Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/10/14
 |
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, spamming Yanguas (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. 14 October 2008 User:Túrelio deleted "Image:Esc Suporte.JPG" (Out of project scope: was unused)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is the incorrect name for the cat. Please delelte. Thanks --FieldMarine (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per user. Empty cat, unlikely to be used. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong name of redirect. Please delete. Thanks. --FieldMarine (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per user. Empty cat, unlikely to be used. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
i created this image to illustrate one of my userpages on wikipedia. i don't need it anymore. and, i don't think anybody would ever need it. please, remove it. --Aditya (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Publicity still uploaded to flickr under a false license by GISuser.com. ˉanetode╦╩ 09:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Image:AnkhnEdt.jpg (right) was uploaded purely for this discussion, is a copyvio and should be deleted along with the offending image
Sharp-eyed Knowledge Incarnate has noted (and reported here) that in Column 2 the fifth glyph down don't look right. Sure enough, when we find a bigger picture (right), we see a curious gap in the text which has been filled with this hoax image. Top marks for photoshop skills but it has to go. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Hoax image. Lupo 10:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Out of scope, ofensive text 200.171.249.39 14:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work of a toy. British toy maker. Teofilo (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- If http://bloggathehutt.blogspot.com/2007/07/vehicle-of-week-9-thunderbird-2.html is right, the toy is derivated from a "kid's TV show". Teofilo (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Thunderbirds derivative. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
no sources for images 66.31.42.26 16:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Source is [1], all rights reserved.
Diti (talk to the penguin) 11:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, also uploader not photographer/copyright holder of all images as claimed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work of the poster, see also this edit by the uploader with the edit summary: "Image withdrawn, because the maker of the poster asked me to." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is definitely not "PD-ineligible". GeorgHH • talk 19:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
* 11:34, 16 October 2008 Herbythyme (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:六中top.jpg" (Copyright violation) (restore)
This image is definitely not "PD-ineligible". GeorgHH • talk 19:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
* 11:35, 16 October 2008 Herbythyme (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Dgnbgt1.jpg" (Copyright violation) (restore)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is definitely not "PD-ineligible". GeorgHH • talk 19:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
* 20:48, 15 October 2008 Infrogmation (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Xyzx1df.jpg" (Copyright violation: false license) (restore)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is definitely not "PD-ineligible". GeorgHH • talk 19:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, several similar clearly false claims by uploader. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
* 11:33, 16 October 2008 Herbythyme (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Y2swr.jpg" (Copyright violation) (restore)
Elijah van der Giessen must be the photographer, while Origami artist (presumably someone called "Sadako") is not said to have agreed with a release under a free license Teofilo (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Flickr copyright has changed but FlickreviewR reviewed it back in 2005 as CC by 2.0 and the copyright change doesn't make it unfree since a free licence is revocable. Bidgee (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_n._20504_-_Pisa_-_Cattedrale_-_Formella_della_porta_laterale_-_Bonanno_da_Pisa.jpg){kind=link}
-- WITHDRAWN -- Anyway, a crane is a very common origami design, probably hardly eligible for copyright, so I cancel this request. Teofilo (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
It only depicts a small part of the palacio, has no description and isn't used --Jonjames1986 (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Pleas help the project by identifying and describing the image instead of deleting it. Kimsə (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
no information on who painted this or when it was painted. subject lived 1910-1946. alternatively, where is this displayed? if it is displayed publicly and covered by COM:FOP it may not matter who painted it. 140.247.253.241 20:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It is displayed public display at the Bishop House, Palai and comes under COM:FOP
According to the Indian Copyright Act of 1957, Section 52, as currently revised:
52. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright—(1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely: ... (s) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a work of architecture or the display of a work of architecture;' (t) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture, or other artistic work failing under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 2 ["any other work of artistic craftsmanship"], if such work is permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access; (u) the inclusion in a cinematograph film of- (i) any artistic work permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access
I hereby request to remove this from deletion tag.
169.145.3.13 22:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment Is the picture permanently on display or just as part of a temporary exhibition? --Simonxag (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete To the 169... IP: Freedom of panorama does not apply here. If you read carefully the text of law you have quoted, you will see that it allows reproductions of works of architecture and sculptures: for example, you are allowed to make a painting of a building. But reproductions of 2D paintings are not included. Pruneautalk 09:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It’s the photograph an Icon image which is at permanent display for public at the Bishop house, Palai. The orginal icon was painted by Fr. Jacob Kurroth and kept for public veneration at Bishop House Chapel.
More than that its printed on different calanders, notices and thanksgiving advertisements by belivers in local news papers. Everyone has free access to this.
Copies of this is also displayed in large number of churches in Kerala after the canonization.
See, http://www.alphonsa.net/Icon.jpg - Public access is provided for this. I have uploaded this to include in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Alphonsa article.
Does it falls in any other licence other than COM:FP ?
I think this comes under COM:FP,
read the copy right clause (t) and (i)
(t) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture, or other artistic work failing under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 2 ["any other work of artistic craftsmanship"], if such work is permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access;
(i) any artistic work permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access
169.145.3.13 22:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Paintings and drawings do not qualify as "works of artistic craftsmanship. You should read COM:FOP#United Kingdom, which explains what can be considered as artistic craftsmanship. Clause (t) does not apply here. As for the clause (i) that you quote, it is actually only a subsection of section (u) (see the original Act; it's on page 36), which deals with inclusion in cinematographic film, so it doesn't apply either.
- The fact that other people are using this image does not prove that it is free; maybe they are in breach of copyright, or maybe they obtained permission from the copyright owner. The only way this image can be free is if the creator died at least 60 years ago. Pruneautalk 07:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you tell me if there is any other licensing which i can use to keep this photograph in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Alphonsa article. 169.145.3.13 22:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- This image will likely be deleted from Commons, but it could be accepted on the English Wikipedia as fair use. You would need to upload it on Wikipedia and follow the explanations given at en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. Pruneautalk 21:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep : It is interesting to see a SPA IP editor 140.247.253.241 -contribs to get a particular image to be deleted and certainly POV and I cannot assume good faith . - Tinucherian (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for asking, but what does SPA stand for? What makes you say that the deletion request is POV? Pruneautalk 10:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- SPA means single-purpose account. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for asking, but what does SPA stand for? What makes you say that the deletion request is POV? Pruneautalk 10:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep : In my considered opinion, the reproduction of this image does not violate the proviso of the Indian Copyright Act of 1957 if the Act is taken into its entirety, in letter as well as in spirit. In any case, the image being in wide circulation in some regions of India without being challenged by the copyright holder/s, if any, the copy right holder/s are probably precluded from claiming any infringement on account of the principal of estoppel as understood and interpreted (legally) in most of the countries having legal system owing genesis to the English Common Law. --Bhadani (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Paintings and drawings do not qualify as "works of artistic craftsmanship" within the meaning of that term in any Common Law country that I am aware of. The estoppel argument is too speculative to allow us to be sure the image is free of all copyright restrictions (the remedy of damages is not an equitable remedy and estoppel would not apply). See also COM:PRP. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot. GeorgHH • talk 20:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot. GeorgHH • talk 20:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Out of scope: "Description: Expanded theory of panspermia to point out problems with the Creation/Intelligent Design Debate, including mathematical basis." Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I can change the description, but the pair of images, one of which is a derivative of figure 3 in the .en genetic code article, and the other, which was already on Commons, seem to me to simply be a side-by-side comparison of two remarkable images, with no copyvios our any other problems. As a teacher, I would use such an image either: 1) to point out problems with taking scientific correlations to necessarily imply causation (devoid prediction), or 2) to make a faith-based argument in terms of GDI, "God Did It". These are two points that are often discussed and debated, so I think the image will be used. On Commons, I think we should avoid any atheist or GDI POVs and just put up images for other editor's use on .en. Pieter: Do you agree? Could you suggest another description? Doug youvan (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is out of scope because it is a .jpg-image of a page with mostly text, which has the look of a wikipedia page. I cannot see any use for such an image on any wikimedia project. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I can reconstruct the image of GCMOON with no text in the image and all the text you now see in the image description. Would that be satisfactory? Doug youvan (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Full_Moon_Luc_Viatour.jpg and Image:Genetic_Code.JPG exist. A montage of the two images is a derivative work and must be licensed with the more restrictive license (GFDL and CC-by). A montage would arguably be within scope, but I wonder what specific WP article(s) would benefit from this image and why they are better displayed as a montage. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please tell me how to change the license, and I will. As a biophysicist and Christian apologist, I do see forthcoming uses of this image if we continue to write in .en through the Biblical Millineum, which I believe has begun or will begin soon. GDI would be the summary statement. This is a faith-based argument supporting the utility of this image. Doug youvan (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- I see the image is now deleted. Can someone explain to me how, when, and where that was done. I see no further comments here in this discussion. Doug youvan (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The images are available elsewhere. The rest is text which should be posted to Wikipedia, not Commons. See COM:PS - the file is mostly raw text. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope Erik Baas (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK, this is yet another duplication of the request at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:WSTM Three Blind Mice 0068.JPG. All comments should go on that page.--Pharos (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Useless. -Nard the Bard 10:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK, again, I'm not going to debate what is a duplication of an earlier request. The discussion should go on that page. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:WSTM Three Blind Mice 0068.JPG MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of a statue, USA Teofilo (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I ask you hold off on deletions from the USA. We're working on a new definition of what a "published statue" is and this may qualify as published without notice. -Nard the Bard 10:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a draft proposal ? A discussion page where this definition is beeing worked out ? Teofilo (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry forgot to link it. The page is here. -Nard the Bard 01:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a draft proposal ? A discussion page where this definition is beeing worked out ? Teofilo (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted even taking the outcome of Template talk:PD-US-statue/proposal into consideration, this is still a blatant copyright violation. The creator of the statue in this case retains rights. Copyright violation unless the author releases rights or the statues is proven by some other means to be in the public domain. This can not be assumed, but proven. --Durin (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per EugeneZelenko. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
and Image:Bobruisk city statue3 BY.jpg
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per EugeneZelenko. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of a toy. See Commons:Derivative works. The date refers to the photography, therefore "self-made" should refer to the photography rather than to the toy. The label is to fuzzy to be read, Its text looks like some chinese characters. Teofilo (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment Lean towards keep. Certainly the red heart pattern on the plush toy is public domain. So the only possible copyrighted element would be the shape-- looks to me like a rather generic stuffed dog toy. Unless there is some indication that the toy is either based on some copyrighted character or a work of artistic originallity in itself, I think there may be no problem here. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- The First Circuit has endorsed this view, explaining that when there is only a limited number of ways to express an idea “the burden of proof is heavy on the plaintiff who may have to show ‘near identity’ between the works at issue.” Concrete Mach. Co. v. Classic Lawn Ornaments, Inc., 843 F.2d 600, 606-07 (1st Cir. 1988) (citing Sid & Marty Krofft Television v. McDonald’s Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1167 (9th Cir. 1977)). source (pdf). Perhaps it would be OK to borrow the idea (because ideas are not copyrightable) of a dog plush with a red heart pattern, by making an entirely new plush. But in the case of a photography of the plaintiff's work, the "near identity" level is reached, because this is the principle on which cameras and photos are based. Teofilo (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am the author of the photo; I took the photo thinking on Valentine’s Day; and incidentally, to test a new camera that I have just bought. I think that this is rather an innocent photo of a toy. In addition, I have changed the "self-made" by indicating that it is only a photo of a toy. Hope this clarifies what the photo or contribution is about and my intentions further, but you are the experts. Anyways, it is altogether a good experience for me. Certainly, I would be more careful with my subjects from now on, and definitely these issues are very interesting. I would have never approached them from those points of view myself, if you would have not been able to shade light on them for me in here, Therefore thank you.--JohnManuel (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- The First Circuit has endorsed this view, explaining that when there is only a limited number of ways to express an idea “the burden of proof is heavy on the plaintiff who may have to show ‘near identity’ between the works at issue.” Concrete Mach. Co. v. Classic Lawn Ornaments, Inc., 843 F.2d 600, 606-07 (1st Cir. 1988) (citing Sid & Marty Krofft Television v. McDonald’s Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1167 (9th Cir. 1977)). source (pdf). Perhaps it would be OK to borrow the idea (because ideas are not copyrightable) of a dog plush with a red heart pattern, by making an entirely new plush. But in the case of a photography of the plaintiff's work, the "near identity" level is reached, because this is the principle on which cameras and photos are based. Teofilo (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Teofilo, see this section about toys. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Tagged as PD-Art, but this is a photograph of a person (not artwork) Papa November (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Certainly incorrectly tagged. Image might be PD for some other reason, but if so explanation and proper tag is needed. It looks like there may be some other images with similar problems in Category:Yuri Gagarin; someone familiar with Russian/Soviet copyrights may wish to take a look. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as, according to its description, it was published in 1968. This can hardly be PD. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Subject of photograph is still copyrighted and the Freedom of Panorama laws in Ukraine do not permit free use of the image. See COMMONS:FOP Papa November (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Photograph fails COMMONS:FOP therefore it's not free. Bidgee (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Papa November and Bidgee. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Subject is still copyrighted and Russian Freedom of Panorama law does not allow free use of images. See COMMONS:FOP Papa November (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is own work. Don't you see the template? --- Vow (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Even if you took the photo yourself, it is still a derivative of a copyrighted statue. Russian "freedom of panorama" law is not compatible with Commons. Papa November (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Papa November and AVRS as this image constitutes a derived work and there is no freedom of panorama in Russia which permits commercial usage. Commons accepts, however, images only that can be commercially used. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The image does not present the Debren River. It presents the Olt river at Turnu Roşu (see OltulLaTurnuRosu.jpg) which exists in wiki:commons - (the colors seem to be slightly different but it is the same picture). The caption Olt River at Turnu Roşu is correct. Afil (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Yes Image:Debren River.jpg & Image:OltulLaTurnuRosu.jpg are the same picture, while OltulLaTurnuRosu has a larger size. Teofilo (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Afil and Teofilo. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not useful for the project. Just a copy from the en.wp babel. Other levels are missing anyways. If kept this should be moved to userspace. --Dschwen (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Dschwen. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
did not upload properly Nick Moreau (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- We should make sure that it is properly uploaded before deleting this one. Content-wise, it's a good image. By the way, I had no issues viewing it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as a duplicate of File:Liberal rally Brampton 2008 election 82.jpg. This image was used on multiple Wikipedia projects. For this reason, I've filed a global replacement at the CommonsDelinker. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works. No date is given, so that we are unable to check whether PD-old might apply. Teofilo (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is just a detail of a lamp. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Stained glass is a creative art, therefore it is eligible for copyright protection. Teofilo (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- According to http://flickr.com/photos/andydr/2568583/ the lamp was probably made by the photographer's grandparents. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Are they still alive ? If they aren't, we need all their heirs (probably all chidren and/or grand-children) to agree with the terms of a free license. Teofilo (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- HUH!? It's the author's life + 70 years. In any other case, we might just as well delete all our "PD-old" images, because almost everyone has an heir. /grillo (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- For example, this would mean that for an image taken by my grandfather, it becomes PD in 70+ years (he's currently alive) if, and only if, all my and my cousins' grandchildren agree to license the image under a free licence? That's absurd. /grillo (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I might have misunderstood. Teofilo is talking about the 70 years after the death of the author? If so, that might be correct. /grillo (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Are they still alive ? If they aren't, we need all their heirs (probably all chidren and/or grand-children) to agree with the terms of a free license. Teofilo (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- According to http://flickr.com/photos/andydr/2568583/ the lamp was probably made by the photographer's grandparents. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Stained glass is a creative art, therefore it is eligible for copyright protection. Teofilo (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- If this lamp is a design with copyright, it is reasonable to assume that the photographer inherited the copyright together with the lamp. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- If the artist left a en:Will (law) saying so, you might be right. If not, I am afraid the copyright benefits should be shared between more heirs, even if only one of them received the material posession of the artwork. Teofilo (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Grillo, I was assuming that the flickr uploader's grandparents might still be alive or died less than 70 years ago. If we find an indication that they died before december 31st, 1927, the picture can be kept. Teofilo (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- If this lamp is a design with copyright, it is reasonable to assume that the photographer inherited the copyright together with the lamp. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No real strong grounds for deletion. Bidgee (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Teofilo and per COM:PRP. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am not sure that this is "ordinarily visible from a public place" Teofilo (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No grounds for deletion. Nominator hasn't explained on what Commons policy it breaches. Bidgee (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- From the nomination wording it's clear that a possible violation of the architects copyright is suspected as this seems to be modern building. COM:FOP says for the US: Anyone may take photographs of buildings from public places. --Túrelio (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Do you having anything to support that it wasn't taken from a public place other then your own speculation? Bidgee (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- COM:FOP#United States. Teofilo (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- From the nomination wording it's clear that a possible violation of the architects copyright is suspected as this seems to be modern building. COM:FOP says for the US: Anyone may take photographs of buildings from public places. --Túrelio (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The outside of a building is always a public place :) -Nard the Bard 10:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- The wording of the Copyright Law of the United States of America is "ordinarily visible" : if you have to climb a ladder of take a helicopter to see it, I don't think it is "ordinary" any longer. Teofilo (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept as I do not think that the depicted part of the building is eligible for copyright. Let me cite from here:
- The copyrightability of a given architectural work will therefore involve a two-step analysis: (1) are original design elements present, including overall shape and interior architecture and (2) are such design elements functionally required?
- The Congressional Committee Report states that if none of the design elements is functionally required, the work is protectable. If functional considerations determine only particular design elements, separate protection will be afforded for the nonfunctionally determined elements. Original combinations of standard features may be protectable even if the particular features themselves are not original.
In this particular case, I see just some windows, reinforcements, and something which looks to me like a railing. All this is functionally required and consequently ineligible for copyright.
Independent from this, I concur with Teofilo that this has not been photographed from a public place according to US law. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Image:Brogi,_Giacomo_(1822-1881)_-_n._20504_-_Pisa_-_Cattedrale_-_Formella_della_porta_laterale_-_Bonanno_da_Pisa.jpg
[edit]_-_n._20504_-_Pisa_-_Cattedrale_-_Formella_della_porta_laterale_-_Bonanno_da_Pisa.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_n._20504_-_Pisa_-_Cattedrale_-_Formella_della_porta_laterale_-_Bonanno_da_Pisa.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Deletion per COM:DW, tridimensional object, {{PD-old}} is wrong and {{PD-art}} is not applicable. This procedure is also for Image:Formella cattedrale di Pisa - Bonanno Pisano (Brogi new vers.).jpg and Image:Formella cattedrale di Pisa - Bonanno Pisano (Brogi new vers.-no watermark).jpg. Trixt (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Keep PD-Old is not wrong. The photographer died in 1881, as clearly marked in the caption. The sculptor, several centuries ago. Please read the description before marking an image for deletion, ok?. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Is it a joke? PD-Old is about Giacomo Brogi picture, of course the pd for the sculpture itself (non bidimensional) is already expired because the San Ranieri door (by Bonanno) was casted in 11th century, so I guess is more than the 70 or 700 years. --Sailko (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept per G.dallorto. Please note that the {{Delete}} template must not be removed unless the corresponding deletion request is closed. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
_-_n._20504_-_Pisa_-_Cattedrale_-_Formella_della_porta_laterale_-_Bonanno_da_Pisa.jpg&diff=16121573&oldid=15421608){kind=link}
Probaly not "own work" by uploader, see copyright notice at bottom right. GeorgHH • talk 21:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per GeorgHH. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of rights to the original, this appears to be a mere copy of a 1957 or 1958 photo, when the volcano last erupted. User:Doug(talk • contribs) 22:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Capelinhos_eruption2.jpg, also note the uploader's page, apparently he or she uploads lots of copyvio works for use on French Wikipedia.--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 22:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Doug. The uploader may have very well acted in good faith as this image appeared to be free at Flickr. However, we should not consider every claim at Flickr as trustworthy. Doug's doubts are justified and Doug asked in this case the uploader at Flickr whether the Flickr user is the original author and got no reply. Hence, I delete this image following COM:PRP. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope Erik Baas (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- This one, and some 16 or 17 others just like it. See Category:Images from Wikis Take Manhattan by Team Boerum. - Erik Baas (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK, this is yet another duplication of the request at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:WSTM Three Blind Mice 0068.JPG. All comments should go on that page.--Pharos (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Useless. -Nard the Bard 10:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK, again, I'm not going to debate what is a duplication of an earlier request. The discussion should go on that page. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept for now, following the consensus of the other deletion request. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
per en:Image:Region Guadeloupe.svg, image copyright is held by La Préfecture de la Région Guadeloupe, not the image uploader as claimed --Andrwsc (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Uploader had history of similar incorrect license claims. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Andrwsc. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Outside project scope. Unused personal photo. -Nard the Bard 23:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the photographer is not credited. Teofilo (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Outside project scope as per nom. Bidgee (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Nard the Bard and Teofilo. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Japan : this is not an architectural work. No date is given, so that we are unable to check whether PD-old might apply. Teofilo (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:FOP#Japan abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 13:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Japan : this is not an architectural work. No date is given, so that we are unable to check whether PD-old might apply. Teofilo (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:FOP#Japan abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 13:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Japan : this is not an architectural work. No date is given, so that we are unable to check whether PD-old might apply. Teofilo (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:FOP#Japan abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 13:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Japan : this is not an architectural work. No date is given, so that we are unable to check whether PD-old might apply. Teofilo (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:FOP#Japan abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 13:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Japan : this is not an architectural work. No date is given, so that we are unable to check whether PD-old might apply. Teofilo (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:FOP#Japan abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 13:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Japan : this is not an architectural work. No date is given, so that we are unable to check whether PD-old might apply. Teofilo (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:FOP#Japan abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 13:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Images of Seed Herbarium Image Project
[edit]- File:ACER RUFINERVE FR 674-85-A 51379 SDSAND2TEXT.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:ACER GRISEUM FR 12488-B SDSTEXT.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CARYA OVATA FR 7947-A SDSAND1TEXT.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Fagus orientalis fr 239-29-B SDSAND1text.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:STEWARTIA OVATA VAR GRANDIFLORA FR 18244-A SDSAND1TEXT.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:SYRINGA PEKINENSIS FR 18335-A SDSAND1TEXT.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:TSUGA SIEBOLDII FR 17577-D SDSAND1TEXT.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Acer Comp GroupI SDC.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Betula Comp Sampler N America SDCtext.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:SYRINGA COMP SUBGENUS LIGUSTRINA SDCTEXT.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I believe that User:SeedHerbariumImageProject's images are all copyvios. While here on Commons they were uploaded under a GNU license, over on the source website, there is text indicating "Copyright President and Fellow of Harvard College." Millbrooky (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Website is copyrighted. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will look into it and respond asap. SeedHerbariumImageProject (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as we have received no permission yet to keep these images. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Articles uploaded by user Spacespacespace
[edit]- File:1，bio.pdf (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:2，Are the annual holidays really that golden---China Daily, 2005-10-6.pdf (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:2，Return of the ＇sea turtles＇---China Daily, 2008-1-21.pdf (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:3，Explore a Multi-Layer Life---TIDE, 2007-7-1.pdf (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:4，The Premiere of ‘Chinese Overseas Students’and the‘Forum of Study abroad’in Peking University---PKU NEWS, 2006-7-5.pdf (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:6，Returning Chinese students find success at home --- CCTV.COM , 2002-12-7.pdf (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:7，China's Diaspora and Returnees The Impact Will Continue, 2007.pdf (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Suspected:
- copyright violation (who’s written the articles?)
- spam
- out of scope
--AVRS (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Scope. And from one of the titles - "China Daily" - it sounds like they're not self-written anyways. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Doctor Who exhibition, Earls Court
[edit]Derivative work of contemporary British television series, shown in a temporary exhibition (not "permanently located")
- Image:2008-07-12 Dr.Who 03.jpg
- Image:2008-07-12 Dr.Who Characters 01.jpg
- Image:2008-07-12 Dr.Who Characters 02.jpg
- Image:2008-07-12 Dr.Who Characters 03.jpg
- Image:2008-07-12 Dr.Who Characters 04.jpg
- Image:2008-07-12 Dr.Who Characters 05.jpg
- Image:2008-07-12 Dr.Who Characters 06.jpg
- Image:2008-07-12 Dr.Who Character 07.jpg
- Image:2008-07-12 Dr.Who Character 08.jpg
This has been already debated on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:2008-07-12_Dr.Who_Weeping_Angel.jpg (august 2008)
Teofilo (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete I think the BBC can be quite unpleasant about Dr. Who copyrights and these are clear violations. --Simonxag (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
pictures in Category:21st century statues in Italy
[edit]COM:FOP#Italy says "not OK".
- Image:Bari_Corso_V_Emanuele_Ceroli.jpg
- Image:Firenze-testaboboli.jpg
- Image:Flughaveno_Federico_Fellini.jpg
- Image:Gesicht_eines_roemischen_Giganten_Boboligarten_Florenz.jpg
- Image:Jmf,_l'uomo_della_pace_01.JPG
- Image:Jmf,_l'uomo_della_pace_02.JPG
Teofilo (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Teofilo. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Wrong license status: some used images are GFDL, other PD-old, other CC. GeorgHH • talk 19:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose: Correct Licenses have been added. Gavin Scott (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- No they are not correct. The Adenauer image is GFDL and the Ratzinger image is CC-By-2.5-Brazil. Thus these two images have an incompatible license with leaves the whole compilation as a copyright violation. Sad but that's it. Try to find a GFDL image of Ratzinger and the compilation would be OK. --Denniss (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 06:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
No GFDL tag on the source internet site Teofilo (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- There is OTRS Ticket#: 2006042110010172!!! Please read before (Permission granted (see here, in italian))! We are allowed to take images from comune di Firenze web pages. --Sailko (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had not seen this OTRS ticket. But anyway, this permission is not valid. What we need is a permission by the architect Norman Foster. Delete. Teofilo (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think so, the project is owned by the Comune di Firenze, if he decides to give away the picture of it doens't affect the architect. And by the way, that's not the original project, it's just a graphic rendering of what it could be in the future, used for a public exhibition in 2001. --Sailko (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're right. Usually, when someone buys a house, he buys only the material property, and the architect keeps the intellectual property. But who nows if, in this special case, a special agreement was made between the architect and the buyer concerning intellectual property ? Teofilo (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had not seen this OTRS ticket. But anyway, this permission is not valid. What we need is a permission by the architect Norman Foster.
Deleted. Per Commons is conservative. MBisanz talk 08:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
----
es fehlt die lizenz beim originalbild Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Kannst Du bitte erklären, aufgrund welchen Sachverhalts Du Dich berechtigt sahst, eine {{Cc-by-2.5}}-Lizenz höchstselbst nachträglich bei dem Bild nachzutragen? --AFBorchert (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Image is under the same license here as it was on ro.wp, I don't see a problem -- Editor at Large • talk 20:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
