Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/11/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This is not a public domain image. Paramount Pictures and Warner Brothers own the rights to the character, Jason for the Friday the 13th movie series, which started in 1980. Jappalang (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete as speedy. Megapixie (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Deleted as copyvio. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Unused personal photo outside scope. -Nard the Bard 13:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
* 21:22, 23 November 2008 Diti (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Jason1.jpg" (per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Jason1.jpg) (restore) * 09:47, 1 November 2008 Deadstar (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Jason1.jpg" (Copyright violation) (restore)
Outside project scope. Also, uploader was trespassing when he took the photo, see User talk:Specious. -Nard the Bard 17:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. #1 - It is a decent picture illustrating a white German Sheppard, plus it is different from the other ones we've got (dirty, little mangey, compared to the "portrait" pictures we've mostly got). #2 - Trespassing be damned. You know that Commons doesn't give a shit about how you get the picture and you fully admitted it. You've been around for long enough to know what is proper deletion criteria. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Uploaded with wrong file name John Sauter (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per uploaders request abf /talk to me/ 21:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
personal image, not used anywhere Martin H. (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Personal image, not used anywhere Martin H. (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
personal image, not used anywhere. Martin H. (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
personal image, not used anywhere Martin H. (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
personal image, not used anywhere Martin H. (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
What makes this image free? -Nard the Bard 16:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Own work by uploader." Why doubt that? Dated September 22 when Obama campaigned in Wisconsin; uploaded September 23. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Modifed existing free image". Also look at the totally fake exif data. -Nard the Bard 17:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletecopyvio - see http://www.nieuwsuitamsterdam.nl/English/2008/01/democrats_abroad.htm (article published 2007) and host of other uses of this image by searching at tineye.com 66.31.42.26 18:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Or actually, maybe not.... this usage says "creative commons" (but the problem of course is that all CC licenses require attribution - anyone want to hunt through flickr? 66.31.42.26 18:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
-
- Many thanks! Nomination withdrawn, I'll fix the sourcing. -Nard the Bard 18:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept per NTB. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
this is uglyººººº rickroll 200.28.10.107 20:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep Image in use on many wikis. -Nard the Bard 20:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(EC) Hmm, why? Image seems to be suitable to demonstrate bullying. Or are there any other problems? --Túrelio (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am the uploader. I am in this photo and I want this photo deleted --Adam.J.W.C. (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:SCOPE. Teofilo (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Santa MarÃa de Ferreira de Pantón 1.jpg
Not believeable her book was published without notice. Possibly not renewed but uploader has the burden of proof. -Nard the Bard 06:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is possible I chose something wrong in the copyright tag, or the way I described the origin of the photo. But there really IS no copyright notice or information for the photo, not even a suggestion as to its source.
- I quote my correspondence with Howard Chen, before I uploaded this:
Subject: Re: [Ticket#2008103110006812] Can I/how can I use this photo?
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:57:18 -0400
From: Dick & Martha Forsyth <theforsyths@verizon.net>
To: Photo Submissions <photosubmission@wikimedia.org>
References: <1225488841.443335.053109818.2154612.451@secure.wikimedia.org>
Thank YOU very much - see below
Photo Submissions wrote:
> Dear Martha Forsyth,
>
> Thank you for your email.
>
> Dick & Martha Forsyth <theforsyths@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I am putting together a short article on Ilse Stanley, for WP. The only
>> photo I have been able to find of her is one that appeared on the dust
>> jacket of her autobiographical book, "The Unforgotten", published in
>> 1957 by Beacon Press. Ilse herself died in 1970; the photographer is
>> not credited in the book. I have been in contact with her grandson, who
>> wrote me as follows about using the photo: "The picture on the cover of
>> the book is not under copyright, since the book is now public domain,
>> and the copyright has elapsed."
>>
>> But I think I need to be more certain, that it is OK to use it. I tried
>> to uderstand your pages about copyright, but this situation seemed to
>> fall "in the cracks". If it is appropriate for me to upload the picture
>> (to Commons, I suppose), what copyright tag should I use? I am
>> attaching a scan that I made of it, doing nothing more than minimal
>> adjusting to cover the fact that my copy of the book is 40 years old.
>>
>> Thank you for your advice.
>>
>> Best, Martha Forsyth
>>
>>
>
> I assume the book was published in the United States, right? Is the photo
> claimed to be copyrighted anywhere in the book's fine print or perhaps near
> the photo itself? If not, then it would be in the public domain and would
> qualify as {{PD-US-no notice}}. If you do find some sort of copyright
> statement, I'm afraid you would have to contact the publisher for more
> information. Odds are, however, that it would be public domain not by virtue
> of not having had its copyright renewed.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Howard Cheng
>
>
Hi Howard, no, there seems to be NO fine print anywhere in the book.
It's a rather mysterious, with practially no fine print at all - the
only place that Beacon Press even exists is printed on the spine (both
of dust jacket and of book). The only info is (c) 1957 by Ilse Stanley,
LC catalog card number: 57-6527, and Orubted ub tge USA,
[typos! for: "Printed in the USA."]
So, sounds like I'm home free! When I get a chance, I'll upload it to
Commons, then.
Best, Martha
- The book is assembled in what I consider an unusual way. First there is a sort of 'epigraph'(?) for the book, which reads:
There is but one path
across the abyss of hate:
The bridge
From my heart to yours
- That is on a right-hand page. The verso says only Ilse Stanley; the title page (following) has a line drawing of the author (apparently) with the title, The Unforgotten. (hand-written). Behind that is the copyright page, which - in addition to what I quoted in the e-mail above - reads: "Some of the material in certain chapters of Part I of this book first apeared, in different form, in I Wil Life Up Mine Eyes (London:Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1954). Then the dedication page, back of that page is blank, and the Foreword (2 pp.). That is 8 pp. of introductory material; the foreword pages are numbered vii and viii. Immediately follws p. 1, PART ONE
- No "contents", no mention of publisher (as I wrote above, that shows up ONLY on the spine, as "Beacon").
- I also checked the end of the book, where the "fine print" sometimes occurs. Again - nothing there, just the last page of the book text, p. 375.
- There is text on the dust-jacket flaps, about the book and the author - no attribution of anything there. The back of the dust jacket has a statement about the book attributed to George N. Shuster, President, Hunter College.
- In scanning the photograph, the only "cleaning-up" I did was to trim off about 1/8" from the bottom and the right side, because they had suffered damage. There is NO attribution there. If you look at the photo, you will see that it has been cropped out of something - but, while I would dearly love to know where it's from! - there is NO indication. And the cropping certainly wasn't done by me! You can see someone else's image of the dust jacket cover at Amazon, where the image of the cover is credited to Ken W. Depper.
- If you would like to see scans of those introductory pages, I will be happy to supply them.
- Ok...sounds like it was copyrighted for a first term, but not renewed. I have no objection to closing this now, and I'll put the more appropriate PD-US-not renewed on it. Thanks. -Nard the Bard 01:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Image appears to be unused - looks like a copyvio. Megapixie (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Some kind of teen TV drama in mexico? I have no idea, but it looks promotional. --J.smith (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- en:Rebelde is a Mexican remake of an Argentinian teen drama. This image found here [gyggs.com]. Not likely to be the uploaders own work. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious copyright violation. --Martin H. (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Non-commecial use restriction in license. -Nard the Bard 13:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Chaser (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The dimensions of this image are not consistent with being a user-created image, as claimed. Based on the image size and subject matter, I would bet that this was copied from a real estate agent's website. Additionally, note that this user's contributions, including this image, are consistent with the content uploaded by a small army of sockpuppets with a long record of making false license claims for images of New Rochelle. Orlady (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thumbnail size images like this one are highly unlikely to be self-made, especially when the photo subject is a landscape, as in this case. Also see other deletion nominations for uploads by this user. Orlady (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thumbnail-size images such as this one are highly unlikely to be self-made as claimed, particularly when the subject is a landscape, as in this case. Also see other deletion nominations for this same user's uploads. Orlady (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
that's my picture taken without permission Alland (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Removed delete request duplicated 5 times. Nominating for deletion 6 times isn't going to get it deleted any faster. -Nard the Bard 05:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Just the eyes aren't personally identifiable. -Nard the Bard 05:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to Keep this image unless we can get some more information. Alland, can you supply more information about the circumstances of this image? In many situations like this the photographer doesn't need permission from the subject if the subject isn't identifiable. Thats why you see blurred out faces on COPS (TV series), etc. J.smith (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- On further thought, I'd be fine with deleting this as "out of scope". J.smith (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, thinking of going to delete too. The eyes aren't really blue-green-gray anyway, whatever that is. -Nard the Bard 18:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- On further thought, I'd be fine with deleting this as "out of scope". J.smith (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Image is apparently from AP as seen from this link. Additionally, if you look at this this Google images search, you'll see a version of the image called "ceciliaseethrough.jpg" located on this Geocities page. Scroll down towards the very end and you'll see it in a box besides a story about Cecelia Bolocco. (If the box comes up empty, check the page source as it clearly shows the intended image is "ceciliaseethrough.jpg") - Tabercil (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete post haste. J.smith (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 15:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Not in public domain... sorry. Cobber17 (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete PD in France requires life of photographer + 70 years. But this is a picture taken in 1945. Teofilo (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 15:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
illegal source 84.123.162.166 05:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. as copyvio abf /talk to me/ 15:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
task@getfriday.com
show details Oct 31 (3 days ago) [MicheleGreene.jpg]
- Keep Agent has been notified to contact Wikipedia. I sick of all this crap. They asked for my help. I think next time there won't be a next time... --- dh
- Keep Permission granted by Michele's Agent (see her website):
task@getfriday.com
Dear David, Hope all is well at your end. Thank you for your interest in Michele's page. I am attaching a picture of her. It can be uploaded to the Wikipedia page. Thanks and regards, Koshy
Getfriday-The Life outsourcing company www.Getfriday.com
(Also, I am a Professional Photographer (for 34 years)..........) --- dh
Self made claim is highly suspicious, looks like a professional image Denniss (talk) 07:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright notice in bottom left corner. Unfortunately I cannot really read it, but it looks something like © Ovillusd Inc., thus not associated with the name of the uploader. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
David, it would be greatly appreciated if you could structure and (more importantly) sign your comments on Deletion Requests. Also, it is not neccessary to create a talk page to this DR, as the discussion is going on on this page. Reagarding the permission: It can be uploaded to the Wikipedia page. does _not_ mean that the creator agrees to publishing it under a free license. Please, have a look at Commons:Email templates for an example what a good permission should look like. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 15:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Image is likely copyrighted through pari-t.com. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 15:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
that's my picture taken without permission Alland (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Removed delete request duplicated 5 times. Nominating for deletion 6 times isn't going to get it deleted any faster. -Nard the Bard 05:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Just the eyes aren't personally identifiable. -Nard the Bard 05:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to Keep this image unless we can get some more information. Alland, can you supply more information about the circumstances of this image? In many situations like this the photographer doesn't need permission from the subject if the subject isn't identifiable. Thats why you see blurred out faces on COPS (TV series), etc. J.smith (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- On further thought, I'd be fine with deleting this as "out of scope". J.smith (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, thinking of going to delete too. The eyes aren't really blue-green-gray anyway, whatever that is. -Nard the Bard 18:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- On further thought, I'd be fine with deleting this as "out of scope". J.smith (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
as possible copyvio. Image had a failed Flickr review (NC) already in december 2006 (!); today it is tagged "(C) All rights reserved" on the Flickr page. Túrelio (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Pfctdayelise is one of a very few users I would trust would have uploaded with the correct license. -Nard the Bard 20:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- I do too. But that's not the point. Otherwise I would have speedied it. It's a general question what we shall do in such cases. It's surely not the only one with that problem. --Túrelio (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Considering it failed the Flickreviewr, AND it's not a great photo, AND we have other photos of Maria Sharapova... easier to just delete it. Regardless of how good or bad my faculties were two years ago ;) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per pfctdayelise. Category:Maria Sharapova is full enough that we can be picky.--Chaser (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment I think this is a case of a fickle uploader to flicker. Not much we can do about it if we don't review it in time. J.smith (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 15:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
as of COM:SCOPE. Currently unused and probably not of use. Túrelio (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 15:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Usina de Angiquinho.jpg
[edit]
May also should get deleted:
- União dos palmares.jpg
- Maceio - Al.jpg
- Piranhas - AL.jpg
- Festival de Inverno em Água Branca-AL.jpg
- Centro de delmiro gouveia.jpg
Looks like one of those images by tourist offices. Either it's a copyvio - marked the info in the right bottom corner - or it's some kind of advertising. Because I don't speak that langauge it could also be something totally differen, but I don't believe it
D-Kuru (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
This is clearly a scan of a postcard. No date is given, so PD status cannot be determined. User says "from personal collection," but owning a published postcard does not give a person rights to the publication. Orlady (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Image not found at source and is not typical of Luke's style Tabercil (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Stated URL does not link to this image; hence no source. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
MK Media Productions[1] is not the holder to the copyright of House of Flying Daggers movie media. The flickr user is not the likely holder of copyrights for the images of the celebrities in their "PSP Wallpaper created for mysan.de media center" series.[2] House of Flying Daggers is owned by Sony BMG. Among their PSP Wallpaper series is Kill Bill which is owned by Miramax. The PSP wallpapers are derivatives of the original images and cannot be released by MK Media Productions under the creative commons as their own. Jappalang (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as speedy. And add flickr account to bad flickr accounts list. Megapixie (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Has also been deleted on Flikr. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work. -Nard the Bard 06:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- ?? Here you wrote that is was pd-ineligible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's definitively not under a CC licence, that's for sure. With regards with discussion here, note that some of the number hidden at the bottom are reproduced in the top right. The image with the book and the pen (which was pixellated in other images such as this one) remains and could be copyrighted. Delete. Schutz (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyvio. -Nard the Bard 06:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
No permission. Copyright. Onderwijsgek (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Goedemiddag.
- Ik heb destijds deze e-mail ontvangen:
- Hallo!
- Het geen probleem als je de plattegronden gebruikt, zolang je inderdaad even als bron onze url vermeldt. Wil je me een seintje geven als je wiki klaar is, ben benieuwd wat er gaat komen,
- Groetjes,
- Neeltje van Balkom
- Pr, Marketing & Publiciteit
- Odeon De Spiegel theaters, Zwolle
- telefoonnummer verwijderd
- www.odeondespiegel.nl
- www.benindemood.nl
- Vincentsc 12:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC) (oningelogd)
- Unfortunately no permission for use under GFDL. --Onderwijsgek (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Permission should go to otrs Sterkebaktalk 15:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Logo protected by copyright. No permission. Onderwijsgek (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Ineligible for copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No fair use on commons Sterkebaktalk 15:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
1971 without author, still protected by copyright Onderwijsgek (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Source: http://beeldbank.nationaalarchief.nl/na:col1:dat233697 /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well if it's any help, Template:Beeldbank may apply (but that template's up for deletion :P]] -Nard the Bard 14:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- That one is for different image repositories. It does not apply here. The Dutch Nationaal Archief is participating in Flickr Commons http://www.flickr.com/photos/nationaalarchief/ , but not with this image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if it is protected by copyright, you can delete this image.--Mamad (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- That one is for different image repositories. It does not apply here. The Dutch Nationaal Archief is participating in Flickr Commons http://www.flickr.com/photos/nationaalarchief/ , but not with this image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well if it's any help, Template:Beeldbank may apply (but that template's up for deletion :P]] -Nard the Bard 14:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Bad image, no real value --PetrusSilesius (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep In use on Kraśnik Dolny. I ordered a bot to rotate the image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Bad image, no real value --PetrusSilesius (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Not believable source. -Nard the Bard 13:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Unused, outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 17:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Does not illustrate Obama in any way. --Mr. Mario (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Personal art. Not in scope. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Outside project scope. Unused picture of a private individual. Picture is perhaps noteworthy for the campaign button she's wearing but it's dubious. -Nard the Bard 17:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I'd say this is a good image to illustrate a generic "Jane Doe"-type person. I can come up with possible uses for this. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
It's almost a blank image; just a faint mark in the middle. Can't see what possible use this has on Commons. How do you turn this on (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, if only to maintain the completeness of Category:Gellert Schriften 1. J.smith (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Part of a series that is useful to DE Wikisource. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Changed the no permission to normal DR : There's no proof that this is "part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment". And it looks like a scan. So the author is unknown, as is the original source. --Kam Solusar (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Sterkebaktalk 19:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No signs on Titan Aircraft's site indicate that their pictures are "free" for any use. Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
This a temporary exhibition (Antony Gormley is at Baltic, Gateshead, until August 25 The Guardian). Freedom of Panorama is available only for permanent exhibitions. Teofilo (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This may be regarded as an installation, an interaction of all these structures with the exhibition space and with the light. This artwork is permanently displayed in the sense that the installation lasts as long as the exhibition. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete We can't even have statues from Trafalgar Square, because the installation isn't "permanent", even if there's no actual plan to remove them (they're put in place on a "trial basis"). So we surely can't have statues where the time they're being removed is known. -Nard the Bard 16:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The artwork is a temporary exhibit. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Not found any evidence of being a public domain image when visiting site: http://downloads.channel.aol.com/browser
— François [Discussion] 20:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 17:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
no source -Nard the Bard 05:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Flickr gives "Spaarnestad foto" as source. Anonymous work, PD-Old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I mentioned Flickr as the source. Flickr mentioned Nationaal Archief as the source. Nationaal Archief mentioned Spaarnestad as the source. How far should we go????? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete 1928 photo without author does surely not qualify for PD-old. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- How about {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} then? It was released to the Flickr Commons of the Dutch Nationaal Archief. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- To keep it as PD-EU-no author disclosure, you would have to prove that the author was never known. If you can, do it, but I doubt that anyone can. This is a general problem of this copyright template, which is why we hardly use this template. Just look at the inclusions, there are about 50 inclusions in over 3 million images. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- If it is not used that much, that may be because the deletionists here are overzealous and more restrictive than the national archives of the Netherlands. Their lawyers are shouting: BY ASSERTING "NO KNOWN COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS," PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS ARE SHARING THE BENEFIT OF THEIR RESEARCH WITHOUT PROVIDING AN EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTY TO OTHERS". But that is just the same here, commons is not accepting any warranty to others either. Let's not be paranoid, and rely on the research and judgment of professional people. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- The Nationaal Archief has another policy than commons. They are looking for proof, that images are copyrighted. If they cannot find it, they assume it is free. Commons needs proof that images are free. If it is not provided, we assume that it's copyrighted. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- If it is not used that much, that may be because the deletionists here are overzealous and more restrictive than the national archives of the Netherlands. Their lawyers are shouting: BY ASSERTING "NO KNOWN COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS," PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS ARE SHARING THE BENEFIT OF THEIR RESEARCH WITHOUT PROVIDING AN EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTY TO OTHERS". But that is just the same here, commons is not accepting any warranty to others either. Let's not be paranoid, and rely on the research and judgment of professional people. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- To keep it as PD-EU-no author disclosure, you would have to prove that the author was never known. If you can, do it, but I doubt that anyone can. This is a general problem of this copyright template, which is why we hardly use this template. Just look at the inclusions, there are about 50 inclusions in over 3 million images. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- How about {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} then? It was released to the Flickr Commons of the Dutch Nationaal Archief. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think only when Nationaal Archief is rapped over the knuckles, it is time for us to act, no sooner. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep – the website of the Nationaal Archief states: The Nationaal Archief is proud to be a member of The Commons on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/commons). Photographs of the Nationaal Archief that are part of the Commons on Flickr have "no known copyright restrictons", this means that there are no copyright restrictions on the works designated, either because the Nationaal Archief owns the copyright of the photographs and authorizes others to use the work without restrictions, or because the copyright may have expired. (source) – Ilse@ 11:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- may have expired is exactly the problem I am talking about. See my comments above, we need proof that it has expired. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Spaarnestad is a commercial company that makes money on selling images. If they say that the copyright of their photo has expired, who are you to doubt that? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Where did Spaarnestad say, that their copyright expired? -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- @Chris. Ilse@ quoted the text of the website of the Nationaal Archief. It turns out that there is a difference in the original Dutch text and the English translation. The Dutch text reads: , of omdat het copyright reeds verlopen is. which should be translated into: , or because the copyright already is expired. But this is translated into , or because the copyright may have expired. So a significant difference. I've send them an email about this. Miho (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I got a positive response of them. They will change the english text in "......."either because the Nationaal Archief owns the copyright of the photographs and authorizes others to use the work without restrictions, or because the copyright has expired." They will implement this in the upcoming days. Miho (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- @Chris. Ilse@ quoted the text of the website of the Nationaal Archief. It turns out that there is a difference in the original Dutch text and the English translation. The Dutch text reads: , of omdat het copyright reeds verlopen is. which should be translated into: , or because the copyright already is expired. But this is translated into , or because the copyright may have expired. So a significant difference. I've send them an email about this. Miho (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Where did Spaarnestad say, that their copyright expired? -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Spaarnestad is a commercial company that makes money on selling images. If they say that the copyright of their photo has expired, who are you to doubt that? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- may have expired is exactly the problem I am talking about. See my comments above, we need proof that it has expired. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep Original source is Spaarnestadphoto, search for SFA001019075, Credits:[translated:] Collection SPAARNESTAD PHOTO/Photographer unknown. They have a 'disclaimer' at the bottom Fotograaf onbekend that reads [translated, summarized:] Of many photos the photographer is unknown, no name was mentioned at the back. We at Spaarnestadphoto are always looking for the name of the photographer. A difficult and time consuming work we are nevertheless pleased to do. But even our expertise is not enough to connect all photos to a photographer. <& a call for help>.
Hence anonymous, hence art. 1.3 of the Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 goes into effect: In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, the term of protection shall run for 70 years after the work is lawfully made available to the public.. This particular picture is from Elsevier, the magazine that made the work lawfully available to the public in 1928. So Spaarnestad have no copyright to it anymore; of course they still rightfully exercise their right to sell large prints of the original negative for money. <No I'm not a lawyer, just a common sense googler>. Tekstman (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yet once more there is no proof that the author wanted to remain unknown. Just the fact, that the image has no author note on the back, is not enough proof to assume that this was published by the author without a notice. All of my photos do not have an author note on the back, yet I don't want them to be published anonymously. Only if the copyright holder publishes the photo anonymously, the copyright will expire 70 years after publication. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- ChrisiPK, Of course I am not saying that the fact the author is not mentioned on the back of the photo is enough to claim Public Domain. Please look at the context of the aforementioned notice of Spaarnestad and make yourself acquainted with the background: Spaarnestad info & Nationaal Archief on Flickr Commons. So, Spaarnestad is the original publisher (or purchaser of the original archives of other publishing companies) of the magazines that made the picture public and therefore is the prime source of both the original photograph ánd the original publication. If they say the photographer is unknown it means his name was not mentioned when published, nor registered in the publisher's records at the time, nor found in 70 year's time (while they are actively investigating). And that I call really anonymous.
Your assumption that claiming something is anonymous work means proving that the author wanted to remain unknown is not correct. To begin with, how can an author ever have made this known without making himself known as the author? It is a paradox!
Secondly, Dutch copyright law specifically defines all this, see articles 8 & 9:
Article 8 A public institution, association, foundation or company which communicates a work to the public as its own, without naming any natural person as the author thereof, shall be regarded as the author of that work, unless it is proved that the communication to the public in such manner was unlawful.
Article 9 If a work appearing in print does not indicate the name of the author or does not indicate his true name, the person indicated in that work as the publisher or, where there is no such indication, the person whose name appears as the printer thereof may, on behalf of the copyright owner, exercise the copyright in the work against third parties.
I believe Dutch copyright law (Auteurswet 1912) still applies and the aforementioned EU directive is complementary, but a real lawyer may tell this. It make no real difference.
And finally, as an extra, in this particular case The Nationaal Archief and Spaarnestad, cooperating on Flickr Commons, claim no copyright whatsoever on the photos published over there, as user Miho pointed out, (which btw includes some photos younger than 70 years old) . Tekstman (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, thanks for citing this law excerpt, seems like this is free in the Netherlands. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept, per above and other keeps. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The photo is clearly from d6.allthingsd.com as the watermarking is the same on all of the images on the site and this very image. --Bidgee (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Is a public event and is not showing nothing of Microsoft or Windows --Sotcr (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Public event or not the photograph is copyrighted to the site in which published the photograph and possibly the photographer. Bidgee (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio, this image is definitely copyrighted. —Ceran (speak) 14:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: The content displayed on the Web Site, including the selection, arrangement and design of the content of the Web Site (“Content”) is the property of Dow Jones or its licensors, and is protected by copyright and other int
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image dimensions are not consistent with being self-made, as claimed. As this kind of shot is difficult for an amateur to do, it seems likely that this is a professional photograph borrowed from another online source. Also see other deletion nominations for images from this user. Orlady (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Is this really a reason for deletion without proof? I'm sorry, but this request is totally unactionable until you have actual proof. —Ceran (speak) 14:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Strike above, Delete —Ceran (speak) 22:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. miya (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Probably copy vio (the author is Norbert Wu, not the Flickr user; see [3]. Filip em (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please also check other images by shanewarne 60000, there are 10 more. --Martin H. (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Nom's concerns of copyright violations are probably valid. We should also contact the Flickr user. —Ceran (speak) 14:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Its original image in Flickr has already been deleted.miya (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
No permission. Potected by copyright. Onderwijsgek (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. howcheng {chat} 23:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Bad image, no real value --PetrusSilesius (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Neutral I partly disagree... it's a free image and while it may be "low value" I don't think it's "valueless". It's currently being used to illustrate Kraśnik Dolny - but that's about it. J.smith (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)- Delete I don't really think this is encyclopedic... it's just a tree. Doesn't have EV for the article its in. —Ceran (speak) 14:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. howcheng {chat} 23:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of Ferrovalle, even though the uploader created this specific file, he is not the copyright owner. The logo is probably not that simple to be PD-ineligible. --Mormegil (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. howcheng {chat} 23:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Not found any evidence of being a public domain image when visiting site: http://www.spacetime.com/
— François [Discussion] 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. howcheng {chat} 23:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a sculpture, located in Texas, USA. It is said to have "recently been displayed" in the heritage plaza, Clifton in this text, dated 2006. So I believe that it is copyrighted, even if there is no copyright notice. Works displayed after 1978 do not need a copyright notice to be copyrighted. Teofilo (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. howcheng {chat} 23:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
derivative work, no freedom of panorama in Albania 66.31.42.26 17:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- ~ Albania didn't had any Copyright law when this bust was created. --Albinfo (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
OTRS permission [4] is permission for use on Wikipedia only, not a free license of any sort. -Nard the Bard 17:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm the uploader. I received an email from OTRS two weeks ago but haven't taken action yet. I'll immediately seek the additional confirmation from the copyright holder (re: Commons-compatible license). I expect that this permission will take no more than three days from today to obtain (and forward via OTRS) ie by 6 November. Glen Dillon (talk) 07:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, sounds good. I recommend to any admin looking to close this give it some time to play out. Thanks! J.smith (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've had contact from the copyright holder (National Archives of Australia). Informal 'in-principle' approval for a commons license but the matter needed to be referred before written permission can be provided. I'm expecting that email today but fear it may not arrive till Monday 10 September. I therefore seek an additional 3-day extension before automatic deletion. Obviously if I'm not able to forward written permission from the copyright holder by 10 September, please go ahead and delete the image and I'll seek another course perhaps by using the existing Wikipedia-only permission (as per original OTRS ticket). My apologies for this matter being 'dragged out'. Glen Dillon (talk) 03:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, sounds good. I recommend to any admin looking to close this give it some time to play out. Thanks! J.smith (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, nothing happend. Please note: A Wikipedia only permission is not free and is not accepted. --Martin H. (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
This image is a photographic work of art that becomes PD only 70 years p.m.a or in case it is anonymous, 70 years after publication. As this image was published later than 1940, it cannot be PD. Thus it is a copyvio. In addition, I'd like to note that this image was earlier uploaded under the same name using {{PD-Finland50}}, but that image was deleted as a copyvio, because this is not a "simple photograph". MPorciusCato (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is a simple photograph. If you want to argue anything else, you need to cite Finnish case law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Info Germany originally had a similar copyright: Simple photographs were protected 50 years from publication. However, there is a EU guideline on copyright which says that all photographs with anything creative in it are not simple photographs. Thus there are barely any simple photographs to which this clause applies. I do not know about Finland, but I think it likely, that it has also changed its law according to the EU guideline. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, I participated into the discussion on the {{PD-Finland50}}. The Finnish copyright law interprets the "simple photograph" much more broadly than the German practice, but the Finnish law has never considered studio portraits to be simple. Originally, the Finnish law provided protection only to such photographs (since 1920's). (Unfortunately, I am not yet able to cite any Finnish legal precedents. The Finnish law works from the civil law basis, so finding info on the legal practice is not too simple.) The Finnish Wikipedia policy is rather clear on this point, and we even have a special template for the deletion of these photos here on Commons. This image was already once deleted using it, but was re-uploaded by User:Vesteri. --MPorciusCato (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have read these proceedings of Finnish parliament. The situation of old photographs (gamla fotografier) in Finland is not clear. At a European level, copyright of photographs where the copyright owner is unknown or cannot be contacted is under investigation. It seems to me that {{PD-Finland50}} can be claimed for images before 1946, maybe even 1956. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, I participated into the discussion on the {{PD-Finland50}}. The Finnish copyright law interprets the "simple photograph" much more broadly than the German practice, but the Finnish law has never considered studio portraits to be simple. Originally, the Finnish law provided protection only to such photographs (since 1920's). (Unfortunately, I am not yet able to cite any Finnish legal precedents. The Finnish law works from the civil law basis, so finding info on the legal practice is not too simple.) The Finnish Wikipedia policy is rather clear on this point, and we even have a special template for the deletion of these photos here on Commons. This image was already once deleted using it, but was re-uploaded by User:Vesteri. --MPorciusCato (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, the PD-Finland50 can be claimed also for "simple photographs" that were made before 1966, as simple photos were protected only for 25 years until 1991. In 1991, the protection time was lengthened to 50 years, but images that had lost copyright protection were not re-protected. So, if this photo is "simple", it is clearly free. However, studio portraits have not been considered "simple" but have always enjoyed the highest level of copyright protection available to photographs. This can be seen for example in the statement of the Finnish copyright council 1996:12, where studio portraits are unambigiously discussed under photographic works. (The Finnish Copyright Council is a state organ responsible for issuing statements about copyright law. Although it is not a court of law, the Finnish courts usually follow its lead.) --MPorciusCato (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is my understanding that in Finland, copyright did not extend to photographs when this photo was made. There used to be a separate law for this, and the maximum protection time was 50 years. Photographs were included in copyright law in the mid 90-ies, also with a term of 50 years. Only in 2006 this was extended to 70 years after the author's death, but the law states that this is not retroactive for photographs that already had become public domain. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, the PD-Finland50 can be claimed also for "simple photographs" that were made before 1966, as simple photos were protected only for 25 years until 1991. In 1991, the protection time was lengthened to 50 years, but images that had lost copyright protection were not re-protected. So, if this photo is "simple", it is clearly free. However, studio portraits have not been considered "simple" but have always enjoyed the highest level of copyright protection available to photographs. This can be seen for example in the statement of the Finnish copyright council 1996:12, where studio portraits are unambigiously discussed under photographic works. (The Finnish Copyright Council is a state organ responsible for issuing statements about copyright law. Although it is not a court of law, the Finnish courts usually follow its lead.) --MPorciusCato (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- A mention of photographic works was added in the Finnish Copyright Act on 1995-05-01 as mandated by Duration Directive (93/98/EEC) Council Directive 93/98/EEC article 6. That the protection is retroactive and affects photographic works, was included in legislation on 1996-01-01. Samulili (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you know who this picture is taken and when, so tell me this? I know there is only the fact that picture is SA-image Vesteri (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with MPorciusCato. One could make some case that this is a simple photograph, but the risk of erring on the wrong side is far, far too great. Samulili (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Not a "simple image". Samulili (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copy of http://www.summitpost.org/image/287338/287337/trojan.html Albinfo (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Kolata_e_keq.jpg - original image at http://www.summitpost.org/image/287177/155151/kolac-(kolata).html
- Image:Maja_Rosit.jpg - original image at http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?object_id=370700
- Image:Maja_Rops.jpg - original image at http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?object_id=354603&context_id=354585
- Image:Maja_Jezercë.jpg - original image at http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?object_id=235219&context_id=177728
- Image:Maja_Grykat_e_Hapëta.jpg - original image at http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?object_id=355312
- Image:Maja_Shnikut.jpg - original image at http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?object_id=350231
- Image:Maja_briaset.jpg - original image at http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?object_id=141020
- Image:Maja_Malisores.jpg - original image at http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?object_id=95633
- Image:Maja_Popluks.jpg - original image at http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?object_id=272583
(merged requests)
- Delete The site these images are posted on states that the copyright with the images lays with the uploader. The images uploaded here are taken by more than one person, yet are all uploaded by the same commons user. Definite copyright issues. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- I share your view. And there are many more images ulpoaded by this user with the same size of 500×375 pixel (the size all pictures on Summitpost.org have) where I couldn't find the original picture yet. --Albinfo (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted / Copyvio --Fanghong (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Images of User:Elmondo21st
[edit]User:Elmondo21st uploaded a couple of pictures and claimed they were in the public domain in Egypt, Libya and the US. However, he surely found those pictures on internet and most of them are certainly not PD. I have listed them:
- Public domain in Egypt
- File:Dalida 21.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Layla-fawzi 1946.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mansheya square Alexandria 1924.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Benold4.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Fatma Roushdi.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Najwa Salem .jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Nadia lotfy.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Zozo nabil.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Shadia.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Zozo Shkeeb.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Amina Rizk.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Shwikar3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Shwikar&Fouad el-Mohandes.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Salwa Hegazi.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Cairo Fire 1952 Revoli Cinema.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Um Kulthum5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Berlanti abdel hamid.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KamalEl Mallakh.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mansheya square Alexandria.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:AlexandriaTram1903.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Alexandrie Rue Cherif Pacha.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
In Egypt, non trivial pictures are in the public domain when more than fifty years have elapsed since the author's death. The uploader must provide where the image was first published and who created it but he didn't (unknown author). This picture cannot be considered in the public domain.
- Public domain in Libya
- File:LA CATTEDRALE DI TRIPOLI 1960.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Omar ElMoktar st. of Benghazi 1968.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Piazza del Shagara Bengasi 1964.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Via Omar Elmukhtar Bengasi.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bengazi1.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
In Libya , non trivial pictures are in the public domain when more than twenty five years have elapsed since the year of authors death and fifty years have elapsed since the year of publication. The uploader must provide where the image was first published and who created it but he didn't (unknown author). This picture cannot be considered in the public domain. Stéphane (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. In Egypt it only takes 15 years for photographs to be PD, and 5 in Libya. I will go through them 1by1 to check them out. (Still some files need sources). Tarawneh (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No real source, and looks similar to my eye to http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ATV/SEM462VZJND_1.html which appears to be copyright. Megapixie 15:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should use the very original image under ESA Imagery copyrights. Aliazimi 17:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- It might be from here too page pic. --Usp 08:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Usp has the correct source. This image features the default layout of NASA's press materials images. These are shown during their press conferences, during NASA TV broadcasts and in STS presskits. I'm not entirely sure if NASA distributes press materials that are not PD-NASA, as a rule I very much doubt that, but it might happen accidently. No way to know for sure unless we call them I guess. TheDJ 16:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay - given the lack of any copyright disclaimer on the NASA page, I'm inclined to say keep. Megapixie 22:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I challenge the results of the previous discussion. This image is not a NASA PD-USGOV image 92.131.15.130 16:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- This image is not a NASA image, it is an image created by David Ducros, a graphic artist from Toulouse, for the European Space Agency as shown here http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ATV/SEM462VZJND_1.html . Its presence on Commons constitutes an infringement of David Ducros and ESA's property rights. NASA uses such images in its broadcast (like it also uses Russian Space Agency images), but it is not a proof that these images where created by the US government. 92.131.15.130 16:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Not PD because http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Intellectual_Property_Rights/SEMXGG25WVD_0.html says If these images are to be used in advertising or any commercial promotion, layout and copy must be submitted to ESA beforehand for approval. If the copyright is by David Ducros, we need a written permission for PD license.
Deleted. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Gumpert images
[edit]File:2 Apollos (Prototype) with F-4 Phantom.jpg () (own DR)
File:Gumpert Apollo airscoop.jpg ()
File:Gumpert Apollo Dubai.jpg () (own DR)
File:Gumpert Apollo Geneva 2006 2.jpg ()
File:Gumpert Apollo Geneva 2006 4.jpg ()
File:Gumpert Apollo Geneva 2006 3.jpg ()
File:Gumpert Apollo Geneva 2006 1.jpg ()
File:Gumpert Apollo Sport.jpg () (own DR)
File:Gumpert building.JPG ()
File:Gumpert factory.JPG ()
_with_F-4_Phantom.jpg){kind=link}
_with_F-4_Phantom.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_with_F-4_Phantom.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_with_F-4_Phantom.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_with_F-4_Phantom.jpg){kind=link}
_with_F-4_Phantom.jpg){kind=link}
_with_F-4_Phantom.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
_with_F-4_Phantom.jpg){kind=link}
These images are from the GUMPERT Sportwagenmanufaktur (www.gumpert.de), which is producing the depicted car. All images are missing permission and are probably official press shots. The uploader says that the permission was given by Gumpert; however, I think we need OTRS confirmation in this case. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. OTRS permission would be needed to keep these. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Out of Scope Sterkebaktalk 04:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Useful image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It is actually used to illustrate sv:Alkoholkonsumtion och hälsa (en:Long-term effects of alcohol) Plrk (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I added it to swedish wp after I had seen it here. Why are cool tiles so attractive in such a state? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Long term effects, i always fall in sleep next to the toilet :p I think it can be closed as a keep. Sterkebaktalk 11:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. for the reasons above I see no consenus about a deletion, but I'd like to talk about personallity rights. abf /talk to me/ 18:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess we should Delete for personallity right-issues. abf /talk to me/ 18:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed the name from the description and ordered the rename-bot to rename it to a filename without the person's alleged name. In addition, one might somewhat blur the face. --Túrelio (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Blurring is totally unnecessary. The person is not recognizable. It is perfectly normal that this kind of situation occurs in one's life. In fact, this is rather clean, he is not lying in his vomit or anything like that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is perfectly normal ... - well that depends ;-). May be, but it is not normal that you get photographed then and that this photo gets published - especially as such a place is under protection and assumption of privacy in probably every country of the world. --Túrelio (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Only the people who were personally involved will be able to tell who the subject of the photo is and they know this happened anyway. The man is simply not identifiable. --Simonxag (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is perfectly normal ... - well that depends ;-). May be, but it is not normal that you get photographed then and that this photo gets published - especially as such a place is under protection and assumption of privacy in probably every country of the world. --Túrelio (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Blurring is totally unnecessary. The person is not recognizable. It is perfectly normal that this kind of situation occurs in one's life. In fact, this is rather clean, he is not lying in his vomit or anything like that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep good illustration of drunkenness. --Simonxag (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted after re-uploading under a new name that eliminates the concern. Still listed under the same category as before. Durova (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)