Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/10/08
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Outside project scope --Mach (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Out of scope and Copyvio - Sterkebaktalk 04:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Outside project scope --Mach (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Also missing OTRS permission. Marked as © All rights reserved at Flickr. Lupo 13:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No proof of pd-old. -Nard the Bard 01:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Литвинов Дмитрий Иванович , there is a "copy" same source in english wikipedia --Gunckelie (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Withdrawn, if nobody has objected in all this time then it's good. The subject died in 1929 after all. -Nard the Bard 02:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Request withdrawn. Yann (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I highly doubt own work. -Nard the Bard 01:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
* 23:14, 7 October 2008 Mardetanha (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Valerialynchbudokan.jpg" (Copyright violation) (restore)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Apparently claiming FOP. A live musical performance is not a permanent installation. dave pape (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -- per discussion here Zginder (talk)
- Comment - however if this is an original own work, under what rationale could you delete it? This is just a frivolous as deleting self-created images of public personalities for Copyright --Flewis (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- I do not make the laws, but a person does not determine how they look and can not copyright themselves; however, musicians are given copyright, although weaker than other forms of copyright, copyright nonetheless in the USA, and most other countries including the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zginder (talk • contribs) (UTC)
- If anything, the music itself is within the public domain (Author died 115 years ago), which "weakens" the "copyright" further - doubled over by the fact that this is not an official recording by any commercial organization/group. --Flewis (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- You’re right. The music itself is in the public domain. That means that if you hired an orchestra, you could perform it (i.e. the original arrangement) without paying royalties to Tchaikovsky’s heirs. And you would own the copyright on the performance, which means I would have no right to distribute a bootleg recording. —teb728 t c 08:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- If anything, the music itself is within the public domain (Author died 115 years ago), which "weakens" the "copyright" further - doubled over by the fact that this is not an official recording by any commercial organization/group. --Flewis (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- (Commenting on the original comment) It is not your own work it is the work of the w:London Symphony Orchestra. Also, if you are claiming that the recoding is not copyrightable, why do you claim a Creative Commons license on it, (which means you would own copyright)? Zginder (talk)
- Delete The 2006 performance by the London Symphony Orchestra is of course copyrighted. Its called "neighboring rights" and protects the performance for 50 years from the year it occurred. Lupo 21:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per Lupo. It is the 2006 performance which has copyright. MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Not work of federal government. -Nard the Bard 02:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted not US federal work + copyrighted logo + inappropriate licensing. --Guérin Nicolas (messages) 20:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
as of COM:SCOPE. Image has also been used for vandalism of en:Misha by en-user with identical name as the uploader. Túrelio (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Turelio deleted this. Kanonkas(talk) 13:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
"Artwork by Nathan Shaner, photography by Paul Steinbach" >>> COM:DW, not covered by COM:DM and likely without documented permission; Uploader seems to be related in some way with the author (PhD @ UCSD) but it is not clear in which way exactly, emailed him [[ Forrester ]] 14:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- I uploaded the picture. I worked in the lab that the photo was taken in. I asked permission from the creator of the art, Nathan Shaner, and the photographer, Paul Steinbach, to post it on wikipedia. They both agreed I should post it. It seems that since then, wikipedia standards have evolved. Do we need additional documentation? If so I can obtain it easily. AndrewHires (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- It would be great if you could send a permission to OTRS. [[ Forrester ]] 16:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I forwarded an email to OTRS from Nathan, the copyright holder, granting permission. AndrewHires (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
kept, OTRS-permission is arrived and registered now. --Ra'ike T C 23:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Outside project scope and possible copyvio. -Nard the Bard 15:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Sterkebaktalk 17:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Belgium says "not OK" Teofilo (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
requested by uploader, outdated, not used anywhere, supplanted by Image:Czech passport 2006 MRZ data.jpg. --+Hexagon1 (t) 15:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image no longer in use. -Nard the Bard 22:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted.user request + outdated Mardetanha talk 10:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence that this was published before 1923. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Image is {{PD-Bain}}. I'm going to change the tagging now. -Nard the Bard 15:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. howcheng {chat} 16:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
per Commons:Derivative works Teofilo (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Of what? It's just a guy (or girl) in some suit with some kids. Multichill (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Of a 3-dimensional artwork figuring a mouse. Teofilo (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France says "not OK" ; architectural work of architect fr:Ricardo Bofill, 1988 Teofilo (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France says "not OK". Architectural work by Ricardo Bofill, 1988 Teofilo (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France says "not OK". Architectural work by Ricardo Bofill, 1988 Teofilo (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete You're right. I completely forgot I uploaded this picture! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France says "not OK". Architectural work by Ricardo Bofill, 1988 Teofilo (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France says "not OK". Architectural work by Ricardo Bofill, 1988 Teofilo (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
license looks scary abf /talk to me/ 18:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Prove I was not on duty when I took it! -Nard the Bard 18:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I am going back to my old user page picture, so this one will be an unused personal image which makes it outside scope. -Nard the Bard 18:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per above: user request concerning its own picture. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 20:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Japan says "only for buildings", but this is not a building Teofilo (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
as of COM:SCOPE. Looks like a college joke, considering the file name. Túrelio (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 21:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. no information Mardetanha talk 00:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks a scan from a newspaper. No info about text license. OsamaK 21:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Mardetanha talk 00:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 21:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 21:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Replaceable screenshot on Windows XP includes Wikimedia Commons logo. OsamaK 21:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Tarawneh (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. Please see the other version Image:JOHNJOHNNIGHT2.jpg, it is orphaned too. OsamaK 21:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 21:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 21:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Outside project scope. Unidentifiable subject. -Nard the Bard 22:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 15:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete outside scope. Anonymous101 talk 15:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 02:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
And Image:Nowhere 99901 (Crop2).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
no OTRS has ever come through 66.31.42.26 23:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- OTRS is quite backed up, but I couldn't find the permission when I did a text search of open tickets from that time period. Either he sent it much later or never sent it. I dropped the uploader an email.--Chaser (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- All of the versions of this image are still valid, I did send the email, forwarded from Bob Weinstein. I will be happy to send it again. Duuude007 (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please do. It's permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.--Chaser (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- All of the versions of this image are still valid, I did send the email, forwarded from Bob Weinstein. I will be happy to send it again. Duuude007 (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Until author says absolutely no, or there is no way the person will re-license. If OTRS is that backed up, then we need more people working on it. But it would be bad if the permission is sitting there and we delete the image. Just my opinion. DragonFire1024 (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is OTRS ticket 2008091810048421, but we still don't have explicit permission. I've just sent another email to the copyright holder about it. There is public discussion here.--Chaser (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
KeepIf the author wants it removed then it should be removed otherwise, keep
--iDangerMouseiDangerMouse03:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Clear statement received at OTRS. The discussion is moot.--Chaser (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
a 2007 stamp is not PD-Chile. -Nard the Bard 01:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Uploader does not own the copyright and 2008 is too new for Chile PD. Ww2censor (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Copyright violations; no license
Invalid OTRS tagging, unfree by Flickr standards, therefore should be deleted. MBisanz talk 13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No permission. -Nard the Bard 14:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The promised OTRS e-mail did not show up, Flickr indicates CC-by-nc-nd, therefore not acceptable on Commons. Mormegil (talk) 18:58, 8 November 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)
Not own work, user is a serial copyright violater. -Nard the Bard 01:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Whose family photo? The original at en.wiki was deleted for having improper sourcing. -Nard the Bard 01:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
A 2008 stamp does not qualify for PD-Chile nor is it own work. -Nard the Bard 01:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Uploader does not own the copyright and 2008 is too new for Chile PD. Ww2censor (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
No source, no proof this work is public domain, and surely no evidence of GFDL. -Nard the Bard 01:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
No way this is own work, especially from this uploader. -Nard the Bard 01:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Source given is "N/A". -Nard the Bard 01:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have any reason to assume that this was not a photograph taken by User:Changchih228?? Lupo 05:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- The uploader apparently mistook the Source field to hold the camera model's name, compare his other contributionshere. This was only his second upload using the {{Information}} template. His later uploads resulting from the apparent Brussels visit are correctly labelled. Against this background, "n/a" does not at all seem to be meant to say "author unknown". --Wikipeder (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Clear keep. All images of this uploader are taken with the same camera model DSC-N1. It's thereby highly plausible that he took them all by himself. --Túrelio (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
No real soure for this. No proof of PD. -Nard the Bard 01:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Copyright by Michael Nikel - NO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION! from http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=184610 --85.177.32.43 05:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I dont think PD text is ok for this. If any body can review it. --~ bayo or talk 07:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as Bayo said, I don't think that this logo could be PD-ineligible.--Bapti ✉ 19:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know...I can't see any problem about the font because we have it for download in these pages [1], [2], [3], [4] and many other. Though the colouring seems original. I must think a lil' more. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep After seeing this I vote to keep. Typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring are generally not eligible for copyright.Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with your assessment Mizunoryu. J.smith (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
This image is out of the project scope, because it was only created to bypass copyright law on Commons. ALE! ¿…? 07:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Was the ice sculpture officially licensed? Because if it was FOP should apply. (the work is permanent until it melts :) ) -Nard the Bard 16:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- FOP only applies in public places. Where was the picture taken? And no, this work is definitvely not permanent. --ALE! ¿…? 06:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- The policy page, on COM:FOP#Permanent_vs_temporary says that ice sculptures are considered permanent if left in place until they melt. But yes I agree, it would be nice to know the circumstances behind this, besides "art project". -Nard the Bard 10:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- FOP only applies in public places. Where was the picture taken? And no, this work is definitvely not permanent. --ALE! ¿…? 06:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, please delete.--Roland Berger (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader request. Unlikely to be of any use to us. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The descirption of this image is simply copied from Image:Samarraminaret.JPG, the image itself was stolen from the webiste linked for evidence (in relation to the image the description comes from). The image is from http://users.ox.ac.uk/~wolf0126/photo-index.html#samarra and the caption there says: © Iraqi Ministry of Information 1977. So this image is a violation of copyright like many, many other contributions of this uploader. Martin H. (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment It would be useful to know when and where the image was first published. We have the {{PD-Iraq}} tag for images first published in Iraq before 1999. There is at least a good chance this might be the case here. But if we don't find this information, I think the image should be deleted since the source page says it's copyrighted. --Botev (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
This looks like a modern bust. Norway has only non-commercial "freedom of panorama". Lupo 12:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
(Image was nominated a second time with the comment below: Lupo 12:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
Derivative work of copyrighted work of art meco (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The bust was erected in 2007. If this image is in violation of any copyright laws, then it should of course be deleted. - Mr. Hill (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation of a map. Teofilo (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
and:
- Image:Kartlis Deda Front.jpg
- Image:Kartlis Deda statue.jpg
- Image:Kartlis Deda.JPG
- Image:Mother Georgia 1.jpg
- Image:Mother Georgia 3.jpg
- Image:Mother Georgia.jpg
- Image:Mother of georgia 2.jpg
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Georgia. Sculptor is alive. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
per Commons:Derivative works. Artist en:Dale Chihuly was born in 1941. Teofilo (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
source/license not verifyed abf /talk to me/ 18:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, nearly listed it myself for the same reason. Smacking a no source tag on it might be better.--Otterathome (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
template indicates self-made, but no REAL source given abf /talk to me/ 18:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image has meta data consistent with being self-taken, and is high resolution. -Nard the Bard 19:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The upload form does not force uploaders to provide source, author, infotemplate at this time, no indication that this image is a copyvio. --Martin H. (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
per Commons:Derivative works. Artist en:Dale Chihuly was born in 1941. Teofilo (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
per Commons:Derivative works. Artist en:Dale Chihuly was born in 1941. The image summary describes this situaion as "fair use" Teofilo (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
doubtful license, but high in use abf /talk to me/ 19:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Surely the Crown copyright has expired by now... -Nard the Bard 22:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please differ between the blazon which is PD and this interpretation of it which is copyrighted by Vector-images.com. More info on COM:COA./Lokal_Profil 13:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The image has no valid licence tag, and may well be a new rendering of the blazon. Even if the blazon has been used for many years, we cannot host this unless it can be shown that this particular representation is itself old or has been released under a free licence. Pity about the "high use", but that cannot save this image. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
doubtful license, but high in use abf /talk to me/ 19:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Image should qualify as PD-US. -Nard the Bard 22:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's without a license at all. {{Vector-images.com}} is only a valid license with a parameter. Please differ between the blazon which is PD and this interpretation of it which is copyrighted by Vector-images.com. More info on COM:COA. /Lokal_Profil 13:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'd think this should qualify as {{Pd-old}}. I don't think vector-images.com somehow gets copyright ownership over the image just because they recreated it in a new form. Sweat-of-the-brow isn't whats important here, right? --J.smith (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- If it's recreated from the blazon then it's delinked from any copyright of the governments interpretation of the New Mexico seal. /Lokal_Profil 20:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The image has no valid licence tag, and may well be a new rendering of the blazon. Even if the blazon has been used for many years, we cannot host this unless it can be shown that this particular representation is itself old or has been released under a free licence. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
unknown band, see history of w:de:Tinitus - out of our project scope. Martin H. (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Flickerwashing/incorrect license tag/fair-use image; image was uploaded by a sockpuppet of a banned user in the English Wikipedia. --Blakegripling ph (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Blakegripling has no proff that this was copied from flickr or any website. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Uploader is a sockpuppet of a banned user on EN Wiki. One of the major reasons he was banned was because of the significant number of images he uploaded where he falsely claimed ownership. Notice that this user when uploading his own images includes EXIF data for the ones he actually takes himself.--NrDg (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio by a Gerald Gonzalez sockpuppet. Kanonkas(talk) 00:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work, contains unfree logos, outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 00:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Nard the Bard as being outside of COM:SCOPE and unused. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Improper sourcing. Not own work and not GFDL. May be PD under a different rationale. -Nard the Bard 01:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as there is no rationale given why this could be PD: We do know nothing about the photographer and we don't have any information whether this photograph was published anonymously. As this research is missing, {{Anonymous-EU}} does not apply. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The image is from Flickr where it is licenced cc-by-nd-sa, but Flickr is not the original source, the original source is maybe the venezuelan Government homepage. Are Ven-Gov images free? If yes, this image needs a relicencing and removal of the wrong author, if not, this image needs deletion. Martin H. (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- The image is also used at the Mainpage of the venezuelan airforce: http://www.aviacion.mil.ve/ --Martin H. (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add Image:741450194 6de1735767 o.jpg to this request, clearly not self-made. --Martin H. (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Don't see anything in the Copyright law of Venezuela that would make governmental works in general be uncopyrighted. Lupo 08:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work. Original is here Ahonc (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Other way around; the image on that page was likely generated from this SVG. Here is the original of that web page; the image there appears to have been replaced with this one in May 2008 (long after this SVG was uploaded to commons). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept per Carl Lindberg. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Unused, poor quality, not the band's official logo. -Nard the Bard 15:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Nard the Bard. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I'm the author of this picture, Edgar Moskopp. The picture shows my ex-girlfriend who agreed that I upload this picture while we were a couple. But now that we split up I think it would be better if this pic were to be deleted.Thank you! 79.210.104.174 11:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Um - delete, I'd say, if the model release isn't clearly present. (not sure why this discussion hasn't been resolved?) - Privatemusings (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Not own work, and frankly I don't think the source at ru.wiki is properly licensed either. -Nard the Bard 01:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. howcheng {chat} 00:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
This iamge was most probably NOT produced by the Chamber of Deputies but by the geographical institute. So the license is not applicable. ALE! ¿…? 09:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. howcheng {chat} 00:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
licence not clear --Tillmannas 02.09.2008 12:48
Deleted by Howcheng: per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Bild_Fischer.jpg
Hello. I'm the author of this picture, Edgar Moskopp. The picture shows my ex-girlfriend who agreed that I upload this picture while we were a couple. But now that we split up I think it would be better if this pic were to be deleted.Thank you! 79.210.104.174 11:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, actually anybody can claim to be the author. How do I know that you're really who you claim to be. Anyways, if you upload a picture with a specific CC-License, it's pretty much irreversible. Sorry.--Lamilli (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- It was already deleted from Flickr, making the IP's claim at least plausible. --Túrelio (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom.s request - and the fact that we're allowed to be nice :-) - it's a beautiful shot in many ways, but not irreplaceable. Privatemusings (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- please also see Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Aktfoto_2.jpg Privatemusings (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete removed from flickr, there's no reason we should doubt the author's claim, and while the image is quite pretty, it doesn't convey any particular usefulness and there's no compelling reason we should keep this. Bastique demandez 00:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
maybe ineligible for copyright, but clearly not own work abf /talk to me/ 16:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep pd-ineligible, photograph probably is own work. -Nard the Bard 17:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It is so small that I can't see any use. Yann (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per yann MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
per Commons:Derivative works. Artist en:Dale Chihuly was born in 1941. Teofilo (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I photographed this and uploaded the image. The work is permanently displayed in a public place (the lobby of the Bellagio Hotel and Casino, Las Vegas). Photographs are permitted. Purple (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- The artist is not an architect, therefore I don't think COM:FOP#United States may apply in this particular case. The fact that photographs are permitted does not necessarily mean that you are allowed to publish them. I am not 100% sure that a hotel lobby, owned by a private owner, is a "public place". Teofilo (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Fabian estevez guevara
[edit]All uploads by Fabian estevez guevara appear to be webrips, some examples:
- Image:800px-Plymouth Savoy 1956.jpg - claimed as own work, but is a copy of Image:Plymouth Savoy 1956 1.JPG
- Image:Savoy4doorsedan1957.jpg - claimed as own work, but has a watermark
- Image:32renYN1Monaquatre1464cc30PS3400rpm3gang80kmh9Ltr100km Bayde.jpg - claimed as own work, but has a watermark
- Image:1933_Renault_Vivastella_PG7.jpg - looks like a screenshot
- Image:1935_Renault_Vivastella_ACR1_7_pass.jpg - looks like a screenshot
I seriously doubt if any of the uploads are own work as claimed.
The list of images:
[edit]- Image:1935_Renault_Vivastella_ACR1.jpg
- Image:1935_Renault_Vivastella_ACR1_7_pass.jpg
- Image:1933_Renault_Vivastella_PG7.jpg
- Image:1929_Renault_Vivastella_PG2.jpg
- Image:1926-1929_Renault_Vivasix.jpg
- Image:Renault_Vivastella_vl(2).jpg
- Image:28renaultvivasix.jpg
- Image:1928_Vivasix_type_RA.jpg
- Image:1920_Renault_GS_rear.jpg
- Image:1920_Renault_GS.jpg
- Image:1924_renault_MT4cyl_3pass_torpedo_boattail_by_Labourdette_KI.jpg
- Image:1927_Renault_kz_2.jpg
- Image:Renault_MT.jpg
- Image:1924_Renault_KJ.jpg
- Image:Std_1931_renault_primaquatre.jpg
- Image:Renault_primaquatre_1938-1941.jpg
- Image:Primastella.jpg
- Image:1935_Renault_Primastella_03.jpg
- Image:1935_Renault_Primastella_04.jpg
- Image:Renault_Monastella_2-Door_Coupe_1932.jpg
- Image:Renault_Monastella_2-Door_Convertible_1932.jpg
- Image:Renault_Monastella_4_Doors_Sedan.jpg
- Image:Renault_monasix_torpedo_commercial_1928.jpg
- Image:Monasix_1927.jpg
- Image:1929_Monatesla_Renault-6cyl_03.jpg
- Image:1929_Monatesla_Renault-6cyl_01.jpg
- Image:Renceltaqsg.jpg
- Image:33renYN4Monaquatre4cyl1463cc8CV100kmh1_Acclc.jpg
- Image:32renYN1Monaquatre1464cc30PS3400rpm3gang80kmh9Ltr100km_Bayde.jpg
- Image:30renMonaquatre_1mobilede.jpg
- Image:Renaultceltaquatre1935.jpg
- Image:1952belvedere.jpg
- Image:PlymouthSavoy1962wagon.jpg
- Image:Savoy4doorsedan1957.jpg
- Image:PlymouthSavoy2doorswagon1951.jpg
- Image:PlymouthSavoy1951.jpg
- Image:800px-Plymouth_Savoy_1956.jpg
- Image:DodgeSavoy1956.jpg
- Image:Renault4F6eighties.jpg
- Image:Renault41984.jpg
- Image:Renault41978.jpg
- Image:Renault41975unitedkingdomversion.jpg
- Image:Renault41968.jpg
- Image:RenaultR41963.jpg
- Image:Renault4fourgonette1962.jpg
- Image:R4_1961.jpg
- Image:Renault_4_pre-production_prototype_1960.jpg
- Image:Protor4.jpg
- Image:Designsketchr4.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Multichill (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all. I found this via Image:1957_Cadillac_Fleetwood_Sixty_Special.jpg which was ripped from someone's web page, and looking through what's here, I think it's safe to say that none of these belong to the uploader. Note that there are more images from this user that were uploaded after this request was made, those should be deleted as well. --Sable232 (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
deleted, screenshots, scans, watermarks … just copyvios. --Polarlys (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Thamud images by Shihab20
[edit]- File:Thamud1.jpg
- File:Thamud2.jpg
- File:Thamud3.jpg
- File:Thamud4.jpg
- File:Thamud5.jpg
- File:Thamud6.jpg
- File:Thamud9.jpg
- File:Thamud11.jpg
- File:Thamud13.jpg
- File:Thamud14.jpg
- File:Thamud15.jpg
- File:Thamud16.jpg
- File:Thamud17.jpg
- File:Thamud18.jpg
- File:Thamud30.jpg
- File:Thamud34.jpg
- File:Thamud35.jpg
This image uploaded by Shihab20 (talk · contribs) are all suspected copyright violations, the reasons are:
- Many contributions of this uploader are indetified as violations of copyrights
- Many other images from his "Thamud"series are allready deleted: Image:Thamud33.jpg, Image:Thamud12.jpg, Image:Thamud10.jpg, Image:Thamud8.jpg, Image:Thamud7.jpg
- TinEye (a great Tool ;) ) can find most (every?) image on some websites. Most of them are posted in different onlyne comunity boards. Because bulletin boards are absolutly not a source for free images they are also not a 100% indication of copyright violations.
--Martin H. (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. serial copyright infringement Mardetanha talk 10:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Soccer Images of Topitoxx
[edit]Separated from several Logos (see Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Topitoxx) by Topitoxx (talk · contribs), all this uploaders soccer images are very suspicious and listed for discussion:
- File:Donorionevsjuventud.jpg
- File:Vs. Don Orione 006.jpg
- File:Vs rcia central.jpg
- File:El nacional.jpg
- File:NacionalA0000001.jpg
- File:ElNacional.jpg
- File:FOREVILLO.jpg
- File:JONESVUELVE.jpg
- File:Chacosolde5.jpg
- File:Plantelforever.jpg
- File:Foreversarmiento18.jpg
- File:Regionalvscentralnorte.jpg
- File:Centralnortevsforever.jpg
- File:Donorionevsfontana.jpg
- File:Centralnortecampeon2007.jpg
- File:Resi12.jpg
- File:Rcia Central vs Sportivo Ciervo Petiso.jpg
- File:El técnico Pablo Quiroga saludando al goleador Sergio Villordo.jpg
- File:Dfhhsd.jpg
- File:Resimuni05.jpg
- File:Munivssarm.jpg
- File:Forevervsineptirol.jpg
- File:Alvearvsindeptetirol2008.jpg
- File:Alvearvsindeptirol2008.jpg
After some research i found a very simple resolution:
- Many images have a size of 640x480 px and containing a watermark: tribunadiez.com.ar
- Other images are <640x480... the top with the watermark is cropped
- There are some other sizes, but: Compare Image:Alvearvsindeptetirol2008.jpg and Image:Alvearvsindeptirol2008.jpg - the top is cropped!
- The uploader has no permission and he tried to hide his copyvios.
--Martin H. (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- The images that have "tribunadiez.com.ar" on their description is because they are from that webpage. The author not only let me do it, he even thanked me for putting them and mentioning the webpage so people would visit them more. I have an email that says that, I can send it to you i don't care. The cropped top of the image you said it's because a friend send it to me that way. A lot of those images were tajen by me. I had this problem before i can't see a reason why they should be deleted. I only uploaded them here because wikipedia send me here when i wanted to upload an image. Deleting my images not only would be a lack of respect to me as i said to another user, it would mean hours and hours of time wasted for nothing. Please don't delete them. If you say that some images have copyright issues, i will modify their description and permissions from the images that the authors of "tribuna10.com.ar" have passed to me because they are the only ones that are not mine.--Topitoxx (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- transfered from the discussion page of this request. --Martin H. (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment: ok, you said in every image listed above: trabajo propio (own work) - thats wrong!?- 1. Can you please go through the listed images and provide us the correct source of the images? That would help a lot.
- 2. You now named us two sources: tribuna10 and tribunadiez. If you have their written permission, that everyone (not only wikipedia) can use this images for every purpose (commercial usage, derivative works): please follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS and forward the emails to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.
- We will check your source informations and the OTRS Team will verify your permission. --Martin H. (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Like to User Fernandopascullo I think i told him well if I didn't I say it now, I'm new on wikipedia and I may not know how to use the specific tools for uploading. Although it's true that most of those images are mine, some of them are from that webpage I even have like a collaborative work, we exchange some photographs and I will give you the permission in case you don't believe me. If there's a problem with the images listed as "tribuna10.com.ar" let me know how to change them and I will give you the permissions with the exact url to find them.--Topitoxx (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC) transfered from discussionpage of this request --Martin H. (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, first give the correct sources. You have to visit every image listed above, klick on edit. Actually every image says Source=trabajo propio (own work) - you have to correct this by typing Source=Photo by Juan Pérez, tribunadiez.com.ar (example). Just give us the correct sources of the images. --Martin H. (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Like to User Fernandopascullo I think i told him well if I didn't I say it now, I'm new on wikipedia and I may not know how to use the specific tools for uploading. Although it's true that most of those images are mine, some of them are from that webpage I even have like a collaborative work, we exchange some photographs and I will give you the permission in case you don't believe me. If there's a problem with the images listed as "tribuna10.com.ar" let me know how to change them and I will give you the permissions with the exact url to find them.--Topitoxx (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC) transfered from discussionpage of this request --Martin H. (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- transfered from the discussion page of this request. --Martin H. (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Done, I edited all the images that you listed there as you said and I changed the license to share alike as I saw here that "share alike" licenses say that anyone can use the images for commercial reasons, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. Is it necessary do anything else?, if there's something wrong please let me know.--Topitoxx (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC) this statement is transfered from the discussion page of this request
- Thank you very much for your honest informations. I think, we can Keep the images you made yourself and we need a permission / proof of permission for the images from the different authors of diarionorte.com and tribuna10.com.ar. You should read {{No permission}} and {{Image permission}}, thats our standard template for this issue. The images have a source but there is no proof for us, that the author permits the licencing of his images. Also your licence-tag is wrong, you tagged the images with {{Share alike}}, that template does not exist, i think you meant {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} instead. --Martin H. (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh ok, should I change the templates I wrote as {{cc-by-sa}} to {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}? I wrote as I saw them there so in future cases someone that wants to use those images should mention "diarionorte.com.ar", "tribuna10.com.ar" or myself depending on the case. And about the permissions, how should i show them to you? with the people working at tribuna10.com.ar I can only show you files or e-mails as I only comunicate with them by internet. With the people of diarionorte.com.ar I can obtain both files or e-mails and hand written papers with the permissions signed by the general director as it is a webpage of a local newspaper. Unfortunatelly everything that I may obtain it's in Spanish, so I don't know if that could be a problem.--Topitoxx (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Language is no problem, here are spanish speeking volunteers too. I cant give you instructions on licencing, the author (photograph, newspaper) has to select the licence. But: yes, the cc means Creative Commons, the sa means share alike (A derivative work of this image must also licenced cc-by-sa) and the by means attribution like diarionorte.com.ar, correct. --Martin H. (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Sanbec (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Elmasekeri
[edit]Theese are not educational, not useful. Outside project scope --Mach (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- File:Uret-katilim.pdf (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kamp-bilet.pdf (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kamp-renkli.pdf (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kamp yazi.pdf (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Dpg bildiri.pdf (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bir mektup.pdf (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Adressiz.pdf (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kartal1.pdf (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Delete Unsourced, useless files. -Nard the Bard 23:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope Mardetanha talk 00:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
No proof for pd-old. -Nard the Bard 01:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- First proof are the lifespan of the photographed person: w:en:Karl Koch (botanist) / w:de:Karl Heinrich Koch. The date (~1860, see the given source) seems ok, we can assume PD-OLD here i think. --Martin H. (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Replaceable screenshot on Windows XP. OsamaK 21:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by replaceable...sounds like you're using fair use terminology. Wikipedia is ----> that way. Delete however since the image is unused, and no license is mentioned of the underlying software. -Nard the Bard 23:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file was previously uploaded (and deleted) as Image:Jewsgermany.jpg. The uploader here claimed the highly implausible "self-made" and cc-by-3.0. I have modified the license and sourcing to the correct information, but I am not sure this actually qualifies as an anonymous work so I am nominating it for deletion. -Nard the Bard 00:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- It falls under the "corporate authorship" rules. AnonMoos (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good grief, I have never seen that help page before. It needs deleting or fundametal re-writing, especally if it is leading people to apply US rules to UK works. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 05:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No credible assertion this page is free. ViperSnake151 (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see why a generic text error message isn't pd-ineligible. -Nard the Bard 02:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Just legal warning. No creative content.--Mach (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:General Ali and his Afghan fighters, November 2001.jpg & Image:General Ali and his Afghan fighters, November 2001 b.jpg
[edit]
Uploaded with the PD US rationale that since it was taken on a "mission" with US forces, it's likely PD. The uploaded removed the CBS News logo from each image. The problem is, embedded journalists are common. How do we know that the cameraman was a US government employee? Also for Image:General Ali and his Afghan fighters, November 2001 b.jpg. This DR is for both. I'm not totally convinved yet of the PD here but would be happy to be proven wrong. rootology (T) 13:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Here's the link to the print version of CBS's report: [5]. Until now there had been rumors of a top secret mission that could have killed Osama in the early months of the Afghanistan campaign, but never any real proof. Based on a) the fact any journalist would have killed for this story in the last 7 years if they'd had this footage and b) the fact that CBS simply says "It was recorded by the Delta commandos themselves" in regards to the source of this footage, I believe it highly improbable there was a journalist on the ground here (no journalist would have sat on this story for 7 years). -Nard the Bard 14:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Agree... AnonMoos (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- As Nard pointed out CBS says it was shot by Delta Force GIs. Further, while dozens, or possibly hundreds, of journalists have been "embedded" in operations in Iraq, since the Iraq invasion in 2003, this mission was a year and a half earlier, and in an entirely different conflict. I suggest that when journalists are embedded, HQ is selective, and does not embed journalists on missions where they are likely to record GI violating the Geneva Conventions. These GIs could be seen as violating the Geneva Conventions by disguising themselves as Afghan civilians when going into combat. I gave a longer reply here. Geo Swan (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep of course. These pictures were taken by US Delta Forces...as CBS itself says. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. PD rationale seems plausible. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request Use of copyrighted material. as it can be seen in Image talk:Flag of Spain with Osborne's bull.svg, and in w:Image:Toro de Osborne.svg. --Oren neu dag (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Another reason why i think it should be deleted can be seen in User_talk:Oren_neu_dag/Archive#Image:Flag of Spain with Osborne's bull.svg --Oren neu dag (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- The fact it is a trademark is irrelevant for keeping it on Commons; it is the copyright status which matters. Sounds like the basic bull image has a unique status, which makes it harder to judge. Normally you would expect this to be copyrighted as well though, especially a particular vector version. What is the source of the bull outline? I see with en:Flag_of_Spain#cite_note-12 it is claimed that it is different than the original. Does look pretty similar to the osborne.es version. Hm, not sure. Also looks pretty identical to en:Image:Toro_de_Osborne.svg -- that would seem to be the source, which I see you uploaded. Where did you get that version? Traced from another image, or self-drawn? It still may be a derivative work of the original. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- The image of the bull on EN.WIKI. is traced from another image, using Inkscape. --Oren neu dag (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay... where did you get the image you traced it from? Commons, the Osborne company website, elsewhere on the web, or somewhere else? Unless you made significant changes, your version is probably a derivative work of that one (and therefore, this would be too). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- The osborne bull image is not the problem, because whatever it's source may be (I think i got it from the Osborne website, but my memory is elusive) it's still under Fair Use in EN.WIKI. and so all other derivative of that bull are a breach of the rules of copyright and of WikiCommons. and so let's get back to the issue at hand which is the use of the Osborne bull in the image BanderaToro.svg in wikicommons. --Oren neu dag (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- At this point, I was mainly trying to figure out if the "fair use" on en-wiki for your image was correct or not :-) Sounds like it is though. In which case, this would be a problem too, so Delete, I think. Note that it would be possible to find a (freely licensed) actual photo of a real bull (not the Osborne sign) from a similar perspective, and generate an outline from that, and replace the bull outline here with that one. The only problem is deriving the outline from a copyrighted image. The only other argument is if it has gotten to some weird legal status because (according to the article) its widespread use... I could see Osborne maybe losing trademark in that case, but not copyright on their own works (at least as I would think). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- At this point, I was mainly trying to figure out if the "fair use" on en-wiki for your image was correct or not :-) Sounds like it is though. In which case, this would be a problem too, so
- The osborne bull image is not the problem, because whatever it's source may be (I think i got it from the Osborne website, but my memory is elusive) it's still under Fair Use in EN.WIKI. and so all other derivative of that bull are a breach of the rules of copyright and of WikiCommons. and so let's get back to the issue at hand which is the use of the Osborne bull in the image BanderaToro.svg in wikicommons. --Oren neu dag (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay... where did you get the image you traced it from? Commons, the Osborne company website, elsewhere on the web, or somewhere else? Unless you made significant changes, your version is probably a derivative work of that one (and therefore, this would be too). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- The image of the bull on EN.WIKI. is traced from another image, using Inkscape. --Oren neu dag (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
KeepAcording to the resolution:
Español: Una juez ha absuelto a varios comerciantes acusados por Osborne de utilizar ilegalmente su toro. Según la sentencia, la silueta de las carreteras es ya más que una marca comercial y se ha convertido en un símbolo nacional, por lo que puede ser utilizado sin la autorización de la empresa.(...) Según la juez, es cierto que la silueta del toro impresa en dichos objetos "es una marca registrada cuya titularidad ostenta el Grupo Osborne", pero en lo referente a productos que no son "el objeto social y el renombre de la marca" tal efigie ha pasado a ser "patrimonio cultural y artístico de los pueblos de España".
(...) El toro "fue aglutinando identidades compartidas que, finalmente, hicieron trascender sus orígenes de marca", y ese proceso se puso de manifiesto cuando, en 1988, se prohibió toda publicidad en carreteras, y el Congreso de los Diputados "indultó" a la famosa silueta, señala la juez, en referencia a la normativa impulsada por el entonces ministro de Obras Públicas, Josep Borrell.
so it's still trademarked but free, even for comercial without authorization. Serg!o (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Given the above news about the new status of the bull, i change my decision to Keep --Oren neu dag (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The bull has different consideration that the other comercial advertisements in Spain. It was kept on the roads when all the other advertisements were banned. Now the judge says that it is a public image, and cultural heritage of Spain. So, keep it!--Balbo (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Almost certainly a copyright violation, since the artworks of this painter are still protected (he died in 1996), and the design of this invitation might be protected too. The uploader must have scanned the picture and put it under a free licence, but we have no evidence that the painter and the designer agreed. --Alchemica (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Image status clarified by the uploader. Alchemica (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- in french : C'est un carton d'invitation (diffusé en nombre) et il m'a été transmis par l'association des amis de fr:Jean Neuberth pour la wiki comme indiqué par la ligne Description (comme un carton équivalent pour la page fr:Jean Raine transmis par les héritiers dudit et décrit itou). Donc théoriquement pas de problème avec les ayant-droits. -- Louis-garden (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- « pour la wiki » est une restriction inacceptable sur Commons : Les restrictions suivantes ne doivent pas s'appliquer aux images et autres médias : Utilisation par Wikimedia seulement (...) Commons:À propos des licences. Teofilo (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- « transmis [...] pour la wiki » (phrase exacte) ne fait référence qu'au mode de transfert électronique vers moi et en aucune façon à une quelconque exclusivité envers le média. En attendant J'ai contacté le président de l'association pour qu'il contacte par mail info-fr@wikimedia.org pour donner son autorisation directement en abandonnant les droits. -- Louis-garden (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK, mes excuses à Louis pour ne pas avoir pensé à regarder en PdD de l'image. Au moins, cette demande "accidentelle" aura servi à clarifier le statut de l'image... Alchemica (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- « transmis [...] pour la wiki » (phrase exacte) ne fait référence qu'au mode de transfert électronique vers moi et en aucune façon à une quelconque exclusivité envers le média. En attendant J'ai contacté le président de l'association pour qu'il contacte par mail info-fr@wikimedia.org pour donner son autorisation directement en abandonnant les droits. -- Louis-garden (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
bad name; the source does not allow to give a correct name and the file description
- Delete In this photo - who: Albert II or Vladimir Putin? You know? I do not know. NBS (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted without prejudice against reuploading with a more appropriate title. The person in the foreground (see source page) is clearly Vladimir Putin, not Albert II of Monaco. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
