Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/09/29
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Out of scope unless this person is notable. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Also:
I don't see why these images are in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Request withdrawn. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
My mistake. It's not a L. vulpinum, it's a L. quercinum. Thanks Dragonòt (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate of Image:Leccinum quercinum.jpg, please use {{badname|newname.jpg}} instead of deletion request in such cases (newly uploaded image because of bad/missleading name). --Martin H. (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
duplicate file - file name included incorrect ID Davefoc (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, vor allem mit Kennzeichen Ingolstadt-A 5001... gelöscht. --Martin H. (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
imagespam -picture contains poster with nonsense, "artproject" of twe students in NL misusing Wikipedia --JeroenZ85 (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: : out of scope
imagespam -picture contains poster with nonsense, "artproject" of twe students in NL misusing Wikipedia JeroenZ85 (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: : out of scope
Image:ATgAAADdN-CRL3EPTVo-4Ns4g-HWM4EgcnhnT5xth_m9jPt2R3qBLH3HDfRIAGjQHeJrRESTkYsD8lrfdmh8m44xjbHMAJtU9VA_MQ22h7zGA68KBirspi1sMnDKQ.jpg
[edit]as of COM:SCOPE; unused, no description, low quality. Túrelio (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete Nonsense/useless image. MBisanz talk 12:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)- Delete --Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleting as per above and probable copyvio. I do like the name though. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I dont think the flickr user has the rights of this image Sterkebaktalk 15:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless anyone speedies it. The Flickr licensing has been changed since I deleted this image first. The user has a history of uploading copyvios and is now blocked. --Herby talk thyme 18:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work, no indication, that this image is public domain Martin H. (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Efectively, this foto was made from a CD (i think this can be considered derivative work) However, i dont take the foto of the entirely Cd Cover, just a part of the person that i needed to ilustrate a wikipedia article of the musician. The original foto most have, at least, 60 years. If this cant be made, i APOLOGIZE. I´ll never do that again.
Thanks for your time--Juan 21:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thats no problem, thanks again for your help and you contributions of other good images. --Martin H. (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work of a cd/cc Cover or inlay, no indication, that this image is public domain Martin H. (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Efectively, this foto was made from a CD (i think this can be considered derivative work) However, i dont take the foto of the entirely Cd Cover, just a part of the person that i needed to ilustrate a wikipedia article of the musician. The original foto most have, at least, 60 years. If this cant be made, i APOLOGIZE. I´ll never do that again.
Thanks for your time--Juan 21:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of a CD/CC cover or inlay, no indication, that this image is public domain. Martin H. (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Efectively, this foto was made from a CD (i think this can be considered derivative work) However, i dont take the foto of the entirely Cd Cover, just a part of the person that i needed to ilustrate a wikipedia article of the musician. The original foto most have, at least, 60 years. If this cant be made, i APOLOGIZE. I´ll never do that again.
Thanks for your time--Juan 21:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Juan, thats no problem, I see that you now knows the importance and some concepts of copyright and I hope, that you will contribute also in future to Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation, the website does not say, that the author of this image releases it into the public domain Martin H. (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,Martin.
In this particular case, this foto was profesionaly taked, and the author or the foto, Luis Nova get paid for it. I am the person that pays to him and i autorized to Miguel de Mena to convert the foto into a digital format and do the articule with the foto. Any way, i dont know exactly what its needed. Public domain declaration must be gived by luis nova, Miguel d Mena o the artist Juan Francisco Ordóñez himself_?.
Thanks for your time and excuse my english--Juan 20:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Juan, the digitalization by Mr. de Mena is not important, the image seems to be your property, the author sold his work to you, so you can do what ever you want with this image. You also can upload it to commons and release it into the public domain, thank your very much for doing so :) --Martin H. (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Image of a copyrigted statue. No freedom of panorama for public statues in norway 84.48.93.123 20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. As there is only noncommericial FOP in Norway, such images are against commonst policy. --Kjetil_r 20:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
blurred image by known copyvio-uploader, maybe copyvio, definetly out of scope abf /talk to me/ 14:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Source = web. O RLY? ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
exlcuir Vivianc (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
as of COM:SCOPE. jpg contains only text, sort of curriculum vitae/vanity; not of use. Túrelio (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: Out of project scope
should be a jpg image --WayneRay (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann: Out of project scope: should be reuploaded on JPEG
The image has no evident value and isn't used anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonjames1986 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Photo is made and copyrighted by Roy Beusker (http://www.roybeusker.nl/nieuws/nieuwscontent/pim/index.html). If uploader (Emperor-Mike) is really Mr. Beusker, why doesn't he upload under his real name? After all, he is a professional photographer. --PiotrKapretski (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I sent an e-mail to Mr. Beusker to ask if he really put the photo there himself. PiotrKapretski (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Mr. Beusker replied that he is not the uploader, and the picture is copyrighted. PiotrKapretski (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This image is not in the public domain and the law referred to is interpreted contrary to its real intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MWAK (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment You say this isn't in the public domain but don't say why not. Could you please explain this? Adambro (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase it then: firstly no proof has been given that this is a work of the Dutch government. I recall the same photo being used in LPF (Fortuijn's party) posters and flyers. So there is no author information. The image has likely simply been made available by the LPF for the purpose of showing it on this single occasion. Secondly, and this is a problem with the entire template used, the law referred to does not say that any picture published (let alone used) by the government is in the public domain, only that the copyright of such works is not infringed upon by reusing it in the same form. It's a kind of "fair use" rule, unless the copyright had been explicitly relinquished. And that is exactly which yet has to be proven: it does not suffice that it can be found on some government website. --MWAK (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Since it appears that there isn't any evidence that this is a work of the government. Adambro (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Likely flickrwashing. metadata on flickr says "(C) 2006 E. Kayhan Gurbuz". No indication that flickr user "ptllhrs" is Gurbuz. Photostream consists of this photo and three logos; 2 of the logos and this photo were just uploaded here by User:Aptullah shortly after being uploaded to flickr. dave pape (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- You might be right, but I don't see any strong evidence to say either way. It looks like the picture was modified by Adobe Photoshop 7.0. Does Adobe automatically fill out that field? J.smith (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Flickr user ptllhrs is not look like trusted. Logos uploaded with "cc-by-sa" too by this user.--Machiavelli talk 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- hhmm...valid point. J.smith (talk) 06:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Flickr user ptllhrs is not look like trusted. Logos uploaded with "cc-by-sa" too by this user.--Machiavelli talk 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Simply stolen from Galatasaray Homepage, like Image:Milan Baros.jpg and the flickrwashed recreation Image:Milan Baros 2.jpg. Blatant violation of copyrights. --Martin H. (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
out of scope Yann (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Flickwashing; image is Renee's Cover Girl shoot and as such would be copyrighted Tabercil (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Details can be found here (image in question is # 305); caption for the image reads in its entirety: "Renee poses for her Cover Girl shoot on the 8th cycle of America's Next Top Model. The CW/Pottle Productions/Jim DeYonker - Tuesday, May, 22, 2007, 1:22 AM" Tabercil (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- DeleteCopyrighted promotional image. MBisanz talk 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
contains an image of the atomium, because of no FOP in Belgium it is a violation of copyright. All other images are unsourced. Martin H. (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I am the legal copyright owner of this picture & did not give permission for it to be used. by missie or anyone else - please remove it. 86.136.96.151 16:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Who are you? Joymaster (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. If 86.136.96.151 can provide evidence of ownership, please do so. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
scan from a newspaper Yann (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No indication this is PD. abf /talk to me/ 14:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Artist en:Teodoro Núñez Ureta died 1988. Too soon for this to be free. -Nard the Bard 17:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unfree image based on age. MBisanz talk 01:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 14:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Promotional quality image from 1969, likely a photoshop scan and crop. MBisanz talk 18:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted + no OTRS permission for free re-use since more than 6 months. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 19:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It looks like copyrighted. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 19:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Quoi Kékécé ?
T Ki Toi ?
Ou ca un copyright ?
C'est une simple photo d'un produit que j'ai acheté .
Dis moi ou tu vois du copyright ?.
J'ai peu-être mal choisi la licence.
c'est mon premier jour d'incription, je connais pas.
Je dois dire que votre système est plus chiant, mais alors vraiment chiant bordel
C'est mal expliqué, c'est pas clair du tout
Dèjà que passer du temps pour aider et proposer aux autres, c'est pas évident
Alors si à chaque fois je dois me faire chier, je vais laisser tomber
Richard
- Ne t'énerves pas, ça ne veux pas forcément dire que cela sera supprimé, ça veux dire qu'il y a un doute et qu'on se pose la question... Guérin Nicolas (messages) 06:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete : Blatant copyvio [1] -- Asclepias (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Bonsoir, je ne m'énerve pas, le début était sur le ton de l'humour et la fin de la déception... Bref, passons. Comme vous pouvez le voir, je suis perdu.
Peut-être que si vous pouvez répondre à quelques-unes de mes questions, j'y verrai plus claire.
1 : Puis-je uploader la photo d'un objet récent dans la mesure où je l'ai acheté ?
2 : le constructeur conserve donc des copyright dessus ?
3 : Cela vient-il des dessins présents dessus (dans ce cas là, je comprends les problèmes de copyright) ?
4 : Si oui, Est-ce possible de flouter les dessins ou tout autre logo, motif pouvant poser problème, et espérer l'acceptation du fichier ? (ce n'est pas les dessins qui sont interressants dans cette photo, mais l'aspet physique et général ou la couleur)
5 : Pouvez vous m'expliquer rapidement et simplement les différentes types de licences ?
6 : Faut-il demander au constructeur de l'objet une autorisation ?
7 : Si oui, sous quelle forme ?
8 : Vous vous posez quelles question sur cette photo ?II...Richard...II (Conseils ?) 19:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Bonjour,
- Comme une demande de suppression n'est pas tellement un bon endroit pour une discussion sur un ensemble de notions générales sur le droit d'auteur, je vais répondre sur ta page de discussion. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio, derivative work, fair use... whatever! - unfree - deleted. abf /talk to me/ 14:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Broken svg. -Nard the Bard 22:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep Author fixed it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)- Keep per Bard. MBisanz talk 01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This user is obviously not the creator of this work. --65.93.216.49 (talk · contribs) 08:04, 29 September 2008
- A museum is not the copyright holder of its works either, nevertheless such works are in public domain. The same applies for this hieroglyph.
Diti (talk to the penguin) 16:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- A museum is not the copyright holder of its works either, nevertheless such works are in public domain. The same applies for this hieroglyph.
- Keep - either the license is valid or it's in PD. Either way, keep. J.smith (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- KeepAncient image + photographer release = ok. MBisanz talk 01:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete sadly. This is a clear copy vio of this web page where the copyright is stated at the bottom of the web page-- [2] "Copyright © 1996 Dr. Charles S. Finch, III, MD. All rights reserved by the author." Dr. Finch could legally sue Commons here since it was 'lifted' from his web site. Note: Uploader Crucifixion has a history of copy vios: see his talk page which are full of copy vio warnings: [3] I hope this helps, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The uploaded picture has a bigger resolution than the one present on the website. Diti (talk to the penguin) 17:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Old pictures like this one, when no additional artistic work is visible (like an imaginative point of view for a photo; but this file is a scan), are in public domain, whatever the website which has released them. Diti (talk to the penguin) 07:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I've tagged the image as missing permission, so Crucifixion has to send an email proving he's the copyright holder. But according to the African by nature website, I doubt that he is the copyright holder, since it seems to be some kind of organization. Yuval Y § Chat § 23:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Since this work is in public domain, I wanted to put the {{PD-OLD}} template,
but source (website, I guess) is missing,as well as the author (maybe unknown). Anyway, I put {{PD-Egypt}} instead. Diti (talk to the penguin) 17:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC) - Comment Dear Diti. We have no idea when the image was taken or who took it--let alone where it was first published. That is the problem with copy vios: we never know the original source. It can certainly have been published after 1987 because the object is in the Metropolitan Museum of NY, not in the Cairo Museum. So, US copyright law applies to it. On balance, we should delete it. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Although the image has little creative content, it is not an image of another image, nor an image of a painting, but an image of a 3D object, a sculpture. The image probably has sufficient creative content for copyright to attach under Gorman, R. A.: Copyright Law, 2nd ed., U.S. Federal Judicial Center, 19 June 2006 p. 43 (common snapshot or home motion picture film is eligible for copyright, given the photographer’s judgment regarding angle, placement, shading, timing and the like) citing Time, Inc. v. Bernard Geis Assocs., 293 F. Supp. 130 (S.D.N.Y. 1968).--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I just managed to get this image legally placed on Commons (after much cropping and adjustment from the original posted flickr image): Image:Funerary relief of Amenemhet I from El-Lisht by John Campana.jpg The image holder agreed to license it freely for use on WP. My point here is that the copy vio is replacable. So, we don't need it anyway. I am not a lawyer and this discussion over 2D or 3D art is very confusing. But if Commons accepts this image from a copyrighted web site, then other news organizations like the BBC, ABC, CNN will all assume that they are copyright free and use them too. What happens when the original copyright holder discovers what happened? --Leoboudv (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The original image is PD or such, but here we have a picture, who's copyrights belongs to the photographer, or the copyright holder. According to the African by nature website, ©A.B.N. Enterprises, 1999-2008, all rights reserved, therefore the picture is also copyrighted. I've looked at flickr, and if I'm not mistaken, this picture is also the same. Since the picture is being used in some Wikipedias, It would have to be replaced first. Yuval Y § Chat § 15:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
![[1]](http://spyhunter007.com/Images/atomiswave_system.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://africanbynature.com/Resources_3/amenemhet%2520I_sm.jpg&imgrefurl=http://africanbynature.com/eyes/openeyes_stilloutofafrica.html&h=257&w=243&sz=31&tbnid=R2iaK6593vUJ::&tbnh=112&tbnw=106&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAmenemhet%2BI&hl=en&usg=__Edy6z75u5LNi4KajgLhyBq5JiOc=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=1){kind=link}
Deleted because of the above reasons. I'm uploading a cropped version of this image. Yuval Y § Chat § 18:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
States that email to OTRS has been sent, but has not been verified. I am think that perhaps permission has not been granted for use of this photo. russavia (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- The editor above added the unnecessary OTRS request (I had already emailed the permission email and received confirmation from wikimedia, ticket #2008091410014401). --Asterion (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- That ticket was merged to 2008091410014321. That request is still pending and has not yet been approved. The language that the owner of the image isn't quite specific enough. J.smith (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Still no response after 25+ days since request. J.smith (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. it can come back when licence is in order Sterkebaktalk 22:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Copyright Violation suspect (Church logotype) Ramisses (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Tagged with npd. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Likely a copyrighted logo. MBisanz talk 12:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Anonymous101 talk 19:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Das Copyright für das Eupener Kriegerdenkmal liegt bei dem 1925 gestorbenen Bildhauer Ulrich Henn und nicht bei dem 1950 gestorbenen ausführenden Handwerker/Bildhauer Carl Burger. Das Bild verstösst damit nicht gegen das belgische Copyright.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images from carnet-voyages.net
[edit]This is a mass deletion request for images from carnet-voyages.net, the reason of the speedydeletion request was:
- Not enough information on the licence on the web site. We've got « L'utilisateur publie ses photos sur ce site conformément à la licence Creative Commons. » which mean « This user publish his pictures under Creative Commons license. » There is unfree CC licence.
- File:Seychelles Bird island.jpg
- File:Seychelles Felecite.jpg
- File:Martinique - Anse Diamant.jpg
- File:Martinique jardin balata.jpg
- File:Marseille - Vieux port.jpg
- File:Mauritanie - Adrar.jpg
- File:Adrar pommier de Sodome.jpg
- File:Cap Canaille.jpg
- File:Desert Mauritanie.jpg
- File:Desert lybique Doigt de Dieu.jpg
- File:Hawai coucher de soleil.jpg
- File:Martinique Diamant.jpg
- File:Machu Picchu interieur.jpg
- Images by the author JuJu are already kept, see this edit
--Martin H. (talk) 09:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Asked per Email to the website contact. --Martin H. (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Asclepias on ( Delete/ Keep). It seems that it is "Juju" that upload those pictures on fr. - Zil (d) 13:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Removed the images from author Juju marked with Keep to keep this deletion request a bit shorter, the old list is here --Martin H. (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Removed the images from author Juju marked with
- Agree with Asclepias on (
Deleted, as the Creative Commons license used is unclear and could be unfree. →Diti the penguin — 10:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of non-free 2D art. I'm afraid there's no indication that this is illegal grafitti as opposed to a legal mural. Kelly 02:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Spain appears to have FOP covering 2D works. I see no reason to delete this. -Nard 09:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Is this is in Spain? Damn, you're right. Close this while I slink off like an idiot. Kelly 11:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Kept It's in Spain. Platonides (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work of this copyright photo 24.128.49.162 13:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep FOP covers the photo of the grafitti, and the grafitti itself is protected under another provision of Spanish law, article 39: "The parody of a disclosed work shall not be considered a transformation that requires the consent of the author, provided that it involves no risk of confusion with that work and does no harm to the original work or its author."[4] -Nard the Bard 17:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is clearly not a "parody". It is a tribute to Tupac, and it is not fair use to make graffiti that looks nearly identical to the original photo in style. (I was the IP, and I saw this, immediately recognized that it was a photo I had seen before, and found it in google images. That's how close they are, and how famous the original photo is.) I agree that the relevant copyright to worry about is not the muralist (that is covered by FOP)-- it is the copyright of the photographer. Just adapting a photo into a mural does not negate copyright issues. Mangostar (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete not a parody, clearly just a copy of the original image. Megapixie (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Changed mind to
Neutral. -Nard the Bard 09:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
There are better pictures with more detail just change it
- Delete, derivative work--shizhao (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete clearly a derivative work of the copyrighted photo --Kam Solusar (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Derivative work. Sv1xv (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Project Grenoble
[edit]Seems to be scanned from a Book, Image:Giant 004.JPG contains a bar code label - strong suspicion of copyright violation, some other uploads of Simdaperce (talk · contribs) (Gallery) are looking suspicious too. Most of the images are duplicates. --Martin H. (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- File:Giant 001.JPG
- File:Giant 002.JPG
- File:Giant 003.JPG
- File:Giant 004.JPG
- File:Giant 005.jpg
- File:Grenoble 004.JPG
- File:Grenoble 003.JPG
- File:Grenoble 002.JPG
- File:Grenoble 001.JPG
Delete Copyrighted (and according to the uploader's talk page, i don't think that he is the copyright holder of the original pictures). Guérin Nicolas (messages) 19:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted all. Next time please use {{Copyvio}} for clear case. abf /talk to me/ 14:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
the website www.Calliope.tm.fr has a copyright notice on the bottom so it's unclear the uploader can GFDL this. --Ricky81682 (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support, see link: http://www.calliope.tm.fr/pages/interpretes/interpretes_presentation.php?L=N&I=2584
deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Image of low quality; not used. MozillaMan(talk) 16:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The castle in the flag of Salou is white not yellow -- Cameta (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It is wrong, its title has a typo and it has been superseded. --SMP (talk page) 23:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
No proper source for this image. -Nard the Bard 22:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Scan of official document – definitely not own work --195.171.95.4 14:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- definitely own scan, definitely own prepared (some personal details removed), definitely not copyrighted (as in other post-Yugoslovian countries, see Category:Passports of Serbia, Category:Passports of Croatia) Keep Julo (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep See {{PD-UN}} why the UNO emblem is public domain. The rest of the form is likewise not eligible for copyright. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Standard form plus free logo. MBisanz talk 01:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep there is a PD licence, not any of self work licences, you should see the difference Maikking (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Licence does not seem compatible with Commons. It's strangely worded, so I prefer not to speedy delete it. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see what's wrong with it. The permission text reads "authorized for commerical use (publication). Please add reference to Conaie" (the creator). It requires attribution only, which is acceptable for Commons. Chick Bowen (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand what "authorized for national and international media of communication" means. Is it restrictive or not? Does "professional use" mean "commercial use"? What about modification? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Medios de comunicación" means "mass media." I read "publicaciones" as a gloss of "fines profesionales," meaning that the image can be published. It is strange wording, I agree, but it seems to allow commercial use with the sole requirement of attribution. It doesn't mention modification (i.e. derivative works) one way or the other; I'm not sure if derivatives would generally be considered allowed unless specifically not mentioned or the other way around. Chick Bowen (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'll ask a Spanish speaker to write them a mail and check this out. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Medios de comunicación" means "mass media." I read "publicaciones" as a gloss of "fines profesionales," meaning that the image can be published. It is strange wording, I agree, but it seems to allow commercial use with the sole requirement of attribution. It doesn't mention modification (i.e. derivative works) one way or the other; I'm not sure if derivatives would generally be considered allowed unless specifically not mentioned or the other way around. Chick Bowen (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand what "authorized for national and international media of communication" means. Is it restrictive or not? Does "professional use" mean "commercial use"? What about modification? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. There must be explicit permission for any use, not just publications, plus modofication Badseed talk 02:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Poor quality picture. Not only is it a picture from behind the subject, but for it to be discernible in the associated article, it has to be made so large that it becomes pixelated and blurry. For that reason I have removed it from the WP article, and it is now orphaned to boot. --MSJapan (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- The original looks decent and might be useful. It may not show his face, but it does show his uniform quite well. J.smith (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. It was being used at da.wiki so i uploaded the full version on top Badseed talk 02:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of a CD/CC cover or inlay, no indication, that this image is public domain. Martin H. (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi again, Martin.
In this case. I own the original foto. Is not a foto of any record, CD o whatever. This foto was given to me by Laura Skarll and Luis Dias, the leader of the band, because I was a a close friend of rock Group. I take my foto and make a digital version of it to ilustrate the wikipedia article of the band.
Thanks--Juan 20:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Juan and sorry, that i didnt had confidence in your uploads - im sorry. I think, in this case the image and all the rights according to it where presented to you (maybe someone can confirm my thoughts) so you can release this image into the public domain. Do you have any chance to make a better scan of this image? What about the other (deleted) image of this band, Image:Transporte2.jpg shows the band joking with a bicycle? --Martin H. (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello,Martin. Dont worry
the problem with the other image was the source. But this can be soluted because the web page is from a friend and its the similar case than JuanFco.jpg. I send an e-mail already. Also, maybe will be posible to me to take a better foto with another camera.
Thanks for your time. You are very helpfull person with very correct forms.--Juan 21:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again Juan and thank you very much, i like to return this compliment. Maybe i dont understand the problem: It is not necessary to make photos of PC Screens, if you once have the image in digital form, no matter which format the file is (.jpg, .png, .bmp, .whatever) you can upload it to Commons, every reproduction makes it a worse quality. I cant do anything for this deletion request because im not sure about how to decide, someone other have do make this decision. --Martin H. (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello,Martin.
In the especific case of Transporte1.jpg, is a digital foto of a real fotograph that i own. So, transporte1.jpg is the firts digital formato of this picture. By the way, is not the case of a photo of PC screen.
Just to clarify.Thanks for all--Juan 18:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. But please consider uploading at better resolution, thanks Badseed talk 02:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of a CD/CC cover or inlay, no indication, that this image is public domain. Martin H. (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
This is not derivative work. This was an experiment of a foto taken to PC monitor of a part of an image that I own, but the quality wasn´t good enough. I will improved it or substitute it in the future--Juan 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Juan, if you own the image on your PC you can just crop the head of this musician from the image using a graphic program, or, if you dont have such a program or if you do not how to use it, just upload the whole image and it will be done by some users with good skills in editing images. --Martin H. (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. the image has been substituted by other with better resolution. So, I think bad quality problem it is been solve .--Juan 18:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The uploader claim the subject is the great mother of his great mother, photo taken in 1906, french law. That gives no information on who is the author, and even if it's a family photo, each descendant inherit a part of the copyright and it need their authorization before publishing it.
Or, we need the name of the author and that he died before 1938.
Le posteur de l'image affirmeque le sujet de la photo est la grand mère de sa grand mère, photo prise en 1906, loi française. Ceci ne donne aucune indication sur l'auteur de la photographie, et même si c'ets une photo de famille, chaque descendant hérite une part des droits d'auteurs, et leur autorisation est requise avant de publier l'image.
Ou alors, nosu avons besoin du nom de l'auteur et qu'il soit mort avant 1938. --Lilyu (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- What is with that frame? Is this like one of those pictures you can go to the mall and get done in a comical way? -Nard the Bard 22:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- His grand mother is only the subject of this image, not the author. We lack correct informations regarding the author, thus it should be deleted.
- If it's an unpublished work, even if the author is dead since a long time, the first publisher got a 25 years exclusivity. The first publisher still need agreement of the author's kids if the author never deemed to give such agreement (see french lawcases). If there is no author problem, it still require the agreement of all people heriting from that Alice (if she purshased the image) if they have rights on it.
- A lot of possibilities. So, that's why we require people to provide enought informations on images. The lack of informations here, and since the image is here since 6 month without correct informations provided, i still ask deletion of this image.--Lilyu (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted this one as well as the other user's contributions, except File:Aaaa-alice-guy-unesco-1.jpg which is from 1913 and therfore {{PD-US}} (someone have time to remove border-letters?). The 1906 date on the photos is almost sure wrong as pics were from various times of her life Badseed talk 00:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work of unfree logo. -Nard the Bard 17:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, Not really, its of Image:Ie7logo.png, which is actually GPL. Though, its a crappy edit though, might remake it for him. ViperSnake151 (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - the derivative image used is here, at Wikimedia Commons, and if it was a copyright violation, both were have to get nominated
=P. macy@enwiki 21:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)- Nominated for discussion on this page. --AVRS (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep --Macbookair3140 (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please explain why. The debates are not votes. --AVRS (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Very weak delete. Compare with en:File:Internet Explorer 7 Logo.png: the ring shape and colors are very close, only the transparency is more complex in the actual logo. --AVRS (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep --Anarkangel (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please explain why. The debates are not votes. --AVRS (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, It's used only in user pages and it's different enough of the original logo. The "e" in the IE logo ([5]) doesn't got that level of detail in the planet used in this image Image:Ie7logo.png. Also, the image maker is not trying to mimic the shading used in the official logo. Kindly, Linfocito B | Greetings from Colombia! 23:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Being used only in user pages does not make its copyright status for Commons better. Maybe only less trademark confusion… --AVRS (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, Derivative work--shizhao (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
![[5]](http://www.microsoft.com/library/media/1033/windows/images/internet-explorer/logo-downloads/IE8-Get_240x108.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted as a derivative work. Used on a truckload of userpages, good luck Delinker (and Badseed) Badseed talk 01:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
no reason to think artist died >70 yrs ago, same problem as w/ other Haabet uploads Calliopejen 02:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is a anonymous art work which is more and 50 years old (85 years old!), and the factory closed. The artist had no copyright of anonymous work, and the factory have any financial interest in a old catalogue. haabet 09:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Haabet, it's not "anonymous" in the ordinary sense, it's most probably commercial work-for-hire or part of a collective work of corporate authorship. The arguments you advanced have more to do with whether it's an "orphan work" than with its copyright status as such... Churchh (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Anybody has commercial interest in a 75 years old catalogue from a missing factory and anybody has commercial interest in obsolete products.
- Haabet, it's not "anonymous" in the ordinary sense, it's most probably commercial work-for-hire or part of a collective work of corporate authorship. The arguments you advanced have more to do with whether it's an "orphan work" than with its copyright status as such... Churchh (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The catalogue been printed in many country and if one country do not had copyright it have no copyright in all country. It is normally as all newspapers in USA use artwork from well-known artist without pay of copyright it that are from before 1940. haabet 07:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Work for hire, more 70 years old. Yann (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of non-free 2D art. I'm afraid there's no indication that this is illegal grafitti as opposed to a legal mural. Kelly 02:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Spain appears to have FOP covering 2D works. I see no reason to delete this. -Nard 09:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Is this is in Spain? Damn, you're right. Close this while I slink off like an idiot. Kelly 11:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Kept It's in Spain. Platonides (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work of this copyright photo 24.128.49.162 13:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep FOP covers the photo of the grafitti, and the grafitti itself is protected under another provision of Spanish law, article 39: "The parody of a disclosed work shall not be considered a transformation that requires the consent of the author, provided that it involves no risk of confusion with that work and does no harm to the original work or its author."[6] -Nard the Bard 17:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is clearly not a "parody". It is a tribute to Tupac, and it is not fair use to make graffiti that looks nearly identical to the original photo in style. (I was the IP, and I saw this, immediately recognized that it was a photo I had seen before, and found it in google images. That's how close they are, and how famous the original photo is.) I agree that the relevant copyright to worry about is not the muralist (that is covered by FOP)-- it is the copyright of the photographer. Just adapting a photo into a mural does not negate copyright issues. Mangostar (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete not a parody, clearly just a copy of the original image. Megapixie (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Changed mind to Neutral. -Nard the Bard 09:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
There are better pictures with more detail just change it
- Delete, derivative work--shizhao (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete clearly a derivative work of the copyrighted photo --Kam Solusar (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Derivative work. Sv1xv (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)