia". ViperSnake151 (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. See COM:NPOV. This image is in use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
lLow quality image without description, problematic licence, no value for Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karelj (talk • contribs) 22:40, July 23, 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Image without description with no usage in Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karelj (talk • contribs) 23:12, July 23, 2008 (UTC)
Description has been added. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
request by author (User:もんじゃ) (changed from speedy to rfd) Túrelio (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Easy to replace, deleting. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks like a scanned image. Sdrtirs (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Probable copyvio -mattbuck (Talk) 01:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Derived from images licenced as CC-BY-SA-2.5 and GFDL, both of which require derivatives to use that same licence. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Both licenses have been included on the image's page. IMO, deletion is no longer needed. Nat (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be a duplicate of Image:Merida1-1-.jpg which was deleted as being invalidly licensed ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image is from [2] (Thank you TinEye.com). -Nard the Bard 22:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete And google says it was posted at http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=520317 (seems removed) Platonides (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation
Wrong name: the correct name should be "Weis". I think the better is delete this image so that I can upload it again with the correct name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgiunti (talk • contribs) 18:31, June 26, 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
no longer assured have permission to distribute - possible legal action on related matter pending —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludahai (talk • contribs) 11:38, July 19, 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humberto (talk • contribs) 02:40, August 31, 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Test illustration; used for this purpose only; Test illustration. Not in use in article pages. --GAD (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Substituida por Image:Barra do Una 012.jpg Jurema Oliveira (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate --Martin H. (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Previously uploaded as Image:PaskalBlitz.jpg which was deleted as a copyright violation. -Nard the Bard 22:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - image transferred from ms.wp where its info is a pd notice and nothing else. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. No proove of licence. Uploader is already known as uploader of a lot of copyright violations. Cecil (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work. -Nard the Bard 22:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I spent a couple minutes on the screen shot and several on the typography. Please stop nominating selected images from Category:Files by User:SusanLesch unless there is a reason for it. It took almost a month to clean up after your last "suggestions" under another username. Thank you for your concern. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've made no secret I changed names. -Nard the Bard 01:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Well, if it's a screenshot of a non-free program, then it's a derivative work. Surely you could easily cook up a fake no updates message. Aside from that, I don't think this really qualifies as in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Matt. --Herby talk thyme 08:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Giggy (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Out of scope. Sdrtirs (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Problems with file DerAndre (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
source website says all rights reserved so definitely not CC licensed. not sure if this is public domain, but no publishing date is here or at original source 24.128.49.25 23:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, never mind, another page does in fact say CC. 24.128.49.25 23:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a flickr image (http://www.flickr.com/photos/devos/917085/in/set-23582/) with a non-commercial CC license. Not suitable for hosting on commons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Anonymous101: Does not allow for commercial use and/or derivative works
Creator of image is not identified at source page and even if creator was a soldier, there is no evidence that he or she was acting within scope of duties when photo was taken. Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete A search with tineye.com and defenselink.mil shows no official source for this image, only blogs and wikipedia mirrors. No proof this was created by the US government (actually zero information as to source at all). -Nard the Bard 14:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Maxim: Deleted because "In category Unknown as of 21 September 2008; missing license/permission/source information". using TW
Replaced by Image:LeMans1985Runner-upPorsche956.jpg – because of higher resolution. --RX-Guru (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Martin H.: User request: scaled down version of Image:LeMans1985Runner-upPorsche956.jpg
Commons has enough images of penis. The same to Image:Penis (flaccid) with frenulum breve (side).jpg. Sdrtirs (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I believe they are intended to illustrate a specific medical condition, frenulum breve. Probably should be kept. Elipongo (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Darkone: enough already uploaded
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
error con la imagen Norton41 (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Maxim: Deleted because "In category Unknown as of 21 September 2008; missing license/permission/source information". using TW
No photo information given, from a user with a history of submitting copyright-violation images (although presumedly in good faith). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.192.208 (talk • contribs) 00:24, March 30, 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Mardetanha: In category Unknown as of 22 September 2008; not edited for 8 days
Not working properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsdo1980 (talk • contribs) 20:42, July 20, 2008 (UTC)
- Delete i agree with the above statement. --Oren neu dag (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- It has a link to a non-embedded wikipedia logo bitmap. Not sure it's very useful without it (and may not be acceptable with it). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. :bdk: 17:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Still not working properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsdo1980 (talk • contribs) 12:16, July 21, 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. :bdk: 17:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
duplicate of Image:Schloss Altshausen, Geburt der Isis.jpg androl (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. :bdk: 17:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The image is unusable as its main object is completely out of focus. I tried to save the image with photoshop but every step made it even worse. --Eva K. tell me about it 19:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Seems usable to me, just not at high res. Delete if we have a better image of the same person. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- we do have a derivative image which tries to adjust the lacks somewhat: Image:Wilfried-f-schoeller-ffm001a.jpg --Eva K. tell me about it 07:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Seems usable to me. Keep all versions and let wikis choose which to use, depending on context. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
No assertion of permission to release the image. Megapixie (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio, outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 03:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per above + not used on the projects. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 20:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation, no release given. Eevn (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Outside project scope, probably copyvio. Mormegil (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
No permission from source website. Also is this thing even real? -Nard the Bard 15:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I think it's out of scope anyways. Obvious Photoshop job; the two rear wheels are clones of each other and the roof has been removed (see the windshield area). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Mormegil (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Author is Max Reinhart, image made around 1966, so not free for use unless permission is given —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knorrepoes (talk • contribs) 19:35, April 14, 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. German coats of arms of municipalities and districts are in the public domain. --Rosenzweig 00:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Mormegil (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Author is Max Reinhart, image made around 1966, so not free for use unless permission is given —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knorrepoes (talk • contribs) 19:43, April 14, 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. German coats of arms of municipalities and districts are in the public domain. --Rosenzweig 00:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Mormegil (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
No freedom of pan in US. FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying it's a sculpture? // Liftarn (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, isn't it? Anyhow, it's a work of art. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, you're right. I was thinking wrong. // Liftarn (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, isn't it? Anyhow, it's a work of art. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
No freedom of pan in US. FunkMonk (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- No - What in the heck are you talking about? No freedom of what? I took the picture, and have put it on here. Please explain a little bit better on what you are talking about.
- But did you create the sculpture? Freedom of panorama: Commons:Freedom of panorama FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Never heard of that, nor do I care. A picture is a picture. Next thing you are going to tell me is that I can't take a picture of a building or a person for the same reasons.--Kranar drogin (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- And if the WikiCommons doesn't want pictures that I take, just remove the dang thing. I take these of my own time and free will, and then there are people that say "oh, that isn't acceptable".--Kranar drogin (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that's how the law in the US is. Doesn't apply to buildings or humans. Again, look here: Commons:Freedom of panorama This nomination isn't exactly unique, hundreds of such pictures have been deleted from Commons, if there isn't freedom of panorama in the specific countries, well, then you don't legally own the picture you take of the artwork of others in these. Would you take a picture of a painting and claim you own the picture and can make money off it just because you took it? FunkMonk (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- And if the WikiCommons doesn't want pictures that I take, just remove the dang thing. I take these of my own time and free will, and then there are people that say "oh, that isn't acceptable".--Kranar drogin (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Never heard of that, nor do I care. A picture is a picture. Next thing you are going to tell me is that I can't take a picture of a building or a person for the same reasons.--Kranar drogin (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- But did you create the sculpture? Freedom of panorama: Commons:Freedom of panorama FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work. FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm relatively new to WC, and derivitives is a new topic for me. After reading the related pages, I, the uploader of this image do not object to its deletion. Leon7 (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Derivative work or Freedom of Panorama? Guérin Nicolas (messages) 22:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it's a derivative work in any case, but the US doesn't have freedom of panorama, so that's a problem too. FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 15:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I, the author want delete it User:O is doing an edit's war on my own work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coronellian (talk • contribs) 05:19, July 27, 2008 (UTC)
- Any reason for the deletion request? --Túrelio (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I, the author want delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coronellian (talk • contribs) 05:14, July 27, 2008 (UTC)
- Any reason for the deletion request? --Túrelio (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong copyright info. FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, on what basis does this image have the wrong copyright info? Subtlevirtue (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- That something has been published doesn't mean that it is in the public domain. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The source has the credit "Science via AP"; that would seem to indicate a copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Non free picture. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 17:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by MichaelMaggs: per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Trex_softtissue.jpg
Image is practilally identical with: Images 1465 and 1466, discussable value because the name of flower is missing—Preceding unsigned comment added by Karelj (talk • contribs) 15:24, March 9, 2008 (UTC)
- Just because the flower is not identified does not mean it is without value -- one doesn't have to be a botanist to contribute information to Wikimedia. Other users are welcome to be bold and identify them, should they recognise the flowers. As for similarity to the other photos: I am open to discussion of which is the better-quality image, but note that there are many images which are otherwise identical except for a slight crop there, some tone adjustments there, or shifted an inch to the side. For reference, the similar images are:
--Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Image is practilally identical with: Images 1760, 1763 and 11765, discussable value because the name of flower is missing, image should be rotated for 90 degrees —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karelj (talk • contribs) 14:36, March 9, 2008 (UTC)
- Just because the flower is not identified does not mean it is without value -- one doesn't have to be a botanist to contribute information to Wikimedia. However, in this case, it appears that the flower is generally identified as a Viola. As for similarity to the other photos: I am open to discussion of which is the better-quality image, but there are many images which are otherwise identical except for a slight crop there, some tone adjustments there, or another inch to the side when the photo is taken. With regards to rotation: do not use deletion requests for this reason -- use the {{rotate}} tag. I can rotate it as soon as the deletion debate is settled. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 17:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note that the similar images are:
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_with_frenulum_breve_(top_view).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9963/merida11kv7.jpg){kind=link}
_with_frenulum_breve_(top_view).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_with_frenulum_breve_(top_view).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_with_frenulum_breve_(side).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_with_frenulum_breve_(top_view).jpg){kind=link}
- 1763 and 1765 are similar albeit with different color settings, but 1760 certainly shouldn't be part of the issue. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 17:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
licence not clear --Tillmannas 02.09.2008 12:49
Deleted. Not "own work" of 2007 MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted work. -Nard the Bard 02:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't Believe its own work. Because of the watermark. Sterkebaktalk 16:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This caught my eye. So it is watermarked so that it is copyrighyed by "anthony-tai.com" and Is it be possible to change the watermark easily if I really haven't got the original copy. I can make my rationale more explicit if needed.... --Herby talk thyme 14:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. COM:OTRS would be the only way to keep this & it would need to be within scope. Herby talk thyme 15:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
substituida por Barra do Una 013 -Jurema Oliveira (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this image have copyrights --V A R G U X 20:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused, uploader's request. A DR from 2007?? Lupo 11:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
licence not clear --Tillmannas 02.09.2008 12:48
Deleted by Howcheng: per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Bild_Fischer.jpg
Appears to be a non-commericial license. Megapixie (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, one cannot say that. However, the note "... I ask to be notified" should be clarified or removed by the author/uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The Author asks to be notified, but does not exclude commercial use of the image. --GDK (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, It's not a restriction at all. I just want to be notified when a publication of my drawings will appear. Indeed, I'd like to collect all the papers showing my work, I think it's natural.Bakha (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as long as the uploader is just asking to be notified, instead of requiring it. Requiring notification would be incompatible with our licenses. Perhaps that could be clarified a bit. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, what kind of formulation may I use ? Bakha (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. after clarifying the wording. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Uh yeah. Insufficient sourcing on this photo and personality rights. also, zomg if this picture is what it says it is, owowowowowo. -Nard the Bard 12:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- According to en:Talk:Female genital cutting#Removed image this may be from a 1994 CNN video (disturbing no matter how you look at it, since apparently they paid to be allowed to film). -Nard the Bard 12:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, As you mentioned "that's may be it's from 1994 CNN video", but you are not sure of that! and the picture clearly shows the female circumcision and it's common picture on the internet.--Elmondo21st (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Very common on the Internet" is not sufficient reason to keep an image on Commons. See Commons:licensing. -Nard the Bard 22:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- If I remember well this photograph was taken by the United Nations' UN WHO, I looked into their site I still could not locate it, it was part of a film they made (or may be by collaboration with CNN) for maximum exposure. It was meant to be disturbing because of the severe nature of this act. If any of the UN organizations owned this image then it is clear for PD usage as I understand the the policies. Putting it for deletion because of it being disturbing is not good enough reason. Ownership is. Cheers.--Producer (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- note: following the given source (weblink) on the description page, the pic is from the U.S. Copts Association, published there October 22, 2007, see archive. --Rax (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please Do not delete this photography. It's a document of (famale) human pain, while the procedure of a sexual mutilation. It's useful to visualize a psychotrauma. I discuss it in the german wikipedia to use for an article about "Verstümmelung weiblicher Genitalien" in medicale paragraf for the psychological aspect. I don't know, if there some other photography, it shows the same.--Briefkasten300bild (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
On this photo nobody can recognize, what's going on. So nobody can say, whether it's an illustration of female circumcision at all. The authenticity of illustration and the permission of portrayed persons to publication are unclear, moreover highly unlikly. The related article on copts.com has been deleted [9], so delete this photo here too. --88.75.226.111 16:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The {{PD-Egypt}} tag is irrelevant, as this image is not in any of the cases cited by the egyptian laws. No author, no date, source gives no information on the copyright status of this image. thus, Delete. Lilyu (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per Lilyu's reasoning. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
(nom'd by image creator, heavily outdated, mixing incompatible licences, no longer used on any page in any project.) --+Hexagon1 (t) 02:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per author's rationale, really. Orphaned, out of date, not to mention the author is requesting deletion. garden 22:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Sanbec (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Testbild —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preee (talk • contribs) 13:07, June 10, 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Sanbec (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
USA WO images
[edit]- File:USA WO 1.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:USA CWO 2.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:USA CWO 3.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:USA CWO 4.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:USA CWO 5.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
All these images are unused, and are lower quality versions of these images respectively:
- Image:US-Army-WO1.png
- Image:US-Army-CW2.png
- Image:US-Army-CW3.png
- Image:US-Army-CW4.png
- Image:US-Army-CW5.png
Officer781 (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Quote from uploader on my talk page:
Hello. I received your image deletion warning. I seems you uploaded much later than my upload. You can simply replace image and request for delinking in User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Cheers.--Kwj2772 (d) 08:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
--Officer781 (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We do not delete superseded images. Unused is also not a deletion reason. If they are just scaled down versions rather than alternates, that is different, but that does not appear to be the case here. Quite happy to have better versions of course, but we keep them all and let local wikipedias choose which to use. See Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded we don't delete "archive" images. Simply upload new versions of those files and tag the others for a speedy deletion afterwards. garden 21:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Well, after some consideration I've decided to keep these anyway.--Officer781 (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept per nominating user & above debate. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Obviously not a free image since it's copyrighted by the uploader, or so the image says. In all likelihood, if the image is official, and there is no proof that it is, copyright is owned by Darebin City Council. The image is a derivative of the council's official logo, which can be seen at http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au As such, it seems to be a copyright violation. Even if the uploader is a member of the committee, as he says, he can't assert copyright, as he has done in the image, because it breaches council's copyright. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
DAREBIN HASNT UPDATED THERE WEBSITE AT THE MOMENT. THAT LOGO ON THE SITE IS THE PREVIOUS LOGO. I WAS THE ONE WHO DESIGNED THE LOGO. IT IS NOT A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. and its DarebinCity Council. No one believes me and people who are fighting me dont even work or live in darebin as i do. thankyou. (MR.SHANDO (talk))
Deleted. Gnangarra 08:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Civil Ensign and Roundel of Luxembourg
[edit]
derivative of a copyrighted image --Caranorn (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- [Note—I have added this page to the deletion requests page as it appears the nominator neglected to do so back when they nominated the images in July. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)]
- I have asked the nominator to indicate why he believes the images in question to be non-free. So far he has offered no proof for that they are "derivative[s] of a copyrighted image", and furthermore merely being under copyright does not mean the images are not free. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good question, wish you had asked me in July (note I asked an admin in July whether I had followed correct procedure, sorry seems something went awry). I just did a rapid websearch and found the following link [10]. Our image dates to 2006, theirs to 2005 it seems (has to be verified of course), I think there can be no doubt that ours is a derivative of theirs. Of course it could be that both are derivatives of the Album des Pavillons, but that would not make this less of a copyright violation. It has to be assumed images on FOTW are copyrighted and therefore unfree unless a specific image was released otherwise.--Caranorn (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I would be stunned to discover that FOTW owns the intellectual property rights to the Civil Ensign of Luxembourg. They may well have made a particular electronic version of the ensign (and possibly issued a copyright claim to that image) but ultimately the images listed above are derived from the original design which may, or may not be copyrighted (probably not I would guess). As it stands there is no evidence of a copyright violation and there is plenty of evidence of various parties making copies of the Civil Ensign of Luxembourg with any other party seeking legal sanction against them. 87.113.25.22 13:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Oops - didn't realize I was not logged in. Greenshed (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good question, wish you had asked me in July (note I asked an admin in July whether I had followed correct procedure, sorry seems something went awry). I just did a rapid websearch and found the following link [10]. Our image dates to 2006, theirs to 2005 it seems (has to be verified of course), I think there can be no doubt that ours is a derivative of theirs. Of course it could be that both are derivatives of the Album des Pavillons, but that would not make this less of a copyright violation. It has to be assumed images on FOTW are copyrighted and therefore unfree unless a specific image was released otherwise.--Caranorn (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I did not copy this image from FOTW. -- Denelson83 (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
kept Julo (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
unused; cropped from a superseeded png image;this image itself is superseeded Officer781 (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - As said above, unused and there is a better version available. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We do not delete superseded images. Unused is also not a deletion reason. See Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Image is not created by uploader, you can find it on the offical page ~/w /Talk 11:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the .svg was user-created but it is still probably a copyvio. -Nard the Bard 11:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I personally designed the logo for the Basketball Federation of Macedonia. I am still employed there. There is no violation. My name is Aleksandar Gizharovski, you can see me listed as an employee at the official website -Alexgizh 13:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC+2)
- Interesting. It may depend on the details of your employment contract; it is a bit unusual for an organization to not own copyright in a situation like this, this but perhaps trademark rights cover it (which generally prevent any unwanted usage anyways). Please add the {{Trademarked}} tag though if it has been trademarked. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- It IS trademarked. I will add that tag, but where exactly? However, I assure you that the wikipedia article regarding our organization is solely for our presentation and promotion. And what is better than having the official logo? As the webmaster of the Basketball Federation of Macedonia, I possess vector images of all FIBA Europe member federation's logos. Wouldn't it be better if all wikipedia articles regarding national basketball teams include official logos, instead of blurry ripped-off-the-web images? User:Alexgizh (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC+2)
- You can use the "edit" tab at the top of the image page, and edit it like any other article, putting the tag under the copyright license. I just did for this image. As for other logos, sure we'd like them if possible, but Commons absolutely requires a free copyright license (unless there is no copyright by virtue of being expired or ineligible), even for situations where trademark would seem to be more important. For local wikipedias which allow "fair use", then these logos could be uploaded there (such as to the English Wikipedia directly), marked as copyrighted and with a fair use claim (see en:Wikipedia:Logos), but those cannot be uploaded to Commons itself (unless you can find the copyright holder and get a similar copyright license, see Commons:OTRS). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. As an employee it is highly unlikely that the artist owns the copyright. It will be owned by the employer company, and needs a proper release by OTRS. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
younger than req'd 50 years! Saibo (Δ) 13:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Picture taken during the Second World War, and thus more than 50 years old. Vesteri (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - See signs of Finnish military aircraft, valid to the end of 1944, and different to signs of German Luftwaffe.
Andros64 (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Albeit the pre-1944 makkings, this page here [11] says that the He 59 was used by Finland only up to 1944. See also here [12]. Therefore keep it! Cobatfor 25 Sep 2008, 19:04 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly taken before 1945, when the Finnish Air Force stopped using the von Rosen swastika. Thus, it's PD-Finland50. Manxruler (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No compelling evidence to suggest image is less than 50 years old. Adambro (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
younger than req'd 50 years! Saibo (Δ) 13:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Picture taken during the Second World War, and thus more than 50 years old. Vesteri (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly taken before the end of World War II, if the photographer is Finish then it's PD-Finland50. Manxruler (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No compelling evidence to suggest image is less than 50 years old. Adambro (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
younger than req'd 50 years! Saibo (Δ) 13:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Picture taken during the Second World War, and thus more than 50 years old. Vesteri (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Picture taken in 1939 during Soviet-Finnish Winter War ( Plane was sold and transferred to Finland by British) and has a Finnish signs .
Andros64 (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly taken before 1945, when the Finnish Air Force stopped using the von Rosen swastika. Thus, it's PD-Finland50. Manxruler (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No compelling evidence to suggest image is less than 50 years old. Adambro (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Author is Max Reinhart, image made around 1966, so not free for use unless permission is given— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knorrepoes (talk • contribs)
- Deletion fix. -Nard the Bard 15:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. German coats of arms of municipalities and districts are in the public domain. --Rosenzweig 00:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep--Hans555 (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Uploaders request. Will upload a new and better version soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dybdal (talk • contribs) 19:17, September 12, 2008 (UTC)
Comment - can you not just upload a new version over the current one? Also, please add the {{Information}} template to the image, stating source, date and so on. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Image is in use. Adambro (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
nonfree (derivative work) 24.128.49.25 23:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep en:Yogaswami died in 1964. According to {{PD-Sri Lanka}} all photographs enter the public domain 25 years after creation so the source image must be public domain. -Nard the Bard 01:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- The source image looks more like a painting than a photo, and we don't know it was originally published in Sri Lanka (or during Yogaswami's life) anyways. 24.128.49.25 12:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Photos are protected for 25 years FROM CREATION, not publication. FAIL. -Nard the Bard 18:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- The source image looks more like a painting than a photo, and we don't know it was originally published in Sri Lanka (or during Yogaswami's life) anyways. 24.128.49.25 12:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- The original (http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/yogaswami/words/YogaswamiChair.jpg) is a photo and not a drawing. This photo was taken while Swami was visiting a devotee in Chilaw, Sri Lanka in the early 1950s.--Kanags (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
This pic is a copy of the english wikipedia version but the licence seems not to be valid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertoff (talk • contribs) 15:53, September 18, 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ciell (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Firefox, Inkscape and Safari cann't open this file (on Mac). For translating I'm uploading a new .png image without the words.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Esteban.barahona (talk • contribs) 02:59, August 28, 2008 (UTC)
- It has a link to a bitmap (the nuvola cat) but the bitmap is not embedded. The rest can be saved if need be, as the rest of it is vector, but I'm not sure what it was trying to illustrate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am not the true author of that image, the author can change the copy right, but they release by Internet, as said —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coronellian (talk • contribs) 02:39, July 27, 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Even if the stated license on the description page applies, still doesn't allow derivatives and free use Badseed talk 02:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Image without description with no usae in any Wikipedia articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karelj (talk • contribs) 23:00, July 23, 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Used on es. wikibooks, in an article about Hydrosystems Badseed talk 02:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Image without description and no usage in Wikipedia articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karelj (talk • contribs) 22:57, July 23, 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Used on es. wikibooks, in an article about Hydrosystems Badseed talk 02:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Likely COM:DW. This photograph is a shot of some frescoes into a church. Although the church seems to be a public place (and it would be allowed under the provisos on freedom of panorama, the fact is that the author died in 1969 so that, this picture would violate the copyright of the frescoes. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Spain's FOP does not distinguish indoors and outdoors and 2d works and 3d works. So how would this violate copyright? -Nard the Bard 22:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Spanish FOP appears to cover 2D works as well as 3D. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unused; low resolution and not very good quality. Furthermore, uploader probably created it by editing en:Image:USN.insignia.o2.blues.sleeve.wag.png, so is not fully self made Officer781 (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, but fix attribution, as it is an obvious copy of the en-wiki PNG original. (If we have the PNG on commons as well, one of them can go). It is still usable in some contexts, so the quality is good enough, and there is no copyright issue (frankly this is PD-ineligible really). Unused is not a reason to delete. We do not delete bitmaps which have been superseded by better SVG versions (as this one has). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. after fixing attribs and license Badseed talk 01:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Is this a copyvio? -Nard the Bard 01:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete Better safe than sorry Sterkebaktalk 16:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
No. This computer recreation was created by me based on the layout of the Danish Wheel.
Kept. Assuming good faith Badseed talk 01:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this a copyright violation? -Nard the Bard 02:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
No. This was made by me. It was based on an actual layout from the TV show, Wheel of Fortune 2000.
no evidence this was published in argentina, which doesn't really even make sense based on his biography anyways 24.128.49.25 23:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- If this is nonfree also delete derivative image Image:SLTamilpeople.jpg 24.128.49.25 23:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- There seem to be fair bit of interst in his work in Spansih. Seems most of hisd work has been translated into Spanish. See hereTaprobanus (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No author info, no source, 'poof'. The derivative has since been corrected Badseed talk 01:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
younger than req'd 50 years! Saibo (Δ) 13:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Kapten Pipping 1918 to 1920 see [13]Vesteri (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
younger than req'd 50 years! Saibo (Δ) 13:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Foto taken about 1924 Vesteri (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
maybe copyvio—Preceding unsigned comment added by Moddlyg (talk • contribs) 07:34, August 15, 2008 (UTC)
- Note: User Benlisquare has uploaded several copyvio in the past, see for example the deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Kimjongsu_2004.JPG. Novidmarana (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom and note Badseed talk 01:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Nothing indicates that the owner of the website owns the photo. FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's not possible to open http://www.rationalisme.org/french/sciences_archaeopteryx.htm now but all, image and text, on this web site is free. Vincnet (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- When it worked, I saw other copyrighted images on the site which were certainly not made by the owner of the website. If I upload copyrighted stuff made by others to my website and say everything on the site is free, stuff like that won't suddenly become free. FunkMonk (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- www.rationalisme.org, - free of copyrights -, Veuillez simplement citer la source de ces documents si vous les utilisez, Merci !! So, no explicit proofs of copyright or copyleft for each images. PS: fews versions of this feathers exists [14], [15], for this one, the comment is strange, beacause the feather is at The Humbolt museum Vincnet (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- When it worked, I saw other copyrighted images on the site which were certainly not made by the owner of the website. If I upload copyrighted stuff made by others to my website and say everything on the site is free, stuff like that won't suddenly become free. FunkMonk (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
![[14]](http://www.nicerweb.com/sketches/video/BBC-LifeOnEarth/3.8_LordsOfTheAir/FEATHER-FOSSIL.JPG){kind=link}
I don't want this to be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.92.123 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
Deleted. Improbable that this was created by the source website. 50 years is not old enough for PD-old. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
younger than req'd 50 years! Saibo (Δ) 13:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Picture taken during the Second World War, and thus more than 50 years old. Vesteri (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
younger than req'd 50 years! Saibo (Δ) 13:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Nenonen resigned from the army in 1947 and the picture was taken before that. Vesteri (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- This looks like a painting though, not a photograph. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Something on a book. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 22:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Clearly a derivative work Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Also nominated:
- Image:Blason provincial luxembourg Belgique.png (I created this PNG version of the image before realizing that it wasn't actually free)
- Image:Flag Drapeau ou Echarpe - Province de Luxembourg de Belgique.jpg (This image is a derivative work of Image:Blason provincial luxembourg Belgique.jpg)
Image was taken from a website (not pd-self as uploader originally claimed); that site (in French) gives no indication that the image is Free --Psychonaut (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Clear copyvio (along with other so-called claimed own works by this uploader). -Nard the Bard 02:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Cette Image ( Image:Flag Drapeau ou Echarpe - Province de Luxembourg de Belgique.jpg ) a été créer par Moi ... Le Blason au centre des couleurs, est l'Officiel de la Province pour lequel j'ai du me battre ( depuis 2004 ) ... pour prouver l'Erreur de l'Encyclopedie ... ! il y a beaucoup d'expliquation sur les Couleurs de " Echarpe " et non un " Drapeau " ... Pour l'autre Image:Blason provincial luxembourg Belgique.png était en format .jpg ... tout est Ok car j'ai mis la version .png --Bernard Piette (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Not created by US federal government. -Nard the Bard 15:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Usually Mugshots are made US by federal government authorities. If this picture although violates Copywrights, please delete. Gary Dee (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just as other mugshots of executed offenders can be found here http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/executedoffenders.htm Gary Dee (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Mugshots are made by state or local authorities, which are not part of the Federal government; they are very distinct entities in the US. States' work is not PD by default.
- These other state mugshots should be added to this request:
- Image:ErvinTomas.jpg
- Image:FRANK JARVIS ATWOOD.jpg
- Image:Kenley Kenneth.jpg
- Image:Michael Patrick Moore.jpg
- Image:Clarence Ray Allen.jpg
- Image:Kenneth Boyd.jpg
--dave pape (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just a thought, mugshot deletion requests have closed keep before on a) lack of originality, and b) being published before 1978 without a copyright notice. As nominator I am not averse to keeping any that fall into those categories (almost no state ever claimed copyright on its mugshots, so all pre-1978 mugshots should qualify). -Nard the Bard 12:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Another thought: then this one
- Just a thought, mugshot deletion requests have closed keep before on a) lack of originality, and b) being published before 1978 without a copyright notice. As nominator I am not averse to keeping any that fall into those categories (almost no state ever claimed copyright on its mugshots, so all pre-1978 mugshots should qualify). -Nard the Bard 12:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Scottie_Pippen_mug.jpg should be too.
As well all these mugshots should be verified. 78.141.141.128 19:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Nard the Bard and dave pape as indeed {{PD-USGov}} applies in none of these cases. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Ukrainian PD status rests on it having been published before 1951 and the author being dead before that date. We don't know when this photo was first published, and we don't know when the photographer died, so we can't know if this is PD. Rlandmann (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ukrainian PD status rests on it having been published before 1951 and the author (if known) being dead before that date. But the author of this foto is unknown.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per Rlandmann as there is yet no proof that this photo was published before 1951. And without having any reference to its first publication, we do not know whether it was published anonymously or not. Hence, {{PD-Ukraine}} does not apply. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
German poster for a U.S. movie - no details on publication given, but if it's a German work (i.e. if it was first published in Germany), then it needs to be PD there, not just in the U.S. dave pape (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- The movie and poster were released in 1927, 81 years ago, and I believe that would fall under the license below. Please note that there is no copyright shown on the poster which was essentially a German reproduction of similar American posters.
{{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} Wikiwatcher2 (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- It also has no source. (But an e-bay "camera" icon.) Lupo 06:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete PD claim is credible but please find a better source than ebay. -Nard the Bard 00:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- There's another german poster here (scroll down below the middle of the page) from 1930. The ebay one is unique, as seems - Badseed talk 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as German law applies as long as we have no proof that this is a derived work of an earlier US publication. {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} does not apply here as no research was performed to find the artist's name. Some of these artists are well known even if they are not named on the posters, see Peter Pewas, Willi Laschet or Adolf Bender, for example. And some of these posters are even unique, i.e. they were comissioned and used by just one movie theatre. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
