Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/12/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
out of scope - Commons is not for hosting personal images. Abigor (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete No license, Description= "p", uploader seems to be using Commons as vanity image host. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 03:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
this "bad named" icon isn't used anymore (aside one userspace list of icons), checked and changed any occurrance worldwide! axpdeHello! 00:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Adambro (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
this "bad named" icon isn't used anymore (aside one userspace list of icons)! axpdeHello! 11:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Adambro (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem likely that the uploader is the copyright holder of this newspaper and there is no evidence of a permission to release the image unter the licenses used. Gestumblindi (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
very unlikely self-made, users only contribution Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 10:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Without description, this image is plain useless. --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
Screenshot of a copyrighted video game Luctor 11:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I think this is copyvio Abigor talk 12:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Adambro (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of Scope - possible attack image - Abigor talk 12:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, appears to be a personal image with no educational purpose. Adambro (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Personal photo. Likely to be beyond project scope. Adambro (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Would be a useful illustration in articles like en:Flash (photography). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. Adambro (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
yes Jens-Olaf Hübner (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted as duplicate of File:Cockpitlayout cockpitflights.jpg, and please don't write simply "yes" as reason for a deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; obviously a private picture of an unknown (description: hujkl), non-notable person, of no use for others, and eventually also violating PR. Túrelio (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Trixt (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
COM:DW may apply ~/w /Talk 16:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why? The sculpture looks very much PD to me (400 B.C.). --Eusebius (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I cannot read that language. --~/w /Talk 17:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, OK. I'd Keep then, no copyright issue (bad quality, but the other pics we have of this statue aren't very good either). --Eusebius (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, OK. I'd
- Sorry I cannot read that language. --~/w /Talk 17:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's no derivative work. It's just a photograph of a Public Domain ancient sculpture. --Filipo (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's Pre-Roman! Multichill (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. It was a clear mistake, maybe because the file missed an English description. --Dodo (talk) 08:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Self made? It's low-res, very good photo, seems more likely that it's a copyvio to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Adambro (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
"© Yahoo" etc. Erik Baas (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted obvious ~/w /Talk 19:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The design of the helmet can easily be found on the internet (see [1]) but no source is mentionned. Logo of the team is probably protected (fair use?). Eusebius (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually many other helmets in Category:ONEFA have the same design, and I've found none with a source for the moment. --Eusebius (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hola, ojalá puedan orientarme sobre cómo podemos conservar los cascos de los equipos de la ONEFA en wikimedia, ya que considero que no es necesario borrarlos, tal vez sólo haya que ponerles un tipo de licencia en particular. Gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equiquinos (talk • contribs) 04:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC) (UTC)
- (Dispensame por mi castellano y la ausencia de acentos) A mi me parece que todos los cascos fueron dibujados sobre la base del mismo casco "vacio", no ? Si es la verdad, pues hay que mencionar esa imagen en la linea "source" de cada pagina de imagen (porque serian trabajos derivados). Por supuesto es necesario que esa imagen sea disponible con una licencia libre. Por otro lado, podria haber un problema con los logotipos de los varios equipes, que podrian ser protegidos, pues no aceptables on Commons.
- English version of my poor Spanish (the uploader is asking for help on how to make the pictures acceptable): "It seems to me that all these helmets have been drawn on the basis of the same "empty" helmet, no? If I'm right, then they need to reference the original picture in the "source" field of each image page (because they would be "derivative works"). Of course the original image needs to be available with a free licence. Furthermore, there may be a problem with the logos of the different teams, which can be protected and thus not acceptable on Commons." --Eusebius (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly, the empty helmet and the university logos aren't images with a correct license to stay in Commons. Not only you must quote the source of the helmet and the logos, but also they need to have a license allowed in Commons. That's because I vote to delete.
- Exactamente, tanto el casco vacío como los logos de las universidades no son material con licencias adecuadas para permanecer en Commons. No sólo debe mencionarse la fuente del casco y de los logos, sino que estos deben estar bajo una licencia permitida en Commons. Es por esto que las imagenes deben ser borradas. KveD (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- How do you know about the license of the pictures, do you know where to find them? --Eusebius (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know the license of the pictures, but the university logos rarely are PD and the helmet it's clearly copied from somewhere and not a original artistic creation by Equiquinos (talk · contribs). KveD (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, estoy de acuerdo en que estas imagenes sean borradas, lamento mucho haber subido algo inadecuado. De cualquier manera quisiera saber si hay alguna forma de subir imágenes similares con algún tipo de licencia y citando las fuentes originales. Quiero disculparme por haber almacenado algo en Wikimedia sin conocer las condiciones de uso. Gracias a todos por su ayuda.
- Gracias a ti por interesarte! Seria posible subir este tipo de imagenes, a condicion de que todas las fuentes sean identificadas y disponibles con licencias compatibles (como GFDL o CC-BY por ejemplo). Puedes leer Commons:Sobre las licencias y Commons:Trabajos derivados para los detalles. --Eusebius (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, estoy de acuerdo en que estas imagenes sean borradas, lamento mucho haber subido algo inadecuado. De cualquier manera quisiera saber si hay alguna forma de subir imágenes similares con algún tipo de licencia y citando las fuentes originales. Quiero disculparme por haber almacenado algo en Wikimedia sin conocer las condiciones de uso. Gracias a todos por su ayuda.
- I don't know the license of the pictures, but the university logos rarely are PD and the helmet it's clearly copied from somewhere and not a original artistic creation by Equiquinos (talk · contribs). KveD (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- How do you know about the license of the pictures, do you know where to find them? --Eusebius (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly, the empty helmet and the university logos aren't images with a correct license to stay in Commons. Not only you must quote the source of the helmet and the logos, but also they need to have a license allowed in Commons. That's because I vote to
- Agree to delete current pictures. --Eusebius (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. KveD (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of Scope - Abigor talk 17:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zscout370: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission
Out of Scope - Abigor talk 17:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zscout370: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission
Out of Scope - Abigor talk 17:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zscout370: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission
Out of Scope - Abigor talk 17:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
It is a beauty. Dont delete it.
- We have enough of them. No need to get more. Abigor talk 19:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zscout370: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission
Out of Scope Abigor talk 17:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zscout370: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission
looks definitly not self-made ~/w /Talk 16:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I putted the image twice in speedy deletion beacuse the uploader "confessed" on it.wiki that is a copyviol: image was made by a parent more than 20 years ago, on it.wiki it's a pd-italy, on commons is a simple copyviol--Vituzzu (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
A photo of a photo/painting of unknown copyright status. 24.199.88.105 00:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf /talk to me/ 12:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Low quality, GIF not recommended for chem structures. Superseded Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Leyo 03:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Korman (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf /talk to me/ 12:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
low quality, superseded by high quality at image:2,2,2-trichloroethanol.svg Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Leyo 03:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf /talk to me/ 12:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Poor quality, improper file format. superseded by image:Hydroxymethylfurfural.png Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Leyo 03:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf /talk to me/ 12:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
inappropriate format, too small, superseded by File:Kainic_acid.png Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Leyo 03:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf /talk to me/ 12:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
bad picutre Shaunb (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Source is Google Earth? But it has EXIF data! Maybe it's from one of the indirect photo feeds available on Google Earth. No evidence of permission anyway. Yep, delete. --Closeapple (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf /talk to me/ 12:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Unofficial "novelty" patch, no real encyclopedic value and cannot forseeably be used in any encyclopedic article. -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Why are you attacking that which you know not of? Cadet Programs (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Only used on User page...deletion request promted by OuroborosCobra [through Huntster] is based on personal bias. Are we 12? Cadet Programs (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Er? You or a friend indicated this was simply an unofficial novelty patch. Neither Commons or Wikipedia is a web host for personal content and ideas. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not meet COM:SCOPE — private work not really used by the the Civil Air Partrol to identify itself; therefore unlikely to have a realistic educational use, especially since U.S. Government works are available. Commons is not your personal free web host. P.S.: Uploader seems to be confused about what constitutes "own work" — claims almost everything in Civil Air Patrol patches as self-made, all the way back to World War II. Since Template:PD-USGov-Military-Air Force Auxiliary exists, presumably most real patches would be covered under that instead, and the "novelty" ones like this would probably need the patch's actual creator if they even stayed on Commons. --Closeapple (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted possible copyvio, outside scope abf /talk to me/ 12:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
logo on image Liangent (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted no fair use on commons abf /talk to me/ 12:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Scope - Should be uploaded local - Abigor (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted unused logo for not-notable organisations --> scope abf /talk to me/ 12:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe all image are own work Abigor talk 13:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- delete --Motopark (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. In addition to source questions, it has no realistic educational use in this animated form with images that have been stored with the wrong proportions; therefore, out of COM:SCOPE. --Closeapple (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf /talk to me/ 12:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
no licence, permission --217.224.62.60 22:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted {{Nld}} for 7 days abf /talk to me/ 12:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Logo of a sports team, looks like fair use to me. Might or might not be the uploader's work though, who knows... Eusebius (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Info Image:86ers logotype.JPG, from the same uploader, previously deleted. No other contribution. --Eusebius (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted no fair use on commons abf /talk to me/ 12:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
No source, no permission ~/w /Talk 16:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per wuzur abf /talk to me/ 12:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Somebody unknown. The picture is not used anywhere Gothika (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted scope abf /talk to me/ 12:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how this image is within scope. Can't be user pic as it's a flickr pic... -mattbuck (Talk) 22:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted personal unused unencyclopedic image abf /talk to me/ 12:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how this is within scope, unless it's a logo, in which case it's a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted cv or scope abf /talk to me/ 12:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
this "bad named" icon isn't used anymore (aside from one userspace list of icons), checked and changed any occurance worldwide (though six pages of CA still in cache)! axpdeHello! 22:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Martin H.: (incorrectly named) duplicate of File:BSicon extSTRq.svg
no author, false licensing Nickpo (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted we can guess this is PD, but the policy clearly wants us to have definite sources. Indeed this policy might be stupid, but it is policy and I have no way (in the space I have as a sysop) to decide this request on another way. abf /talk to me/ 22:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Whilst the collage may have been created by a particular user, the photos made to make up the collage look like those which are taken from the net from various websites, which would make this an overall copyvio russavia (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted in fact. abf /talk to me/ 22:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
picture can be found on the internet (http://tineye.com/search/8e9bda7d51f51c944cb491c8a928c6bc70c37978), probably a professional shot, unlikely to be the uploader's "own work" as stated. No license. Eusebius (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Maxim: Missing essential information: license, permission, and/or source
out of COM:SCOPE; obviously a private picture of an unknown (description: hujkl), non-notable person, of no use for others. Túrelio (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently a self-portrait. Maybe the user wants it for his profile page, I've asked him to make a move in that case. --Eusebius (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted unused, no educational purpose, therefore out of scope abf /talk to me/ 22:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Is Acromegaly. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 2008, 3:17. doi:10.1186/1750-1172-3-17 a free source? Abigor talk 21:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The articles in Orphanet J Rare Dis state: "This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited." This applies to all Category:Media from BioMed Central. See also Commons:Patient_images#Uploading_alternatives. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment I didn't know that was a free source. Its good to learn this sometimes. As it is a free source this nomination wasn't needed and I withdraw it. I hope a administrator can close this request. Abigor talk 21:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Lycaon (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be a property of baghdadia.com Tarawneh (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Copyvio. Rastrojo (D•ES) 01:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Whilst the Flickr license is acceptable, I suspect this image wasn't created by the Flickr user. I note that it is in a "Misc" set with other similar potential copyright vios. Adambro (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copied from [2]. AnimeFan (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann: Copyright violation
Exact copy of this image was deleted on en-WP as suspected copyvio. NoCitNeed (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio. WJBscribe (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
should not be stored as an image; can be generated on the fly using math or HTML Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Nom and per name of the image, as nobody will find something with such a meaningful name. --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 04:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Was used on a Wikipedia userpage, no longer. Neurolysis (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I doubt it's own work. abf /talk to me/ 12:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope now. --Korman (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 04:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
As noted in the warning of the template, Soviet/Russian space photos are not necessarily in PD, and is most doubtful that NASA had access to Laika for photo taking russavia (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Is this the same image as File:Laika_dog_space.jpg or File:Laika_went_up_into_space.jpg? If so, it should probably be deleted too. --Tryphon (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This image from nbii.gov is not marked as public domain, according to the statement given at http://images.nbii.gov/index.php*Individual contributor sets their level of usage and permissions. Martin H. (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
derivate work ~/w /Talk 17:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm unsure whether FOP could apply here (would be ok for a sculpture): COM:FOP#Portugal. 2D works not mentionned, so I'd say no. --Eusebius (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment "freedom of panorama" is just ok in a public place where everyone can go. A underground station is probably not public accessible (you need a ticket). --~/w /Talk 19:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- But doesn't mean "public" in a way a "public building" run by the state? Lisbon's metro is a state run enterprise, why freedom of panorama shouldn't be ok? Do I misunterstand that? --Jcornelius (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep If we remove this image we should also remove all images of Russian and Ukrainian Metro stations, where copyright rules about FOR are more strong than in Portugal.--Anatoliy (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment "If we delete that we have to delete all other useful images" is not an argument for keeping a copyright violation. --~/w /Talk 19:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Totally agree on that. If their copyright status is problematic, then yes, they should be deleted (but no, I'm not going to nominate them all tonite :-) --Eusebius (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Most likely OK, as with File:Azulejos Parque Eduardo VII-2.jpg. The law just mentions "works", and Portugal is probably one of the few countries where 2D is OK (since a "work", without limitation, can be either 2D or 3D). MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploader is not author - no evidence that author has released image as GFDL MilborneOne (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
{{PD-US}} doesn't apply as long there is no proof given of a publication before 1923 or any other indication why this could be considered PD. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- This happens to be my family photo. It is a picture of my grandfather. I have in my possession the picture and scanned it in and uploaded to Wikipedia Commons. I don't see any other people that would claim possession of any copyrights to the photograph. If anybody has the copyrights to the picture, it would have to be me. The photographer is unknown and never was known. The Caldwell family records say it was taken in 1920, some 89 years ago. I am putting the picture into public domain. It was a promotion picture taken by his employer, Mitchell Lumber Company (a company that decades ago went out of business).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep Keep per Doug Coldwell. If you would write something like that in the image description, ("uploaded to Wikimedia and put into public domain by Caldwell family") that wouldn't hurt. --GRuban (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Done The wording suggested has been put into the image description as suggested.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. PD-US Yann (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Deletion request completed by me. --AVRS (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
It's so fuzzy. It's unusable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComputerHotline (talk • contribs) 2008-12-21T11:55:17 (UTC)
Kept. Not great, but quite sweet. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The annotations of the publisher might be an own copyright. I will upload a cleaned version instead --Konrad Stein (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
own work or not? ~/w /Talk 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader has had several other images deleted. Suspicious. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Cropped version of File:Miri City.jpg, which was deleted on en-WP as suspected copyvio. NoCitNeed (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
mögliche Urheberrechtsverletzung? --3268zauber (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Wessen Urheberrecht? Whose copyright? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Eventuell Urheberrecht des Architekten, da - wie mir erst jetzt bewußt wurde - Innenaufnahmen nicht der Panoramafreiheit unterliegen.--3268zauber (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wann ist die Kirche denn erbaut/geplant worden und von wem? --Túrelio (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Zudem sehe ich hier eigentlich nicht viel Schützenswertes. Die Bildnisse im Altarraum scheinen jedenfalls zu alt dafür zu sein. --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Baubeginn war September 1959, die Bauleitung hatte das erzbischöfliche Bauamt Heidelberg, Pläne stammen von Baurat Schmitt-Fiebig, Bauingenieur Fritz Meixner und Bauoberinspektor Heinrich Eisenhauer. Die große Fensterwand an der Nordseite wurde von Emil Wachter entworfen. Die Kunstwerke im Innern stammen zum Teil von Franz Gutmann (geb. 1928) aus Obermünstertal, das Chorkreuz von Hans Baumhauer (geb. 1913). Der Künstler der Marienstatue ist mir nicht bekannt. --3268zauber (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm... Grenzwertiger Fall. Der Raum an sich scheint mir nicht schützbar, von der Fensterwand und sonstigen Bildern ist kaum etwas zu sehen, die Marienstatue dürfte alt sein oder eine Kopie einer älteren. Das Chorkreuz wäre am ehesten noch kritisch, der Rest geht meiner Meinung nach als Beiwerk durch. unschlüssig --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Aus denselben Gründen wie PaterMcFly bin ich hier auch unschlüssig, tendiere daher eher zu Keep. Das wäre natürlich anders bei Detailaufnahmen einzelner Kunstwerke. Ist denn irgendeine Beschwerde eingetroffen? --Túrelio (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Aus denselben Gründen wie PaterMcFly bin ich hier auch unschlüssig, tendiere daher eher zu
- Von einer Beschwerde weiß ich bis jetzt nichts. Ich weiß: "Wo kein Kläger, da kein Richter" - aber ich möchte es auch nicht unbedingt darauf ankommen lassen, daher meine Löschantrag. --3268zauber (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Das was man (gut) sehen kann kommt meiner Meinung nach nicht an eine notwendige Schöpfungshöhe heran um dieses Bild zu löschen. Raum: Ein Würfel -> {{PD-shape}}, Die Bänke: Sind so ausgerichtet, wie in vielen Kirchen vermutlich hunderte Jahre zuvor -> {{PD-old}}, Fenster: Derzeit schwarze Flächen -> {{PD-ineligible}} (selbst wenn sie in echt bunt sind sieht man es hier nicht), Statue + Kreuz + alle Blumengestecke etc. im Hintergrund: Nicht großgenug -> De mini
- --D-Kuru (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Architecture is ineligible, copyrighted artwork is De Minimis. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
According to the image description and according to the original uploaders talk page (w:en:User talk:Raza0007) it is assumed that this image is free, but we dont have a permission or any statement that substantiates that commercial use and derivative works are allowed and that anyone can use this image in every context. Martin H. (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Martin H. I am the original uploader of this image and I did not intend it to be on wikipedia commons. Another user has uploaded it to the commons. I am assuming the copyright problem is only on commons and not on wikipedia proper? If this is the case, you may delete it from the commons but please leave it on wikipedia where it was originally uploaded. Is there a way to prevent other users from uploading images from wikipedia to the commons? Raza0007 (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Raza0007, thanks for your response here at Commons. If the image is decided unfree here at Commons it is also unfree at Wikipedia, it can stay at the english wikipedia under the terms of fair use. Yes, there is the posibility to mark your image with the template {{NoCommons}}. This does not avert the upload to commons but it effects that a copy will be kept at your local wikipedia. However, these does not help us in our question here: Is this image free according to our and the english wikipedia guidelines or are they restricted in any way: commercial use only for newspapers and not for advertising, derivative works are not allowed (thats the usual restrictions of free press photos) --Martin H. (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Martin H. This image is free. It was taken by an employee of Military of Pakistan Public Relations Department. Military employees in Pakistan are not allowed to takes images while on duty and then sell them to make money while off duty. It is similar to the laws in USA. This image was taken during defense promotion of Al-Khalid tank. The image was released to public and press free of charge. There is no appropriate copyright tag here on wikipedia to put on this image so I placed the license saying that copyright most probably belongs to ISPR but the image is free to be used under GFDL license. This image was not taken by me so I can not release it under my name. This image does not fall under the promotional media tag because that is meant for a non-free image, while this image is free. I hope you understand what I am trying to say here. Let me know a possible solution for this problem and I will fix it. Thanks.
- A brief answer to you question: No, this image is NOT restricted in any way and anybody is free to use this image for any purpose.Raza0007 (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Update
- Martin H. I have updated the copyright status for this particular image here on commons. I recalled that when I originally uploaded this image, I only used the GFDL tag. An administrator asked me if it was I who took this image. I said no. He told me to update the copyright info to show this. It was then that I added the attribution tag. The proper tag for this image should be something like "this image is in public domain as it is a work of an employee of Pakistan's Armed forces",but since such a tag does not exist at the moment, so I had to use the attribution and GDFL tag to reflect the status of this image i.e. it is free and taken by ISPR(Military of Pakistan). I hope this will solve the problem here at commons. I assume the attribution tag was causing the problem. Let me know if it is acceptable. If it is then please remove the "marked for deletion" tag from this image. Thanks. Raza0007 (talk) 13:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please cite the law saying that government works are in the Public Domain. All I could find is the Copyrights Ordinance 1962, which says in chapter III section 22:
- (1) Copyright in a Government work shall, where Government is the first owner of the copyright therein, subsist until fifty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work is first published
- This image is certainly younger than 50 years and thus copyrighted. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Per Chrisi & no additional input since. A local copy on en exists Badseed talk 13:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama for artworks in the United States. The Brookgreen Gardens were founded in 1931. Hence, it is quite unlikely that this is PD. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Mach's weg, ich kann mich jetzt nicht mehr drum kümmern (obwohl dieser Minotaurus ja offensichtlich vor 1978 angefertigt wurde). Mutter Erde (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hier ist zu bedenken, dass nicht wenige der Skulpturen Signaturen und Urheberrechtsvermerke tragen, siehe beispielsweise hier. Leider hat der Garten nur für einen Teil seiner Skulpturen detaillierte Hinweise veröffentlicht. Einige wenige davon sind auch bereits PD, da der Künstler vor über 70 Jahren verstorben ist. Aber ohne einen detaillierten Nachweis können wir das Bild leider nicht behalten. Im übrigen habe ich keinen Schnelllöschantrag gestellt. Es gibt also mindestens 7 Tage Zeit und da ich den Antrag gestellt habe, werde ich diesen nicht schließen. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's Female Centaur by Anna Hyatt Huntington, placed beside Cheiron; see this image (Cheiron on the left), and compare this sculpture checklist. Both are placed in the "Dogwood Garden" section. Sculpture from 1936, placed in the garden in 1941. SIRIS mentions it's dated and signed, but doesn't mention a © notice. However, is this a "detailed SIRIS entry"? Proske's description in the Brookgreen Gardens Sculpture Catalogue of 1943 gives more detail: "A female centaur bounds forward, head and shoulders thrown backward, about to cast a weapon held in..." according to Google books. Lupo 14:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- P.S.: Here's another image confirming this identification. Lupo 15:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- P.P.S: The application to include Brookgreen Gardens in the National Register of Historic Places mentions that the sculpture is signed "Anna Hyatt Huntington, 1936". What photography restrictions does Brookgreen Gardens have? What such restrictions, if any, did it have in 1941? If none, we should treat this sculpture as {{PD-US-no notice}} as per Template talk:PD-US-statue/proposal. Lupo 15:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- P.S.: Here's another image confirming this identification. Lupo 15:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's Female Centaur by Anna Hyatt Huntington, placed beside Cheiron; see this image (Cheiron on the left), and compare this sculpture checklist. Both are placed in the "Dogwood Garden" section. Sculpture from 1936, placed in the garden in 1941. SIRIS mentions it's dated and signed, but doesn't mention a © notice. However, is this a "detailed SIRIS entry"? Proske's description in the Brookgreen Gardens Sculpture Catalogue of 1943 gives more detail: "A female centaur bounds forward, head and shoulders thrown backward, about to cast a weapon held in..." according to Google books. Lupo 14:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept per Lupo plus reasonable assumptions. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
