Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/12/24

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive December 24th, 2008
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hasidic_jewish_couple.jpg

[edit]

Subject request in otrs:1336382. Also, personality rights may also apply here. I have scanned each wiki, this image is not used in any article at the time of my scan. I think the subject's request carries some weight being that the image is not actively being used. Please consider this. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. After reviewing the subject's complaint, and the discussion concerning the image's use, I think it's clear we can live without this image. I've also deleted another version of the same image.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SantasOnSteps.jpg

[edit]

"All rights reserverd" on source site ~/w /Talk 12:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept my mistake. Owner uploaded the image himself. ~/w /Talk 12:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Engelbach.svg

[edit]

Dublette with [Image:Wappen Engelbach.svg] --Flow2 --Flow2 (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ChristianBier (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:DSC00916.JPG

[edit]

Out of scope. Personal picture, only contribution of the uploader. Eusebius (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Cecil: Universally replaced by Image:Mancılık_köyü_Balya.jpg. Reason was "Was in category "Duplicate", exact duplicate"

I guess this explanation comes from a bad copy-paste :-) --Eusebius (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Rebecca_schaeffer_closeup.jpg

[edit]

Apparently copyrighted - statement in the "description" field of the image page does not convince me at all. Eusebius (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Tabercil: No fair use at Commons

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:16_MVG_cult_elisangela.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation: http://www.abril.com.br/imagem/elizangela-foto-dupla-02.jpg Yanguas (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Source given was "Google", which is insufficient. Tabercil (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:16_MVG_cult_elisangela.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation: http://www.abril.com.br/imagem/elizangela-foto-dupla-02.jpg Yanguas (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Source given was "Google", which is insufficient. Tabercil (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:愛在記憶中找你.jpg

[edit]

Album cover. Probably eligible for speedy deletion (tell me if I should have done that instead). Eusebius (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Yes, I would have speedied it. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Your_Love.jpg

[edit]

Album cover Eusebius (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:MaenpaaOuti.jpg

[edit]

I'm sure that this file isn't pd (taken by http://www.studiosamikulju.fi/) —kallerna™ 14:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted by ABF: No fair use at Commons: no permission, see watermark, tagger says taken from http://www.studiosamikulju.fi/ but I can't access the page, but I am pretty sure it is fairuse (watrermark.)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:CarmoDallaVecchia-333-globo-110208.jpg

[edit]

"Source: Google" --> Possible copyright violation 201.1.160.164 18:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Escudo cumaral.jpg

[edit]

violates copyright - Locos epraix (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC) --Locos epraix (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Kameraad Pjotr: Copyright violation

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Escudo Acacías.jpg

[edit]

violates copyright - Locos epraix (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC) --Locos epraix (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Kameraad Pjotr: Copyright violation

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Coat of arms of Villavicencio.jpg

[edit]

violates copyright - Locos epraix (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC) --Locos epraix (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Kameraad Pjotr: Copyright violation

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:20k3v9v.gif

[edit]

Wasted bytes 78.43.120.225 14:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Adambro (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vibeke_Stene_cantando_en_un_concierto_realizado_en_noruega.jpg

[edit]

Source = google Megapixie (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete--Motopark (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. As well as rest of his pictures. Herr Kriss (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Patricia-arquette.jpg

[edit]

in original page [1] will read © Jeff Vespa, WireImage.com --Motopark (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, WireImage #75521012, 16 Jan 2006. --Martin H. (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:IsraeliBus.gif

[edit]

A call for lethal violence with no historical, illustrative or documentary value. This image is not used in any Wikimedia project. --Drork (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep as it's not a valid reason for deletion even it it was true. // Liftarn (talk)
  •  Keep It merely makes a political statement. This is an enciclopedia, not a seminar. We are uploading thousnds of Nazi propaganda files, from the German Archives, in these days. A bonanza for the historians, including those of the Holocaust, who will have first hand documentation. However, they are rather disturbing to read. Shall we delete them for this fact? --User:G.dallorto (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Of course this is not a call for lethal violence. It is is a description of the terror of an Israeli bus passenger, a cartoon with a nightmare-like atmosphere over it. The author is a notable cartoon artist. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep -- No reason to delete sarcastic comments -- agree, disagree, dislike, like, or ignore. It is anyways art. In case Picasso's Guernica would be uploaded to COM, ~50 years from now -- how about deleting thatone too ;]] [w.] 07:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. Absolutely not a call for violence, but against violence, occupation and oppression. Important historical, documentary and educational value. Potentially useful work by notable artist. Acceptable license. --5ko (talk) 10:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep As I strongly object to these kind of sensationalist deletion requests. Suggesting this is a "call for lethal violence" is simply nonsense. Present a reasoning for deletion without such ludicrous comments and I might actually take a little more time to consider the request. Adambro (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, nothing wrong with this. Stifle (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under arguments of WP:SNOW. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ideia_(João_Zero).gif

[edit]

My error: this file is not commercial use - License invalide, of course... André Koehne TALK TO ME 07:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete. Original license is CC-BY-NC-ND-2.5 (Brazil) as noted by uploader, so not usable on Commons. Changing license on file to match source (which will tag it as speedy delete also). --Closeapple (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 11:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Niagara_game_01.jpg

[edit]

derivative work Polarlys (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, copyright violation. Couldn't it be speedily deleted? --Joku Janne (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 10:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dickerson_Eric1.jpg

[edit]

No sign on source site that image is PD Tabercil (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. There's a copyright mention on the website main page, and it's not even sure that they hold the rights. Eusebius (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sweet_surrender_(362634740).jpg

[edit]

self created artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 12:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:DVI_Connector_Types_Replacement.svg

[edit]

Unused duplicate version that has been merged into the original Hungry Charlie (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted (self-request). James F. (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Palestine by Latuff by Latuff2.jpg

[edit]

A sheer call for violence without any historical, documentary or illustrative value. This image is not used in any Wikimedia project. --Drork (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and close this as keep, as apart from two arguments which largely boil down to "I don't like it", the overwhelming majority seem to support inclusion. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Manoel_Theatre.jpg

[edit]

The image can be found here, but the site uses copyrighted images from disparate sources, and there's no indication that it owns the copyrights on these images. Also, the use-by-attribution says nothing about derivative works or commercial use. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per discussion. abf /talk to me/ 03:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:IsraHellburningbuses.png

[edit]

A call for lethal violence with no historical, illustrative or documentary value. This image is not used in any Wikimedia project. --Drork (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep as it's not a valid reason for deletion even it it was true. // Liftarn (talk)
  •  Keep It merely makes a political statement. This is an enciclopedia, not a seminar. We are uploading thousnds of Nazi propaganda files, from the German Archives, in these days. A bonanza for the historians, including those of the Holocaust, who will have first hand documentation. However, they are rather disturbing to read. Shall we delete them for this fact? --User:G.dallorto (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete It is no value, hate propaganda image which justifies the violence and calls for it.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It does nothing to justify nor encourage violence and it most certainly does have a value. When we discuss the value of the image we are not (or at least should not be) concerned with the value of the image as a piece of artwork, that will of course depend on your opinions of the topic, we are concerned with its value in terms of the educational value for the various Wikimedia Foundation projects. It is hardly a great effort in respect of this image to see the potential usefulness of this image. The English Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, Portuguese Wikipedia, Arabic Wikipedia, Hebrew Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia and the Swedish Wikipedia all have articles on Carlos Latuff and most seem to include examples of his work. It appears to me therefore to be quite obvious that this image could quite easily be used for educational purposes on one of our projects either, for example, as a general example of his work or more specifically in an article's discussion of the controversial nature of his work, especially if it is, as is implied in this nomination, one of his more controversial images. Adambro (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete This one is another example of Liftarn's poorer, earlier work and holds no merit in keeping. It's not making a very good political statement--seems to only poke fun at a national tragedy. Not a good example of Liftarn's sharp political satire and certainly not worth the trouble of keeping it on the Commons. Bastique demandez 23:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you meant Latuff rather than liftarn there :p -mattbuck (Talk) 13:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OUCH! Bastique demandez 18:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whether people compain or not is immaterial to whether we should keep it. For example, the massive number of emails we get on an ongoing basis complaining about nudity, swearing or images of Mohammad (to name only a few!) don't result in us expunging the "objectionable" content from our wikis. This case is no different. If it's a bad example of his work, then other content projects don't have to use it.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have no single hateful caricature of Mohammad. If we had, I would have been the first one to request it to be deleted. Images of nudity cannot kill. The hate propaganda images by Latuff could. I feel sorry for you. You are unable to see the difference.BTW Commons has no single caricature of Yasser Arafat either. Of course with his face a photograph will do it without a caricature  :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot agree more, he is a "notable artist".In 2006, Latuff entered and was placed second, winning $4,000, in the controversial w:Iran w:International Holocaust Cartoon Competition. w:Holocaust also started with hate propaganda images and articles like this and ended up with murder of more than 5,000,000 Jews because most people were simply afraid to say "no" to hate.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well there goes Godwin. I guess There will always be images on commons that some people don't like. The test is - are they potentially useful ? Of course the Nazi's were famous free speech advocates. Megapixie (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing your "thoughts" with me. Cannot agree with you. I could like or do not like an image of a bee, an image of fall, an image of rocks, an image of a person and so on. This image is not about who likes it and who does not. This image has nothing to do with free speech. It is no value, hate propaganda image which justifies the violence and calls for it.Oh and btw, if you compare people, who asks for the image to be deleted with nazi, I'd like to let you know that I consider this a personal attack.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep As I strongly object to these kind of sensationalist deletion requests. Suggesting this is a "call for lethal violence" is simply nonsense. Present a reasoning for deletion without such ludicrous comments and I might actually take a little more time to consider the request. Adambro (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - IDONTLIKEIT and OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST arguments are utterly irrelevant, the debate should be on whether the image is within scope. I feel it is as it's a work by a notable artist. The reason these things get DRed is because we in the western world tend to see the jews as the persecuted ones (because of the holocaust and centuries of pre-hitler things - ever heard of The Merchant of Venice?) As such, we tend to sympathise with them, and give them the benefit of the doubt. We feel uncomfortable with people who paint the jews in a bad light. We need to stop that, and realise that there is no right side here - both sides are killing the other, and this image helps to show it. Maybe we need more anti-palestinian imagery to balance it out, but there is no reason to suppress work by a notable artist simply because we don't like the views the piece espouses. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. I can't see any worthwhile use for this image. Stifle (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly question your suggestion that there is no "worthwhile use for this image". Please see my reply to Mbz1 (talk · contribs)'s delete vote above. Adambro (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete has nothing to do with the Wiki-spirit. --Shmuel haBalshan (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What "Wiki-spirit" are you referring to? The one that immediately springs to mind in relation to this image is that "Commons is not censored". "The lack of censorship means that a lawfully-hosted file that is within scope will not be deleted solely on the grounds that it may not be “child-friendly” or that it may or does offend you or others for moral, religious, social or other reasons." The policy continues, "The counterpoint to that is that the statement “Commons is not censored” is not a valid argument for keeping a file that falls outside the permitted Commons scope". You, or anyone else supporting the deletion of this image, haven't demonstrated that this image is beyond the project scope and, in my reponse to Mbz1 (talk · contribs)'s delete vote above, I would suggest I've presented a reasonable argument that it is in fact completely within scope. Adambro (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I note that Mbz1 (talk · contribs) has been engaging in canvassing, encouraging those who he must presume will be sympathetic to his opinion to vote delete in this and the related deletion requests. Adambro (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete What's the use of it for wikipedia? Wikipedia (Commons) is not a personal "photo bucket"; especially propaganda for or against something should only be contained in a regulated way; just as there are also criterias for nude/pornographic pictures/illustrations, there have to be regulations for propaganda material; and a anti-israel-caricature of an israel-critic or even anti-israel cartoonist, who publishes lots of caricatures/cartoons with this spirit under free license on commons, thats really not that what commons should be made for. -- Otto Normalverbraucher (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that Mbz1 (talk · contribs) encouraged you to vote delete on this and the related images on your talk page. It seems that whilst you have done so, you've not actually explained why it should be deleted in relation to our policies and guidelines. I'd ask you to take the time to review my above comments made yesterday in response to Mbz1 and Shmuel haBalshan's delete votes where I explain why this is in scope and how Commons is not censored for the benefit of those individuals who find certain images offending. If you could explain with reference to my comments why this should be deleted that might be more useful. It is important to realise that the closing admin's decision will be based upon the quality of the arguments for and against in relation to our policies and guidelines rather than simply counting up the votes. Adambro (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep People are only to trying to get this deleted because they don't like it. This is a work from a notable artist released under a free licence, clearly in COM:SCOPE. Multichill (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This should have been done as a mass-deletion request, including Commons:Deletion requests/File:Double Standard.gif and possibly others.  Question Should we treat hate-material differently to other material. en.wikipedia allows certain material (which would otherwise be deleted) to be kept, if and only if it has a legitimate use in an existing article. Could we and should we apply a similar principle here? Keep the stuff that is being used, delete the stuff that isn't? As Otto correctly says, that is broadly the approach we take with pornography and erotica - keep enough to satisfy legitimate uses, but do not keep everything that is uploaded. Why not treat hate propaganda in a similar way? Regards, Ben Aveling 22:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment The problem is that it isn't "hate propaganda" in any way. Those who say it is just want it deleted because they disagree with the political views expressed in the cartoons and that is in no way a valid reason for deletion. // Liftarn (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The Commons carries a large number of political cartoons from various periods and from a range of political perspectives. These include grossly racist images. The only objections raised seem to be against anti-zionist satire. In fact there seems to be a positive offensive taking place at the moment against such images. The Commons is not censored. --Simonxag (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General opinion here seems to be that the image is within scope, and so should be kept. That is not to say that the image is necessarily true or good, just that it is free and a work by a notable artist with potential educational value. That we keep this image is not an endorsement of the artist's politics - we are not concerned with that here, other than for categorisation purposes. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Delirious-of-the-moon.jpg

[edit]

Out of Scope - Abigor talk 05:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission: since December 24, 2008

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vanessa_marcil.jpg

[edit]

Deeply dubious - no exif, etc. Megapixie (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete More than dubious: an uncropped version can be found on the web. --Eusebius (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Aventuriers_du_Rail_Europe.jpg

[edit]

derivative work Polarlys (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The boarding game itself is copyrighted, these people are not of interest and this file is used to illustrate this boarding game. Reproducing copyrighted work and adding some arms and hands does not result in an image without copyrighted content. --Polarlys (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. You cant even see the plan. You see no details, you cannot read any word on the plan. This is never a reproduction. The deletion request is only ridiculous. Keep. --Peng (talk) 11:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete The plan is not "de minimes" because it is the main focused object of the image. Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 15:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per Polarlys. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. COM:CB#Board games. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Fot33_81.jpg

[edit]

derivative work, original photograph uncredited. Eusebius (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:800px-Flag_of_Bahrain_28bordered_29_svg.PNG

[edit]

Rendered version of File:Flag of Bahrain (bordered).svg, but with slight amendments. Look closely at the red area, you will see some writing (?) in lighter red. I doubt that this is some kind of official flag, thus this is out of project scope. Not in use on any projects. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete. Subtle but sloppy addition of some kind of words on national flag. On the assumption that the author lacks notability, it's not an educational example of any notable person's work, and has no other reasonable way to meet COM:SCOPE since it has this writing on it and therefore is almost certainly not official. --Closeapple (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Benzinni´s_Skull.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope, not used. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other work by this uploader is also not likely to be useful:
/Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. Out of scope. By the way, what does ”Benzinni” mean? Is ”Benzinni” some artist or some character? --Joku Janne (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit puzzling what Benzinni (Benzini) is; File:Giuseppe_Benzinni_Documents.jpg seems to show identity cards of User:FranciscoBaboSilva. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope. Also File:Truca Truca PUH PUH Business Enterpresies of Commerce of Raw and Manufactured Stuff.jpg and the rest of his uploads. Lupo 11:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:St_pauls3.jpg

[edit]

While maltavista.net, where this image was found, allows use with attribution (though derivative works or commercial use are not mentioned), the image copyright does not belong to maltavista.net, so the PD claim appears to be invalid. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Lupo 11:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Aerialviewvalletta.jpg

[edit]

While maltavista.net, where this image was found, allows use with attribution (though derivative works or commercial use are not mentioned), but the site takes images from other disparate sources, and there is no evidence that the site has any authority over the image copyright. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

maltavista autorise l'utilisation des photos de son site «the use of copyrighted materials is allowed strictly with a hyperlink to MaltaVista.net» sauf mention contraire comme sur cette autre photo.-- • Hamelin [ de Guettelet ] • 23:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that the site's terms of use allows "use of copyrighted materials" as long as there's a hyperlink. My point is that:
  1. I question whether the site has any right to release copyright. It takes images from a lot of different sources, and there isn't any indication that this site got clearance to use any of it.
  2. Even if this site was somehow allowed to distribute copyrighted images, "use" doesn't get into commercial use, redistribution, or derivative works.
Plus, the image you linked to says "reserved by author", but it doesn't other to mention the author. I don't think we can trust this site as the final word on copyright status. --Ytoyoda (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you add a hyperlink to a printed photograph? I think that the given authorization is a little too restrictive for Commons, because of its formulation. --Eusebius (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Lupo 11:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Chart_Russell_Street_Bombing_27_March_1986.pdf

[edit]

Image from here are copyrighted. That makes this pdf not free. Abigor talk 05:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Lupo 11:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:CaptDMGNov20.JPG

[edit]

Not sure if we can accept this license, please approve. →Na·gy 09:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"PD-because|published by Fiscalía General de la Nación de Colombia"; I have no idea, just copying the license here to get some more response. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete, at least the website http://www.fiscalia.gov.co/finicio.asp says Derechos Reservados, means nonfree. Images from columbian gov are not public domain, maybe this is the uploaders misunderstanding as you can see in his contributions. --Martin H. (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete, the uploader don't knows about the licenses. Initially tagged this image as {{PD-US-Gov}} [2]. And the page of the Fiscalía have copyright in the texts and images. --Taichi (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Lupo 11:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cleri001.jpg

[edit]

personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Lupo 11:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:CharmaineSheh2.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyvio, as author is given as 记者 (i.e. journalist) rather than 本人 (myself). --KTo288 (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Lupo 11:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:AnEasyFriend.jpg

[edit]

It isn't used, and is nonencyclopedic Jonjames1986 (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Henryherbertlogo.jpg

[edit]

Logos are usually protected, and from what I know signatures themselves are copyrightable in UK. Eusebius (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:TelAvivbuststop.jpg

[edit]

A sheer call for violence without any historical, documentary or illustrative value. This image is not used in any Wikimedia project. --Drork (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I hardly consider this a "call for violence" but my perspective is more objective. Its meaning is certainly ambiguous enough to be considered one of Latuff's more non-sensical work, and I think its inclusion provides nothing for the project. We have plenty of Latuff illustrations. Unless someone can think of a worthwhile reason to keep this, I suggest we remove it. Bastique demandez 20:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep as it's not a valid reason for deletion even it it was true. We have been having this discussion many times earlier. Commons isn't censored et.c. // Liftarn (talk)
  •  Keep It merely makes a political statement. This is an enciclopedia, not a seminar. We are uploading thousnds of Nazi propaganda files, from the German Archives, in these days. A bonanza for the historians, including those of the Holocaust, who will have first hand documentation. However, they are rather disturbing to read. Shall we delete them for this fact? --User:G.dallorto (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This particular image makes no discernible political statement. Please pay attention to the image we're discussing. I don't agree with all of Dror's nominations but I certainly agree with this one. Bastique demandez 23:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why does that matter? If it doesn't illustrate his work well, doesn't have a clear message, etc then the other content projects don't have to use it. It's not our place to restrict their choice, per COM:SCOPE.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Multichill (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:TelAvivbuststop.jpg

[edit]

A sheer call for violence without any historical, documentary or illustrative value. This image is not used in any Wikimedia project. --Drork (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I hardly consider this a "call for violence" but my perspective is more objective. Its meaning is certainly ambiguous enough to be considered one of Latuff's more non-sensical work, and I think its inclusion provides nothing for the project. We have plenty of Latuff illustrations. Unless someone can think of a worthwhile reason to keep this, I suggest we remove it. Bastique demandez 20:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep as it's not a valid reason for deletion even it it was true. We have been having this discussion many times earlier. Commons isn't censored et.c. // Liftarn (talk)
  •  Keep It merely makes a political statement. This is an enciclopedia, not a seminar. We are uploading thousnds of Nazi propaganda files, from the German Archives, in these days. A bonanza for the historians, including those of the Holocaust, who will have first hand documentation. However, they are rather disturbing to read. Shall we delete them for this fact? --User:G.dallorto (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This particular image makes no discernible political statement. Please pay attention to the image we're discussing. I don't agree with all of Dror's nominations but I certainly agree with this one. Bastique demandez 23:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why does that matter? If it doesn't illustrate his work well, doesn't have a clear message, etc then the other content projects don't have to use it. It's not our place to restrict their choice, per COM:SCOPE.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Multichill (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Roadtonowhere.gif

[edit]

A sheer call for violence without any historical, documentary or illustrative value. This image is not used in any Wikimedia project. --Drork (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep as it's not a valid reason for deletion even it it was true. We have been having this discussion many times earlier. Commons isn't censored et.c. // Liftarn (talk)
  •  Keep It merely makes a political statement. This is an enciclopedia, not a seminar. We are uploading thousnds of Nazi propaganda files, from the German Archives, in these days. A bonanza for the historians, including those of the Holocaust, who will have first hand documentation. However, they are rather disturbing to read. Shall we delete them for this fact? --User:G.dallorto (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It is saying: "Occupation: road to nowhere", that is not a call for violence. It could illustrate articles or wikibooks) about the debate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Art is art. Latuff is notable. Commons is not censored. Megapixie (talk) 09:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. Absolutely not a call for violence, but against oppression and violence. Important historical, documentary and educational value. Potentially useful work by notable artist. Acceptable license. --5ko (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep As I strongly object to these kind of sensationalist deletion requests. Suggesting this is a "call for lethal violence" is simply nonsense. Present a reasoning for deletion without such ludicrous comments and I might actually take a little more time to consider the request. Adambro (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep People are only to trying to get this deleted because they don't like it. This is a work from a notable artist released under a free licence, clearly in COM:SCOPE. Multichill (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Multichill (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Teacher_writing_on_a_Blackboard.jpg

[edit]

Was marked for speedy deletion, the reason given was:

I am the copyright holder and the posting of this on Wikimedia Commons violates the copyright. I am requesting a speedy deletion. Tostie14 (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this file has been reviewed by FlickreviewR in 2007. Regards, →Na·gy 12:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some more information on the file, supplied by User:JesseW. This is from an independent movie Yellow Lights by Tostie14. It is a good image, in use on 35 pages in 22 wikipedias.  Keep /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter if it is a good image if I am requesting it be deleted and all usages removed? Tostie14 (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You had released it on a free license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The fact it is a good images does not mean anything. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As was noted on the entry for this photo, there was a personality rights warning. The reason I have changed the license on this photo and requesting it be taken down is because the subject of the photo (the teacher) is requesting that all uses of it be removed. 98.176.40.91 07:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been tagged speedy again[3]. --Túrelio (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Zirland: In category Other speedy deletions; no permission


File:Teacher_writing_on_a_Blackboard.jpg

[edit]

For privacy reason; request by photographer and depicted person, who seems to be a real teacher at a real school. Depicted person is clearly identifiable and, as per photographer and original requester[4], has never signed a model release. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, though it is a great shot and as of yet we don't have optimal replacement images (File:Chelsea, England, Spelling Lesson, 1912.JPG, File:031118-F-0000S-008.jpg, File:Landaff 1940s.jpg, File:Aschiana in Mazar-e-Sharif.jpg). It is not that much in use anyway. --Túrelio (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Pieter, this DR is not about copyright/license. It is all about an individual that does not want her fully identifiable image distributed all around. Obviously the Flickr uploader and/or photographer wasn't fully aware of that initially. Though we don’t know all the details, a teacher is not an actor, who would have to tolerate a bit more publicity. Contrary to other cases, the image has been removed from our source (Flickr). This suggests that the request is honest. Anyway, in the very unlikely case that this request wasn’t for the declared personal reason, but to allow full commercial exploition, we would be able to restore the image, as we have a positive Flickreview report. Taken together this is not (or less) about law, but about courtesy against another human being. And, yes, it is sad to loose this image. --Túrelio (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commons has gazillions of images without a model release - it is not a reason to delete. This image was used in 35 pages in 22 wikipedias before it was deleted out of process. It is an excellent photo, with proper release of copyright by the author. The subject is in a movie, and that film has not been withdrawn as far as I can see. And indeed, the photo is shown here, where the subject is identified by name. And this photo is still avaliable on a free license on Flickr. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's indeed a little bit strange. Thanks for the thorough research. --Túrelio (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 DeleteIf you would like the full history of how this photo ended up here, I will provide it. I am an Olin College professor, and this is a photo of me, taken while I was an extra in a student-produced film at Olin College. The photo was taken by our college photographer, and was not the first time he had taken photos during a student activity. His photos belong to the college and in the past were used only for college publications. This is the expectation I had when the photos were taken. The student film producer posted many of the photos on Flickr on a free license. I was not aware of this until I saw this picture being used in an ad that I saw on Facebook. Since then, I asked the student film producer to remove the permissions on Flickr, and I have attempted to have the photo deleted from as many sites as I could. I did not realize that it appeared on Wikipedia until just a few months ago, and realized the matter was even more urgent when I saw my photo in a Wisconsin political ad, clearly taken from Wikipedia. I did not sign a model release and would prefer that the clearly recognizable image of me not be used. It seems easy enough to make the decision to delete it from Wikimedia Commons. I realize that I may never be able to track down every last usage of this photo on the web, but if it is deleted from here, that will help matters greatly. I apologize if I am not following the correct format to comment here, but I only created an account to be able to explain the situation.Professicat (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to en:Personality rights#United States, Wisconsin adopted a statute about personality rights; you might be able to sue them for damages for the political ad. And indeed, a TinEye search shows that your image is widely used. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, ask Pieter and you surely get an unexpected, but substantiated proposal ;-). However, since we now know the background history, we should really delete the image to avoid further damage to the depicted Lady. --Túrelio (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This photo may have to be removed because it lacks permission by the college photographer, Michael Maloney (college photostream on Flickr). It seems likely that it is a work for hire, that the college owns the rights, and that Tostie did not have the right to give it a free license on Flickr.  Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Yes, the file is good. And yes, free licenses are nor revokeable. But, per the concerns raised above (questionable copyright holder, personallity rights, ...) we can't be sure, the file is free enough to keep it. abf «Cabale!» 10:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Penis_esp.jpg

[edit]

because the image might not be apropiate for minors 189.157.113.72 01:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Barcex (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lanternaverde.jpg

[edit]

Would like clarification on the uploaders relationship to the artist in question Megapixie (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: Cover of Green Lantern - Rebirth 01

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:5-dead-goebbels.jpg

[edit]

No evidence that the author died before 1951. Kelly (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, the 1951 clause is only for identified authors, the cameraman was never seemingly named as it was a videoreel shot for official state purposes (and one could suggest, propaganda). Sherurcij (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Image was taken in Berlin, Germany by Soviet troops, there is no evidence, that the photo was first published in the Ukraine, but this file was at first tagges as PD-Russia, it was only changed after the Copyright in Russia was changed to 70pma. Most likly PD-Ukraine is just tagged, because it is not PD in Russia any more. sугсго 14:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the Ukranian template requires the work be Ukranian or Soviet to be Public Domain in the Ukraine. It's ambiguous at best, and something to be argued about with the people who designed the template, the people who moved PD-Russia to PD-Ukraine and others...not to be settled on the Deletion forum with individual files. Sherurcij (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beside of that: no exact source is mentioned! So who can prove that this file os PD-Ukrainia or something else? Delete because of incomplete source information. -- High Contrast (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the source information, I hope that helps :) Sherurcij (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You point to an 11-2 "Keep" vote that is being appealed as as "custom that we delete these files"? That seems like shaky ground at best, and you can't really point to a policy about interfering in private family matters as relevant to somebody who's been dead more than fifty years...can we show the body of JFK? King Tut? Where will your insanity end? You've tried to have photos of Goebbels, Al-Zarqawi and American soldiers all deleted from the project because you consider them "morally repugnant", I'd suggest it's your blatant POV and revisionism that's so repugnant. Sherurcij (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if you could at least demonstrate a minimum of respect for your living fellow contributors of Commons. Your vituperation is totally out of order. Rama (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I demand an immediate apology for uttering "revisionism" at me. Rama (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You want me to censor myself? To historically revise my opinion of your history of attempts to have files deleted? Shall I excise any such mentions? Sherurcij (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I merely want you to refrain from insulting people and committing libel, but since you refuse to do so, I have filed a complain. Rama (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zarqawi dead us govt photo.jpg closed today as Kept, so I think the argument of "omg, dead bodies! last week we decided to delete them all and start a purge!" is thoroughly discredited. We have had one or two isolated instances of administrators injecting their own POV and making bad judgment calls deleting pictures they found "distasteful", we have the same with sketches of sexual positions - that's just how administrators are. Their flawed actions do not set a precedent for policy, and are typically overturned. Sherurcij (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sketches of sexual positions have a demonstrable encyclopedic value, and humiliate nobody. That is quite the opposite of parading bodies of defeated enemies.
My argument is that both in text and in practice, we do not tolerate this sort of images; I do not think that you can deny this. And that is without even addressing the copyright status of the images in question. Rama (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think Sherurcij has made a good point here. Rama may feel that sketches of sexual positions humiliate nobody. Personally I agree that they have value here, but I am sure there are lots of people who don't wish to have them covered, who would argue that they outrage them, and can dream up scenarios in which sketches of sexual positions humiliate them. We all have unexamined assumptions. It is just normal human fallibility. I suspect an unexamined assumption here, in the unexplained distinction as to why potentially controversial images of sexual positions deserve defending, and potentially controversial images of dead bodies automatically deserve deletion.
Attitudes towards dead bodies is very culturally relative. A couple of years ago a CBC journalist did a segment explaining why grief-stricken Palestinian mobs carry around recently killed civilians, with their blood and gore still on them, and even jam reporters cameras into the corpses' faces. What we find, or don't find, morally repugnant about images of dead bodies, is culturally relative. Our personal moral repugnance is also a "learned response". We can choose to deal with our personal moral repugnance in other ways than nominations for deletion. This image is not some kind of snuff-porn.
If I understand Sherurcij's position, he thinks it has historical value, and, if I understand Rama's position, he thinks it doesn't. I suggest if we confine this discussion to the issue of whether the image has historical value. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP If the picture was taken by Russian military then wouldn't it be a work of the Russian government, it states it came from the Soviet archives. That should meet public domain criteria. Also this image is used on 8 pages in 6 projects. I'll again state that deleting distasteful pictures is NOT congruent with the ideals of wikimedia which is by definition non-biased and non-censored. These images, and the video they came from, document a historically significant event in my opinion. If we can use the SEAL's picture as justification for deleting recently deceased people, the same justification can't be used here since these people died over 60 years ago. Also we should be able to use Zarqawi as a policy to keep images that one finds "morally repugnant" but has a historical basis for being kept. Raeky (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes my argument does apply here. You might not be agreed, but I do make it. And what does the Russian Army have to do with anything? The Russian Army does not make its work systematically public domain, and the image was make in Germany, so it is life+70 year, and thus obviously not in the public domain. Rama (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone here know the official copyright status of images from the old Soviet Union? I know that the USSR was not a signatory to international copyright agreements well into the second half of the 20th Century. Both Farley Mowat and Robert Heinlein toured the USSR because the USSR routinely published pirate copies of books. They would pick a (low) royalty rate, and pay rubles into an account on the Western author's behalf. But the western author had to go to the USSR to spend those rubles -- which both Mowat and Heinlein did. Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I asked those challenging the picture to abandon arguments based on "moral repugnance", and instead address whether the image had historical value. Two weeks later, and no challenger has responded. So I am officialy stating a keep opinion here. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dead people for the sake of it have no historical value, certainly not. Furthermore, the copyright status of the file is at best unclear. Rama (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, if dead people have no historical value, how do you account for the use of this image on half a dozen wikis? Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP What's wrong with u people? Who are u to deprive comming generations (birth)right to our history? Who are u to decide what's relevant. Don't fancy the picture? Turn away! Make u sick? Go away! But leave important historic material to people who have sense enough to appreciate them and understand their true value. It's a shocking picture, no doubt. But it was a shocking war! And the picture did caught a tiny fraction of our history; removing it will be our loss! Correct me if I'm wrong! swed

Deleted. There is no proof given that the author died before 1951 so there is no proof this image is PD. Abigor talk 21:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Palm Beach Story McCrea Colbert trailer screenshot2.jpg

[edit]

It comes from video sale trailer, not theatrical trailer [5]. This trailer http://www.videodetective.com/titledetails.aspx?PublishedID=2856 is released by MCA Universal Home Video, as can be confirmed by viewing VHS Dolby HiFi / Beta HiFi in the last scene. Furthermore, the voice-over and text appear more recent. I could not find multiple theatrical trailers for this film. No reason given that this would be PD [6]. (In addition indication is not given that this film's copyright was not renewed.) --Dvdplr (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The image came from a theatrical trailer, as can be confirmed by viewing it at http://www.spout.com/films/The_Palm_Beach_Story/26004/2856/trailers.aspx. Thsi is one of multiple trailers used to promote the film. (The trailer on the TCM site is not the only one.) This is not a trailer for video sale, as claimed. The trailer's copyright was not renewed, as is well-known, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the film's copyright.

    Furthermore, I'd like to point out that the user account User:Dvdplr made its first edit at 00:12, 24 December 2008, and the first 40+ edits made by the account were in connection to uploads made by me from this trailer, raising real concerns about the identity and motivations of the user. Ed Fitzgerald (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I can find no indication at the source site that the trailer involved is not one of the original trailers for this film, which are in the public domain, or that the trailer in question is not in the public domain. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This trailer http://www.videodetective.com/titledetails.aspx?PublishedID=2856 is released by MCA Universal Home Video, as can be confirmed by viewing VHS Dolby HiFi / Beta HiFi in the last scene. Furthermore, the voice-over and text appear more recent. I could not find multiple theatrical trailers for this film. --Dvdplr (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : "voice-over and text appear more recent" could well be a direct quote from a comment I made to Ed Fitzgerald at en wiki. He hasn't used either the voice-over or the text in either of the images being discussed. Often more than one trailer was produced for a film and they were not registered for copyright seperately to the film, so the comment above regarding the copyright status of the film is irrelevant. If a production company has taken a public domain trailer and added text and voice over to it, it's possible that their derivative work could be covered by the copyright that protects the finished product, but only for those new elements that they have added to it. It's not possible for them to take individual frames from a public domain work and apply the copyright to those frames if they're being used in isolation, which seems to be the case here. If I understand you correctly, you've obtained copies of this film and have watched it in both VHS HiFi and Beta HiFi in order to, in your own words, "confirm" what is contained there? Rossrs (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If MCA Universal Home Video added text and voice-over to theatrical trailer, this image is free. But the argument of such a supposition does not have evidence. I can find no indication at the source site that the trailer involved is one of the original trailers for this film. --Dvdplr (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The overwhelming question is why would they bother to create trailers for films when public domain ones are available already? In any case, there is no indication these are created and published by a home video release company and the site does not indicate they own the copyrights to the trailers shown. In fact, there is no way that you can reliable assert that this is not a single frame from a trailer released in the time frame falling under public domain. You also can find no indication at the source site that it is a trailer produced by MCA now. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably original trailer was old-fashioned and did not match advertising of the video sale, so MCA seems to have created a new trailer. Anyway should not upload images from questionable trailer, when a reliable theatrical trailer is possible to use. It's non-encyclopedic irrationality. --Dvdplr (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-encyclopedic irrationality" certainly sounds nice, but it really doesn't have any meaning here. The Commons is not an encyclopedia, it is a repository of images. If the image is indeed in the public domain, than there is no question that it is proper for it to be here, along with other images form the same film extracted from other trailers -- so there's nothing whatsoever "irrational" about it. As for "non-encyclopedic", again, this is not an encyclopedia, but if the reference is to en:WP, then its encyclopedic value for the article on The Palm Beach Story is apparent, since it is a picture of the film's two stars.
Probably? You are grasping at straws here, there is absolutely no indication that MCA created a new trailer, or even needed to create one. You are the only person who seems to think the validity of the trailer is valid, and the only irrationality I see here is your unprovoked personal attack. If that is the best you can do to argue that an image from a trailer, then you haven't a leg to stand on. This is a valid screenshot from a trailer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(User:Wildhartlivie may be potential gay who loves User:Ed Fitzgerald sickly.) I doubt his motive here, because his claim is so biased as well as this uploader. They resisted me repeatedly without proper source that the video sale trailer is public domain. --Dvdplr (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to request that User:Dvdplr please stop changing the claim made in the IfD notice? He or she had edited it a half dozen times now.

I'd also like to point out that the user's last remark is a personal attack. Ed Fitzgerald (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This two users (high school students? or teenagers?) seem not to be able to understand my IfD notice. Even if this image is maintained, I don't mind at all. It's the administrators' responsibility, bye-bye to barracks. --Dvdplr (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unacceptable disparaging remark, discontinue these, please. See this discussion ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You "don't mind at all", and yet 69 of your last 70 edits relate to these images. That strongly suggests that you do mind. Rossrs (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one has officially said this so far, desist in your personal attacks upon Ed Fitzgerald and myself. There is no excuse for your comments, either the "gay who loves User:Ed Fitzgerald sickly" or the disparaging comments about your view of our age, intelligence and maturity. If you cannot intelligently discuss this issue, perhaps you should stop, since there is nothing posted here that would cast doubt on a screenshot from a trailer of a film made in 1942. Please provide anything besides "seems" and "appears" in your opinion that there is a copyright on this screenshot, that a re-release company would bother to make a new trailer (for what??) or that the copyright would have been renewed on anything. This is nothing but hot air being blown because you took exception to someone changing the image in an article from one you wanted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Sanbec (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Palm Beach Story McCrea Colbert trailer screenshot3.jpg

[edit]

It comes from video sale trailer, not theatrical trailer [7]. This trailer http://www.videodetective.com/titledetails.aspx?PublishedID=2856 is released by MCA Universal Home Video, as can be confirmed by viewing VHS Dolby HiFi / Beta HiFi in the last scene. Furthermore, the voice-over and text appear more recent. I could not find multiple theatrical trailers for this film. No reason given that this would be PD [8]. (In addition indication is not given that this film's copyright was not renewed.) --Dvdplr (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The image came from a theatrical trailer, as can be confirmed by viewing it at http://www.spout.com/films/The_Palm_Beach_Story/26004/2856/trailers.aspx. Thsi is one of multiple trailers used to promote the film. (The trailer on the TCM site is not the only one.) This is not a trailer for video sale, as claimed. The trailer's copyright was not renewed, as is well-known, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the film's copyright.

    Furthermore, I'd like to point out that the user account User:Dvdplr made its first edit at 00:12, 24 December 2008, and the first 40+ edits made by the account were in connection to uploads made by me from this trailer, raising real concerns about the identity and motivations of the user. Ed Fitzgerald (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I can find no indication at the source site that the trailer involved is not one of the original trailers for this film, which are in the public domain, or that the trailer in question is not in the public domain. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This trailer http://www.videodetective.com/titledetails.aspx?PublishedID=2856 is released by MCA Universal Home Video, as can be confirmed by viewing VHS Dolby HiFi / Beta HiFi in the last scene. Furthermore, the voice-over and text appear more recent. I could not find multiple theatrical trailers for this film. --Dvdplr (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : "voice-over and text appear more recent" could well be a direct quote from a comment I made to Ed Fitzgerald at en wiki. He hasn't used either the voice-over or the text in either of the images being discussed. Often more than one trailer was produced for a film and they were not registered for copyright seperately to the film, so the comment above regarding the copyright status of the film is irrelevant. If a production company has taken a public domain trailer and added text and voice over to it, it's possible that their derivative work could be covered by the copyright that protects the finished product, but only for those new elements that they have added to it. It's not possible for them to take individual frames from a public domain work and apply the copyright to those frames if they're being used in isolation, which seems to be the case here. If I understand you correctly, you've obtained copies of this film and have watched it in both VHS HiFi and Beta HiFi in order to, in your own words, "confirm" what is contained there? Rossrs (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If MCA Universal Home Video added text and voice-over to theatrical trailer, this image is free. But the argument of such a supposition does not have evidence. I can find no indication at the source site that the trailer involved is one of the original trailers for this film. --Dvdplr (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The overwhelming question is why would they bother to create trailers for films when public domain ones are available already? In any case, there is no indication these are created and published by a home video release company and the site does not indicate they own the copyrights to the trailers shown. In fact, there is no way that you can reliable assert that this is not a single frame from a trailer released in the time frame falling under public domain. You also can find no indication at the source site that it is a trailer produced by MCA now. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably original trailer was old-fashioned and did not match advertising of the video sale, so MCA seems to have created a new trailer. Anyway should not upload images from questionable trailer, when a reliable theatrical trailer is possible to use. It's non-encyclopedic irrationality. --Dvdplr (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-encyclopedic irrationality" certainly sounds nice, but it really doesn't have any meaning here. The Commons is not an encyclopedia, it is a repository of images. If the image is indeed in the public domain, than there is no question that it is proper for it to be here, along with other images form the same film extracted from other trailers -- so there's nothing whatsoever "irrational" about it. As for "non-encyclopedic", again, this is not an encyclopedia, but if the reference is to en:WP, then its encyclopedic value for the article on en:The Palm Beach Story is apparent, since it is a picture of the film's two stars. Ed Fitzgerald (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably? You are grasping at straws here, there is absolutely no indication that MCA created a new trailer, or even needed to create one. You are the only person who seems to think the validity of the trailer is in doubt, and the only irrationality I see here is your unprovoked personal attack. If that is the best you can do to argue that an image from a trailer, then you haven't a leg to stand on. This is a valid screenshot from a trailer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(User:Wildhartlivie may be potential gay who loves User:Ed Fitzgerald sickly.) I doubt his motive here, because his claim is so biased as well as this uploader. They resisted me repeatedly without proper source that the video sale trailer is public domain. --Dvdplr (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to request that User:Dvdplr please stop changing the claim made in the IfD notice? He or she had edited it a half dozen times now.

I'd also like to point out that the user's last remark is a personal attack. Ed Fitzgerald (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This two users (high school students? or teenagers?) seem not to be able to understand my IfD notice. Even if this image is maintained, I don't mind at all. It's the administrators' responsibility, bye-bye to barracks. --Dvdplr (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unacceptable disparaging remark, discontinue these, please. See this discussion ++Lar: t/c 16:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one has officially said this so far, desist in your personal attacks upon Ed Fitzgerald and myself. There is no excuse for your comments, either the "gay who loves User:Ed Fitzgerald sickly" or the disparaging comments about your view of our age, intelligence and maturity. If you cannot intelligently discuss this issue, perhaps you should stop. Since there is nothing posted here that would cast doubt on a screenshot from a trailer of a film made in 1942. Please provide anything besides "seems" and "appears" in your opinion that there is a copyright on this screenshot, that a re-release company would bother to make a new trailer (for what??) or that the copyright would have been renewed on anything. This is nothing but hot air being blown because you took exception to someone changing the image in an article from one you wanted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Sanbec (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:RyanOnealMugshot.jpg

[edit]

Not GFDL.... PD-US maybe... where do we stand on mugshots ? Megapixie (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Mugshots are assumed copyrighted unless under some type of PD-US-Gov (like made by the FBI or other federal organization). Check out en:Template:non-free mugshot. In fact, the original image permission from the en wiki upload says "None. Usable under Fair Use guidelines only." --Yarnalgo (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Double Standard.gif

[edit]

A sheer call for violence without any historical, documentary or illustrative value. This image is not used in any Wikimedia project. --Drork (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep as it's not a valid reason for deletion even it it was true. We have been having this discussion many times earlier. Commons isn't censored et.c. // Liftarn (talk)
  •  Keep It merely makes a political statement. This is an enciclopedia, not a seminar. We are uploading thousnds of Nazi propaganda files, from the German Archives, in these days. A bonanza for the historians, including those of the Holocaust, who will have first hand documentation. However, they are rather disturbing to read. Shall we delete them for this fact? --User:G.dallorto (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Political cartoon by notable artist. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Hardly a call for violence; this image makes a particular discernible political statement. Bastique demandez 23:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Art is art. Latuff is notable. Commons is not censored. Megapixie (talk) 09:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. Absolutely not a call for violence, but against violence. Important historical, documentary and educational value. Potentially useful work by notable artist. Acceptable license. --5ko (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep As I strongly object to these kind of sensationalist deletion requests. Suggesting this is a "call for lethal violence" is simply nonsense. Present a reasoning for deletion without such ludicrous comments and I might actually take a little more time to consider the request. Adambro (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question How many cartoons do we need from one cartoonist? See Carlos Latuff. I don't know how we'd pick and choose, but this many cartoons seems over the top... Regards, Ben Aveling 12:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do we need a limit? Surely it is in the best interests of the projects we serve for our collection of these freely licensed artworks to be as comprehensive as possible. Adambro (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep People are only to trying to get this deleted because they don't like it. This is a work from a notable artist released under a free licence, clearly in COM:SCOPE. Multichill (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment He's a prolific and skilled propagandist. If he was promoting, say, Coca Cola, there's no way we'd allow his work to be hosted here. It would be allowed on en.wikipedia, if and only if it had a 'legitimate use' in one or more articles.
      What this artist is selling is not a product, but violence against Israel, America and the West - his cartoons condone the deliberate killing of civilians, encourage the killing of soldiers, and encourage hatred of specific western nations and their leaders. It's the sort of stuff which could be useful as part of a balanced discussion, but I feel uncomfortable just treating it as any other picture. I agree there shouldn't be a blanket ban on hate-material. We already have a precedent for allowing restricted use of certain material on other wiki's. Perhaps this could be treated the same? That is: if it is used then we keep it; if it is unused, then we delete it? Regards, Ben Aveling 22:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC) PS. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:IsraHellburningbuses.png and possibly others, which probably should be dealt with as a mass deletion request.[reply]
      •  Comment Some people don't seem to like that his cartoons criticize the killing of civilians. // Liftarn (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Comment Several of this cartoons, including this one, argue a moral equivalence between deliberately killing Israeli civilians and accidentally killing Palestinians civilians. (Accidental in the sense of not intended, not in the sense of not foreseeable.) And yes, I don't like that. Killing civilians is bad. Deliberately killing civilians is worse. But we don't delete pictures because they are morally questionable, or because we don't like them. We do it because they are out of scope. And at the moment, no-one appears to have any actual use for this picture. Normally, that wouldn't matter - someone someday might find a use for it, and having it here doesn't hurt anyone. But this isn't a normal picture - it says "if Israel accidentally kills one of our children, the correct response is to deliberately kill one of theirs." Mbz1 believes that having this image here encourages terrorism. I suspect he's wrong. But I'm not sure of it. Given that the picture isn't currently used, maybe the risk of encouraging terrorism outweighs the possibility that someone might find a use for it? Regards, Ben Aveling 06:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Comment Isn't the risk of slipping into a regime of censorship far worse than any hurt feelings here ? Ignore the political argument that the image presents (it's irrelevant). Ask yourself the question - for images inside scope - who is the right person should decide what is allowable ? The answer is of course the null-set. Every person brings some political bias or agenda to every decision (and anyone who thinks otherwise is laughable naive). There is no such thing as "limited" censorship. Megapixie (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            •  Comment The concern isn't hurt feelings, the concern is that these cartoons encourage terrorism. Is that a concern we can completely ignore? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Commons should act here like news media, reporting without worrying about consequences. Consequence of this cartoon might also be that Israelis would learn something about an outside view, and maybe stop killing Palestinians. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • A responsible news agency will try to present a complete picture. That might include facts like: Palestinians deliberately target civilians, including children. Israelis try to avoid killing civilians, but they are certainly prepared to do things that are likely to kill civilians, and they have killed far more Palestinians than vice-versa. A responsible article might also explain that most Palestinian military infrastructure is built alongside civilian infrastructure - deliberately so, because otherwise the Israelis would destroy it. It might ask if being killed deliberately is worse than being killed accidentally. It might look at why Palestinian civilians are willing to be used as human shields. You can't cover that much ground in a single cartoon, and this one doesn't even try. It aims to create a moral equivalence between accidental killing in self-defence and deliberate murder, and to be honest. I don't see how this cartoon would be useful in presenting a balance picture. It might be useful as a topic for dissection, to discuss how careful selection of facts can persuade an audience. But at the moment, no-one is using it for that, or any other purpose. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              •  Comment No, the issue is that some people feel that a cartoon may encourage terrorism. It's still a matter of feelings and political views. // Liftarn (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Are you saying that cartoons can't encourage terrorism? I'm prepared to be persuaded that the risk is outweighed by the benefits - that was in fact my starting position. But I'm surprised that you think that propaganda is powerless to influence people. Propaganda most certainly can induce all sorts of emotions, including hate. Just look how much we in the West create to persuade ourselves to hate the enemy de'jour. I'm not of the opinion that we should ban all hate-propaganda from commons, certainly not. But I do believe it is potentially dangerous, and I don't think that we can treat it just as any other picture. This is no great departure from what we already do: we don't allow child pornography, we only allow limited quantities of erotica. We are very careful about images of private people, especially images that contain personal details such as address or other identifying material. We wouldn't publish floor plans to the whitehouse, for example. There are pictures that are not harmless in the effect they have on people. I believe this is one such picture. If we have a reason to have it, that is one thing. Absent any actual use for the picture, absent any context for the picture that would give the viewer a more complete and balanced view, I'm not comfortable. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If they would be available under a free license we certainly would publish floorplans of the White House (preferably in SVG format). We do have pictures of the White House. But please explain why do you think this image is so dangerous? // Liftarn (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. I started neutral, but the more I've considered the risks of keeping this picture (small but real) and the benefits (even smaller), the more persuaded I am that until we have a use for this picture, we should not have it. Most libraries have a restricted section. If they had an image like this, that is where they would put it. Absent any such mechanism, I don't see a benefit in keeping this picture. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why can't we keep it? We don't self-censor, so we don't need a mechanism to hide certain things away in the back room. Since we don't need that sort of mechanism, not having one isn't a reason to delete the image.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction. We do self censor - but only on very limited grounds. I'm suggesting that unless someone has a real use for this image then we should consider it to be out of scope. Most images, we give the benefit of the doubt - even if it they aren't obviously useful, well, maybe someone will find a use for them, and there's not usually any harm in keeping an unused image. But this image is potentially harmful, it is not used, it does not appear likely to be about to be used, and it can always be undeleted or recreated if someone does have a legitimate use for it. Yes, censorship is bad. But encouraging terrorism is also bad. I don't believe we should be a repository for every image this guy has created. The most important ones, yes. Any image that can be used to illustrate an article, or as part of a book somewhere, yes. But not every image, not just in case it is useful. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you bring up "encouraging terrorism"? That is an obvious straw man argument that in any case is irrelevant for this discussion. // Liftarn (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This particular cartoon encourages terrorism by portraying the (deliberate) killing of Israeli children on a bus as being the moral equivalent of (accidentally) killing Palestinian children. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you about what it depicts, however that isn't "encouraging terrorism". However, it's irrelevant since Commons isn't censored. I'd put the image into use right now, but that might be considered POINTy. Whether it's actually used or not is also irrelevant - the test is whether it could reasonably be used in an educational or illustrative manner. It very clearly can be.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Go on. How could this image be used in an educational or illustrative manner? Regards, Ben Aveling 04:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've explained exactly how this image in in scope on another of these deletion requests, please see my comments there. Adambro (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, you're saying that the only use for this work that you can see is to illustrate an article about the artist? Regards, Ben Aveling 05:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It can also be used to illustrate double standards (that is after all what the cartoon is about), propaganda et.c. // Liftarn (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really believe there is no difference between accidentally killing someone and deliberately killing someone? Because that is the claim the cartoon makes. If you accept that, then I guess you would accept that the are Israelis of guilty of double standards when they say that deliberately killing children is worse than accidentally doing so. Otherwise, the only double standard on display is the author's. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's irrelevant. Whether we accept the cartoon's claims or not (and I would dispute your interpretation) is immaterial to whether it has educational value. For example, one could use it to illustrate "those lunatic people who think accidentally killing someone and deliberately killing someone are the same thing" or whatever words you would like to use. Think beyond the Wikipedia project please - there are plenty of legitimate uses for this - whether you like the image itself or not.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Ben Aveling's comment, I'm most certainly not saying that the only use is to illustrate an article about the artist. What I'm saying is, despite your suggestions that this doesn't have any value, it is quite straightforward to consider a potential use for this image in an educational context. This seems to contradict your suggestion that this image is out of scope since it easily passes the requirement to have an educational value. Beyond that there may be other uses as Liftarn notes. I'd therefore question whether there is any policy basis for you opposition to hosting this image, especially when the policy that we don't engage in censorship is considered. Adambro (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It has no educational value. I suppose it could be used for anti-semitism in Brazil, but I can't see anyone rushing to write that article. There are better cartoons than this one for every purpose identified so far (article about the author, article about double standards). Is there a real article that would benefit from this cartoon? Because I can't imagine one. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've previously said, the implication of your suggestions that this is one of Latuff's more controversial works makes it more educationally valuable because it is more likely to be discussed in articles about Latuff or similar topics. I'd disagree with your suggestion about 'Anti-semitism in Brazil' because there is no automatic link between being critical of Israel and being anti-semitic, even with if it is a Jewish state. Making such a link just seems to be a convenient way to try to dismiss any criticism of that country by branding anyone who voices such an opinion as anti-semitic. I'm afraid ultimately that your basis for supporting the deletion seems to be merely "I don't like it" and as such it is unlikely to convince anyone to disregard the core Commons principle of being not censored for yours, or anyone else's benefit. Adambro (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  KeepThe Commons hosts many political and satirical images. Some of these are grossly racist. This image is not, but then if I was busily carrying out murder I suppose I might get a bit annoyed if someone shone a light on what I was doing. The Commons is not censored. --Simonxag (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Agree with everything BenAveling said--Mbz1 (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me try to sum up. We cannot agree what this cartoon means. No-one can suggest any use for it, which puts it out of scope: "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose".
    When I go through the comments made in favour of keeping this I find the following:
    • "Commons isn't censored" - Liftarn, Megapixie, Simonxag, G.Dallorto. That is an effective counter argument for the claim that this is anti-semetic, pro-terrorist propaganda. But it doesn't make the picture actually useful.
    • "notable artist" - Kuiper, Megapixie. Perhaps, perhaps not. Certainly not so notable that everything he does is automatically useful.
    • "makes a particular discernible political statement","a call ... against violence" - Bastique. The above discussion suggests that the meaning of the statement is far from discernible. Either way, it doesn't make the picture useful.
    • "people don't like it". Multichill. True, but people not liking something doesn't make it more useful.
    • "Potentially useful", 5ko. This is the only argument that carries weight. But no-one can suggest what it might be potentially useful for. If they can, I'll withdraw my vote. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC). PS. Apologies if I've misspelt anyone's name.[reply]
     Comment Despite your assertion that "No-one can suggest any use for it", suggestions have been made, it is just that you don't agree with them. The simple fact that numerous language Wikipedia's consider this artist to be notable enough to merit an article means that any of his artwork is "realistically useful for an educational purpose". As I have now said on a number of occasions, if this is one of his more controversial works as you imply, then this makes it only more "realistically useful for an educational purpose" because it is more likely to be discussed in an article about Latuff's works where including the illustration that is being discussed is beneficial to our readers. I do however, welcome your focus on whether or not this image is in scope, rather than whether or not it "encourages terrorism" etc. which seems much more dependent on your own opinions than based upon Commons policies. Now that your suggestion that it isn't "realistically useful for an educational purpose" has been disputed, the onus is on you to explain why this is the case. Adambro (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggested uses: "to illustrate an article about the artist", "to illustrate double standards", "those lunatic people who think accidentally killing someone and deliberately killing someone are the same thing". (I am not making this up.) Any image could be used to illustrate an article about the author, should we wish to create one. By the first argument, we'd never delete anything. Yet we do. Using it for the second article might be problematic since the meaning of the cartoon depends on context that isn't made clear to the casual reader. You'd need so many words to explain that, it would be better just to skip it and write about the topic instead. I don't think the third suggestion was intended to be taken seriously. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The important thing to note though is that we don't need to identify potential uses for this image, simply conclude that it is "realistically useful for an educational purpose", the suggestions have been provided in response to your demands and your apparent lack of understanding of the potential uses for this image. It seems obvious that the consensus is that this image should be kept, presumably based upon the opinion that it is in scope and is "realistically useful for an educational purpose" and so I would suggest the onus is on you to demonstrate to the community why this image isn't within scope if you wish for it to be deleted. It doesn't seem that you've really addressed this fundamental issue. Why is it not "realistically useful for an educational purpose"? You seem to be one of a few lone voices which are continuously asserting that it isn't in scope without providing any compelling argument as to why not. Adambro (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Useful for a purpose that no-one can identify? That's a bit sad. Commons is not a random collection of every free artwork on the internet. If one can't say how something is educational and can't say for what purpose it can be used, then it's not something that can be used for an educational purpose, at least, not without help. And lucky day for you, I can help. While I suspect that "those lunatic people who think accidentally killing someone and deliberately killing someone are the same thing" was intended either as a joke or as an insult, we do have an article on it, though not by that name. The article is 'Moral relativism' and if you can find a good way to work this cartoon into it, I'll happily strike my vote. Cheers, Ben Aveling 11:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to misunderstand. I've not said we can't identify a realistic use of this image, I have in fact suggested such a use, rather that it isn't really what we have to do in order to demonstrate it is in scope and so meets the requirement that the image must be "realistically useful for an educational purpose". It is for you to demonstrate this requirement isn't met since you want this to be deleted and it would appear so far that your attempts to do so have been so far unsuccesful judging by the clear consensus to keep this and the other Latuff images. I'm not going to try to manipulate this issue by adding the image to an article so that it is used although your suggestion that you think it would be possible to use it in the Moral relativism article seems to contradict your statements that it is out of scope because it isn't "realistically useful for an educational purpose". I'm afraid that none of us have a crystal ball which we can stare into to tell you where this image could be used and nor do we need to. Adambro (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When I come across new information, I am prepared to change my mind. Originally, like you, I could not imagine an educational purpose for which this image would be realistically useful. Having thought the matter over, it occurs to me that there might be one. Demonstrating through example that there is indeed a good use for this image would not be manipulative - it would be effective, if it could be done. It is not a matter of my disliking this image, or of your liking it. The purpose of commons to collect images that have a use. Images that are "realistically useful for an educational purpose", as you keep pointing out. If there is no use for this image then it is not "realistically useful for an educational purpose". Regards, Ben Aveling 04:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Hi, Adambro.Could you please be kind enough to explain to me how such one sided caricatures could be "realistically useful for an educational purpose"? The clue here is the word "realistically" . I just looked this word up in the dictionary. It says: "realistic - Expressed or represented as being accurate". So the question is how accurate caricatures of mr. latuff are? I agree that to show mr. latuff controversy Commons should have some of his caricatures, the question is how many. About him being a "notable artist".I just found his account on Flickr. I kind of doubt that a notable artists of any time will use Flickr to promote their images. I also found this quote by mr. latuff: "Once saved to your computer, share it with people. Upload it on different servers, make it available on websites and file sharing clients, save it to CD, make copies and distribute. Make these cartoons to reach people with no access to Internet.", which to me is a clear indication that he himself wants his work to be used only as propaganda. (I hope you find my comment enough polite. If no, may I please ask you to point me out my mistakes?)--Mbz1 (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mbz1, you seem to confuse educational value with tastefulness. Just because you consider these images to be distasteful, it doesn't mean they have no educational value. Just like images of Muhammed or nude images, many object about them but we use them on Wikipedia because it benefits our readers. I think you might be slightly confused about the meaning of "realistically useful for an educational purpose", "realistic" doesn't directly relate to "accuracy". For example, File:Mona Lisa.jpg might not be an completely accurate representation of its subject but this doesn't impact on whether it is "realistically useful for an educational purpose". This phrase refers to the possibility that an image will be used for an educational purpose, to illustrate an article on Wikipedia for example. "realistically useful" simply means that there is a reasonable possibility that the image can be used in such a way. I feel that this image is "realistically useful for an educational purpose" for illustrating Latuff's work in Wikipedia articles for example, whether the appropriate Wikipedia communities choose to use this image or another is up to them and we shouldn't try to decide this for them, instead serving them as per the scope of the project in providing a repository of freely licensed content which is "realistically useful for an educational purpose". I'm not sure of the relevance of Latuff having an account on Flickr, this certainly isn't of any concern in assessing an individual's notability on the English Wikipedia and I suspect this is the same on other projects. The motivations of Latuff in making these works available are also not particularly relevant to this discussion in my view. Unsurprisingly, he uses art as a means of expressing his opinions but that seems to be a common theme in art. Adambro (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adambro, thank you for taking your time to respond! May I please ask you few more questions? You said: "As I have now said on a number of occasions, if this is one of his more controversial works as you imply, then this makes it only more "realistically useful for an educational purpose" ". My question is how many more controversial works of latuff Commons should host to make his work "realistically useful for an educational purpose"? I believe that for most Commons readers seeing 4-5 of latuff caricatures are more than enough to get educated on his controversy, and IMO there is absolutely nothing else to be educated about.
    I would like to add that I have promised to a Person, who I respect very much that I will not take a part in any discussions any more. I've broken my promise, and I'm sorry about this. The thing is that I felt obligated to show my support to Ben Aveling, who got involved into this mess because of me. From now on, I am not going to comment on any hate propaganda images against the state of Israel not because I'm afraid to get blocked or even get death threats from very "fair minded" jihadists. I believe that the more I'm talking about mr. latuff caricatures, the more attention they get, and surely it is not my goal. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just briefly then, to respond to your comment as to "how many more controversial works of latuff Commons should host", we should host as many works by notable artists as we can obtain under a free licence since Commons isn't censored and they are likely to be "useful for an educational purpose". We aren't primarily serving Commons readers, we're serving the various Wikimedia projects. All of which have differing requirements for images but who all benefit from us having as comprehensive a repository of images which are freely licensed and "realistically useful for an educational purpose" as possible. Adambro (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose there are a few Ku Klux Klan supporters who would love to release their anti-African-American caricatures under free license and upload them here. Can they consider your statement above as an invitation to do so? Would you be the one who would answer the loads of rightfully angry emails? Because you know, African Americans are more diligent than Jewish people, and they will send emails. BTW, if someone here ever calls me "a bloody Jew", is it okay to erase his words, or would that be considered censorship? Drork (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Providing the content falls within our scope and as such is "realistically useful for an educational purpose" then it should of course be hosted here just like any other material which some may find offensive because of the core principle that Commons isn't censored. We're certainly not here to provide an outlet for controversial artists but that doesn't mean we disregard the Commons scope in an effort to eradicate what we don't like but is useful to those projects we serve. As I'm sure you'll appreciate, we already get masses of emails from individuals who object to content hosted across the various Wikimedia Foundation projects and there was an online petition organised to protest against Wikipedia's inclusion of images of Muhammed. None of this changes anything though and nor should it. A minority, however vocal, shouldn't dictate what the majority can see simply for their own benefit. Whether I would be the one to answer "the loads of rightfully angry emails" is an interesting question. As an OTRS volunteer I do get to see such emails but I'm afraid they receive little response, beyond perhaps highlighting our core policy of not censoring ourselves for the benefit of particular groups. Adambro (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting this example of the images of Muhammad, so let me remind you that these images are by no means offensive. In fact, they were created in the Middle Ages by Muslim believers for religious use. Back then, depicting Muhammad in an image wasn't considered problematic under Islamic law, and these images are a wonderful example to the changes in Islamic law over the years. Even so, Muslims who feel offended sent loads of emails asking to remove these images. I wonder what the reactions would be if real offensive images were uploaded. Beside false claims as if removing the offensive caricatures were censorship (deletion doesn't equal censorship, it depends what you delete and under which circumstances), I didn't hear one good reason about why these caricatures should stay. Most of them are not used in any project, and no one here suggested any illustrative or educational value for them, except maybe showing how modern antisemitism works (but then again, people rejected categorizing the images as antisemitic drawings). There are people here who keep saying that the caricaturist in question is a notable one - the article about him on en-wp is one of the shortest, it says his entire work is political and about one subject: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He did win a prize once - the 2006 Iranian International Holocaust Cartoon Competition. Notable indeed. This prize probably made him so notable that a huge collection of his "art" was uploaded onto the Commons. Drork (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting how you state that the images of Muhammed aren't offensive, the flood of emails and the petition would suggest a fair few people would disagree. The implication seems to be that that controversy is without merit yet this one suddenly is simply because you say so. I would certainly agree however with your statement that "deletion doesn't equal censorship, it depends what you delete and under which circumstances". The calls of censorship when an article on a non-notable web comic gets deleted from Wikipedia for example are clearly nonsensical. However, what seems to be proposed here in deleting these images seems very much like censorship to me. The motivation to remove them is simply based upon an opinion that these images might be offensive to a particular group. This, despite them being "realistically useful for an educational purpose" as is reasonable based upon the number of articles that Wikipedia have about Latuff. The good reason for keeping these images which you apparently haven't heard is that there are in scope. Your analysis of the level of Latuff's notability isn't really relevant. This is for each of the WMF projects which we serve to discuss, it is our duty to provide them with a repository of freely licensed content relevant to their work and we should continue to do so even where individuals find those media files offensive. Adambro (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several Wikipedias have articles about that South American caricaturists. They usually use one or two of his caricatures to illustrate what he does. That's it. Most caricatures that were uploaded here are of no use to any of Wikimedia projects. They show no historical event, they are not helpful to learn geography or physics, they are only helpful to learn about one South American person's views, and as a tool of propaganda against Israelis and Jews. This caricaturist became notable having won a competition in Iran for producing caricatures that mock the Holocaust. The Commons don't have similar caricatures targeted against other groups, unless having a specific historical or documentary value, like caricatures which were actually used by racist regimes or hoisted in racist demonstrations. You claim that I am relying on my own opinions, but as I said above, I am talking facts here. The depiction of Muhammad in some medieval drawings is NOT offensive, because they were made by Muslim believers in order to be used as illustrations in Muslim religious books. Many Muslims regard these images as problematic, but they cannot be said to be offensive. The caricatures we are talking about here were created in order to spread hatred, and the Commons is merely another tool at the hands of this caricaturist's supporters to spread hatred against Jews and Israelis. Do you really want to cooperate with them? Do you really want to open the Commons' doors for other people who want to promote hatred propaganda against African-Americans, Gay people, Asians? Drork (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be going around in circles now. You've again stated that "The depiction of Muhammad in some medieval drawings is NOT offensive" as if your opinion that this is the case is unquestionable. This seems somewhat peculiar considering the massive reaction to the use of such images on Wikipedia from Muslims. According to Wiktionary, offensive can be described as "Causing offense; arousing a visceral reaction of disgust, anger, or hatred". On this basis, it seems perfectly reasonable to say that a number of Muslims have found the images of Muhammed offensive, even if, as you suggest, "they were made by Muslim believers in order to be used as illustrations in Muslim religious books" and so the reaction is unexpected. I would therefore reitterate my "claim" that the basis of your argument for deletion is simply your opinions about what the images portray rather than Commons policies. You state that Latuff "became notable having won a competition in Iran for producing caricatures that mock the Holocaust". So? He isn't less notable from a Wikipedia perspective just because he mocks genocide, something which many people will find very inappropriate, so it really isn't clear why you make this statement unless it is your opinion that this makes him less notable.
You go on to say that these images "were created in order to spread hatred". I would suggest that the creator's motivation in creating these is irrelevant as to whether they fall within scope and are "realistically useful for an educational purpose". I appreciate your point that the creator might make these available under a free license in order for them to be more easily disseminated but again, whilst we of course wish to avoid being an outlet for their work, if the media file is "realistically useful for an educational purpose" then this also has no impact on whether we keep it. Considering these images to be in scope and so suggesting that they should be kept is in no way endorsing their message, it is merely recognising that they are "realistically useful for an educational purpose". It most certainly shouldn't be considered that any opposition of this or any other deletion is because what is being portrayed is agreed with. I don't wish for Commons to be a soapbox for "other people who want to promote hatred propaganda" but I do want to ensure that it is a comprehensive repository of content which is realistically useful for an educational purpose by our sister projects even if unfortunately that is sometimes a consequence.
Text at the top of this page states that "This page is 39 kilobytes long. Some older browsers may have trouble editing pages longer than 32 kilobytes." Perhaps this is a subtle warning that we've being discussing this for too long without any real progress. It seems unlikely that either of us are going to reconsider our position about this deletion and the clear consensus doesn't seem to have changed. I'll therfore, whilst appreciating the pleasent and civilisised way in which we've been able to discuss this, probably not engage too much in further discussions. Regards Adambro (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Don't take my word about the depictions of Muhammad, and don't believe a flood of e-mails either - just ask any educated religious Muslim, and you'll get the same answer I've got. (2) So far I haven't heard one single suggestion how these caricatures can be used in an educational way. Of course you can use them to demonstrate the work of caricaturist, but for that you don't need this huge gallery of highly problematic images. You might use them to demonstrate that antisemitism still exist, but then you'd better categorize the images correctly under "Category:Antisemitism". I am not at all comforted by the fact that by being here these images are suggested to have an educational value. That is exactly the problem here. Drork (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, to briefly respond to your first point, not being educated means someone can't be offended by something does it? I'm certainly not saying Muslims being offended by the images is rational but clearly they are offended by them and saying they're wrong for having this reaction is unlikely to defuse the situation. Moving to your second point, as I've said previously, this image is considered by both myself and others to be "realistically useful for an educational purpose". The most immediately obvious use is to illustate a discussion about this work or the works by Latuff in general but there are likely other possiblities also. You seem to imply that this is one of his more controversial works. Again I will reiterate that this only makes it more "realistically useful for an educational purpose" and therefore in scope. Your suggestion that this image could be categorised as antisemitism is somewhat debatable. This would seem to fall within New antisemitism since it doesn't appear to be an attack on Jews rather merely a criticism of Israel and those two things are very different. Whilst I would accept that Israel as a Jewish state is likely to be a focus for antisemitism, this doesn't mean that any criticism of Israel is antisemitic, suggesting that would seem to me to just be an easy way of trying to discredit any critical voices of Israel. It is a shame that you are "not at all comforted by the fact that by being here these images are suggested to have an educational value" but again Commons isn't censored for the benefit of you or any other group of individuals. Adambro (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for not being post-modernist and for talking about facts and not about speculations. It is not an opinion. I know, and you will know if you are willing to inquire, that the depictions of Muhammad are not offensive. If someone wants to be offended by them - I can't help it. On the other hand, the drawings of that South American caricaturist are meant to be offensive. That's their sole purpose. Furthermore, the depictions of Muhammad don't put any Muslim in danger. The drawing of that South American caricaturist are very likely to incite people to violence against Israelis and Jews. Perhaps living in North America or Western Europe makes this sound strange, but in the Middle East you don't need much to incite people. Adding to all that the lack of educational value, and you can come to right conclusion yourself. Drork (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing - by saying that the educational purpose of this image is demonstrating the work of the guy who draw it, you actually say that any image can be uploaded to the Commons. Any image can be used to demonstrate the work of the guy who has drawn it. By saying that deletion means censorship you are actually saying that the Commons have no scope. I hope you can see the contradictions in your argument, and how desperately you are trying to find arguments to protect these images. Drork (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That you think the cartoons were made to be offensive and that you think that they in some mysterious way you have never bothered to explain are dangerous is still not a valid reason for deletion. // Liftarn (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Playing innocent doesn't make your argements any stronger, Liftarn. Drork (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drok, as you note, "Any image can be used to demonstrate the work of the guy who has drawn it" but of course this doesn't mean that the work is within scope. The crucial additional requirement that I have already mentioned but you seem to have neglected to take into account is that numerous WMF projects consider this individual to be notable. I've not said deletion means censorship, I've said that the basis for this deletion is a desire for censorship, you don't like the image and that's it. Your suggestion that it isn't in scope, isn't "realistically useful for an educational purpose", has little merit and is just an attempt to give some credit to this deletion request. I am certainly trying to protect these images although hardly "desperately" since hardly anyone supports the deletion so it is likely to not succeed. Not because I agree with what they potray, as I feel you might be suggesting, but because I consider them to be in scope and so deleting them wouldn't be in the interests of the projects we serve. Whether the images by Latuff are meant to be offensive or not is completely irrelevant to whether they are in scope or not. Adambro (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the Commons, this South American caricaturist is the most notable artist in the world. The only reason why so many of his works are on the Commons is because he releases his works under CC license, and because some of his adherents are here. No one gave me another reason so far. Some Wikipedias have articles about him, but they used one or two of his drawings at the most. If these are the criteria for uploading an image to the Commons, then practically the Commons have no scope, anything goes. BTW, why is pornography off limit? Isn't it because pornographic material is meant to be over-provocative and is considered offensive? Drork (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate that more artists don't make their work available under free licenses. However, just because that is the case it doesn't provide a reason to delete large collections of images of work by those who do. There being an imbalance doesn't justify a deletion. You also state that another reason why we have these images is because "some of his adherents are here" but I'd warn you not to fall into the trap of assuming that anyone who opposes the deletion of these images is a fan of Latuff's work as I fear you may have done. Regarding your last point, my understanding is that images that could be described as pornographic are certainly not off limits. Numerous examples exist because, despite them being considered by some to be offensive, they are in scope, just like these images. Adambro (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Next time I'll get spam I'll tell them the Commons is the place they are looking for. Drork (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that it is you that is getting desperate rather than me. Adambro (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. It represents truth. Nothing else.

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Double standard Hebrew version.gif

[edit]

A sheer call for violence without any historical, documentary or illustrative value. This image is not used in any Wikimedia project. --Drork (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Singapore_flag_300.png

[edit]

This image was previously nominated for deletion but it was kept for the following reason: "Seems potentially useful in the absence of anything better. Please improve/overwrite it with a better version." However, the image has the wrong shade of red (too dark) and is completely replaceable by Image:Flag of Singapore.svg. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. For the second time. This image is in use on hsb.wikipedia.org. Please read COM:PS#"Neutral point of view". "Files that are in use in another Wikimedia project are in any event considered in scope and are not liable to deletion on the grounds that they are "wrong" in some way." You can see that flag colour is listed as a specific example. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


File:Singapore_flag_300.png

[edit]

This is the third time I'm nominating the file for deletion. It is no longer being used in any project (I have replaced the only occurrence of the file with a superior version) and so the file is now redundant, being replaceable by the SVG version File:Flag of Singapore.svg. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Superseded images are not deleted. ViperSnake151 (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a guideline which states this? I see nothing on this point in "Commons:Project scope" or "Commons:Deletion policy". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Images from geometria.ru

[edit]

All of these files, uploaded by User:DimaLevanov, are watermarked with geometria.ru. I suppose they were taken from that website and are copyvios. Until further proof I think we should not believe that they were actually taken by the uploader as stated. -- Rosenzweig δ 19:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:2009_China_Solar_Thermal_Trade_Mission_Introduction.pdf

[edit]

There is no proof that this image is free Abigor talk 05:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 05:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:2009_China_Wind_Energy_Trade_Mission.pdf

[edit]

No proof that those image are free. Abigor talk 06:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 05:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bnsigningmaireadnesbitt.jpg

[edit]

Improved version uploaded by original author on en.wiki; transwikied to File:Mairead Nesbitt BN signing.jpg. No article uses this particular version. Permission to delete given at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Celtic_fiddler. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:MCStudio.jpg

[edit]

screenshot proprietary program sk (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MCStudio seems to be a freeware. Confirmation by somebody understanding russian better than me would be nice. --Eusebius (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:P_progne.jpg

[edit]

Link to author suggest the image is released under the not allowed cc-by-nd-nc-1.0 license, in stead of the mentioned cc-by-3.0. Lymantria (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Xanthogaleruca_luteola.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/11914 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0, which is not allowed, rather than the mentioned cc-by-sa-3.0. Lymantria (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:C_interior.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/346 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Caterpillar_H_gracilis.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/346 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Top_A_milberti.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/346 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:A_milberti.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/346 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:C_gorgone.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/18107 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:C_gorgone_caterpillar.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/346 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ventral_M_cymela.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/346 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:S_eurydice.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/346 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Astraptes_fulgerator.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/11914 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 rather than the mentioned cc-by-sa-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Philotes_sonorensis.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/11914 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 rather than the mentioned cc-by-sa-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Satyrium_titus.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/11914 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 rather than the mentioned cc-by-sa-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Callophrys_mcfarlandi.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/11914 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 (not allowed) rather than the mentioned cc-by-sa-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Nadata_gibbosa.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/2098 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 (not allowed) rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Nysius.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/3253 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 (not allowed) rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Coniopterygidae.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/2098 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 (not allowed) rather than the mentioned cc-by-sa-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Caterpillar_V_virginiensis.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/346 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 (not allowed) rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:S_calanus.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/9190 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 (not allowed) rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:E_olympia.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/12307 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 (not allowed) rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:N_vaualbum.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/12766 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 (not allowed) rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Underside_N_vaualbum.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/19200 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 (not allowed) rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Roma-fosseardeatine5.jpg

[edit]

It dates from 1951. No FOP in Italy. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 04:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1977-160-12, Italienische Soldaten ergeben sich.jpg

[edit]

Although I think this is a historically important image and I would like it to stay, the German Archive copyright claim is highly unlikely. It is in fact highly unlikely that a German photographer was atop of the hill, amidst the British troops, to shoot images to be sent to Nazi Germany. This is patently a British image, stolen and reused for anti-Italian propaganda by the nazi after the 1943 Italian Armistice (read the caption...). A Crown copyright could therefore exist on such an image. Since author is unknown, I suspect the positive absence of copyright does not exist here. Furthermore, since the British army is mentioned, it does not fall under the clause putting in the PD images shot from employees of the Usa government. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC) --User:G.dallorto (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete --User:G.dallorto (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commons:Bundesarchiv, the Bundesarchiv (German Federal Archives) asserts that it owns sufficient rights to be able to grant a CC-BY-SA license for all images uploaded by the bot. Not just in this case, but in many cases this may seem surprising and unlikely to us. However, it is indeed possible that the Bundesarchiv in all those cases has really signed the necessary contracts to get the rights, and as it is a big institution with a lot of resources, I don't see why this shouldn't be the case. I therefore would opt for keeping all Bundesarchiv images including this one until proven that the Bundesarchiv's claim was made in error for a specific image. After all, this is not some random upload by an unknown entity - it's from a German federal institution and based on an agreement with Wikimedia. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I cannot agree in G.dallorto's speculation. The Bundesarchiv owns the sufficient rights to provide their images. --High Contrast (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This conjecture is not sufficient to call into doubt the Bundesarchiv's assertion that it owns sufficient rights to be able to grant a CC-BY-SA license for all images uploaded by the bot. Sandstein (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, first, I'm somewhat tired of seeing arguments along the line "the BArch says so". The BArch have done and still do a great job, but sometimes they do make mistakes, too. Two images were deleted... (and rightfully so; both have also vanished from the BArch site). But back on topic: if we assume that this photo was taken by a British soldier and was thus covered by Crown Copyright, and was subsequently "stolen" by the Nazis for "anti-Italian propaganda", then where did the Nazis steal this image? Most likely from an allied publication, no? Thus it was published around 1943. Crown copyright on photographs taken before June 1, 1957 expires 50 years after the photo was taken.[9]. Thus the image would be PD. Hence  Keep. Lupo 12:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the general "the BArch says so" remark: In specific cases where the Bundesarchiv itself acknowledges that they made a mistake (like the two deleted images) it's clear that the images should be deleted, but as long as we hear nothing from the Bundesarchiv, IMHO we just have to believe their claim, because we don't know their contracts, and if we start to question the validity of the BA claim fundamentally, we would have to question many non-PD images from the Bundesarchiv (the descriptions don't say on what base the BA owns the rights); there might be a contract giving the BA sufficient rights to be able to grant a CC-BY-SA license even in cases where we think it unlikely. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is still legitimate to question the BArch's claims. Note that the BArch only admitted they had made a mistake with the two deleted images after these images got nominated here for deletion and then somebody contacted the BArch about them, and their legal department re-evaluated their own license claim and arrived at the conclusion that it was unfounded. The BArch does and has done a great job. But copyright is complicated, errors do happen, and when the (very!) few questionable among these 100,000 images are questioned with reasonable arguments (like here), it saddens me to see a blanket "just believe the BArch" response. Nobody fundamentally questions their releases. The vast majority of their releases is undoubtly fine. But it's no surprise to find among that many images some that are unclear. In fact, I am surprised how well they did. Lupo 08:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: I'd still like to see a confirmation that the BArch indeed also holds the economic rights (Verwertungsrechte) on the sculptures of Fritz Röll (d. 1956) shown in the five photos they released. (Or an explanation why that wouldn't be necessary.) Lupo 08:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Per Lopo's argument --Jarekt (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Per Lopo --Yarnalgo (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. MBisanz talk 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:T_pylades.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/9190 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 (not allowed) rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0. Lymantria (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:A_lyciades.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/815 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 (not allowed) rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:A_senatoria.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/15 suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0/3.0 (not allowed) rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0 Lymantria (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:P_batesii.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/11914 on bugguide.net suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 (not allowed) rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0. Lymantria (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ventral_P_batesii.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/11914 on bugguide.net suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 (not allowed) rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0. Lymantria (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:P_lisa.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/5611 on bugguide.net suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 (not allowed) rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0. Lymantria (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:O_chryxus.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/871 on bugguide.net suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 (not allowed) rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0. Lymantria (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:C_nycteis.jpg

[edit]

Author link http://bugguide.net/user/view/3281 on bugguide.net suggests this image is released under license cc-sa-nd-nc-1.0 (not allowed) rather than the mentioned cc-by-3.0. Lymantria (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Libros_antics.jpg

[edit]

Painter (es:Rafael Moreno Pecino) is still alive (born 1945). Eusebius (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ninas_antics.jpg

[edit]

Painter (es:Rafael Moreno Pecino) is still alive (born 1945). Eusebius (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mao_1986.jpg

[edit]

Painter (es:Rafael Moreno Pecino) is still alive (born 1945). Eusebius (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mitterand_1986.jpg

[edit]

Painter (es:Rafael Moreno Pecino) is still alive (born 1945). Eusebius (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Diana_1986.jpg

[edit]

Painter (es:Rafael Moreno Pecino) is still alive (born 1945). Eusebius (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Banjo_2008.jpg

[edit]

Painter (es:Rafael Moreno Pecino) is still alive (born 1945). Eusebius (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Flors_dodegon.jpg

[edit]

Painter (es:Rafael Moreno Pecino) is still alive (born 1945). Eusebius (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:OleoPioXII.JPG

[edit]

This painting can't be older than 1940, i.e. after Pacelli become pope. Furthermore, unknown painter. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Artocarpus odoratissimus plod 6.jpg

[edit]

Image showing a copyright mark that does not match the uploader name --Tieum p (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This copyright mark was added by me according the willing of the author. There I am sending a allowence of the author:

Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 9:19 AM

You could use the pictures that I have sent to you freely. I would like to publish it with my name, just add "M.F Tirta" at the upper side of the pictures.


Kind Regard

M.F Tirta

For further questions, email me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpr (talk • contribs) 19:10, 2008 December 24 (UTC)

According to what you said, it is not your own work. Please modify to the correct author name. Tieum p (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also forward Mr. or. Ms. Tirta's permission e-mail to OTRS, stating which image it applies to. Lupo 11:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the uploader has failed to update the author or forward the permission letter to OTRS (I'm not sure if they would even accept it). Additionally, all other images uploaded by this user have the same problem, including:
The last one is credited to "Martin Smetana," for whom Kpr has not produced a permission letter. I'm expanding this deletion request to cover all of these. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Still no OTRS permission Huib talk 04:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Thurn_und_Taxis-boardgame.jpg

[edit]

derivative work Polarlys (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Rene-3.png

[edit]

looks unlikely self-made; scope? Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 19:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Appears to be photo of a non-notable individual. Not in use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:BanderaUdeConce.jpg

[edit]

unused, very poor quality (only 69 × 46 px), superceded by File:BanderaUdeConce1.jpg --ludger1961 (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as smaller lower-quality version of File:BanderaUdeConce1.jpg. Wknight94 talk 03:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Agm-142_have_nap.jpg

[edit]

no evidence uploader had rights to release the image into the public domain with statement "It is a picture of my own porperty, i am an officer of the United States Air Force, ensign rank, im not aware if this image is or is not already on the internet, but it is not copyrighted." MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MilborneOne - I uploaded on Commons this PD presented picture I found on en.wiki as I did a guess based on en:Wikipedia:Assume good faith and I wasn't able to find this picture on original manufacturer's documentation. --EH101 (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Foundations.JPG

[edit]

I think it can be considered as a derivative work (several logos and protected illustrations). Eusebius (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If so, my apologies, I didn't realise that. Should it cause some (c) problems to WikiCommons, please delete it. --HTO (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe somebody with more experience than me in copyright issues might explain to us that for some reason the image can be PD (although it would look like "fair use" to me, which is not ok), but otherwise I'm afraid we should delete it. Merry Christmas anyway! --Eusebius (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no problem; I just apologise for causing you inconvenience. Next time I take pics of books in a library, I will try to make sure there is nothing that is copyrighted. The pic we discuss shows just 5 editions anyway, what is that as far as Dr. Asimov is concerned? A drop in the ocean... One more apology; joyeux Noël and a Happy New Year with less problems caused by dunces like me. --HTO (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People caring about what they do here are not a problem! Everybody just does his own part. Merry Xmas! --Eusebius (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:I-PR-Parma26.JPG

[edit]

Mazzacurati only died in 1969, therefore, copyvio for the monument, since there is no FOP in Italy. However, I am not listing this image as a straight copyvio since it could be decided tha the statue is not the main subject of the picture, But I leave the decision to a vote. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Monument aux partisans.JPG

[edit]

Mazzacurati only died in 1969. No FOP in Italy. I am not listing this image as a straight copyvio since it could be decided tha the statue is not the main subject of the picture, But I leave the decision to a vote. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:A_camouflaged_Il-2_ground_attack_aircraft.jpg

[edit]

Image not found at given source. Kelly (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Albert_Einstein_declares_his_opposition_to_the_atomic_bomb.jpg

[edit]

Where exactly is the proof of non-renewal of this image (or at least evidence of a copyright search ?) Megapixie (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: What evidence do we have that this is even a U.S.-published photograph, let alone that it appeared with a copyright notice then was not renewed? Some sources credit AFP (Agence France-Presse), the 150-year-old French press agency. It could very well be work-for-hire for AFP, taken in a U.S. TV studio but published in Europe. Getty Images is claiming very recent copyrights on this image, but that's probably a bluff. However, this photo appears 3 times in Getty Images archives:
  1. 96g/50/huch/5726/23 (#3318683), photographer "Keystone/Stringer", source "Hulton Archive" — "Einstein Lecture — circa 1955: Mathematical physicist Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) delivers one of his recorded lectures"
  2. 97k/40/huty/6791/rescan1 (#3375195), photographer "Keystone/Stringer", source "Hulton Archive" — "Einstein's Warning — 17th February 1950: An animated Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) warns against the 'general annihilation' which nuclear weapons may cause. He was speaking out for the first time since the decision to proceed wth the H Bomb during the premiere of Mrs Roosevelt's weekly television show."
  3. APP2001012403922 (#51506621), photographer "AFP/Stringer", source "AFP" — "PRINCETON, : German-born Swiss-US physicist Albert Einstein, author of the theory of relativity, declares his opposition to the 'H' bomb and to the arms race between the USA and the USSR in a conference 14 February 1950 in Princeton during a TV broadcast which created a considerable stir in the United States and all over the Western World. (Photo credit should read AFP/AFP/Getty Images)"
So this image could have been first published in France, or in the U.S., or somewhere else. Commons:Licensing#France doesn't mention lack of renewals like the U.S. (It does mention that someone got sued fairly recently for copying a 1934 work, though.) One would assume AFP knows how to retain its copyrights in at least France, which would mean 70 years from 1950, which is 2020. If it was a personal work by Keystone (whoever that is), Getty Images shows images credited to "Keystone" as late as 22nd January 1964, which means that person was still alive, and in France that would mean personal copyright would not expire until at least 50 years from 1964, which is 2014. "Hulton|Archive" is now owned by Getty Images, but was a combination of a UK archive and a US archive, if that means anything. --Closeapple (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Keystone" is another photo agency: [10], Keystone View Company. Apparently an U.S. company. Since the photo was made at Princeton, I think it's reasonable to assume that it is a U.S. work. However, we're still lacking any evidence regarding the non-renewal of its copyright. Lupo 11:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same image is here, but something happened to the lettering "NBC". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The copyright can't belong at the same time to Getty, AFP and AIP Emilio Segre Visual Archives. There are too many copyright claims for my taste. That's usually a strong sign of copyfraud. Yann (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the "direct" Getty copyright is probably a fake. However, the photo is from February 1950, and there is no evidence of the original copyright registration whose lapse is claimed by the tag. I'm not familiar with the policy on Commons when an image is clearly within the last 70 years yet has neither evidence of copyright nor evidence of its lapse. --Closeapple (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. It's true that one of the aforementioned must be the only one with the copyright and the others are frauds. However the existing license is probably void and there is not sufficient information to declare this a pd image Badseed talk 01:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Map_of_Kose_small.png

[edit]

Better image available (Map of Kose.png). No need for this (duplicate) image any more. Iffcool (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Older image is not that bad after all, no reason to delete. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Palm Beach Story McCrea Colbert trailer screenshot.jpg

[edit]

It comes from website [11] or video sale trailer [12], not theatrical trailer [13]. No reason given that this would be PD [14]. In addition indication is not given that this film's copyright was not renewed. --Dvdplr (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded an incorrect version of this image in error. The correct image, taken from the PD trailer at Spout, has been uploaded under another name. The current image should be deleted. Ed Fitzgerald (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is the same scene, the shot in this file is from the film proper, and does not appear in the trailer, the source for the shot in File:Palm Beach Story McCrea Colbert trailer screenshot2.jpg. I accidentally uploaded this shot when I intended to upload the shot from the trailer. Ed Fitzgerald (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Badseed talk 04:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2008/12/24&oldid=21733969"