Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/12/15
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
I may have unwittingly uploaded a copyright image, which I genuinely thought was my own. I would like it speedily deleted.
I May have unwittingly uploaded a copyright image --Jongleur100 (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Could you give us a hint to the source? --Túrelio (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, I can't. It was emailed to me for another use and I confused it with my own picture that I had taken of this person. In other words, I uploaded the wrong one. Jongleur100 (talk)
Deleted early due to possible copyvio, after uploader provided plausible reason for his deletion request; image had been unused. --Túrelio (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
nudity
24.218.237.93 13:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Clearly not a valid reason for deletion. Adambro (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
magazine cover, probably copyrighted Gothika (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It isn't clear how this falls within the project scope. Adambro (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete immediately, attack image, file name is the name of a real person. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Out of project scope: attack image with PR problem as of nom by Pieter Kuiper
Television screenshot. --Hikon (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair use image inappropriately uploaded to Commons TAnthony (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio of cartoon Peter17 (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be same editor who was blocked at en for uploading copyrighted images and claiming copyright; this is the same as one of those images. Image is of low resolution with no camera details - likely copyvio. Somno (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of Scope - Abigor (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Only used to vandalize this page on the Norwegian Wikipedia, does not belong to Commons. Mathias-S (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete immediately - attack image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Closed (already done). MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
out of scope - Abigor (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Delete, attack image (file name is the name of a real person). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Closed (already done). MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Naming error, I have imported this picture under a bad name, this is not an Ouragan. File re-created under the good name File:Dassault MD.454 Mystere IV (MAA).jpg. Duch.seb (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of Scope And with the format it has no use. Abigor (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, used only to vandalize article Wombat on en.wp. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- File:Kerolus Rezk.jpg (same uploader) was used for the same purpose, so please delete that one too. --Tryphon (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. because the articles where used for flames Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 20:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Half Life screenshot free? Multichill (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, its not :) ~ bayo or talk 13:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ~ bayo or talk 13:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; seems to be a vanity image, currently unused, was used for deleted article on :sv (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Hallersbo?uselang=en) Túrelio (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Used in the same vanity article again on Dec 23. Not useful for any Wikimedia project. Thuresson (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lugusto • ※ 03:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Invalid license Óðinn (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
deleted, copyvio --Polarlys (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
per Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Moral_issues - unreasonable intrusion into subject's privacy. No information on subject age or release. Privatemusings (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep. This has already been kept once. The image is taken on a public beach and the women are not even identifiable. The only guideline that supports deletion is Commons:Photographs of evil nudity#Moral Majority issues. Prolog (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)- Keep I'm not particularly convinced that this photo is an unreasonable intrusion considering as far as I am aware, it was taken on a public beach. Adambro (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not recognisable and on a public beach anyway. Hohum (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Public beach. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The first DR was closed correctly. This image is in my view complaint with COM:PEOPLE.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. All causes are said. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Commons_talk:Nudity#Permission_of_subject I believe folk have a reasonable expectation of privacy at a public beach to the degree that their permission is desirable before publishing an image to wikimedia - this image has no consent of the subject, and I support deletion. Privatemusings (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No additional reason in respect with the previous round. --Foroa (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This has already gone through two deletion requests, the last only a few weeks ago. The community has clearly decided that it does comply with the rules in COM:PEOPLE. You have provided no new rationale other than to say that you disagree with the previous conclusions. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep for the reason I gave last time around. Adambro (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Stop going on and on about this, Privatemusings. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
No reasons provided why this is more unacceptable now than it was a month or so ago. I'm going to close this as nothing new has been presented. It's on a beach, which is public enough for COM:PEOPLE. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
COM:IDENT violation. Taken in Barcelona, no evidence of consent. See Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Spain. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. --Conti|✉ 20:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. --Andreas JN466 21:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I do hope you're nominating all the clothed Spaniards as well!!!! --Simonxag (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've nominated a few as I've come across them, but I imagine once people wrap their heads around the situation there will need to be a more organized effort to delete images in violation. I think starting with this type of image is probably sensible. They are more likely to be shared and more likely to cause embarrassment to the subject. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed --Simonxag (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment If this interpretation is correct, ALL photos of potentially identifiable people taken in Spain MUST be deleted from Commons as quickly as possible (with the only exceptions being where specific permission of person visible has been proven). Clothing and "embarrassment" have zero to do with the subject. If this is the law, this is the law. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I have now blurred the face of the only identifiable person in this photo, so there is now no identifiable issues in relation to this photo. We can delete the original photo after this discussion. russavia (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have gone ahead and blurred two more faces, although they are barely identifiable. I've also removed the other versions of the image from the history. There is now no reason for this image to be deleted. russavia (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep since the faces are blurred. Unlike almost all photos of people in Spain on Commons, this apparently is now legal. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Now not identifiable. Geo Swan (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I've had a careful read of Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Spain and I don't believe blurring the faces makes any difference. It's still a photo of those people and it needs explicit consent. I think the confusion comes from this being seen as a subsection of our policy on identifiable people, but if we're to obey Spanish law (and most other European countries') law as it's presented on the Commons, then even anonymized pictures that are of a person must go. Please read the policy and have a think about it, because these rules are going to apply to a lot of images. --Simonxag (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, essentially agree with Infrogmation (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept:. Issue resolved by Russavia. INeverCry 20:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Explicit nudity Seco252 (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept. File has been discussed twice with actual references to the law, Commons policy. This nomination has neither; "explicit nudity" is not a reason to take any action. For a file that is in use on many projects, this is mere disruption. -Pete F (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Author was still alive after 1939 Gouwenaar (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted, dated 1945; can never be life of the author plus 70 years. Multichill (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Not own work of the uploader: Author was still alive after 1939 Gouwenaar (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted - Multichill (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Not own work of the uploader: Author was still alive after 1939 Gouwenaar (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted - Multichill (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
file is incorrect Lysippos (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. see File:Foidite.jpg now. :bdk: 14:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no reason to believe the copyright owner has licensed this image under the GFDL --—teb728 t c 08:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep A flag and a text logo, {{PD-ineligible}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Probably a {{PD-textlogo}} --InfantGorilla (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per above. --سندباد (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Sanbec (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
File name change --Σ64 (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Sanbec (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Burruchaga.jpg Lucasbfr (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: Dupe of Image:Burruchaga.jpg
I incorrectly thought this was a stubble quail, discussion has determined it is a Painted Buttonquail. The image has been copied to File:Painted_ButtonQuail.jpg GrahameB (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by MPF: Duplicated of or superseded by: Replaced by File:Painted ButtonQuail.jpg
If the source of this image is Google Maps, some verification needs to be provided that the Google Maps material is available to be licensed under: "GFDL / Creative Commons - Share Alike". Cirt (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Author's Comment This is interesting, i made this really long back using zone maps from the old bombay corporation website. as far as i remember i used google maps to find the location of the ports, airports, bus stands, railstations and also to classify the roads, its been more of a reference rather than a source. i'll try to get the link for the bombay maps i used--PlaneMad 07:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Information cannot be copyrighted. The locations of airports, ports, bus stations, lakes and so on are not the creative works of Google. Google cannot copyright the shape of a geographic feature as original authorship. They can however, copyright the map styles, (or inaccuracies!). Nichalp (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image is not a print-screen-copy-paste of google map. Information of city map is free for all to use. If information was to be copyright violated, entire WP project would have to deleted. WP only uses information and does not allow copy-paste of it. Same here. No violations. --gppande (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think this is a copy-paste of google maps. So, no question of copyright violation. Creator of maps can always check the details of a city map against google maps or similar, that does not violate anything.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. shizhao (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
dublicate of File:Zamora-Iglesia de San Juan de Puerta Nueva.jpg Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendum (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 12:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
out of scope - Abigor (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Unused and badly named. --Túrelio (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 12:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of COM:SCOPE; image has no educational/historic value as actually very little can be seen (even not if it's a Starbacks as suggested by filename) due to the bad position of the photographer and the smoke; in addition, though less important, bystanding woman may be wrongly associated with alleged destruction. Túrelio (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Keep I disagree entirely with the nomination. This image seems to illustrate the aftermath of the riots in Greece perfectly well and so in my opinion is completely within the project scope because of its educational value. I would accept that there is no clear indication that it is a Starbucks as the filename suggests but I don't see any indication that it isn't so don't understand why this is an issue. We have hundreds of files uploaded everyday where the uploader specifies the images have been taken at a certain location but it is of course in many instances not possible to verify this. The smoke and suggested poor composition are acceptable, obviously the smoke forms part of the scene and the composition is acceptable because it is reasonable to expect the area to have been quite chaotic. I fail to see why anyone should come to the conclusion that the women shown were involved in the vandalism, nor why we should be protecting them from such suggestions. This image simply shows what was happening at the time and makes no accusations about how those portrayed were involved. Adambro (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Out of Scope and i believe it is also Copyvio Abigor (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed an error on the diagram and have uploaded a revised edition. Tofergregg (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- When you make a correction to an existing file, you can simply upload it with the same name as the original to replace it, instead of creating a second file. Use the link called Upload a new version of this file at the bottom of the page. --Tryphon (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The newly uploaded file also has a better name, so I guess this one can be deleted as requested by the uploader. --Tryphon (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work. Vincent Kauffman is the author of the picture but he surely doesn't own the rights of the map TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
copyvio - the photographs are not works by the government, but merely used by it. h-stt !? 07:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The wanted-poster is a government announcement for public information, COM:LICENSING#Germany. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
delete : see de:Bildrechte#Fahndungsfotos: Angesichts der Vorschrift des § 45 UrhG, die für Fahndungszwecke bereits eine unbeschränkte Nutzung garantiert, ist nicht davon auszugehen, dass Fahndungsfotos amtliche Werke im Sinne von § 5 UrhG sind. Fahndungsplakate dürften keine amtlichen Bekanntmachungen nach § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG sein, da ihnen ein regelnder Inhalt fehlt [11]. Gegen die Anwendung von Absatz 2 spricht, dass kein allgemeines Interesse an der Kenntnisnahme unabhängig von Fahndungszwecken zu bejahen ist. Wanted posters aren't pd in accourding to German law. § 45 UrhG provides that the goverment do not have to have the copyright of an image to publish it as a wanted photo. --sугсго 10:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- But this poster must surely be a Bekanntmachung in the sense of § 5 UrhG. The rest is discussion of the individual photos, which may be a bit more complicated (although that seems to be more about personality rights than about copyright). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- No. There is a special law for wanted poster in German copyrigth law (§ 45 UrhG), that allows to use wanted posters for purpose of manhunt and search. This law olny make sense, if wanted poster are not pd. sугсго 10:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- As I read it, § 45 UrhG is about the individual photos, not about the poster as a whole, which is a Bekanntmachung. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- No. There is a special law for wanted poster in German copyrigth law (§ 45 UrhG), that allows to use wanted posters for purpose of manhunt and search. This law olny make sense, if wanted poster are not pd. sугсго 10:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Works by private photographers don't become "gemeinfrei" (~ PD) if they are used by government under §45 UrhG. And the poster as a whole can't be PD if the photographs are not. --h-stt !? 11:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, per Syrcro and H-stt. --Martin H. (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Author was still alive after 1939 Gouwenaar (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Author was still alive after 1939 Gouwenaar (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Probably oploaded with the heirs' permission (source: photo album) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed uploaded with the heirs' permission (I am the heir), but not with the photographer's permission. Mark Lubbers (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This image was removed on May 7, uploader is not the author of this image [1] Gouwenaar (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anton_van_den_Hurk.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment The owner may be entitled to claim copyright; appropriate template may be {{PD-heirs}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
This image was actually NOT removed recently, but another picture with the same name (of the same man) WAS. The latter was uploaded without the - unknown - photographer's permission, this one was made by my great uncle, and hereby 'released' into the public domain. Mark Lubbers (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- But you labeled it as "own work". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept Changed permission to PD-Heirs (rather than PD-self) per above comment of uploader. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Not own work of the uploader: Author was still alive after 1939 Gouwenaar (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- This page has the photograph on which the image was based. Do we know who the original author was? -- Deadstar (msg) 09:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not own work as claimed MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Not own work of the uploader: Author was still alive after 1939 Gouwenaar (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not own work as claimed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Not own work of the uploader: Author was still alive after 1939 Gouwenaar (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- The author was my grandfather. Since he died before I was born, I'll have to concede that getting his permission was rather unfeasible, but he would't have minded. Mark Lubbers (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep based on Mark's comment. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
outdated, replaced with File:Euro accession.png and File:Euro accession.svg Gabbe (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. We don't delete outdated files MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW, no taken inside a building in Germany, no COM:FOP sугсго 16:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Habe den Sicherheitsleute gefragt, ob ich Fotos machen darf, "solange ich nur Wände usw. fotografiere und keine Sicherheitsrelevanten Dinge ist es ok" war die Antwort. Somit habe ich die Fotos gemacht. --Ra Boe (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- The security people you mention are not the copyrightholder. It is a obious copyright violation --Jodo (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
(1) The original uploader is not and does not claim to represent the claimed author, and the self-licensing may not be appropriate. (2) The source website features many non-original images. (3) Even if the uploader does claim to represent the owner of the source website, OTRS permission is needed to confirm this. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- UPIasia.com credits Frank G Anderson for the photo, which is indeed the user name of the original uploader at en.wiki. If so, the file's author information needs to be corrected, and we still need OTRS confirmation that the user is indeed actually Frank G Anderson himself. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
There exists a png copy, this one is in a bad format Frédéric (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Converted from cv/speedy to rfd; http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1643971,00.html Copyright Georgia Department of Corrections --Túrelio (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Former discussion copied over from File:Troy-Anthony-Davis.jpg:
- This file has previously been uploaded by User:SelfEvidentTruths under the file name Image:Troy davis.jpg. It was deleted by User:Túrelio as a copyright violation. Regardless of where the uploader is obtaining this image, the original source and copyright holder is the Georgia Department of Corrections. Barring specific release from the GDC, this image is not available under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The GDC have released it to the public domain. I spoke with them and they have no problem with others using it, as long as they are given credit. I do not know what this is called in the Commons-esqe terminology, but there is no legal problem in using this image.SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- On the first upload, you claimed it was your own work. On the second upload, you claimed the source was Amnesty International. Neither you nor Amnesty International has rights to the image. If you obtained release from the Georgia Department of Corrections, you might wish to review w:Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and follow the instructions there. Just asking for permission isn't enough. Your statement that you received public domain release from them is not enough. It has to be provable, not just your word. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for referring me to the Wiki copyright permission rules. The story of the picture is simple: I downloaded it from Amnesty and received their permission (it did not contain info that it was from GDC). Then, you mentioned you believe that GDC still have copyright restrictions related to the picture. So I called and confirmed with them that it can be used with attribution. Now I see that we need to go through this laborious process of emailing them and getting their answer. I will definitely do that. Taking into account they are responsible for certain governmental functions that are slightly more important than wrangling over copyright of pictures, I think it will take some time. Thanks, SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Permission granted. Per email from Kristen Stancil from GDC: "After consulting with our Legal Office, you are granted permission to use the photo of Troy Davis that's posted on our public website." SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ticket:2008122210010875 has this email, but it currently does not have a free license release (just "permission"). Stifle (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Then it needs to be deleted, as no free license is present. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Author was still alive after 1939 Gouwenaar (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete because licensing is incorrect. Uploader cannot release this into PD. Anyone know what source "PB" means? Or is it a typo for "PD"? -- Deadstar (msg) 11:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- PB = Persoonsbewijs, a identity card in the Second World War in the Netherlands. Gouwenaar (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 01:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. Unknown author, Dutch wartime propaganda newspaper first published in the UK. Copyright expires 70 years after first publication (1942+70=2012). -- Deadstar (msg) 10:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)}}
- Keep A publication of the Netherland Government Information Bureau, {{PD-NL-Gov}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Unsure whether this is really created by the Netherland Government. Full magazine is available on [2], I couldn't find a statement who published this. Could you please have a look, your Dutch is probably better than mine. If there's nothing in there, I think it's likely that this is a publication of the UK government as the Royal Air Force distributed it. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, nl:De Wervelwind was a Dutch government monthly, and it was distributed by the RAF because the Dutch government was in exile in London. The last page of the .pdf is a cover letter with the official Netherland Government Information Bureau letter head by prof. Matthijs Bokhorst to nl:Frans Beelaerts van Blokland, (vice-)president of the Dutch Council of State. The back of the newspaper is an explicit request to redistribute the contents of the newspaper in whatever form ("in welken vorm dan ook") in order to further the national cause. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, you were right to doubt that this was created by the Dutch Government. The historiogrphy in the last issue states that the British took the initiative to start the publication. The British and later also the US Office of War Information had a big say in editorial decisions. The last issue states that it was "partially a misunderstanding" to think that Wervelwind was an official publication of the Dutch government in exile. Anyway, it was nl:Adriaan Pelt of the government's press office who appointed the Dutch staff that collaborated with the British. Dutch government ministers were on the editorial board. I think it is safe to say that the Dutch material is PD-NL-Gov, because that also applies to public bodies that are not directly the government. However, material from other Allies in Wervelwind is probably not covered by PD-NL-Gov; in those cases {{PD-UKGov}} or {{PD-USGov}}. This front page and the portrait of the Dutch admiral should be fine. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, nl:De Wervelwind was a Dutch government monthly, and it was distributed by the RAF because the Dutch government was in exile in London. The last page of the .pdf is a cover letter with the official Netherland Government Information Bureau letter head by prof. Matthijs Bokhorst to nl:Frans Beelaerts van Blokland, (vice-)president of the Dutch Council of State. The back of the newspaper is an explicit request to redistribute the contents of the newspaper in whatever form ("in welken vorm dan ook") in order to further the national cause. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Unsure whether this is really created by the Netherland Government. Full magazine is available on [2], I couldn't find a statement who published this. Could you please have a look, your Dutch is probably better than mine. If there's nothing in there, I think it's likely that this is a publication of the UK government as the Royal Air Force distributed it. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. per Pieter Kuiper Badseed talk 00:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Images of Dawoodkarim
[edit]- File:Capt F Karim.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:P O Waleed E Karim with other pilots 2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waleed.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Adv F Karim & Mrs N Karim 2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waleed Ehsanul Karim.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I believe that User:Dawoodkarim's uploads are all suspect copyvios since I doubt it's the uploaders own work, Waleed Ehsanul Karim served in the Pakistan Air Force during 1961 - 1965 (I'll doubt that any images from the era would be in the public domain) and the dates are clearly wrong. Bidgee (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also I'm unsure if there is Freedom of Panorama in Pakistan as it's not listed in COM:FOP so FOP needs to be addressed as well. Bidgee (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: But what if all these are from the uploader's family album? I can't say for sure, but Dawoodkarim seems to be related to both Waleed Karim and F. Karim, as he has the personal photos in possession. Wouldn't he be able to release the personal photos from his album into PD? --Ragib (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: All of these photos are from my family album and as we as an old family kept these photos (including negatives) in our possession since. The date that I have mentioned are not wrong as these dates are the dates of scanning not from original photos. I do have many other photos of Flt. Lt. Matiur Rahman also. And no one else have the copies of these since these are about 45 years old. I own the rights to the photos, these are from my album, and that I donate them to Wikipedia under GFDL (or release in Public domain)
Thanks Please dont delete this precious page as it honours a soldier. --Dawoodkarim (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Any update on this? I have communicated with the uploader (Dawoodkarim), and from all the information he provided, I am reasonably satisfied that these photos are from his personal album (He is related to the subject of the photos). So, I think we can close this deletion request as keep. I had requested the nominator to look into these new comments from Dawood, however, the nominator has not responded in almost 1 month. --Ragib (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
KeepIt is from his personal album.Yousaf465 (talk)
Keep There is no reason to believe that these images are copyright violations. --Incidious (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- It has been 2 months since the image was nominated, and the uploader has publicly stated here that this is from his family album. Since the uploader Dawood Karim is apparently a family member of Waleed Karim, I have no reason not to accept his statement. So, why is this photo still being considered for deletion? --Ragib (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Not sure that being in a family album give the owner the rights to the images, some of them appear to be official images and images taken by others the sort that servicemen collect during their career, certainly File:P O Waleed E Karim with other pilots 2.jpg appear to be an official image. No evidence who took the photographs and who were the original copyright holder. Having possession of a picture does not give you any rights to publish. MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, I don't know what does one mean by official. Official in the sense that the image's copyright is owned by the Indian Air Force? If the image was taken by a serviceman for his personal collection, then the Indian Air Force does not own its copyright. Also, if the concerned images were passed over to the uploader by the person who took the snaps, then the concerned uploader has the rights to publish them. This entire issue being raised over here depicts nothing else but some people's excessive and unwanted obsession over images' copyrights. --Deepak (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, although I'm sure that the images are from a personal album; ownership of an work of art has nothing to do with copyright. The photographs of mr. Waleed Ehsanul Karim cannot be taken by himself, which means that the uploader unfortunately cannot release them in the public domain. Kameraad Pjotr 16:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
As I am an Amateur photographer by myself, I do know the rules of copy right of a photograph. Please note that I have all of the negatives of these photos preserved with me; I have also preserved the AGFA camera owened by Waleed. He was my uncle and I am the rightful owner of all of his properties. As he was unmarried when he died, The Pakistan Air Force Authority had handed over all of his belongings (including these photos and negatives) to my father. Its true that waleed could not taken these photos by himself, but I have series of photos where he was absend and instead some other person was there which also proves that Waleed took the photos. I have also some official photos which were even more interesting, but I did not publish them. It is also same for Capt Advocate Fazlul Karim (He was my Grand Father). Further all of these photos are almost 45 years old, And Fazlul Karim's photos are more than 50 years old. Which also means nobody needs the permission to publish them! So, please undel the photos at the earliest. You could have asked me bofer deleting them. Thanks in advance.
I have forwarded Mr. Dawood Karim's correspondence with me, to OTRS. Mr. Dawood Karim is the owner of the rights to these photos -- the rights have been passed onto him along with the estate of Waleed Karim. Also, as Mr. Karim explained above, all the photos had been taken with Waleed Karim's Agfa camera, and Mr. Dawood Karim has the negatives as well as the camera (part of Mr. W. Karim's estate).
According to my interpretation of the copyright act of Bangladesh and erstwhile East Pakistan, if the owner of a camera asks another person to take his photo, the rights do not belong to the person taking the photo. Correct me if I am wrong ... but this is probably true of copyright laws of any country. So, even though Waleed Karim appears on a photo, that doesn't mean someone else owns the rights to the photos. While on vacation, I have asked plenty of strangers to take a photo of my with my camera, that doesn't give them the ownership of the photo. So, the argument that if someone is in a photo, he can't hold the rights to it, as argued above, is not correct.
Anyway,I have forwarded everything to OTRS, and hope the photos (new versions I uploaded) will be OTRS tagged soon. I hope this will satisfy everyone. --Ragib (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)