Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/12/04
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This is an organization's logo, and there is no indication that the poster has the permission of the actual copyright-holder to submit this. 208.81.184.4 00:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair use image, misidentified as P.D. TAnthony (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cover of comic book. Kimsə (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
copyvio -- Cameta (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: Tots els drets estan reservats.
copyvio - http://www10.gencat.net/municat/escuts/ec25130.jpg}} -- Cameta (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. →Diti the penguin — 16:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Please delete as copyright is ambiguous. My mistake. Thank you PHGCOM (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC) --PHGCOM (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. on user's request. Rama (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This image is unfortunately not free as (1) any use requires notification of the copyright holder and (2) just non-commercial use is granted freely according to the associated copyright notice at the source URL. This image was nominated for speedy deletion and this nomination was afterwards challenged. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment I removed the {{Copyvio}} tag, thinking that, as an US federal work, it would be within the public domain, according to {{PD-USGov-USDA}}. It it may not be so (I don't know a lot about the US), so I would eventually 
delete it if nobody objects. →Diti the penguin — 21:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Tags like {{PD-USGov-USDA}} apply not necessarily for all images published by the corresponding sites as they host also images that were not shot by an US government employee during the course of his/her duty. The PLANTS site accepts image uploads from contributors and the images provided on this site fall into two categories in regard to licensing: PD images and images that are free for non-commercial use only. This particular image is an example for the latter category and as such unfortunately not free. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, thanks for the explanations. →Diti the penguin — 20:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please delete as copyright is ambiguous. My mistake. PHGCOM (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC) --PHGCOM (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Badseed: User request: Please delete due to ambiguous copyright. My mistake PHGCOM (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Please delete as image is apparently copyvio since author apparently died in 1940. My mistake. PHGCOM (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: User request: seems reasonable that orig. artist (F. de Myrbach) died in 1940
- Restored, as the image is now in public domain. --Dereckson (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Please delete due to unclear copyright. My mistake. Thank you PHGCOM (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC) --PHGCOM (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Badseed: User request: Please delete due to ambiguous copyright. My mistake PHGCOM (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
porn 189.164.210.128 06:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- How is this porn? It's a fully dressed man lying on the floor. Nonetheless, Delete as out of scope. Pruneautalk 13:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Lacking source information Yanguas (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of scope. Possibe copyvio Sterkebaktalk 17:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Pruneautalk 13:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot. deerstop. 22:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio. Apparently, this is Kamiya Kaoru from the manga Rurouni Kenshin. Non-free image. Pruneautalk 13:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE, Obviously a personal/vanity image, currently unused. Túrelio (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- delete; out of scope; user not really active (see here). Uses commons as webspace. --Isderion (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the uploader on Flickr owns this... How do you turn this on (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No indication who "rbitembois" may be, as the author. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This seems to be a muddle. The system is reporting a duplicate, but I can't find it. Can a Commons admin clarify perhaps? thanks.
For the record, I think this image should be kept, because it helps the archive of geographic and seasonal variations. Seglea (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I couldn't find any duplicates. Could you eleborate? --Kimsə (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Looks OK in the absence of any indication of the name of the duplicate MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The flag is replaceable by an SVG version. Also, the red colour of the flag is too dark. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Seems potentially useful in the absence of anything better. Please improve/overwrite it with a better version. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Certainly not PD-Self; user:Lidingo is not the author; this is a press image from a Swedish municipality. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Non-free image. Image is from the governor's homepage and covered by copyright owned by the State of Arizona. Works by U.S. state governments are not typically public domain like the works of the U.S. Federal government. --Allen3 (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Incorrect licence MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
File is the work of a living artist there is no evidence that User:Bouletalex has the right to upload it with the permissions that he has. The source given Galerie Michelle Boulet has a version of this image but marked with, All rights reserved in all countries --KTo288 (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
How old is this? Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence of PD status MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
wrong name (Straßberg (Harz in HZ.png) Geisterbob (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The correctly named file is File:Straßberg (Harz) in HZ.png AVRS (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is by myself (user:cayambe): I have uploaded an improved version with a new name of the same image. --Cayambe (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Tagged as {{Duplicate}}. Could you please forward the family's permission to OTRS? Thanks, Pruneautalk 13:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Not PD: see http://www.minaz.nl/Help/Auteursrecht Jeroencommons (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 21:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not PD: see http://www.minaz.nl/Help/Auteursrecht Jeroencommons (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 21:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyright belongs to the company MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Just a trademark, basically the coat of arms of Skåne. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Trademarks can be and often are copyright works, as here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Like the Holden logo/badge it's a derivative work. Bidgee (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, evident copyright violation. Garden. 11:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 20:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyright belongs to the company MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Just a trademark, basically the coat of arms of Skåne. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Trademarks can be and often are copyright works, as here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as it's tagged as such so I don't see the problem. // Liftarn (talk)
- A trademark tag is not in itself a copyright tag, and cannot act to protect an image which is a copyvio. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Like the Holden logo/badge it's a derivative work. Bidgee (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Per MichaelMaggs. --Tryphon (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Photo is made and copyrighted by Roy Beusker (http://www.roybeusker.nl/nieuws/nieuwscontent/pim/index.html). If uploader (Emperor-Mike) is really Mr. Beusker, why doesn't he upload under his real name? After all, he is a professional photographer. --PiotrKapretski (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I sent an e-mail to Mr. Beusker to ask if he really put the photo there himself. PiotrKapretski (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Mr. Beusker replied that he is not the uploader, and the picture is copyrighted. PiotrKapretski (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This image is not in the public domain and the law referred to is interpreted contrary to its real intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MWAK (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You say this isn't in the public domain but don't say why not. Could you please explain this? Adambro (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase it then: firstly no proof has been given that this is a work of the Dutch government. I recall the same photo being used in LPF (Fortuijn's party) posters and flyers. So there is no author information. The image has likely simply been made available by the LPF for the purpose of showing it on this single occasion. Secondly, and this is a problem with the entire template used, the law referred to does not say that any picture published (let alone used) by the government is in the public domain, only that the copyright of such works is not infringed upon by reusing it in the same form. It's a kind of "fair use" rule, unless the copyright had been explicitly relinquished. And that is exactly which yet has to be proven: it does not suffice that it can be found on some government website. --MWAK (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Since it appears that there isn't any evidence that this is a work of the government. Adambro (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted: http://www.ru.nl/contact/over_deze_site/disclaimer Jeroencommons (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio - fair use (+ no proof that this image is GFDL)
Nominated before: not PD: see http://www.minaz.nl/Help/Auteursrecht Jeroencommons (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 21:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyrighted: http://www.minaz.nl/Help/Auteursrecht Jeroencommons (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio - fair use (+ no proof that this image is GFDL)
Nominated before: not PD: see http://www.minaz.nl/Help/Auteursrecht Jeroencommons (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 21:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyrighted: http://www.inghist.nl/copyright Jeroencommons (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio - fair use (+ no proof that this image is GFDL)
Nominated before: not PD: see http://www.minaz.nl/Help/Auteursrecht Jeroencommons (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 21:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is an obvious infringement on Namco visual copyrights. For more information, note on en:KC_Munchkin that even games which are much more dissimilar have been prosecuted. Even though the program code is different, the visual representation is almost identical to Namco's original, copyrighted Pac-Man. 87.227.78.40 22:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept, when a suit is brought against KPacman then we should revisit the issue. For now this is screenshot of GPL software. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This looks an awful TOO much like the regular Pac-Man for it to be not a derivative work. Even if the code is open source, doesn't mean the graphics can still be an infringement. And I do not care about "when a suit is brought against KPacman then we should revisit the issue." ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The field appears to be the same as that of one of the NES implementations sold here. That is confirmed by some other clones and a photo of an arcade machine I’ve found. A screenshot with identical graphics is also available at English Wikipedia under the “fair use” exception, claimed to depict the original Pac Man. --AVRS (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Likely copyright violation and more, see talk page. There is also a cut-out from this image with the same problems: Image:Collage of women.jpg. Thus I have also nominated that one for deletion. --Davidgothberg 04:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Source is FBI, the copyright statement read All information the Bureau provides at this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied, subject to Sections 701 and 709 of Title 18, United States Code (Link has since then changed, but entire section of copyright can be found in the image page or on the FBI website).
- Hence the source images are also public information, not a likely copyright violation, although I have to admit am not familiar with Title 18, United States Code. The collage of these images was licensed by me as CC and GFDL, which is my usual style of licensing on the commons. So for all practical purposes these images are free. -- Chris 73 19:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- collecting is not enough reason to making it CC and GFDL it must still under PD..--OsamaK 13:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not collect, en:Collage. To be licensed separately, it must contribute artistic value. It can be argued if making this collage is artistic value. The legal definition of artistic value is, however, very minimalistic, and even a simple photo of a 3D object allows for separate licensing. I chose this license simply because it is most convenient to me, as i license all my other stuff under this license. Since the collage required additional effort like collecting, reformatting, etc, i think it validates a separate license. But anyway, I think this is a minor point of this discussion. -- Chris 73 17:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- collecting is not enough reason to making it CC and GFDL it must still under PD..--OsamaK 13:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept, not copyright violation as from PD-US source, now mentioned on image page. -- Infrogmation 14:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Renomination #1
this is compiled from images on the fbi most wanted list, many of which are merely obtained and not taken by us govt employees. (The one on the bottom left in particular looks cropped from a family photo.) This is not PD-USGov. If this goes so should the crop of this image linked on the image page. 65.96.164.13 14:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- For the same reason as above, All information the Bureau provides at this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied, subject to Sections 701 and 709 of Title 18, United States Code, there is no mentioning of who took the images. -- Chris 73 (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Give me a break, clearly many of the wanted photos they did not take themselves. Their copyright statement can only refer to what is actually produced by the federal government. They have tons of photos of terrorists on the run etc on their website. If they took these photos themselves, these people would have been found already. And do you think that the FBI went to someone's Christmas party to take the bottom left photo? 76.118.176.89 20:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please read the statement again: All information the Bureau provides at this ... In this license there is no mentioning at all of who took the photos, merely providing them on the site makes them public information. -- Chris 73 (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, merely placing something on your website can never place something into the public domain. The FBI has no authority to seize the copyright owned by the photographer at the woman's party. 65.96.164.13 00:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- He did not say Public Domain, but rather public information. It does not violate any copyright law because in order for something to be copyrighted, it must have actual creative and artistic value. A family photo, be it not be anything creative or original (such as artistic intent of the photographer or of the people in the photo), is not included in US copyright protections for creative and original works. Proof is in the media. Often the media will get a hold of a picture online from places like FaceBook or MySpace. Easiest example is Obama's speech writer that got in hot water with a pic posted of him with a cutout of Hilary Clinton. That picture was not taken nor given to the media, but rather taken from online areas that are open to public viewing. These organizations were not held for copyright violations. The photos all combined could be considered for copyright, but as it was provided by the FBI, it isn't. If anyone would even attempt to have it taken off, it would be for an invasion of privacy, though that argument would be EXTREMELY hard to market, and Wikipedia would be far from being responsible. I declare this argument over and am taking off the request. 72.204.20.105 02:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- No. To be copyrighted, it must have at least a tiny shred of creative influence--not value. It's very very hard not to pass that level in the US; the average family photo would exceed it massively. Yes, the media uses photos from FaceBook and MySpace; it's called fair use, budget to pay off virtually any litigants, and expensive lawyers to fight anyone looking for Big Money.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- He did not say Public Domain, but rather public information. It does not violate any copyright law because in order for something to be copyrighted, it must have actual creative and artistic value. A family photo, be it not be anything creative or original (such as artistic intent of the photographer or of the people in the photo), is not included in US copyright protections for creative and original works. Proof is in the media. Often the media will get a hold of a picture online from places like FaceBook or MySpace. Easiest example is Obama's speech writer that got in hot water with a pic posted of him with a cutout of Hilary Clinton. That picture was not taken nor given to the media, but rather taken from online areas that are open to public viewing. These organizations were not held for copyright violations. The photos all combined could be considered for copyright, but as it was provided by the FBI, it isn't. If anyone would even attempt to have it taken off, it would be for an invasion of privacy, though that argument would be EXTREMELY hard to market, and Wikipedia would be far from being responsible. I declare this argument over and am taking off the request. 72.204.20.105 02:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, merely placing something on your website can never place something into the public domain. The FBI has no authority to seize the copyright owned by the photographer at the woman's party. 65.96.164.13 00:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please read the statement again: All information the Bureau provides at this ... In this license there is no mentioning at all of who took the photos, merely providing them on the site makes them public information. -- Chris 73 (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Give me a break, clearly many of the wanted photos they did not take themselves. Their copyright statement can only refer to what is actually produced by the federal government. They have tons of photos of terrorists on the run etc on their website. If they took these photos themselves, these people would have been found already. And do you think that the FBI went to someone's Christmas party to take the bottom left photo? 76.118.176.89 20:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- And what is the creative expression evident in this media? I don't see any. They seem like purely utilitarian photographs, and only the composition expressed any scintilla of creativity. In any case, I don't understand at all the argument here regarding the license. The license clearly says the photographs may be used. Then people argue that others took the photos and that therefore the FBI didn't have the authority to license them and/or they aren't a US government work. Wikipedia requires the work to be appropriately licensed for inclusion, or to be available by virtue of other reasons such as inaplicability of copyright. It is not our job to guess, based on no infromation, that the FBI didn't really have the authority to release these photos and that therefore.... It meets the requirements for use in Wikipedia so use it. As an aside I can't see how the argument that some intrinsic quality of the photos or purpose demonstrates the FBI is granting authority for works illegaly. The FBI compiles records of people, especially those who've had runins with state authorities. There are laws requiring submission of such records to the FBI. Do you really think the FBI is guilty of massive copyright infringment when it posts the mugshots in post offices, their website, and every single time they transmit, store, or use in any way these mugshots? If these are even subject to copyright, which I doubt, it certainly is not evident that the copyright notice is mistaken based on the (lack of) evidence presented thus far.
- They look like pictures of people to me, which almost by default meet the minimum level of creative expression. You can't see any creative expression in the picture in the bottom row, second over? It's clearly a family photo or something, so the FBI doesn't have the right to license it, and the choice of timing and framing is certainly creative. The FBI has a strong fair-use argument when it posts a mugshot. We have none when we use a mugshot because we're too lazy to find another picture of a black man.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete They're copyrighted by the photographers, who almost certainly weren't federal government.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- What is your source or reasoning supporting this conclusion? Further, what is the basis for your claim that these photos are copyrighted by the photographers? You think these are freelance mugshot artists or something? They just happened to be walking around the police station and snapped these pictures? It really begs the question to just declare they are copyrighted by the photographers, when there is no reason given to assume this is true. Further, how do you get past the FBI license? Have you just decided that the FBI license is invalid? On what grounds? How does that mean we can't keep this photo, which meets wikipedia/commons requirements? Anyways, I'm off to file my lawsuit against my local police departments and post offices.... Those bastards reprinted my photos and passed them around to other cops and departments (apparently they wanted to catch the guy, whatever) As a starving mugshot artist who's honed my craft for years, I'm incensed that they would put up copies for the public and cops to look at. Everyone knows you can't do that with mugshots!--Δζ (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- and
- No, I think there are photographs of families and friends. I think the license is sloppy and careless. As I said, they have a strong fair-use argument in using this pictures to represent the person in the picture, but we have none in using them to represent generic people. Use mugshots taken by the FBI, or taken and distributed by a US state or local PD prior to 1989 (and not filed for copyright, but that almost goes without saying).--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unknown copyright status and violates these people's right to privacy. -Nard the Bard 07:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Simple face photographs used by the FBI do not fall above the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it can credibly be suggested that photos of faces under US law don't reach the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. The threshold of originality is extremely low and the process of selecting angles and lighting for a photo is more than enough to qualify. Even Shepard Fairey didn't try and argue that the photo didn't reach the threshold of originality and the fact he ended up settling with AP makes it pretty clear that AP did hold a valid copyright.Geni (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted These are all images of people who were wanted fugitives -- not in the custody of the FBI. It is, therefore, very unlikely that all of these images were taken by the FBI or other Federal employees. In the absence of proof, we must assume that one or more of them came from state or local law enforcement agencies or other sources and are still under copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Gryfskand logos
[edit]- File:2006-07-25 15-02-13 925595.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Logogryfskand.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
These two logos of Gryfskand were filed for speedy deletion by SterkeBak. In my opinion, they are simple text logos which are composed out of typefaces and simple geometric figures (two red bars) such that {{PD-textlogo}} applies. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Too simple for copyright (but protected as a registered trademark, of course). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: Per above. →Na·gy 13:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and Delete: relatively unambiguous case for {{PD-textlogo}}. Эlcobbola talk 18:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Declaration updated: delete one, keep the other - see comment below. Эlcobbola talk 21:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I have added {{PD-textlogo}} to both, but intend to delete them very soon as lacking a source unless anyone cares enough about the images to add one (source has been missing for more than 7 days). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've sourced and completed the information template for Image:Logogryfskand.JPG. I'd actually say go ahead and delete Image:2006-07-25 15-02-13 925595.jpg; it's a BADNAME, redundant and lower resolution. Эlcobbola talk 21:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept one, deleted the other. per Эlcobbola MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Duplicates of Image:Logo.jpg
[edit]Image:Logo.jpg has 401 duplicates, to be deleted, protected and redirected; just like Image:Logocolor.jpg.
--OsamaK 09:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Nice joke. This is a dummy image put under filenames that we don't want to be used for images on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- It is not a joke, and I'm not here for having fun, hope neither are you; you just didn't read the written above. Simply, we do not need such files. We can have one version (I suggested Image:Logo.jpg), and delete, protect and redirect other version to it. How simple, useful, serous, easy that is.--OsamaK 15:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Have you tested that this solution works? If it does, then the redirects are more efficient and easier to maintain, but it should be tested to ensure it actually does work first. Morven (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I have. Anyways, I added an example above, Why do not people read carefully nowadays? :)--OsamaK 02:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Have you tested that this solution works? If it does, then the redirects are more efficient and easier to maintain, but it should be tested to ensure it actually does work first. Morven (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
note: crossed-out text = already deleted, redirected and protected --:bdk: 03:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks bdk. I just found a better easier way used in English Wikipedia. There is MediaWiki:Titleblacklist which forbids creating every title that matches regex, and it's ignoring letter case (LOGO,logo,LoGo, etc. are all forbidden using "(Image|File):Logo\.(jp(e)?g|gif|svg|pdf|ogg)"). So we just need to delete all images above, including Image:Logo.jpg and Image:Logocolor.jpg (could be done using a bot) and add these lines to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, and finally create this error message.--OsamaK 08:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_in_HZ.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_in_HZ.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_HZ.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_in_HZ.png){kind=link}
_in_HZ.png){kind=link}
_in_HZ.png){kind=link}
- Especially the DSC and IMG names should not be redirected or protected or anything, if the renaming function Commons:Rename will be activated we can simply rename the files. --Martin H. (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Closed. The process of uploading a placeholder image and protecting has long been abandoned ever since we got the ability to protect non-existent images and redirect images (not to mention the title blacklist). That was the old way of doing things. Updating to the new ways is a long, continuous, and noncontroversial process so I see no reason to keep this DR open. Rocket000 (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Largely done. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
possibly nonfree qwertyytrewqqwerty (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
En castellano: Manténgase. No indica licencia ese blog, muy probablemente ni siquiera sea del autor y como él mismo expresa es de 1937, tomada un año después de salida la Constitución de Stalin. ¿Qué, va a reclamar copyright de la cara de Stalin? En inglés: Stay. Do not leave this blog indicates, most probably not even be the author, and as he expresses is 1937, taken a year after leaving the Constitution of Stalin. What is going to claim copyright in the face of Stalin?(machine translation, apologizing to know if there is something wrong translated) --MaratRevolution (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Signature of Manuel Monleon (1904-1976)? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The problem is not Stalin but the copyrights of the artist that created the cover. Image is from the 1936 era and thus still copyrighted. If a similar publication circulated in USSR, maybe a cover would qualify as {{PD-Russia-2008}} Badseed talk 13:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
non-free logo 65.96.164.13 16:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is this the original 1886 logo? If so, it has fallen in the Public Domain. Pruneautalk 13:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Must be. However the NYU page acts like they're copyrighted, [1], however its "prohibited reproduction" terms page is null [2]. Anybody wanna contact them? - Badseed talk 13:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Copyright expired, published before 1923. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 22:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
