Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/11/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
I don't think that this image is a free one even the uploader claims that it is
D-Kuru (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- This image is a copy vio of this site. It's used for a spam in pt.wiki (I deleted the pag there) and I do not change the template for {{Copyvio}} because this page. Béria Lima Msg 10:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
low-quality, hardly of use. Túrelio (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep Used on pl:User:Natalama87. Pruneautalk 12:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
image has copyright notice embedded and there is no evidence that the uploaded, who claims the image is his own work by using the "PD-self" license, is the copyright holder and no verifiable copyright release has been provided) --Ww2censor (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Judging from a tineye.com search, this has been used fairly extensively on the internet elsewhere previously. It's doubtful that it's actually the copyright holder doing the uploading. Mangostar (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
out of scope Sterkebaktalk 18:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Work by de:Emil Preetorius (1883-1973), no permission by the unnamed publisher (probably de:Hans von Weber (1872-1924) --Mutter Erde (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
--Mutter Erde (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. Durova (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Uploader is probably not creator of the photo, as it just says owner. See also other uploads of this user to understand the wording. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Closing this DR, I opened a mass request with images of this user. Please participate at Commons:Deletion requests/Images by User:Henryart. Regards, ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
NEEDLESSLY OBSCENE, IT'S COMES UP ON GOOGLE AS FIRST RESULT 60.54.54.219 00:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Free image, within scope, and we do not practice censorship based on subjective levels of obscenity. --J.smith (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep suggest speedy keep close. No valid reason for deletion offered. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe this is GFDL. It could be PD if anonymous, but can you be sure that the publisher is not the same person as the photographer ? Teofilo (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If Ferdinand Schmidt (1840-1909) was himself the photographer, the photograph is PD-Old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- WITHDRAWN. Teofilo (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violations, as the photo was originally taken from this site. The uploader claimed that it was his own work, as well as being a cousin of Angel Locsin. However, the statement written on this page appears as if the photo was taken by a fan who visited Locsin on location and not by a cousin as claimed by the uploader. The uploader is also a sock puppets/Gerald Gonzalez a suspected sockpuppet who is prone to uploading copyvio images on Commons and claim it as his own work. -- 114.198.145.132 13:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio by a Gerald Gonzalez sockpuppet. Kanonkas(talk) 00:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violations, as the photo was originally taken from this site. The uploader claimed that it was his own work, as well as being a cousin of Angel Locsin. However, the statement written on this page appears as if the photo was taken by a fan who visited Locsin on location and not by a cousin as claimed by the uploader. The uploader is also a sock puppets/Gerald Gonzalez a suspected sockpuppet who is prone to uploading copyvio images on Commons and claim it as his own work. -- 114.198.145.132 13:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio by a Gerald Gonzalez sockpuppet. Kanonkas(talk) 00:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Commons is not a personal repository MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment Person shown described as Robert Swain, image just uploaded by new Commons user Rswain823; name suggests may be same person. If user wishes to have their image on their user page, that is allowed. If image remains unused after a week, no objection to deletion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment do he really needs 7 days to put image on his userpage? Herr Kriss (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. nit used anywhere. abf /talk to me/ 13:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bad name (changed for category:APRA--ferbr1 (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. please use {{Speedy}} the next time for empty categorys. abf /talk to me/ 13:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
as of low-quality: image too blurred to be of use; also the description is hardly useful Túrelio (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep being used on wikibooks, wikilabs and hu.wiki. --Kanonkas(talk) 11:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that labs is not a content wiki and is totally irrelevant here. Furthermore, the image is crappy and should probably be replaced if possible. Wikibooks certainly won't miss it if there's something better available. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also, the use on huwiki is a local image, not this one. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete really bad quality, and we have a lot of other images of that object in category:Wawel Castle. Herr Kriss (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)- Delete - replaced on enwikibooks and we have much better alternatives for others who would use this. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 13:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Upload for a test. The good image is here. Error on behalf of the author. --Lofo7 talk 10:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. uploader-requested abf /talk to me/ 13:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
the logo appears sufficiently complex to meet the threshold of originality --Simeon87 (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I doubt the flickr uploader owns this image, nor the rights to release this image under a free license. See their album on flickr too. Kanonkas(talk) 12:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Neutral - As of yet, there's no proof for that. Besides, the user's other "portraits of people" seem pretty good, so why not this one? —Ceran (speak) 13:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps because they're also taken from other places? How do you turn this on (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- True, changed to neutral. —Ceranthor 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps because they're also taken from other places? How do you turn this on (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Did anyone notice that in the image description, the photographer is identified as Andy Stuardo Lake, whereas the Flikr user (referred to as the author on commons) only did some retouching? Therefore, it should be deleted without a doubt, as the uploader is not the copyright holder of this image. --Tryphon (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
deleted, copyvio on flickr --Polarlys (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
original image can be found at http://www.summitpost.org/image/72502/153173/maja-jezerce.html - see also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Trojani.jpg for other pictures uploaded by this user. --Albinfo (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, agree. Lupo 09:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Mike.lifeguard: Copyright violation per http://commons.wikimedia.org/?diff=17441533&oldid=17358029
Original picture at http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?object_id=439314 . See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Trojani.jpg for more deletion requests for images uploaded by this user. --Albinfo (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Uhm... the summitpost page mentions our image here as the source, and was uploaded there later... Lupo 09:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Mike.lifeguard: http://commons.wikimedia.org/?diff=17441533&oldid=17358029
Appears to be a screenshot taken from a VCD or low bit-rate MPG. Furthermore, did the woman give her consent for this image to be released? Jappalang (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Either way, it's not really encyclopedic. Who wants to see a picture of a woman experiencing labor pain? —Ceran (speak) 14:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination and ceran and beeing unused and never will be used abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 15:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like possible flickr washing. I doubt the flickr uploader owns the rights for the images they've uploaded on flickr. Kanonkas(talk) 12:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Same with Image:2250472217 8454410d79.jpg and Image:Yola-72.jpg. --Kanonkas(talk) 12:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Probably a copyvio as suggested by Kanonkas. (Plus, the other image is already deleted). —Ceran (speak) 14:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted I agree, likely flickrwash abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 15:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
19:50, 16 January 2007 . . Scepia (Talk | contribs | block) (I think this is from the government, right?)
No it's not-- copyright "the Education Channel of Sarasota, Florida." [1]
Please return this image to en.wp where it belongs (fair use) --Shii (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)}
- Delete - have they been moved back? — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I have restored the local copy of Image:Bushreadingthepetgoat.jpg on en:Wikipedia, with the tag changed to fair use. I have substituted that image for the single usage of Image:01-Bush.png in an en:Wikipedia article. I believe that takes care of current usage on en. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, no evidence presented that it is a PD US Federal government work. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 13:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
UberOrbs
[edit]I believe that the following media in category:UberOrbs are copyright violations. These images uploaded by Ninelvndeathtrap were probably not self made, because they are found on commercial sites, sometimes with better resolution. See also User talk:Ninelvndeathtrap#Authorship claims.
- File:Product all small.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log), which is a scaled down version of this catalogue image
- File:Ubermation.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log), also at http://www.xinxin.pl/magnesy-neodymowe.html
- File:Uberorbs 44pence.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log), also at http://www.ledindon.com/photos/7230/zoom-7.jpg
- File:Uberorbs fiddler.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log), also at http://www.ledindon.com/photos/7230/zoom-5.jpg
- File:Case.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
These ones might be fine (with EXIF data, both made using a Canon EOS D30, October/November 2004):
- File:Uberorbs ed nose.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Handpilot.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
/Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. those that appear to be obvious copyvios MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Images by User:Henryart
[edit]File:Marco polo birthhouse.jpg ()
File:Flora Paul 01.jpg ()
File:Flora Paul 06.jpg ()
File:Stephansdome vienna.jpg ()
File:Marx monument karlsbad.jpg ()
File:Krishna people vienna.jpg ()
File:Kafka bronze.jpg ()
File:Gothic altar veit stoss.jpg ()
File:Breakdance vienna.jpg ()
File:Breakdance vienna crop.jpg ()
File:Bamboo.jpg ()
From what I have seen, the user has uploaded only scans and tagged all of them as CC and specified Scan/photo by: User:Henryart (who is owner of the original photo) or similar. All of the nominated pictures look like scans (have a look at the borders and you can see that it is a photo placed on a scanner) and I am unsure whether he created the depicted works himself or whether he did just scan images he physically owned. Unless we get more information about who created these, I am putting them up for deletion. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I have taken all the photos above by myself. They "are not" scans from other photos or publications. Henryart (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept after clarification by the author. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This was neither made nor published (as far as we know) in Australia.
According to http://www.nla.gov.au/pict/pic_copyright.html , the Australian copyright term does not apply to works which were neither made nor published in Australia. So I think that it is a bit difficult to say that {{PD-Australia}} applies. Teofilo (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am not so sure about what I said any longer. Actually the Australian law says that when someone leaves his country only for a short time, he should still be considered a resident of that country. So the country of origin of this picture is that of the creator of the picture, and one can assume that he chose the angle of the camera himself and asked somebody else merely to press the shutter. So perhaps the picture could be considered as "made in Australia" because it was made by an Australian during a short stay abroad. In connection with the US law, however, the work qualifies either as unpublished or published on the internet only since a few years ago, and therefore it is protected by the US copyright law. This is perhaps another item of works PD in their country of origin, yet protected in the USA. Teofilo (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- And I am no longer sure if it makes any difference if a picture was taken abroad or not if it was taken before 1955. But there is still a copyright problem in the USA. Teofilo (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am not so sure about what I said any longer. Actually the Australian law says that when someone leaves his country only for a short time, he should still be considered a resident of that country. So the country of origin of this picture is that of the creator of the picture, and one can assume that he chose the angle of the camera himself and asked somebody else merely to press the shutter. So perhaps the picture could be considered as "made in Australia" because it was made by an Australian during a short stay abroad. In connection with the US law, however, the work qualifies either as unpublished or published on the internet only since a few years ago, and therefore it is protected by the US copyright law. This is perhaps another item of works PD in their country of origin, yet protected in the USA. Teofilo (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep 1915 image by an Australian, first publication assumed to be in Australia. License is correct. -Nard the Bard 00:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per Nard the Bard. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Nard the Bard also US law can only apply within US controlled countries. Parts of the Antartic is also controlled by Australia. Bidgee (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- The US law applies to works made by non-US citizens as written in http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ (see "Never Published, Never Registered Works" and "Works Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad"). An unpublished work made by an Australian national can also become a work first published in the USA if its copyright owner decides to do so. Teofilo (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Read what you just said "An unpublished work made by an Australian national can also become a work first published in the USA if its copyright owner decides to do so." The works in question is published in Australia and not the US and the copyright owner is the one who decides not the US law. Bidgee (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes he is the one who decides. That is why he says on the bottom of this page : If you wish to use it for any other purposes, you must complete the Request for permission form. "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication." US copyright law. Merely saying "You may save or print this image for research and study" does not constitute a distribution for purposes of further distribution. So I am afraid it is not a publication. Teofilo (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Read what you just said "An unpublished work made by an Australian national can also become a work first published in the USA if its copyright owner decides to do so." The works in question is published in Australia and not the US and the copyright owner is the one who decides not the US law. Bidgee (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- The US law applies to works made by non-US citizens as written in http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ (see "Never Published, Never Registered Works" and "Works Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad"). An unpublished work made by an Australian national can also become a work first published in the USA if its copyright owner decides to do so. Teofilo (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - no doubt in my mind that {{PD-Australia}} applies --Matilda (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- It applies so that you can use the picture in Australia, but this does not make the picture free for use in the United States. Teofilo (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- The image is from 1915. Tell us which section of American law would protect it. -Nard the Bard 13:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- If posting on the internet is a publication : "Unpublished works created before 1978 that were published after 2002 = Life of the author + 70 years" ; If posting on the internet is not a publication : "Unpublished works = Life of the author + 70 years" : http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ Teofilo (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop trying to force US laws which do not apply in Australia and it's citizens. Bidgee (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is a technical solution to discrepancies of copyright laws in different countries. Teofilo (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- That is not a technical solution. This image is in the Australian PD therefore the only issue is you trying to force US law on to a photograph taken by Australian and possible in an Australian Territory (Part of Antarctica is part of Australia). Bidgee (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is a technical solution to discrepancies of copyright laws in different countries. Teofilo (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop trying to force US laws which do not apply in Australia and it's citizens. Bidgee (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- If posting on the internet is a publication : "Unpublished works created before 1978 that were published after 2002 = Life of the author + 70 years" ; If posting on the internet is not a publication : "Unpublished works = Life of the author + 70 years" : http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ Teofilo (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- The image is from 1915. Tell us which section of American law would protect it. -Nard the Bard 13:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- It applies so that you can use the picture in Australia, but this does not make the picture free for use in the United States. Teofilo (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept per consensus that {{PD-Australia}} applies to this image. WJBscribe (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
source website does not mention permission PiotrKapretski (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No permission given, and (as of yet) OTRS has apparently not been contacted. —Ceran (speak) 02:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. WJBscribe (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Pierre Falké died in 1947 (less than 70 years ago) : http://www.artnet.fr/artist/702699/pierre-falke.html Teofilo (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -Per nom, I really hate it when we have to delete images of historic value, but Teo's completely right. —Ceran (speak) 02:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 05:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [2]. Yann (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=325854888#File:Dingo_Falk%C3%A9_1923.jpg){kind=link}
I believe that Beatrice Ensor merely collected a phtograph whose copyright was still owned by the photographer and his heirs Teofilo (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Are you going to delete my userpage picture next? -Nard the Bard 22:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Old photo, untraceable photographer, Jeremy Ensor would have the right to release this in the public domain. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Austrian stamps are not listed on Commons:Stamps/Public domain. Thus this stamp is copyrighted. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 05:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work --Jodo (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment -What do you mean by derivative? What does it derive from? —Ceran (speak) 02:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The photo is a derivative work of the sculptural work. Indoor shot, so FOP doesn't apply. Lupo 09:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Habe die Genehmigung der Haribo GmbH eingeholt: Sehr geehrter Herr Richter,vielen Dank für Ihre Anfrage und Ihr damit verbundenes Interesse an unserem Unternehmen. Bitte entschuldigen Sie die verspätete Antwort. Es freut uns sehr, dass ein Bild unserer Ausstellung Bestandteil des Artikels ist. Wir genehmigen hiermit die Verwendung des Bildes. Mit freundlichen Grüßen aus Bonn; HARIBO GmbH & Co. KG, Hans-Riegel-Straße 1, 53129 Bonn, Telefon: + 49 228 537-137, E-Mail: werbeabteilung@haribo.com, www.haribo.com ; namenlos.net 18:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
deleted, permission not sufficient. We don't need a permission to use a certain file in just one of our articles. --Polarlys (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
wrong title Peter Groth (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I think you're confused. Just click the move tab at the top and move it to the title you want. —Ceran (speak) 14:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Closed, change to a rename request. Ciell (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Image is not on the url. Maybe deeper in the site, but the site doesn't mention permission to reuse the content. PiotrKapretski (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ciell (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
new has been uploaded
Fixing deletion request originally made by Zhaotao81 (see history). -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ciell (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The model (not the photographer) died in 1944. No source. No publication year. Teofilo (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. To quote myself from Image talk:Eddington 2.jpeg:
- ''Copyright expired'' - what is the source and date of this picture, when did the photographer die? regards, [[User:High on a tree|High on a tree]] 23:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Not to rush anyone, but four years seems enough time to answer this question ;)
- Regards, High on a tree (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per no author/date information. A possible replacement might be at Smithsonian's phtostream, but requires checking Badseed talk 06:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Thomas Mann, 1923
[edit]
No evidence is given that the photographer died more than 70 years ago Teofilo (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Trude Geiringer died 1981. Dora Horovitz has been missing (?) since 1959. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for this research. Teofilo (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- That is nothing advanced, just googling, it would be better if such info were presented with the nomination. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for this research. Teofilo (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
*Request withdrawn. per the above. Teofilo (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- ?? I don't understand. To me, the only problem with the copyright status seems to be what happened to Dora Horovitz, but that is a matter for Geiringer's heirs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I wanted to show some disappointment over the fact that you seem to think that my deletion request is not good enough. Teofilo (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- ?? I don't understand. To me, the only problem with the copyright status seems to be what happened to Dora Horovitz, but that is a matter for Geiringer's heirs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Das in Bezug auf ein Werk der Weltliteratur wichtige, kaum bekannte Bild soll auf Betreiben des Löschaktivisten „Teofilo“ entfernt werden. Ein ähnliches, aber nicht identisches hat der Verlag S. Fischer auf dem Schutzumschlag des ersten Bandes der Tagebücher abgebildet. Na, von mir aus. Der Löschaktivist ist kein Deutscher. Ich halte das Porträtfoto mit seinem zeitlichen Konnex zu Der Zauberberg für Kulturgut. -- H.-P.Haack (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)(copied from this diff)
- Sehr geehrter Herr Haack, was hat das mit Urheberrecht zu tun ? In welchem Artikel des Deutschen Urheberrechtsgesetzes haben sie das Stichwort "Kulturgut" gesehen ? Der Verlag S. Fischer hat wahrscheinlich nicht die selbe Ziele und Zwänge als wir hier auf Wikimedia Commons. Hier sollen alle Bilder "freie Inhalte" sein. Die Nutzung dieses Bildes in Verbindung mit Dem Zauberberg, gilt vielleicht als "fair use", und deshalb ist es nicht total undenkbar dieses Foto auf die Englische Wikipedia hochzuladen. Aber hier auf Commons gibt es keine "fair use" Inhalte. Bitte sehen sie Commons:Lizenzen. Teofilo (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation, I would even say speedy deletion. --Paulae (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Badseed talk 05:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Why public domain? Multichill (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- The image was initially uploaded to nl.wp as nl:Image:Schreijer.jpeg by steward User:Effeietsanders. According to the nl.wp template nl:Template:PD-CDA-TK, some material from the CDA website is in the public domain, though the link to the website is broken and I wasn't able to find a PD notice on the website (a Dutch speaker might have more luck). Pruneautalk 12:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Now it is all rights reserved (see bottom). Can't find a release in old versions at archive.org. Multichill (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence that image is in the public domain.--Trixt (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Posible violation copyrights ferbr1 (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Where is the original source for this picture? Possible is a vague term. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No grounds are given for suspecting copyright violation.218.14.49.76 09:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep --Knallexus (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Using Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Biamyinmd masturbating while pregnant.jpg (taken at the same photo shoot as the nominated image) as a precedent, a better rationale is essentially nopenis, e.g. the image is out of project scope because it is not "realistically useful for an educational purpose". Biamyinmd (that's "bisexual Amy in Maryland" for those who haven't tried to figure it out) also states "x dancer... still dancing on occasion, mostly private parties", which indicates that her propagation of her images and videos across multiple websites is promotional in purpose as she receives business from interest stirred by the images. I have no problem with people making money by providing us high quality free images that we can use for sister projects, but that isn't the case here. - BanyanTree 12:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:SCOPE.--Trixt (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
No source, no publication year. The photographer could be still alive today Teofilo (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- (Well, it could be {{PD-Norway50}}, but you need some sort of knowledge that the photographer died before 2008-15=1993 and that it was not first published elsewhere than in Norway) Teofilo (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- The photo was taken before 1936 (Wisting died in 1936). Teofilo (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- A photographer aged 20 in 1936 would have been aged 77 in 1993. Teofilo (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- In 1936, when he died, Wisting was 65 years old, so that the picture, where he looks younger, is probably earlier... If the picture was taken when Wisting was 40 by a 20 year old photographer, that photographer would have been 92 years old in 1993. Teofilo (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- A photographer aged 20 in 1936 would have been aged 77 in 1993. Teofilo (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- The photo was taken before 1936 (Wisting died in 1936). Teofilo (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- But if you want to take benefit of {{PD-Norway50}}, you must argue convincingly that this is not an artwork, but a mere snapshot, which is not obvious. Teofilo (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence that image is in the public domain.--Trixt (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The model (not the photographer) died in 1956. The photographer could be still alive. No source. Teofilo (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- He looks quite young on this picture, but it could be an old family photo published much later. Teofilo (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be more likely that it was published around the time of the expedition? Manxruler (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence that image is in the public domain.--Trixt (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
fake version of this one where Ladin language is reported in Merano area as well without sources. --Wento (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - No sources. —Ceran (speak) 14:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Siorlu It's not Merano area! It's "Val di Non" (Nonsberg in German) area! Here you are some sources:
- Batisti, Carlo. 1909. “Die Nonsberger Mundart” in Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Kaiserrlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vol. 160-III.
- Di Biasi, Ilaria. 2006. Grammatica Noneso-Ladina. Trento: Regione Autnonoma Trentino-Alto Adige.
- Fellin, Luciana. 2003. “Language ideologies, language socialization, and language revival in an Italian alpine community”. Texas Linguistics Forum, Volume 45.
- Politzer, Robert L., 1967. Beitrag zur Phonologie der Nonsberger Mundart. Innsbruck: Leopold-Franzens-Universitaet.
- Quaresima, Enrico. 1964. Vocabolario anaunico e solandro, raffrontato col trentino. Venezia: Istituto per la Collabarzione Cultrale.
- Sandri, Ivana. 2003. Tratti Ladini nella Parlata della Val di Non. 2003. Trento: La Grafica.
- Delete Your sources are opposed to those cited in the original map, that's a fake. You should do a new map with your sources that represent only Val di Non and Ladinia. Tnx. --Wento (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- someone tried to mystify sources even here, not spotting it's change as well. That's improper.--Wento (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, per Wento. Kameraad Pjotr 12:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
No evidence is given that the photographer died more than 70 years ago Teofilo (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, Copyright Violation. Kameraad Pjotr 12:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
F.A. Worsley's book was published in London by Philip Allan & Co in 1931 according to this website (published in 1933 according to en:Frank Worsley#Bibliography), so I think that it is still copyrighted in the USA.
Photographer en:Frank Hurley died in 1962, so that the photograph is copyrighted in Britain and European countries.
Teofilo (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
So? While I understand the legal president, why remove unless requested by the owners of said copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.112.234 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC) (UTC)
- Delete: image is not "free" in country of origin (Britain) and country of the server (US). Jappalang (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Give me a few days I am checking with the holder. The Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge, UK. This picture is from the 1914-16 expedition and so the use of it in the 1933 Frank Worsely book is irrelevent as the copyright does not belong to that publisher. Polargeo (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I've checked with the Scott Polar Research Institute and the image is not free Polargeo (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep. The image was first published in Australia in 1918, so is public domain (it should have a PD-Aus licence tag added). The SPRI are attempting to assert copyright over Hurley's Green Album images (of which this is one) in the same way the National Gallery does for reproductions of the paintings they hold. Neither claim is acceptable according to the WMF stance. Yomangani (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
These were definitely published before 1923; they are PD in the U.S. They are PD in Australia too; see {{PD-Australia}} (and Hurley was Australian). If they were first published there, then everything is OK (Britain/Europe would use the rule of the shorter term anyways). Looking at Google Books... they were published in the U.S. in 1917 and apparently Underwood & Underwood (a photo agency) got the U.S. rights since at least two books in there have them as the copyright owner. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Per Carl Lindberg. –Tryphon☂ 16:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Now dated 1923 on source website Teofilo (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep "Photo by Paul Ehrenfest's (1880-1933) designee." Change the date on the image page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- 1880 is the date of birth of Paul Ehrenfest. 1933 is the date of death of Paul Ehrenfest. But what we need is the date of death of the photographer. Teofilo (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- The photographer is anonymous (or maybe it was Ehrenfest using a self-timer). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- We don't know if the photographer is anonymous, as we don't even know where and when it was (first) published. --Kam Solusar (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Leiden University's image collection also has a better copy (as well as a poor copy). If anybody should know, it would be the Leiden University archives, but they list it as photographer unknown. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Found this via Google Booksearch. "This photograph is a reproduction of one presented to the author by J. H. Oort (...) in 1953 with the note that it "was taken by deSitter's oldest son (now professor of geology in Leiden) on 26 September 1923. The picture was taken in deSitter's study . . . We recently found the original negative." --Kam Solusar (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- And I guess his oldest son was en:Ulbo de Sitter (1902-1980). --Kam Solusar (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. It seems the author is known and died in 1980; so the image isn't {{PD-old}}. –Tryphon☂ 16:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Courtesy of the San Francisco Maritime Museum, San Francisco, California, 1969. : not a federal work Teofilo (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea who the photographer was, but en:San Francisco Maritime National Park Association sounds like a private body. Teofilo (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- The San Francisco Maritime National Park Association is part of the National Park Service - a federal agency. --J.smith (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- According to http://www.maritime.org/bylaws.pdf it is a California Nonprofit public benefit corporation. Teofilo (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- The Naval Historical Center states: "To the best of our knowledge, all images referenced in the Online Library are in the Public Domain". [3]
- As this was taken in 1923, would this also not qualify for being public domain regardless of federal involvement? Or does the "60 years plus author's death" rule apply? -- 67.183.213.89 07:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Per the U.S. Naval Historical Center's statement [4]: To the best of our knowledge, all images referenced in the Online Library are in the Public Domain. –Tryphon☂ 17:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is anonymous. The people who visited the exhibition could most probably know the name of the architect who made that model Teofilo (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The photographer is anonymous. The model in the foreground was designed by Theo van Doesburg and Cornelis van Eesteren and constructed by Gerrit Rietveld. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Did they die more than 70 years ago ? Teofilo (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Only one of them did, but I uploaded the image thinking it was a case of FOP. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is no freedom of panorama in France : COM:FOP#France. Teofilo (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's too bad. But does the fact that it was published in the Netherlands and it concernes Dutch artists make a difference? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- COM:FOP#The Netherlands says gemaakt om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst. This is a temporary exhibition. Not "permanent". (and not outside in a street) Teofilo (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- So that's a no. ok, thank you for your information. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- COM:FOP#The Netherlands says gemaakt om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst. This is a temporary exhibition. Not "permanent". (and not outside in a street) Teofilo (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's too bad. But does the fact that it was published in the Netherlands and it concernes Dutch artists make a difference? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is no freedom of panorama in France : COM:FOP#France. Teofilo (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Only one of them did, but I uploaded the image thinking it was a case of FOP. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Did they die more than 70 years ago ? Teofilo (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 17:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
No evidence is given that the writer who wrote the text died more than 70 years ago Teofilo (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Does anybody care about the content of this page of text? But if you must, cropp it, blur it or scramble it. The photograph (Photo by Sunbeam, Margate) is anonymous, as they employed lots of photographers. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- In the UK one needs to make a "reasonable enquiry" before asserting that a content is anonymous. Teofilo (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- The reasonable inquiry is to look at the original publication, and see that it was anonymously published. I also read this article about what Sunbeam was. But you are demanding unreasonable inquiry. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- In the UK one needs to make a "reasonable enquiry" before asserting that a content is anonymous. Teofilo (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is just a general editorial piece on the front cover (no named writer and contains passages that start "We now give an account ...") It's therefore a bit of a stretch to suppose that anyone's copyright is being affected - we don't get to see the whole article anyway, it's just a passage of factual, non-creative report writing. The current editor of BCM, an ocasional wiki-editor himself, wrote the article to which the image is attached and so clearly approves of it's use here. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Generally, copyrighted excerpts are counted as "fair use". But "fair use" contents are not allowed here on Commons. They may be uploaded directly on the English language Wikipedia in some circumstances, though. Teofilo (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- "clearly approves" : Perhaps he is not the copyright holder (what if the journalist is a freelance journalist ? What about the picture ?) and even if he is, he might allow only "fair use" within a Wikipedia article and nothing else. Teofilo (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I just checked the entire issue of the magazine and as far as I can tell, no authors are mentioned anywhere (it looks like the whole magazine is anonymous). Richard Clewin Griffith (1872-1955) was the editor back then, but that doesn't mean that he wrote the article or holds the copyright. The only indication about the photo is that it was taken by a Sunbeam photographer, but as explained by Pieter, this isn't enough to find out who took the photo, which should therefore also be considered anonymous. My understanding is that {{PD-UK-unknown}} applies to the text and the photo. The work became PD in the UK in 1994 and is therefore also PD in the US. Pruneautalk 17:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept following the research of Pruneau MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The Cleveland press collection
[edit]
- Image:Front_Page_Sweetest_Day_Cartoon_1923.jpg
- Image:She_Hands_Out_the_Candy_1923.jpg
- Image:The_Sweetest_Day_Editorial_1923.jpg
First publication after January 1, 1923, no research has been made on whether copyright was renewed or not. As far as I can read on http://www.clevelandmemory.org/press/ , these contents have not been released into the Public Domain. They seem to be copyrighted by its new owner, the Cleveland State University Library. Teofilo (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know off hand about these particular images, but a couple of notes: US material from this era is PD unless specific copyrights & renewals were filed in the intervening decades. It not uncommon for smaller US newspapers not to bother fileing renewals for old issues. If the copyright on the original newspapers expired, the material is public domain, regardless of if the University Library has placed a copyright notice on their website. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- In case we would keep the files without checking, we should remove every licensing tag from the file and only say "copyright status unknown", so that the Wikimedia Commons' users know that it is unknown. Teofilo (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't follow that at all. Hunh? -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- The pictures should not be tagged "PD" as long as nobody checked if the copyright was renewed or not. At the very least, the {{PD-US}} tag should be removed. Teofilo (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't arguing for keeping images of unknown copyright status. My points were simply 1)If someone has a chance to research back issues of the defunct newspaper, there's a good chance they'll find the copyright tags for these particular images to be correct. 2)If any image falls into the public domain, that image remains in the public domain even if someone puts it on a website with a copyright notice. I hope this clarifies my comment. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. We can't keep these as we don't know if the copyright was renewed or not: COM:PRP. They could be restored if somebody is prepared to do the research and discovers that it was not. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
No source. How do we know this is realy (meant to be) Ranavalona? Damiens.rf 06:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I had not seen that the file had already been proposed for deletion. So my new request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ranavalona I.jpg was a mistake. Sorry, for that, but I think this should be Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- It is Queen Ranavalona I, no doubt about that (the painting is displayed at the Queen's palace in Antananarivo, Madagascar). As of copyright issues, if the painting was done during the queen's life, it would be no later than 1861. I don't know anything about Madagascar's copyright laws though. --Tryphon (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is a rather big if - it might just as well be a post-independence painting. There are three copies of this image in Category:Ranavalona I, one of them may have signature, or it says "Reine Ranavalone". A similar problem for File:Andrianampoinimerina.jpg - one should not assume that it was painted during the subject's life (dead 1810). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- You mean after 1960? That seems very unlikely. Do you really think she might have been portrayed one century after her death? Then why would it be displayed at her palace, if it's just a modern painting with no historical value? --Tryphon (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I can think of all sorts of reasons why this might have been painted in the 1960's. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- You mean after 1960? That seems very unlikely. Do you really think she might have been portrayed one century after her death? Then why would it be displayed at her palace, if it's just a modern painting with no historical value? --Tryphon (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is a rather big if - it might just as well be a post-independence painting. There are three copies of this image in Category:Ranavalona I, one of them may have signature, or it says "Reine Ranavalone". A similar problem for File:Andrianampoinimerina.jpg - one should not assume that it was painted during the subject's life (dead 1810). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Source and author are unknown.Anatoliy (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
First published in 2002 (as far as we know) http://www.hls-dhs-dss.ch/textes/f/F1435.php Teofilo (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Is this a reason to delete it? --Parpan (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Since it's tagged with {{PD-old}}, it is. — Jake Wartenberg 22:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence for PD-old. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Without the name of the magazine or newspaper in which it was published, it is difficult to believe that the photo was ever published Teofilo (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- On en:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Texas Tech University, Elred 01:29, 28 August 2008, says : "our image, at the very latest was published in 1976". Teofilo (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
First, what makes it difficult to believe that it was published? Second, do only magazines and newspapers qualify when it comes to publication? →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as no proof of publication was presented. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I have made some mistake: this is really the wrong name to be deleted. Thanks.---Zyephyrus (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Was already deleted on 21 November 2008 as duplicate. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Chicago Daily News negatives collection 1902-1933
[edit]
- Taken up to 1922 included (and we don't know if it was ever published)
- Taken after 31 December 1922 (and necessarily published after that date, if it was ever published, so that there is not the remotest possibility that it is PD)(well, there is a remote possibility, if it was published without copyright notice or if the copyright was not renewed, but you need to provide evidence of that)
Fair use only, per http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpcoop/ichihtml/copyres.html Teofilo (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Is it really necessary to add delete tags to all these pictures ? Special:search "Chicago Daily News" gives 100 results, among which only a very small number are documented with a publication year. Teofilo (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep On the Cornelius Shea picture, and Chinese Family, pre-1923 works in the public domain (The date on the Cornelius Shea one was wrong, its record page clearly states "Taken/published 1922". -Nard the Bard 23:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I made a small mistake, by putting this photo in the "after 31 December 1922". Sorry. I put it now in the "Taken up to 1922 included" category. The source page at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?cdn:19:./temp/~ammem_vhSd::c states that "This photonegative taken by a Chicago Daily News photographer may have been published in the newspaper." : It means that they have absolutely no idea whether it was published or not. Teofilo (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)- I was not aware that you had changed the description page. So I was making no mistake when I first read 1923 on the description page, because this was the date that was written, then. Teofilo (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why I said it was wrong. -Nard the Bard 15:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- I was not aware that you had changed the description page. So I was making no mistake when I first read 1923 on the description page, because this was the date that was written, then. Teofilo (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as we have indeed no proof that these images were ever published before 1923, or published without a copyright notice and not renewed. In consequence, {{PD-US}} does not apply. According to this notice, the images are available under a fair use clause only. Please understand, however, that I delete only listed files here as I think that a regular deletion process that notifies the uploaders and all those who watch these files gives the opportunity to save some of these images. There is no need to rush this. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no known content, no adequate filename, no usage, no cat - nothing but a license NobbiP 14:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted 14:15, 21 November 2008 Túrelio - --MGA73 (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
