Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/09/25
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Probably copyvio. Sdrtirs (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Giggy: Copyright violation
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:DW, copy of a comic by w:de:Uli Stein (Comiczeichner). Syrcro (talk) 06:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- speedy it. --h-stt !? 07:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ChristianBier (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(C) the Uzbek Football Federation, per http://the-uff.com/index.php?act=news§ion=Hw==&news_id=BmMG . AllynJ (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, violation of copyright --Martin H. (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
out of scope, seems to be an add of a show, a lot of hard to cleanup watermarks Jarekt (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, invalid flickr licence, the flickr user uploaded the image (screenshot) to promote a weblink. --Martin H. (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Kim doesn't like this picture, and prefers the other (licensed) one which I uploaded, Thanks 21:46, 25 September 2008 Jossoklono (talk · contribs)
Comment: Thats no reason for deletion of some other persons work, i dont think, that there are any personal rights concerned. The other image (i think Image:Black-036.jpg) does not have any licence, please remember, that commons is a collection of free images that everybody can use for any purpose, inclunding commercial use - so the other image first need a free licence.
Kept, see above. --Martin H. (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is me on the picture and I do not want to be here, the publisher does not have my prmeission to publish it 21:30, 25 September 2008 Tobbe fg (talk · contribs)
Deleted. Out of scoped. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Out of scope. Sdrtirs (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Agreed M_simin 22:51, 25 September 2008 (EST)
Delete I will say "speedy deletion" because the basic information are missing. + out of scope. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 19:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Listed as GPL for unknown reasons; probably copyrighted. Classical geographer (talk) 08:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. copyvio Yann (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source computer
Date not sure
Author not sure
Permission (Reusing this image) not sure 89.247.69.207 11:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Info : under speedy deletion process, will be deleted soon if no more information is provided. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 20:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe out of scope. Sdrtirs (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think its own work Sterkebaktalk 17:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio, watermark Yann (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
as of COM:SCOPE. Unused image without description; probably some class mates yokin' around. Túrelio (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
as of COM:SCOPE. Unused small image without a meaningful description. Túrelio (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
as of COM:SCOPE. Unused small image without a meaningful description. Túrelio (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
low quality edit of Wikinews logo for non-notable parody site, uploaded in 2005, not used anywhere Otterathome (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
out of scope, not used Mangostar (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unused, out of scope, no verification that uploader is copyright holder (and where did the component images come from, anyways?) Mangostar (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope and probable copyvio. Yann (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unused, out of scope (article deleted at en.wiki) Mangostar (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unused, out of scope (article deleted at en.wiki) Mangostar (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unused, out of scope, no verification that uploader is copyright holder Mangostar (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope and probable copyvio. Yann (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unused, out of scope, to the extent this has enough creativity to be copyrighted and comes from a comic strip, then a copyvio as well Mangostar (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
as of COM:SCOPE. Túrelio (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete out of scope Sterkebaktalk 20:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
unused, out of scope Mangostar (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
image photoshopped for humor/parody purposes, out of scope, soure of duck is unknown, not used anywhere, little use Otterathome (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
gustavo a. madero 189.225.17.46 04:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept, no reason. --Martin H. (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Not sure about licensing Pbclinear (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Lets make it simple:
- 1. The image contains a Logo, did you have a written permission of the company?
- 2. Is the image your property, are you the owner of all rights concerning this image? If not: do you have a written permission of the owner of copyrights?
- If your final answer to 1 or 2 is no the image will be deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Because the image can be found here (picture) and here (article)(I claim copyrighted pages) I don't think that the images were published under a free licence or that you have the permission of the author to upload the imge under a free licence. If they aren't free they're copyrighted and so on not allowed on commons.
- If the author or the company send a mail to ORTS, to you or to an admin the image can be undeleted.
- --D-Kuru (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: Copyvio - see http://news.directindustry.de/press/pacific-bearing/integrale-v-technologie-wurde-fuer-den-goldenen-mousetrap-des-jahr-preises-vorgewaehlt-7045-31334.html for the original image
Out of scope or copyvio. Sdrtirs (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete One of above. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Doubtable "Source=self-made", see google-images. Please prove. --R.Schuster (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- R.Schuster is attempting to Vandelize the Odinga website and this is his attempt in claiming something is a fake when it is not. This picture was taken by a journalist named Paula Abeles and posted in an article for the African Press Internations (API). R.Schuster is attempting to annoy the people that posted this picture and the article on Wikipedia by making false claims. He has no proof that it is fake. He is merely making claims without ANY PROOF. He is attempting to VANDELIZE the picture now. YOUR MAKING FALSE CLAIMS. PLEASE STOP!! The source of the picture is a reliable journalist source. Please stop harrasing the Wikipedia users that posted the picture. This is against Wikipedia rules. --Xinunus (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Senator Barack Obama in Kenya - Obama and Odinga: The True Story African Press International (API) --Xinunus (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- So "Source=self-made" is not true? In that case we have to do a speedy deletion. -- R.Schuster (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
R.Schuster is in an edit war and this is his attempt at getting this picture deleted while making false claims. He has ZERO proof the picture is fake. ONLY FALSE CLAIMS. He is bitter and angry and is Vandelizing this picture and the Wikipedia entry. --Xinunus (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This file is not copyrighted and is public domain. It is freely used in the press on mulitple websites. R.Schuster is in an edit war with the article on Wikipedia and this is his attempt at harassing the users who want this information posted. He has no proof that the picture is a fake. He is only making false claims. --Xinunus (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- R.Schuster started by rushing to judgement by wanting it deleted. When he couldnt get it deleted he went to a speedy deletion in his attempt to get rid of the picture. ALL OF HIS CLAIMS ARE FALSE AND HE IS IN AN EDIT WAR. He should be banned from this site for Vandelism. --Xinunus (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - this image may be widely used, but it does not appear that the image is in the public domain. Thats not how public domain works. Xinunus, why did you claim you created the image and that you owned the copyrights on the image's description page? J.smith (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Xinunus recognize he's not the author. Paula Abeles owns the copyrights of this phto. The claim "it's easy to find it on internet" is a fallacious point, as stated in Commons:Project scope. I wqould also recommand Xinunus to calm down. Lilyu (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Clearly not by the author.--PatrickFlaherty (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Image description says "(c) Kim Mitchell" with no evidence of Kim releasing it for public use; as well, there is no license given Tabercil (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I personally represent Kim Mitchell along with the rest of Alert Music Inc., please look us up. - I put that (c) there so that it would be known that Kim himself approved of this photo. At his request i replaced the other photo that was present on his wiki page with the approved photo. Please allow the photo 'Black-036.jpg' as the standing photo. Any further questions, please email me at jesse@alertmusic.com. Thank you
- Check your email then. Tabercil (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Update: Image has been properly uploaded as Image:Kim Mitchell publicity image.jpg with permission forwarded to OTRS. As a result, this image can be deleted. Tabercil (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate. --Martin H. (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I want to put another on with full protection 02:34, 22 September 2008 Itwasagoodyear (talk · contribs)
Deleted by Mardetanha: In category Unknown as of 22 September 2008; not edited for 8 days
i put the wrong name of the picture, and have uploaded the right one afterwards Вени Марковски (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Please use {{Bad name}} next time. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Its not a general typeface, so it can be copyrighted. --~ bayo or talk 07:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Refreshing this - I actually deleted this speedily. However it appears that there has been some discussion on the fact that it is actually a pd-text logo. I disagree given that the ® symbol is clearly visible on it. Equally in a talk archive there is a pointer to the en wp equivalent which is labelled as fair use correctly to my mind. I felt a DR would be best as all teh community can then see the actual image.
Can I ask that no passing admin deletes it speedily - it is here to seek views & for us all to learn. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think the ® symbol mean that it's a Registered trademark and a few people debate that trademarks are not Copyright but I feel that trademarks are copyrights of the brand and not so much the image. Edit: Just looking at Trademark states that logos are trademarkable. Bidgee (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- They are just colored words, that's why the image is typeface. Just like the other Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Before I make up my mind I would like to first know what font (typeface) is used (Makes it easier to see whether it's copyrighted) and also the colouring/design of the Live can that be copyrightable? Bidgee (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't find it for download, but I do found the developers. It was developed by the ascender team as you can see here. And they gave some specific links to here and here Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Well reading the links from above (mostly this one) that it would seem that the fonts were custom made for Microsoft for the XBox which would make it a copyrighted font. Bidgee (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I think Ascender was only hired to create them. The font used at "Xbox" is already for download and other too. Only the font used at "Live" that isn't for download yet. It's just a matter of time for it. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete; I agreed with Herby's initial deletion and agree with Bidgee. It does not seem to meet textlogo requirements. Giggy (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep Per the United States Copyright Office: "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" [1] (emphasis mine) are generally not eligible for copyright. Text is considered a useful article per Eltra Corp. vs. Ringer and commercial or public availability of the underlying font, if any, is not a prerequisite. Эlcobbola talk 00:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Palais_Rameau_fronton.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Thanks for bring this on, Elcobbola. I'm really not good with copyrights. I think we don't need to prove anything else with this. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. In my view, the gloss effect on the LIVE text is enough. The fact that someone made a font of the typeface used (which technically, would be a derivative work in some cases) does not matter. When I look at {{Pd-textlogo}}, I think that anything beyond just a simple gradient effect is original. ViperSnake151 (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't see originality in this logo despites the gloss effect in the word "Live". So for me it's {{PD-ineligible}}. 201.19.112.128 12:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Text in any typeface (standard or custom) cannot be copyrighted in the U.S; the shapes of the letters are not protectable. The fact it is a registered trademark (the ® symbol) is not grounds for deletion either; that is outside of copyright. The decision would come down to if the gloss effect is enough to pass the threshold of originality. That seems borderline at best but is arguable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- keep Cannot see any copyrightable here --Historiograf (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the details on the LIVE text make this unfree.--Otterathome (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The discussion clearly showed the situation is unclear. In germany I belive it could not be copyrightable, as Histo said. But in other countrys the copyright law is stricter in this point and I belive because this is a trademarked & copyrighted logo and commons should only host free media I deleted this Image. (In accordeance with most comments above.) abf /talk to me/ 11:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Probably copyvio. Sdrtirs (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Missing source/author so deleted in 7 days unless fixed.--Otterathome (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This was previously deleted from Wikipedia. The "super loopty loop" is a made up thing or some kind of joke. There is no basis or source for it on the image. -Awiseman (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope.--Otterathome (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - joke image, unused. Jonathunder (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
low res, no real source, all of en.wiki uploader's images have been deleted as copyvios 03:18, 14 September 2008 24.128.49.25 (talk · contribs)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
out of scope - Jarekt (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
i'm totally confused by the source of this photo. it appears there has never been a file at en.wiki where it says this came from, and User:Jennifer Su has never been a registered user. Mangostar (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Mangostar, please don't delete this image, it is my self photo, self created, and it is under my user name Heymao. Thank you for your kind assistance , please do not delete the photo, it is me indeed. Jennifer— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heymao (talk • contribs)
Deleted. No en user with that name, and the metadata gives the author as Mark Thomas. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
even if the sculpture is PD, we have no idea when the photo is taken Mangostar (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Look this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Vergil.gif --Synchro (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source for photo MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
based on his age, this photo is probably not PD. no date given at source Mangostar (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
derivative work - template and box cover are copyrighted Mangostar (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope. Sdrtirs (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. In use on en.W MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope. Sdrtirs (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. appears to be advertising. Not used MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
marked as copyrighted at source website, no evidence of CC licensing Mangostar (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Too low a quality to be of use, adds no value. Only used on one userpage. MozillaMan(talk) 20:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep in scope as user page picture. -Nard the Bard 14:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. In use only in one user's private gallery. No realistic educational value. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
extremely low quality image of dubious origin, only used on one users talk page Otterathome (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not used, out of scope, uploader not verified as software company Mangostar (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
appears to be outside of scope - maybe the article this was in got deleted. the user appears to be a company promoting something. not really sure what the image means to depict. Mangostar (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Giggy (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
appears to be outside of scope - maybe the article this was in got deleted. the user appears to be a company promoting something. not really sure what the image means to depict. Mangostar (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Giggy (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
doubtful that the uploader took the official portrait of the mayor - if so, we would need email confirmation Mangostar (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Emails to Commons:OTRS please. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Posible derivative, not sure enough to mark it though. MozillaMan(talk) 20:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Sterkebaktalk 20:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Likely a copyrighted logo. MBisanz talk 12:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Giggy (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
unused, out of scope (organization's logo) Mangostar (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Likely a copyrighted logo. MBisanz talk 12:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Giggy (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
appears to be outside of scope - maybe the article this was in got deleted. the user appears to be a company promoting something. not really sure what the image means to depict. Mangostar (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No more use of this. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Giggy (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a recreation of Image:Antena3.png which was marked trademarked and svg. My remake was marked copyvio, but I have converted it into a delete until there a decision as to if BOTH of these images should not use trademarked. --MozillaMan(talk) 22:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete There is originality from the creator of this logo, so it's copyrighted and then it should be deleted.--Sdrtirs (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's three simple geometric shapes on an orange background. Which I think is too simple for copyright protection. --MozillaMan(talk) 22:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The original image Image:Antena3.png has been deleted for copyright violation.--Sdrtirs (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Sdrtirs marked that a copyvio as well, and it should be restored pending the outcome of this image. --MozillaMan(talk) 20:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, the above comment of yours shouldn't be Ad hominem; second, yes, I had marked as copyright violation as well for the same reason of this image, due to this image is the svg version of the deleted image; and third, approving this image doesn't mean automatically the undeletion of the original image, for that it must go through Commons:Undeletion requests. Regards, Sdrtirs (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Sdrtirs marked that a copyvio as well, and it should be restored pending the outcome of this image. --MozillaMan(talk) 20:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, it might be only simple geometric shapes on an orange background, but their disposition could have some degree of creativity. I'll have to think about this one. Patrícia msg 14:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- KeepThough the image is a derived work, this is a simple geometric shape. So it's {{PD-shape}}. Simple geometric shapes are not copyrightable.Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The shapes could be OK but the way in which they are arranged requires originality, from my perspective. Giggy (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The license for this image is suspect - This type of map would usually be created from a base map and some data points. The author doesn't give details of where the base map came from, nor where the data-points for the mountain locations came from. Alternatively, if the author drew the base map themselves, then they should have said so, and said what they used as a template (e.g. satellite photos) --Ozhiker (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- I produced the map myself. Some of the details are a bit hazy as it's over a year since I produced it; however I think I remember enough details for this discussion. I generated the base map using code I wrote to process the GTOPO30 data. I'm not 100% sure what licence the original dataset is — probably public domain given it is from the USGS, the specific version I downlodad had a GPL 2.0 notice on it. The coastline was taken from the GSSHS coastline data bundled with GMT: I forget which resolution dataset I used, but that's not relevant to the licensing as they are all GPL 2.0. I forget where the list of mountain peaks came from: most probably the lists in the English Wikipedia. I then wrote some code to convert the DMS co-ordinates into the Winkel-Tripel projection used by the map. Does that answer everything?
- I'll try to follow this thread for the next few days, but feel free to message me on the English-language Wikipedia (where I'm also user:ras52) if I need to come back and answer any further questions.
- — Ras52 (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Ras52, Could you put all that into the 'source' parameter in the image, then we'll close this discussion --Ozhiker (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Done — Ras52 (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Ras52, Could you put all that into the 'source' parameter in the image, then we'll close this discussion --Ozhiker (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose deletion. The map provides a very useful overview of the locations of the ultras. There is plenty of public domain material from which the coastline and relief can be generated. The peak data may have been extracted from the KML file that is linked to the linked article, but ultimately the vast majority of the peak data is based on computer generated lists which I derived from SRTM data and various topographic maps in 2004-5. Copyrighting this material would have obstructed the production of useful derived products. Therefore I did not copyright it. 213.128.239.213 11:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion - I agree with above. 68.205.233.107 00:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept, per Ozhiker: Uploader wrote the source of the map to the image description. I take your comment as a withdrawal. --Martin H. (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It has been superseded by Image:BattleforRome1944DiademPlan.svg. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 23:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Sanbec (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It has been superseded by Image:Cassino1944FirstPlan.svg --Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 23:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Sanbec (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Palais_Rameau_fronton.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Palais_Rameau_fronton.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I downloaded this photo and something went wrong, the image is empty. I'll try to download a new version. Flamenc (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Palais_Rameau_fronton.jpg){kind=link}
I want this photo to be deleted as there is a technical error. --Flamenc (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Palais_Rameau_fronton.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, per request and because of technical defect. --Martin H. (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Palais_Rameau_fronton.jpg){kind=link}
Palais_Rameau_fronton.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
i tried for the second time to download it and the file seem to be corrupted. Flamenc (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete not working here either Sterkebaktalk 18:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
deleted Julo (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work - photograph of a nonfree painting Mangostar (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
out of scope Jarekt (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Commons isn't DeviantArt, but this could be used to illustrate furry art. ViperSnake151 (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete watermarked.--Otterathome (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's been marked as watermarked, anybody with a basic image manipulation skill should be able to remove it.--Yamavu (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- This image was submitted for illustrational use of furry art, as well as an example for a very simple colorization technique. It's not used right now. If you want to delete it, go ahead. It's also available here.--Yamavu (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. I think it is no more out of scope than the other "furry" images Badseed talk 02:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
this is to much religious for public in internet 190.48.215.158 15:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)aka uploader, User:Mbariel (see page history)
- Image not used anywhere Sterkebaktalk 17:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- ?? It is just squares and circles (should be coded in SVG). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- While I'm against censoring images for religious reasons, I can't fathom a use for this on any project. This isn't even like the historic Mohammed pictures where at least there is some encyclopedic use. What's the caption going to say "meditate on this and the holy mantra will reveal itself in your mind"? (which is what the image description says). Delete -Nard the Bard 14:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rather out of scope Badseed talk 00:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
May not pass as PD-textlogo because it's typeface. Sdrtirs (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Neutral I could see this text-face being plain enough to pass PD-text. Looks no more complex than the LA Times or IBM logos. MBisanz talk 12:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)- Keep There is nothing about this logo which makes it eligible for copyright, nor an incomplete "A" neither a red background-box with rounded corners which is a very simple geometric shape. [[ Forrester ]] 17:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As per Forrester. Chaddy (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep But change the license, 'cause trademark and so on. I would suggest using
{{PD-textlogo}} {{Trademark}}--Fleshgrinder (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept per Fleshgrinder. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
poor quality, unused, out of scope, i see no possible use for this image. Otterathome (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 13:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
COM:FOP#France; no freedom of panorama in France. Also, the Space Invaders design may be copyrighted; not sure on this yet. Giggy (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- only the trademark "Space invaders" is registred by Tomohiro Nishikado, but the design of the game or the characters is not. That's why there are so much space invaders versions.Lilyu (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Space Invaders are 3D illegal graffiti. I'm not sure how this is treated by French law: you have certainly every right to delete or alter a graffiti on your wall or on your car, without infringing on the patrimonial or moral rights of the author. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would say that the characters are {{PD-ineligible}}, so keep. --ALE! ¿…? 18:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 18:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I somehow doubt that the uploader of this image is the copyright holder for it, so he or she can't release it into the public domain... The same goes for all other money pictures thiseditor has uploaded! --Fram (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
seems to be out of scope, unclear source, hard to validate license and watermarked Jarekt (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- I asked the uploader to initiate an OTRS procedure with the author. -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 13:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Lacking permission information. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
copyright of Spanish translation is unclear, moral might be copyrighted by J.R.Rodriguez, see edyd.com Martin (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- While this is technically true (edyd.com appears to waive copyright on the translation, but reserves copyright on the recommendations and morals they've added after each fable), I notice that even project Gutenberg distributes these files.[2]. How about contacting edyd.com and asking them about this? Lupo 07:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per Martin as the Spanish translation and some of the added morales are copyrighted by Jorge Renato Rodríguez, the owner of the Edyd.com site. I do not see an explicit waiver of the translation coypright (search for Nota sobre el Copyright © at the end of the main page). He simply tells that El contenido literal de cada una de estas historias (Fábulas Clásicas) ha sido de dominio público por siglos, por lo que su literatura no tiene restricción de Copyright. Perhaps he isn't aware that his translation is eligible for copyright. Independent from this, as Martin and Lupo noted, the copyright for the morale is reserved: Solamente el formato artístico de la presentación, tal como se diseñó para el Web, o para los módulos compactos en documento de texto, en su conjunto total o en cada página, sus gráficos individualmente, su música de fondo, y el texto de los conceptos emitidos como consejos o moralejas al final de cada fábula, moralejas concebidas y redactadas por Jorge R. Rodríguez de Edyd.com, de forma personal y no de autoría clásica, son consideradas como propiedad intelectual de edyd.com. Unfortunately, nobody attempted to obtain a free license for this media for more than half a year now. Currently, he restricts the use of his morales (which are also to be found in this file) to private or educational use. Commercial use is explicitly not permitted: Autorizamos también a copiar, imprimir y usar cualquiera de estas páginas Web (Fábulas Clásicas), en su forma integral de texto con sus gráficos y música , para su uso personal, educacional o institucional, en forma privada, manteniendo indicación de que su origen está en www.edyd.com. No se autoriza para su venta o lucro con ellas. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
copyright of Spanish translation is unclear, the moral might be copyrighted by J.R.Rodriguez (see edyd.com) Martin (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, see here. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
copyright of Spanish translation is unclear; the moral by might be copyrighted by J.R.Rodriguez, see edyd.com Martin (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, see here. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
copyright of Spanish translation is unclear; the moral by might be copyrighted by J.R.Rodriguez, see edyd.com Martin (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, see here. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
copyright of Spanish translation is unclear; the moral by might be copyrighted by J.R.Rodriguez, see edyd.com Martin (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, see here. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
copyright of Spanish translation is unclear; the moral by might be copyrighted by J.R.Rodriguez, see edyd.com Martin (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, see here. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
copyright of Spanish translation is unclear; the moral by might be copyrighted by J.R.Rodriguez, see edyd.com Martin (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, see here. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
copyright of Spanish translation is unclear; the moral by might be copyrighted by J.R.Rodriguez, see edyd.com Martin (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- +Image:Fabula de Esopo 007.ogg, same case (was an incomplete request without subpage) --Martin H. (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, see here. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
copyright of Spanish translation is unclear; the moral by might be copyrighted by J.R.Rodriguez, see edyd.com Martin (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, see here. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
copyright of Spanish translation is unclear; the moral by might be copyrighted by J.R.Rodriguez, see edyd.com Martin (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, see here. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
(The name of the image file is misspelled, should be Douglas and not Dougls) --Sheara33 (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Appears to be photo of uploader, and is unused. The uploader requested deletion, but apparently didn't finish the request correctly so it has been sitting there for a few months, which I guess someone finally completed. Delete on uploader-request and COM:SCOPE grounds since it is not in use on a personal page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Bidgee (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
