Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/11/10
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Duplicate of Image:Angellocsinattrinoma2.jpg (likely uploader's mistake). Jappalang (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is no longer duplicated. Traders 21 (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Withdrawing request; uploader has uploaded a different image over it. Jappalang (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
duplicate of Image:OldburyPowerStation.jpg TimTay (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted other version as it was used less. Please use {{Duplicate}} in future. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
this user simply seems to be uploading useless images relating to this non-notable game, including some with the charming description "English: fuck off" and the permission details "fuck off" (see Image:Balls3.jpg) --86.164.95.33 08:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
this user simply seems to be uploading useless images relating to this non-notable game, including some with the charming description "English: fuck off" and the permission details "fuck off" (see Image:Balls3.jpg) --86.164.95.33 08:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
this user simply seems to be uploading useless images relating to this non-notable game, including some with the charming description "English: fuck off" and the permission details "fuck off" (see Image:Balls3.jpg) --86.164.95.33 08:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
cance 201.51.89.166 12:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the nominator wanted to cancel. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio: taken from [1] --Lymantria (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Definitely not cc-by. That kind of licence did not exist back then when the author lived. It is not old enough to be public domain and the source website states "All rights reserved" as far as I have seen. Cecil (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- At the detail shot is written: This image is provided for research purposes only and must not be reproduced without the prior permission of the State Library of NSW.. -- Cecil (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Thanks. Sometimes I really wonder why so many people are unable to obtain correct licences before uploading. Cecil (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Parade float (WARNING: off color theme). User:D-Kuru speedy deleted it with the "copyvio - derevative work (no FOP in the USA)". Perhaps so, but IIRC from disussion at Commons:Licensing, photos of 3 dimensional parade floats was allowed. However I can't find any specific guidelines or policy about this. Perhaps some clarification is needed? Commons has a great number of images with parade floats. --Infrogmation (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, clarification is needed. The issue came up recently in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Carrozas en Astillero.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete Clear copyvio - derivative work. IMO this can and should be speedied. Just because a 3D artistic work is on a float does not mean it has no copyright, nor does the fact that other stuff exists mean that we should host it. Note that not all parade floats display copyright works, for example Image:VancouverPrideFloat.JPG. For clarity, we should probably add a new section to COM:CB and then do a mass deletion request for the existing problematic images. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why would that white rainbow-whale be protected by copyright? (I would like to keep floats.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work. Copyright law does not distinguish between mediums; paper mache is no different from stone. "Copyright protection subsists ... in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression".[2] Floats are sculptural. Эlcobbola talk 21:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment: This was closed rather more rapidly and with less discussion than I'd hoped, since IMO the example is relevent to thousands of images on Commons. I have started further discussion at Commons_talk:Licensing#Floats. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
no permission to GFDL --MB-one (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kimsə (talk) 06:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Image appears to be a copyvio from Flickr.[3] This image was uploaded to the English Wikipedia by the same editor over a previously deleted image, that itself was a copyvio,[4] using a different user name with the source of "camera". After I pointed out the inadequacy of this as a source and tagged the image he changed the source to Flickr then swapped between this version and another, that was also a copyvio, changing other data as he did. The editor requested deletion of the image, which I've had restored temporarily as an example for this nomination. He has now used another user name to upload the same image here and edited the Wikipedia article to get back in the same copyvio image. AussieLegend (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at it again, this image is an obvious copyvio and qualifies for speedy delete so I've re-tagged it appropriately. Of course, I won't be surprised to see the image reverted to the originally uploaded image, which is a copyvio from Youtube, as was done here. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- The subject image has now been deleted as a copyvio so this request is redundant and may be closed at an administrator's convenience. Thank you. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: Copyright violation
Redundancy. Basically identic image to Image:2008_Wash_State_Democratic_Caucus_02.jpg. --213.155.231.26 11:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC) 213.155.231.26 11:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep Shows what the caucus process is. -Nard the Bard 11:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)- Keep This is a cropped version of that image. When I clean images with GIMP, I nearly always upload both the raw and the cleaned image. In this case, this would be the preferred version. Image:2008_Wash_State_Democratic_Caucus_02.jpg is the raw image. - Jmabel ! talk 15:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Low quality image with no encyclopaedical value. --213.155.231.26 11:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC) 213.155.231.26 11:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Shows what the caucus process is. -Nard the Bard 11:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Perfectly reasonable to have multiple images of an event. Are we running out of space? - Jmabel ! talk 15:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- This image exists as the raw image from which Image:2008_Wash_State_Democratic_Caucus_09A.jpg was derived. When I do GIMP cleanup, I nearly always upload my raw image as well, in case someone else would want to clean up differently. This was discussed at length on the Village Pump at some point, and the conclusion was that this is generally good practice. - Jmabel ! talk 15:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Low quality image with no encyclopaedical value. --213.155.231.26 11:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC) 213.155.231.26 11:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Shows what the caucus process is. -Nard the Bard 11:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Perfectly reasonable to have multiple images of an event. Are we running out of space? - Jmabel ! talk 15:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Not realy certain about the licence : author died in 1915. --Coyau (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's a self-portrait whose author died more than 70 years ago - what's the problem? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- My problem was: The Move-to-commons assistant does not accept this category as valid on Commons. --Coyau (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep No reason put forward to doubt PD status. --Simonxag (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept, Correctly tagged work by artist who died in 1915. I cleaned up some template garbage obscuring the infromation. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Scope? Looks a lot like advertisement. -- Cecil (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- it looks like a advertisement because it is a advertisement parody Georg Drewnenbauer (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Have you read Commons:Scope? Could you please tell for what this image should be used in the wikimedia projects? And something else: have you made the fotograph of the guy (footballer?) yourself? -- Cecil (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- yes. pl:parodia, en:parody... . yes Georg Drewnenbauer (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- You still have not answered the question if you have made the foto of the guy yourself. -- Cecil (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I did. First "yes" goes to "have you read c:scope", examples goes to "for what..." and the second "yes" goes for "have you made fotograph by yourself". 83.21.16.102 09:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. Then how do you explain that the image was used at several other pages like profile pages for footballers? Please provide either the picture in its original size and/or a version with the EXIF-data to proove your claim. -- Cecil (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I did. First "yes" goes to "have you read c:scope", examples goes to "for what..." and the second "yes" goes for "have you made fotograph by yourself". 83.21.16.102 09:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- You still have not answered the question if you have made the foto of the guy yourself. -- Cecil (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- yes. pl:parodia, en:parody... . yes Georg Drewnenbauer (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Have you read Commons:Scope? Could you please tell for what this image should be used in the wikimedia projects? And something else: have you made the fotograph of the guy (footballer?) yourself? -- Cecil (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Whatever was true uploader's intention, the photo is a copyvio. Deleted Julo (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Bad colors of my screen shot Umnik (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. AVRS (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
May also should get deleted:
Out of scope D-Kuru (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope for sure Herby talk thyme 13:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Clearly not self made: Upload data says Google as a source; Filmfare is a national magazine in India. This is a copyrighted image. Iceflow (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Original uploader listed source as "google" and never claimed was own work. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. Ajcfreak (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- What has the fact that "filmfare is a national magazine in india" got to do with anything?--Fransiscogaita (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio - fair use
Not permanently located (New year's eve, Taiwan) Teofilo (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: according to COM:FOP#Taiwan artworks are not allowed
Not a free license --OTAVIO1981 (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio - logo
should be discussed as uploader has same name as artist and should be contacted --WayneRay (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it's correct. The copyrights-holder Elfriede Knesl is the dauther of the artist Hans Knesl and I have uploaded the image on her order. --Skipper69 (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep So it's a Keep then, delete should be removed WayneRay (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
- Häh? The uploaders name is Wolfgang, the artists name is Hans, the authors name is Elfriede. Where are they the same name, Wayne? And he now even told that he is not the copyright-holder. So where is the OTRS-ticket? That this is necessary is not only written at the upload form but also was already told him at his talk page. -- Cecil (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- The OTRS-permission is in preparation... --Skipper69 (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. As soon as it is handled, keep. -- Cecil (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. OTRS permission added. Raymond Disc. 14:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Part of a promotional campaign. Unless evidence proves otherwise, I would say that this is not "permanently located", so that FOP does not apply. The Wikipedia article on traditional pinatas, says "children try to break the piñata in order to collect the sweets " : these are usually nothing permanent, then. Teofilo (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This has to be one of the most poorly thought out rationales for deletion I've ever run across.
- The photograph was taken in Mexico and its license is compliant to Mexican FoP laws, read: an installation in a public space.
- No statue or art installation is permanent, many will be simply destroyed to make room for something else. The impermanence of all things may appeal to the nominator's existential inclinations, but it is a stupid reason to decide that a specific work may not be licensed because it is not eternal.
- Evidence? Again, philosophical considerations aside, a photograph of a gigantic papier-mâché facsimile of a stylized horse is self-evident.
- All photographs in Category:Piñatas include impermanent artistic work. Shall we categorically ban all piñatas from the Commons?
- Come to think of it, this is not even a functional piñata as there's no candy inside. No kid is going to attempt to flog this dead horse.
- The nominator's determination of what laws may or may not apply to this photograph are based on a spurious, overwrought analysis (sadly requiring an equally overwrought retort). ˉanetode╦╩ 05:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
REQUEST WITHDRAWN : COM:FOP#Mexico has no "permanently located" requirement like the German law. Sorry. Teofilo (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The identical picture exists in SVG PAD (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept per Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. Kanonkas(talk) 14:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
no author, no valid license, obviously a piece of art that is only a couple of decades old AndreasPraefcke (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Appears to be an ancient tapestry to me. -Nard the Bard 16:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like an old middle-age depiction. "Heilige um uns", Maria Kreitner, - 1956 - 383 pages Page 178 ... Irmgard) von Chiemsee 16. Juli um 860 oder 866 A. Mit einem Herz in der Hand; oder als Äbtissin mit Krone über dem Schleier (so dargestellt auf ... Google books This asserts the fact that one of the traditional depiction of this saint is with a crown above her veil, and the uploaded picture features a small crown above the veil. So this is traditional. Teofilo (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like a 1960s tapestry to me, and very very clearly so. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- The source of the image is http://www.irmengardschule.de/Der%20Name%20der%20Schule.htm and I had - as per the tagging - assumed it was an old tapestry. It is so long ago now that I am not sure what decision process I went through to assert PD due to age. --Matilda (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not totally sure why it is being asserted that Template:PD-Art is not a valid license - I think what you are disputing is that the license use is inappropriate which is a different thing. I disagree that it is a 1960s tapestry.--Matilda (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am not concerned however that an alternative image of the saint exists as per Image:Buchau Stiftskirche Irmgard von Buchau.jpg uploaded by User:AndreasPraefcke --Matilda (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not totally sure why it is being asserted that Template:PD-Art is not a valid license - I think what you are disputing is that the license use is inappropriate which is a different thing. I disagree that it is a 1960s tapestry.--Matilda (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Since there is an alternative image of the saint available, although disappointingly it incorporates less of the symbolism, and because I am no longer certain what led me to tag with the licence {{PD-Art}} , I will tag for deletion as the uploading editor. I will ensure next time that I do document nmy reasoning more thoroughly. --Matilda (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Matilda: User request: alternative image with clear license available
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader, Flintmi, claims to be Gary Flinn when he or she uploaded and claimed copyright for Image:Whoholidayinn.jpg. Jappalang (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. howcheng {chat} 00:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader, Flintmi, claims to be Peter C. Cavanaugh when he or she uploaded and claimed copyright for Image:Whoholidayinnmoonphoto.jpg. Jappalang (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. howcheng {chat} 00:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Faked OTRS permission. -Nard the Bard 11:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - if it is faked, then it is speedy to me? --Herby talk thyme 13:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Couldn't find anything in OTRS. Note that the images are supposedly CC-licensed ("El contenido de este pagína esta publicado bajo la licencia Creative Commons México http://creativecommons.org.mx/licencias/") but without specifying which one. (And one could also question who the copyright holder is) — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
dubious "own work" (work by decently famous artist) 65.96.163.241 14:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, marked as fair use on enwiki. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Painting in the USA. We know nothing about the creation/publication year/years except that the work was still there in 2006 Teofilo (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, apparently a mural, not "graffiti" as tagged. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No evidence on source website www.scramble.nl that image has been released under GFDL MilborneOne (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation from http://www.scramble.nl/dz.htm from order of battle page MilborneOne (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No evidence that uploader iis copyright holder (uploader has uploaded copyrighted image before) MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No evidence website has released image uploader has claimed copyright MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No evidence source website has released image uploader has claimed copyright MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No evidence uploader is copyright holder (history of copyright violation) MilborneOne (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation http://www.airliners.net/photo/Algeria---Air/Ilyushin-Il-76TD/1077391/M/ MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation http://www.febe.org/xfotos2006-23.htm MilborneOne (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of source from uploader with history of adding copyrighted images MilborneOne (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of source from uploader with history of adding copyrighted images MilborneOne (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of source from uploader with history of adding copyrighted images MilborneOne (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of source from uploader with history of adding copyrighted images MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/13590/size/big MilborneOne (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation of http://www.aeronautique.ma/Des-avions-made-in-Algeria_a287.html MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation of http://www.aeronautique.ma/Des-avions-made-in-Algeria_a287.html MilborneOne (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
copyright violation http://picasaweb.google.com/redoo24/AlgerianNavy#5100124170844457250 MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Unknown source from uploader with history of copyright violation MilborneOne (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note - Copyright violation of http://www.flickr.com/photos/71072120@N00/316329270/ All Rights Reserved. MilborneOne (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Uploader prbbably not copyright holder other versions on internet credit image to www.strizhi.ru MilborneOne (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=752855 MilborneOne (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation http://www.ate-aerospace-group.com/NewsFiles/Image/20080424/Mi-17_demo.jpg MilborneOne (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation http://www.monsterup.com/upload/1219097625.jpg MilborneOne (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No source unlikely uploader is copyright holder MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No source uploader unlikely to be copyright holder MilborneOne (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Unlikely uploader is copyright holder MilborneOne (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Unlikely uploader is copyright holder of scanned image MilborneOne (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Uploader of other copyright violations is unlikely to be copyright holder MilborneOne (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
These are sculptures in a museum. COM:FOP#Estonia says "not OK" Teofilo (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- File:Komiwallcross.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Komilick.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Komifight.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope --Mach (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused personal images. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Is clearly a horizontally flipped, edited version of [5] this copyrighted image, which itself was previously removed from WP for copyvio. --Mfield (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue the point about what it IS, but here is the story: We have had a number of discussions about whether or not the original of this image was free for public use, for which I made (I think, at least) the convincing argument that it was made free by the copyright holder for public use as a promotional gift to the web audience at large, with no restrictions on its use. My first attempt to put it directly on WP was rejected on this argument. So, my reasoning is that since it was free for public use, I as a member of that public, had the freedom under copyright to take it, modify it artistically (which I did), and then upload it to WP as my own work. This is virtually the same, in my view, as taking a number of music samples and creating an original work that is then given away for free.
Now, the argument has been, why don't you just get (or take) a free image, or ask the copyright holder of this image to grant free use? Well, I've explained previously that my getting a free image is impossible for all intents and purposes, given the subject's reclusive nature (though he does not explicitly prohibit any image from his web site from being used), and my distance from his location. Secondly, on WP members' advice, I mailed the request TWICE, and it was ignored. Not REFUSED, but IGNORED.
Now, it's not personally important to me at all whether or not WP HAS an image for this article; I was simply trying to improve the article. If the community has a PRACTICAL suggestion for obtaining a free use image that I have not tried, I would be glad to do so, or if there is a member who lives near Somerset, England who would like to try getting a free use image of Mr. Bilk, great. Otherwise, it looks to me as if the conditions regarding images on WP preclude any practically obtainable image of this subject being used. I'm really not trying to be sarcastic or violate the rules, or insult anyone trying to enforce the rules; that would be stupid of me. I'm simply at a loss as to how to accomplish getting a free use image given the rules; I believe that promotional material should be exempt, given that it is by definition freely given to promote the subject.--RogerR00 (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I dont think the requirement for a free-image requires somebody to create it straight away just the fact that a free image could be created at some point (however difficult) is all that is required. Most people who release promotional material do not normally allow others to use it commercially so free to the public is not the same as Public Domain and free for anybody to use for any purpose. MilborneOne (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Correct, the fact that something is needed does not violating copyright to get it. As a living (and performing) person, he could and has been be photographed in public and thus public domain imagery is freely available. The inability to locate it does not mean it does not exist. Mfield (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, folks, I give up on this one...I really have tried to get it in a way that meets the spirit and letter of WP's image rule. Hopefully somebody else will get it someday. I'm on record that this rule is too stringent to meet in this instance. MilbourneOne, I agree with your "most people" point, but contend that Bilk doesn't follow that description in this case, and argue that this should be taken into consideration, but apparently this rule allows zero flexibility. "Zero Flexibility" seems to fly in the face of WP principles, in my opinion, and will box WP into an untenable position at some point. Mfield, I can't locate it, so delete it if you must, but I contend that what you are deleting now is my own artistically created image, so I hope this doesn't bring WP to a complete standstill where "you can't get there from here". Not entirely joking. Thanks for the help, all.--RogerR00 (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Sorry - posting an image to a website does not release it to the public doamin, nor can permission be assumed when emails asking for it are ignored. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a logo made by a hobbyist for an astronomy club (see http://www.radiokosmos.blogspot.com/), the Agency doesn't even exist. --José Gnudista (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Well, it's in use now. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
No indication that the author is really anonymous. The source just does not name him. Where is the research work to confirm that this truly is anonymous? -- Cecil (talk) 07:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Picture is taken most likely by some anonymous street photographer.--85.130.31.81 08:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It's not from a street photographer: the photo is on the cover of this book. If someone with access to a good German library can look up the book and find out more about the photo, it would be great; otherwise, this has to be deleted. Pruneautalk 10:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The research work confirmed that the author is really anonymous for he never disclosed his identity.--Darldarl (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Book cover. No research whatsoever has been presented to support the claim to anonymity. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is only for one day. Therefore not "permanently located" : see COM:FOP#Australia Teofilo (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No author of artwork given, nor any licence. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Toy (very likely to have a copyright tag on the bottom) Teofilo (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Decided not to use for intended purpose Am124a (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
No indication that the author is really anonymous. The source just does not name him. Where is the research work to confirm that this truly is anonymous? Looking through the last uploads of the uploader I seriously doubt that he did any work except taking the image from another website. -- Cecil (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Picture is taken most likely by some anonymous street photographer.--85.130.31.81 08:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- What makes you say that? Pruneautalk 10:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- The background is not professionally picked out!--85.130.31.81 15:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- What makes you say that? Pruneautalk 10:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No exact date (circa 1938 isn't even PD yet) and no way to tell if truly anonymous. -Nard the Bard 11:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Date 1938 means exactly 70 years old picture. The author is anonymous for he never disclosed his identity.--Darldarl (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Das Photo ist 1938 (oder sogar im Jahr vor dem Anschluss) aufgenommen worden, es unterliegt also auf keinem Fall noch dem Urheberrecht eines Autors (Photographen), dieses könnte nach 70 Jahren erlöschen wenn der Photograph auch nach den vielen Recherchen anonym ist. Dies ist eben der Fall!--Darldarl (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence for anonymous publication. Code·is·poetry 14:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
This is near the Brazilian embassy in Washington DC. There is no Freedom of Panorama in the USA. Erected 2006, copyrighted work. Teofilo (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Per COM:FOP#United States. –Tryphon☂ 10:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Flickrwashing. The uploader cropped the bottom of the image, inadvertently also removing the copyright notice [6] (see very bottom of original). There may be other photos that I'll bundle in with this AFD. Chaser (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- No others with that copyright notice that was removed by me without noticing as it wasn't on the part of the picture that I had wanted. What's the word from the flickr user?Londo06 (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be inadvertent Flickrwashing by the Flickr user. The photo description page says they're from Tracy Wilko [7], but the Flickr user's profile is "England Kath" [8]. Chaser (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- What did the flickr user say?Londo06 (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Not a public place : you must pay to see this. See COM:FOP#United States Teofilo (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- At best this would be a non-commercial photo : see http://www.mam.org/info/policies.php :"For commercial photo shoots, please contact [name], at [phone number]". Teofilo (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Um... badly incorrect. Photos of buildings are allowed, and it is most certainly a public place. The commercial policy is just for commercial equipment (lighting, tripods) to ensure no damage is done, and anyways such restrictions have no bearing whatsoever on the copyright status which remains with the photographer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- The parts of the building which are not visible from the street are not allowed. Teofilo (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also not correct. Photos of buildings (indoor or outdoor) are fine. If you can find some case law to contradict that, then bring it up, but that has been the indication for everything I've ever seen. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is no case law, therefore the precautionary principle should prevail. Teofilo (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, my goodness, no. I sincerely hope you aren't being serious with that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Even if we know that the German law forbids FOP inside buildings ? (which means that the German wikipedians won't be able to use these pics, anyway). Teofilo (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. German law is irrelevant to this photo. I'm not sure I would agree with that interpretation of German law anyways, but that is up to the German wikipedia. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Even if we know that the German law forbids FOP inside buildings ? (which means that the German wikipedians won't be able to use these pics, anyway). Teofilo (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, my goodness, no. I sincerely hope you aren't being serious with that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is no case law, therefore the precautionary principle should prevail. Teofilo (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also not correct. Photos of buildings (indoor or outdoor) are fine. If you can find some case law to contradict that, then bring it up, but that has been the indication for everything I've ever seen. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- The parts of the building which are not visible from the street are not allowed. Teofilo (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep FOP for buildings in the US.
That, and, depending on when constructed, it is ineligible for copyright.-Nard the Bard 16:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Checking when constructed is not that difficult. Read Wikipedia. Teofilo (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- 2004? :P -Nard the Bard 13:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have it in mind anymore, but when I checked it sounded pretty recent. Teofilo (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- 2004? :P -Nard the Bard 13:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Checking when constructed is not that difficult. Read Wikipedia. Teofilo (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Carl is right. There is FOP for public buildings in the US and that is the point. The museum is certainly a public building whether or not it charges money for admission. Virtually all public museums charge admission today. Even my small local city museum in Canada charges an admittance fee. German law does Not apply to US buildings...just as Canadian law does not apply to German buildings. US FOP unambiguously says: "Anyone may take photographs of buildings from public places. This includes such interior public spaces as lobbies, auditoriums, etc." This DR should be closed ASAP. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope, because: only used on ru:Крупник, Алексей is got created today (2008-11-10); If the article is kept, the image can be kept, but I don't belive in
D-Kuru (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep Used. --Simonxag (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. In use. –Tryphon☂ 12:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
dubious own work - web resolution, uploader has also uploaded art by a famous painter and a photo from a copyrighted website claiming own work 65.96.163.241 15:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Signature does not resemble uploader's nick. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
permission has been sent to the OTRS for use of this image Phronesis66 (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 10:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
While it's free on flickr, no proof that uploader has rights to release - don't know if this is official promo photostream, or just some guy working there. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- The name of the uploader on Flickr is thegamblersfilm indicating that they're related to the film. It might be the director or somebody who doesn't have the rights to release the image under free license. We'd probably still need an OTRS permission. --Kimsə (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. –Tryphon☂ 11:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
This is in a squat. Per definition of a squat, the owner does not approve the permanent location of the work. Therefore it is not "permanently located" therefore FOP does not apply (Netherlands) Teofilo (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Squats can last forever in the Netherlands. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep A permanent display is not one that is permanent, but indefinite. There is no proof that a definite timeline for removing this was set. -Nard the Bard 00:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Per Nard the Bard. –Tryphon☂ 10:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Cropped picture of a poster outside a museum in Korea. But there is no FOP stricto sensu in Korea (only non commercial FOP) and this is not "permanently located" Teofilo (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. FOP is for buildings only in South Korea. –Tryphon☂ 11:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Korea : only "non commercial FOP" in Korea Teofilo (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. FOP is for buildings only in South Korea. –Tryphon☂ 11:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Work published in the USA in 1997. Unless someone can prove that it is pre-1978-no-notice or not renewed, I guess this is copyrighted Teofilo (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work. –Tryphon☂ 11:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
No FOP in the USA (this is not an architectural work, because human beings do not enter inside) Teofilo (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- You have a very strange notion of what "architecture" is. Surely people do not enter the walls or roofing tiles of a building either? — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- The term building means structures that are habitable by humans and intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions : circular 41. Teofilo (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- To tell the truth, I am sick of fighting all of the ever increasing restrictions that keep getting added to all the Wikipedia/media sites. At the rate the rules lawyers are going, all you will be able to post pictures of is rocks, sky, and water, but only if those items are not on the sovereign soil or in the airspace of some nation on the planet Earth.
- For all I care, you can delete anything I have ever added to either site. Enjoy your text only websites...while you can. Someday, a rules lawyer will find a way to rule out the combination of a vowel next to a consonant and get all text banned as well.
- Epolk (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- You should tell your Representative or Senator about this, so that he changes the US law and amends it so that it fits the German law about "Panoramafreihei" : COM:FOP. Lawyers don't make the law. Representatives and Senators do. Teofilo (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I was referring to the people involved in the Wiki projects that keep restricting the definitions of what is acceptable tighter and tighter. People upload items based on the current rules regarding what is acceptable only to have them not meet the requirements later. So they alter the license, description, media, etc. only to have someone else in the Wiki community come along later and tighten the rules even more. THAT is done by the local rules lawyers who interpret how the national laws are implimented here, not by national goverments. And they, not the goverments, are the ones who will strangle what started as a good idea. Epolk (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- The French wikiquote was deleted all together, because the uploads were not controlled tightly enough and a major database-rights infringement occured. Controlling and implementing the laws on a wiki is a condition for a wiki's longevity. Teofilo (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I was referring to the people involved in the Wiki projects that keep restricting the definitions of what is acceptable tighter and tighter. People upload items based on the current rules regarding what is acceptable only to have them not meet the requirements later. So they alter the license, description, media, etc. only to have someone else in the Wiki community come along later and tighten the rules even more. THAT is done by the local rules lawyers who interpret how the national laws are implimented here, not by national goverments. And they, not the goverments, are the ones who will strangle what started as a good idea. Epolk (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- You should tell your Representative or Senator about this, so that he changes the US law and amends it so that it fits the German law about "Panoramafreihei" : COM:FOP. Lawyers don't make the law. Representatives and Senators do. Teofilo (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. The sign is part of the overall building; conceptually, it has no existence on its own when separated from the building (unlike a statue which could very well be a work of art on its own). –Tryphon☂ 10:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Most likely German propaganda image. Not PD yet. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete False PD-Ukraine license, most likely PD-Russia applies, which means it is copyrighted there as well. -Nard the Bard 16:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why would this 1944 not be free according to {{PD-Russia}} ? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose There is no information if it is German, it is most likely shot by Cossacks themselves as the authorship is attributed to the Slavic Legion based in Russia. Changed to {{PD Russia-2008}} license. --Hillock65 (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- But none of the conditions listed in that template are met, so I don't think PD-Russia-2008 can be used here. --Kam Solusar (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Neither {{PD-Russia-2008}} nor {{PD-GermanGov}} apply, hence this image is not in the public domain yet. –Tryphon☂ 11:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a professional photo, uploader's only contribution, smells like a copyvio to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Matt - I know Philip personally and he is happy for this photo to be uploaded to commons. -alokmatta
- OK, but did you take this image yourself? If not, we'll need OTRS permission for it. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Matt - I've emailed "permissions-commons" with the email from Philip saying he is happy for this photo to be uploaded to commons. -alokmatta
- Keep - Permission received from Philip Bourchier via OTRS ticket 2008112410008341. --J.smith (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. We now have an OTRS ticket. –Tryphon☂ 11:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
COM:FOP#South Africa says "not OK" Teofilo (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep South-African law says: "The copyright in an artistic work shall not be infringed by its reproduction [...], if such work is permanently situated in a street, square or a similar public place." The FOP-page is wrong, in my opinion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree, moving pictures consist of many still pictures. -Nard the Bard 03:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- "photograph means any product of photography or of any process analogous to photography, but does not include any part of a cinematograph film;" South African law §1, "definitions". Teofilo (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Question Who is the copyrightowner of the art on the right tower? Isn't that just a derevative work? --D-Kuru (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I believe we are arguing FOP applies. -Nard the Bard 16:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Our current policy says there is no FOP in South Africa, which means this image should be deleted; if our interpretation of the South African law changes in our policy, then this image can be restored. –Tryphon☂ 11:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
No FOP in Italy (COM:FOP#Italy), and this is a "modern statue" : "in piazza Stradivari, una statua moderna commemora la figura del grande maestro" http://www.igiic.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/info_storiche_percorsi.pdf Teofilo (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Per COM:FOP#Italy. –Tryphon☂ 11:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is NOT the official flag of the Italian Republic. The original flag's mid band is WHITE (HTML: FFFFFF) and not pale gray Blackcat it 15:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you can understand italian language, you can read Art.31 of DISPOSIZIONI GENERALI IN MATERIA DI CERIMONIALE E DISCIPLINA DELLE PRECEDENZE TRA LE CARICHE PUBBLICHE (PDF) (that is given as source of this wrong image), where italian government states the color for official textile flag of Italy. This article states also that other versions of the flag must have the same color effect of a certain Pantone color on a certain polyester fiber, and apparence of that textile with that color is truly a plain white, not dirty (pollution-soiled?) (gray) white... So these are the facts. I'm really bored about this dummy dispute. I hope that this WRONG file can be deleted shortly. -- ELBorgo (sms) 16:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Well, I think that no explanation is necessary. --Frank87 19:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep — This file is perfectly named and impeccably sourced. ¦ Reisio 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Italian flag is green, white and red. No mention of pale grey. --Fioravante Patrone com 20:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Unless you have a PC screen made in polyester fiber, this shade of grey is NOT suitable. If you keep it, we'll feel compelled to upload an American flag with red and pale grey stripes as well :-) --Vermondo 00:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - There is Image:Printable_Flag_of_Italy.svg (version of the Flag that use rough hexadecimal conversion of the official Pantone colors in order to be printed on Cloth.) --Il palazzo 00:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not the same conversion, however. ¦ Reisio 01:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - This image is not perfectly named because this is not the flag of Italy, you should upload it under a name as invented flag of Italy or uncorrect flag of Italy--Vituzzu 00:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Art. 12 of Italian Constitution "Flag of the Republic is the italian tricolour: green, white and red, in three equally sized vertical bands", and Italian President Emblem, that use the same colour of the flag, say white. --Krdan Ielalir 01:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Invalid reason for deletion. It's freely licensed and within our scope. This is getting ridiculous. Commons is not place for this. Rocket000 12:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is not the flag of Italy. The middle color should be white, not grey. 8 people asked for its deletion at the previous deletion request and only the uploader said keep. The decision was closed keep because of scope grounds. I submit that an inaccurate version of a real flag is not within the scope when it is used in articles where the real flag should appear. Specifically the part of COM:SCOPE that requires files to be of high quality. Bad colors on a flag image make it of poor quality and authenticity. -Nard 02:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please take a look at all of the other discussion about this particular image. (Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Reisio)Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:ReisioCommons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Rocket000Image talk:Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana PMS 20060414.svg Some say this flag is accurate, so it's within our scope. We are not here to decide on images for others. We let them decide. Rocket000 02:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do we really let them decide? Because it looks like everyone but the uploader is against this image even existing. -Nard 02:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, there's a huge history here :) Take a look at the user report I got for closing that. Rocket000
- I meant we let users decide which image to use. We can't let them decide if we delete all but the one we think is "correct". Rocket000 02:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand what you mean with «we think is "correct"». There are some issues that can't be secondable. Can I make a Canada flag in grey? --F l a n k e r 11:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- By what "we think is 'correct'", I meant what some people on Commons believe to be correct. I used "we" because it was the majority. But even a majority here shouldn't decide on images for people elsewhere. Again, we just host them. Rocket000 05:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand what you mean with «we think is "correct"». There are some issues that can't be secondable. Can I make a Canada flag in grey? --F l a n k e r 11:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- It has been decided in Image talk:Flag of Italy.svg that this is not a flag of Italy, and therefore should not be included among Italian flags nor named as one.
- If commons is not concerned with the correctness of the name of the flags, am I allowed to take a JollyRoger, upload it and name it "New Flag of United States/Israel/YouNameIt"? I don't think I would be allowed (and I would be against it, furthermore), just because it would be the wrong name of the image.
- For this reason I ask this image to be removed. --TcfkaPanairjdde 14:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do we really let them decide? Because it looks like everyone but the uploader is against this image even existing. -Nard 02:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Until flags created from textile. Is textile colors wrong? Is textile-to-RGB approximation incorrect? See also Category:Flags of Poland (similar hot debate were took place there too). --EugeneZelenko 16:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, textile-to-RGB conversion is wrong. How many times it is necessary to discuss it?--TcfkaPanairjdde 23:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I quote TcfkaPanairjdde: Textile-to-RGB conversion is wrong. How many times it is necessary to discuss it?--F l a n k e r 02:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Interpretations are only "wrong" to those who think differently. Rocket000 05:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Interpretations? I think there is nothing to interpret. The Earth is not flat, the flag of Italy is not grey. --F l a n k e r 11:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe there is as this whole thing shows. Images of the Earth being flat shouldn't be deleted either. Rocket000 03:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Interpretations? I think there is nothing to interpret. The Earth is not flat, the flag of Italy is not grey. --F l a n k e r 11:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Interpretations are only "wrong" to those who think differently. Rocket000 05:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I quote TcfkaPanairjdde: Textile-to-RGB conversion is wrong. How many times it is necessary to discuss it?--F l a n k e r 02:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, textile-to-RGB conversion is wrong. How many times it is necessary to discuss it?--TcfkaPanairjdde 23:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Previous conclusion stands. Number of voters is irrelevant; this is not a vote. Find a more useful topic to argue about than the "correct" way to convert to RGB (hint: there is no "correct way", as it comes down to the settings of your output device in the end). —LX (talk, contribs) 11:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete We not argue about to render RGB colours, but about a greyish flag. The flag of Italy is not grey. How many times it is necessary to say it? --F l a n k e r 13:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- What flag are these people carrying? Does that image need to be deleted? There are over fifty different named shades of white. This is a squabble over a 5% difference in luminosity between two shades of white and yes, it is ridiculous. They really are just two different representations of the Italian flag. Neither of them are accurate, because conversion to RGB never is, so I don't really care which one of them you choose to use for whatever purposes you have in mind, but please find a better way to cooperate than edit warring and lodging gratuitous deletion requests for each others' images. If you (by which I mean everyone involved in the dispute) think you are not capable of doing that, let us know and we can consider other means of ensuring that the parties involved do not prolong this disruption. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you serious or what? If you think that the difference between the two images is irrelevant, why keeping both? If you think there is no possibility to correctly convert from Pantone to RGB, why are you keeping an image which claims to be that conversion? --TcfkaPanairjdde 22:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm quite serious. The convention here is to keep all versions of an image unless they are exact duplicates, even if they're more or less interchangeable. As far as I can see, the uploader of the image has only claimed that he used one specific system, established and suggested by an external entity (Pantone, Inc.), for the conversion, not that it's the one and only true method or that the results will look the same everywhere. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is a Reisio's interpretation. What if i upload a dark grey-crimson-lemon flag of Germany? --Frank87 16:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment to delete voters: please try to make photo of Italian flag in different light conditions (dusk, sunny day, shadows, etc). Will middle part of flag alway be #FFFFFF? --EugeneZelenko 16:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- The image name suggests that this is the flag which sports the conversion from Pantone to RGB, which is not, as LX admitted: so what is the pourpose of this image? Why this shade and not another? Why are you supporting this version with no menaning? --TcfkaPanairjdde 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_October_25#Image:DebbyRyan.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[5]](http://www.ackersmusicagency.co.uk/images/Acker%20Green%20Waistcoat%20fullsize.jpg){kind=link}
- My preference is to re-upload the image as Image:Italian Flag with Pantone textile color.svg and then delete Delete this one. / Fred J (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are aware PMS stands for Pantone Matching System? The current name is more specific. Rocket000 03:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Some more you might like to delete:
- Here's one with a different shade of green and red: Image:Flag of Italy.png
- Here's one with different shades of all colors: Image:Nuvola Italy flag.svg
- Oh, maybe here's a good compromise: Image:Animated-Flag-Italy.gif :) Rocket000 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- We don't talk about a photograph, but a vector image (you can notice by the extension .SVG that means Scalable Vector Graphics). A photo can be in many different shades of white. A vector image must represent the "optimum" light conditions. --F l a n k e r 12:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Those aren't photos. Rocket000 12:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was answering to LX and EugeneZelenko. --F l a n k e r 13:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Those aren't photos. Rocket000 12:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- We don't talk about a photograph, but a vector image (you can notice by the extension .SVG that means Scalable Vector Graphics). A photo can be in many different shades of white. A vector image must represent the "optimum" light conditions. --F l a n k e r 12:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment My opinion has a zero-value here because I'm not an admin. This is a fact. But with simply logical arguments can I tell you that "Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana PMS 20060414.svg" is NOT more specific name than "Italian Flag with Pantone textile color.svg".
- First: PMS ancronym is NOT an international or wide-used term, but a specific Pantone's industry term. So isn't univocally clear what PMS stand for, without saying that is "Pantone Matching System"....
- Second: PMS of what? Of a Pantone textile color. My name is more specific.
- Third: strictly speking "bandiera", cannot be a picture. "Bandiera" is only a piece of cloth that moves in the wind. My name is more correct, because it was similar to all the similar images of "bandiere" in commons... second using flag is better, because commons is international project, so using italian language isn't the better thing to do.
- Fourth: apparence of Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana is stated by the laws, and has pure, bright, full, totally white. If you want a real "Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana" go to Rome anf take a photo of the flag over Quirinale palace, or similar istitutional place.
- Fifth: "Flag of Italy" is more neutral term than "Flag of the Republic of Italy" that conceptually sounds like "Offical Flag of Italy" (this is so obvious, but I'm the only one that understand this concpet, I'm right? Oh sorry you don't know if I'm right or wrong, you don't use your brain for judging...)
- Conclusion: Rocket000 is wrong (oh damn I say that? No, no, i don't, here right/wrong concepts don't exist in commons), actual name is not more specific than other name. It's actual name correct? No response. Commons do not require editiorial work. I can upload a photo of mine and call it "Queen Elizabeth.jpg" (cit.). Can you say I'm wrong? Really not, because, I say that my name is "Queen Elizabeth". Can you say that's false? I think you can not, because this is a mellow place (cit.), take it easy.
- Obviously this image cannot be deleted (this picture is fundamental for commons). Obviously this image cannot be renamed (Reisio is the Right, Reisio is God, and he doesn't want) [Reisio, do you like to be God? I think you like a lot...].
- So take it easy. This is commons, a place where all is possible, but if you hasn't the power you are a zero, and for you doing something right is impossible, because you are only a wrong-zero. All right. I don't matter. I only use my faculty to say how things are. -- ELBorgo (sms) 01:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, let me try again. First of all, you are aware anyone can rename images, right? No one has done it yet because the edit war wasn't about that. It was about this image being in the category, Category:Flags of Italy, and using the template {{insignia}} which says "This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia" (emphasis added). Renaming the file does not solve this. You guys already got it renamed from Image:Flag of Italy.svg and have a disclaimer on the image page (I'm against disclaimers, but I left this one as a hopeful compromise). And please refrain from getting personal (e.g. "Reisio, do you like to be God?", "you don't use your brain for judging", etc.). Try to stay focused on what is spoken not the speaker. Thanks. Rocket000 04:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- And now that the image is protected, you guys took the edit-warring to the talk page[9], where editing others text is not acceptable. Rocket000 04:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk:Bandiera_della_Repubblica_Italiana_PMS_20060414.svg&curid=3240957&action=history){kind=link}
- «you are aware anyone can rename images, right? No one has done it yet because the edit war wasn't about that» To tell the truth, I tried to rename it, but Reisio (who else), changed the name back. I am, in fact, going to propose a renaming of the image, in case this request for deletion fails.--TcfkaPanairjdde 13:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Eh eh eh, ELBorgo you rock!
- Mhmm, I think renaming it Flag of Italy with Pantone textile colours.svg can be the solution. Resio got his flag, we got our clarification about the rendering method. --F l a n k e r 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I will gladly rename it if everyone's cool with this. My only concern is there still might be edit-warring over the things I listed above. Resio if your reading this, please comment. Rocket000 20:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- My sentiments can be found here and here. ¦ Reisio 20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, let's go with the third option you proposed in the first link, delete the image.--TcfkaPanairjdde 21:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- My sentiments can be found here and here. ¦ Reisio 20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I will gladly rename it if everyone's cool with this. My only concern is there still might be edit-warring over the things I listed above. Resio if your reading this, please comment. Rocket000 20:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reisio, please do not make assumptions of what others might hypothetically do. TcfkaPanairjdde, cut the sarcasm. Please, this is not helpful. As I said before, if you are not willing to work towards an agreement in this collaborative project, there are other means of ending the disruption, but neither of you will find that outcome to be in your interest. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Giggy conjectured that renaming the image would have resolved the issue, and after Rocket000 detailed why that wasn't necessarily the case, I merely gave an exaggerated example to bring it into stark relief. ¦ Reisio 00:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Any chance of a compromised rename? Like Image:Italian flag PMS 20060414.svg (don't know Italian)? Think of how to resolve this rather than having the all-or-nothing mindset. I know it's hard sometimes, but please check yourself that you're not just holding out to make a point, which both sides already have made pretty clearly. Rocket000 04:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- What's wrong with leaving it permanently protected as I originally uploaded it? — It's specific enough that it will never need editing. If you truly think there's a good reason to do otherwise, then do whatever you like… delete it or move it, just don't put my name on it if you do. ¦ Reisio 06:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not it should ever change, this is a wiki. We should only use page-protection when there's edit-warring, repeated vandalism, or with heavily used images. I'm generally against all indef protection, myself (at least in the gallery/image namespace). Reisio, I'm just trying help solve the issue. I know you feel you picked a perfectly ok name for the image, however, don't look at it like that. This isn't a matter of what's the "best" name as we all found out we can't agree; this is about resolving this issue - compromising. Others have a problem with your name, and you have a problem with their name. Why not meet 'em in the middle? Let's put aside who's right and who's wrong and come up with a third option together. Is that too much to ask? Rocket000 06:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's too much to ask. This file was already a compromise, and it's named exactly what it is. ¦ Reisio 07:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok then, sorry for asking. I think I'll step back from this issue and let someone else try to resolve it :) Peace. Rocket000 08:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, Keep (I think you know my reasons.) -Rocket000 08:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete I have seen arguments at three different projects. They are still discussing it at it.wp. Discussion of the image resulted in a block at en.wp from Reisio's inappropriate commentary. And I have seen the multiple talk pages that argue the correctness or incorrectness of the image. I even looked up Pantone colors and found a website that explicitly stated that the colors of the textile product would be different from those shown in the electronic medium. The official Pantone color of the middle band is named "bright white" which is coded as #F1F2F1 in hexadecimal color codings. All vector images of the Italian flag on the Commons have a white band. Reisio's is the only one that has an offwhite band. This offwhite band is the electronic equivalent of the Pantone color "Bright White" which I assume in real life is not an offwhite hue. Rocket000's examples above, Image:Flag of Italy.png, Image:Nuvola Italy flag.svg, and Image:Animated-Flag-Italy.gif are really bad analogies. The first is a png form of what has been updated at Image:Flag of Italy.svg (older revisions of the SVG image show the darker green and red bands). Image:Nuvola Italy flag.svg is drawn in a way that makes it appear the flag is waving and shadows are being cast, causing different shades. Image:Animated-Flag-Italy.gif is the same, but a gif and shows the hex white. There are arguments everywhere that this particular depiction of the Italian flag is not right. Why should the Commons host an inaccurate image?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing anymore, but I do feel the need to point out why I listed those of images. Not as analogies of anything. The first one was to show other variations exist. And those other variations aren't being contest somehow. It's hypocritical to say there's only one "correct" interpretation and only say there's a problem with this particular version. The icon I just threw in to show it in a different form, like how the photo was used above. The last one was a joke about compromising since it alternated between white and gray. Just wanted to clarify. Rocket000 11:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I understand there are variations, but they are variations on the shades of red and green. It's hard to use the "shades" of white, because most turn grey or have some sort of colored tinge to them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
So, it looks like it is a useless image, not used on any project, uncorrectly named (see the conversions from Pantone to RGB) and, most probably, uploaded to make a point. Are we going to delete it, as asked by several people, or not? --TcfkaPanairjdde 19:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete I read all the pages (a lot of discussion pages, of course) but, to conclude, this image is, simply, wrong: Reisio is the only one who say "grey grey!". I'm Italian, and my flag is not green-grey-red! --Yoruno 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete bah! (cit.) --Tanarus 15:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete I strongly feel this is completely wrong. --TcfkaPanairjdde 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete This bad copy of the Italian flag is useless and violates the dispositions of the Italian Constitution. That's all. --Mess 10:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete it seems to be only a crusade against Pantone --Vituzzu 14:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete (already voted) --F l a n k e r 17:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete (already voted but it seems that this is is another voting session). Not only is this flag incorrect: it is also useless: it seems to me that no page of the project uses it. So, should it be kept just in order to illustrate a point? It's totally not-wiki. --Vermondo 10:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- It seems like someone's trying to make it that way... but it is used used. →Rocket°°° 16:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is always the same IP address, trying to insert it without discussion. --TcfkaPanairjdde 11:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete This flag is wrong, the central color should be white, and not gray. Definitely not our flag (I'm Italian). —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.17.222.67 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, bad presentation of official flag —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Jossifresco (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Grow up, Deleteers before I upload an animated GIF of it in acid-trip colours. If you don't like it or it insults your national pride, don't look at it. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Consenus is that this is a poor version of the Italian flag. It fits the criteria of "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". The image is used nowhere in any of the wikisisters projects and is often a source for edit wars. Udonknome (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Repeated deletion requests should be strongly discouraged, particularly where nothing has changed since the last one. However, in this case, since the last DR Commons' Scope has been clarified, and we now have to consider whether - as alleged - this falls within the ambit of "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". The file is unused except for a couple of pages which discuss it. As we already have a perfectly good representation of the Italian flag, I would say that this one is indeed not educationally distinct unless anyone is able to point to some possible use for this particular image that could not be satisfied by the other. If a distinct use can be proposed I would be happy to change my mind, but at the moment I think the file should go. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fake flag. -Nard the Bard 12:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No new arguments against or for. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The question is whether this still falls within COM:SCOPE the quoted section - Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject to my reading this is about new/recent image uploads, rather than existing images. Scope doesnt clearly cover what/how we deal with images uploaded in good faith but that appear to deteriate as technology advances provide high quality. This image is part of the collection of images we already hold its not a new or recently uploaded image. This isnt nomination isnt any different to previous nominations, its attracting the same responses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnangarra (talk • contribs)
No new arguments either way, so previous verdict stands. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Blow ball
[edit]this user simply seems to be uploading useless images relating to this non-notable game, including some with the charming description "English: fuck off" and the permission details "fuck off" (see Image:Balls3.jpg) --86.164.95.33 08:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope/offensive, blocked en wp user etc etc Herby talk thyme 08:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images by Hothulagurl06
[edit]Flickrwashing. The flickr source contains uneven quality and missing metadata. --Bluemask (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Sanbec (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
This user did not paint this painting. What is the real source for it? -Nard the Bard 11:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, whatever else "own work" seems highly unlikley. --Herby talk thyme 13:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Subject of painting died in 1823; image is very likely PD-Art. Certainly not GFDL work by uploader. Can probably be kept IF proper information is provided. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Image also appears here 65.96.163.241 15:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Uploader changed tagging but hasn't provided the name of a painter or a year. -Nard the Bard 15:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing essential source information (author's name and date of painting). –Tryphon☂ 14:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The logo passes the threshold of originality. No FOP for artistic and litterary works in Japan Teofilo (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I think it doesn't pass the threshold of originality. -Nard the Bard 16:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not sure why one would think this is not artistic or original? Odd. Nesnad (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- But do you still want to keep ? The trouble if this is considered artistic and original is that we must ask a permission from the artist. Teofilo (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Ineligible for copyright. –Tryphon☂ 14:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted by the film maker. Not permanent, therefore FOP does not apply Teofilo (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep Not an artwork so no need for freedom of panorama. It's a film set not a film. --Simonxag (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is a part of a film, telling a story. Story-telling is art. Teofilo (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Simonxag. – Ilse@ 11:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Hardly seems problematic; I doubt anyone would enforce copyright on a few bunker pieces. –Tryphon☂ 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
sourced to copyrighted website, uploader has also claimed to be the creator of famous works of art 65.96.163.241 14:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
permission has been sent to the OTRS for use of this image Phronesis66 (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. –Tryphon☂ 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
dubious own work - web resolution, uploader has also uploaded art by a famous painter and a photo from a copyrighted website claiming own work 65.96.163.241 15:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
permission has been sent to the OTRS for use of this image Phronesis66 (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. –Tryphon☂ 14:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
dubious own work - web resolution, uploader has also uploaded art by a famous painter and a photo from a copyrighted website claiming own work 65.96.163.241 15:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
permission has been sent to the OTRS for use of this image Phronesis66 (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why on earth would it need OTRS permission if it your own work? If the painting is not by you, the current information on the image is not correct. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. –Tryphon☂ 14:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No FOP for post-1978 artworks in the USA. This was unveiled for the 1st time in Palo Alto, after 1982, although this is the NY copy, unveiled in 1992. See nycgovparks.org and SIRIS
Teofilo (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Since there were multiple copies made and made available to the public, that probably counts as "published" in post-1978 law, and since copies were put up before March 1 1989 (1984 in Palo Alto), they would need a valid copyright notice on them. I'm not sure the SIRIS description is enough to determine that though. Do these statues have any inscriptions on them at all? Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Has a member of the general public who wants to buy a copy been given an opportunity to order a third copy ? Was it proposed in a gallery ? In an auction ? Lupo says (between 1978 and 1989) "Sculpture remains "unpublished" unless copies are sold, lent, etc. to the general public." : Template_talk:PD-US-statue/proposal#Need for a bright-line rule. Teofilo (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- It was offered to others for purposes of public display. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Has a member of the general public who wants to buy a copy been given an opportunity to order a third copy ? Was it proposed in a gallery ? In an auction ? Lupo says (between 1978 and 1989) "Sculpture remains "unpublished" unless copies are sold, lent, etc. to the general public." : Template_talk:PD-US-statue/proposal#Need for a bright-line rule. Teofilo (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- A new Copyrigth for each Copy of a Sculpture? Others as a reprint of a Book? --Fg68at de:Disk 11:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- See COM:FOP#United States : unlike countries like Austria or Germany, the United States don't have Panoramafreiheit for sculptures. Teofilo (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Relisting item from Nov 2008 -- was never closed.
Kept. Per Carl Lindberg. –Tryphon☂ 14:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This image is probably in the public domain. However, the current license is not applicable and there is not enough information in order to access the real license status. ALE! ¿…? 10:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- There's a link to a section of the map here [apfelweibla.de]. This is "der Bamberg-Karte von Braun-Hogenberg (1617)", so {{PD-Old}}. Even if the upload is copied from a modern, or even not-so-modern, reproduction, surely that's still {{PD-Art}}? The uploader has fixed the license tag. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. PD-Old awright Badseed talk 05:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of Panorama in Argentina Teofilo (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 17:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
