Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/12/26
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
I drop a bollock and save bad file (copyright violation) Gaj777 (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
No indication that the license given is valid. Per [1] at the source, I get a strong indication that it isn't. SchuminWeb (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Polarlys Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 14:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Source site is home to numerous copyvio images of Avril, no way to tell if this image is indeed PD Tabercil (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Non-GFDL image. Modification is not parmitted. Watermark should be kept as original at least. NakanoHito (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- FYI translation of what JSDF says on their poicy to reuse materials on the site:
- You may quote or redistribute any contents of JSDF Web pages by mentioning on its source explicitly. Note that some material quoted form third bodies are covered by their copyright and hence do not redistribute these non-JSDF copyrighted materials.
- It implies that any contents of JSDF site shouldn't be modified but can be redistributed if copyrighted by JSDF. The original descriptoion of File:Jasdf f2.jpg was simply wrong. It is not GFDL.--NakanoHito (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment If the question is about the original license than you should write the deletion notice on user:A&W talk page not mine. If the question is about watermark removal than please revert my upload or let me know and I will revert it - no deletion requests is necessary for that. --Jarekt (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: Does not allow for commercial use and/or derivative works
file uploaded under wrong name, duplicate exists at File:Bad_Vigaun_im_Bezirk_HA.png Joschi Täubler (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
no Freedom of panorama for statues Polarlys (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete I agree. 14:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Info If the statue is in the UK, as I think it may be, then it is fine. The UK does have FOP for statues. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Geodata and flagg indicate England. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_benefit.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. I didn't notice the geodata. It's fine. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
A derivative of non-free works cannot be free & I do not think this is de minimis. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Yes, you're probably right about this (At last we were able to agree on something!). I thought about this myself too. Sorry, I created extra work for you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Very small image (9 kB), no original source and author given (only uploader), likely copyvio. I have informed the original uploader. Rosenzweig δ 16:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete it. I uploaded that one when I was young Wikipedian :-) --BiH (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC) (Ka-El)
Deleted. uploaders request abf /talk to me/ 18:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work abf /talk to me/ 18:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Scan of a copyrighted trading card. MBisanz talk 20:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, also all rights reserved image from Flickr -> unfree. --Martin H. (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of scope; amateurish computer collage. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep So, you do not like my image, pieter? Thanks for nominating it to be deleted. It is excactly what I wanted to happen.About the quality of the image I agree. Of course it is not latuff. This image for sure would not have taken a second place in the controversial w:Iran w:International Holocaust Cartoon Competition like hate by latuff did, and that's why my image is right in the scope. --Mbz1 (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- So you admit that the point of this image was the disrupt the regular operations of Commons to make a point about your political beliefs? J.smith (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep – the image has a valid free license / Commons is not censored / We can't delete images just because we don't like them / etc. We can delete it when we delete File:IsraHellburningbuses.png. --Kjetil_r 13:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep obviously. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete courtesy of Adambro. Filing a crapload of silly DRs and hiding this one in the mix to obfuscate it is pretty low. I happen to like the image - it makes a clear point by usurping Latuff's style. However, it's entirely outside Commons' scope. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I admit that I do not like it, but this is the kind of private artwork that gets normally deleted on commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 20:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as it's outside scope (see COM:SCOPE#Examples) as it's self-created artwork without obvious educational use and created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack. // Liftarn (talk)
Neutral - I'm ambivalent on this. I want to say keep as a freedom of expression, but I also don't quite see how it's within scope. However, I lean towards in scope as it could be used on a page about Latuff and controversy. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)- Delete. I originally said that this should be kept but it appears that I was unfortunately misled into thinking this was artwork by Carlos Latuff as I suspect others may have been. Mbz1 (talk · contribs) seems to be leading a campaign against the works of Carlos Latuff and this image is pointless self-created artwork by Mbz1 which has no educational value and it is intended simply to disrupt. I am ashamed that I didn't spot this earlier and hope that others who have commented will take the time to review their position if they were similarly misled. I'd consider speedy deleting this if I hadn't already involved myself in these discussions. Mbz1 has uploaded a number of similar images and it is clear that his intention of doing so isn't to expand our collection of freely licensed media, it is to make a political point and further his own agenda. This image has no value whatsoever in illustrating any controversy relating to Latuff's work because it is self-created artwork. It's a shame that deletion discussions about images such as this tend to end up as political debates rather than debates about our policies and guidelines. Mbz1 must stop this kind of disruption if he wants to avoid being blocked. Adambro (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep -- I can't see a substantial difference bewteen the heavy polytical content of Carlos Latuff' works and the protest of Mbz1, in graphical form. If we are going to invoke educational value, none of them should be kept. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- The distinction is that the artwork by Carlos Latuff is by a notable artist and wasn't created simply to upload to Commons to make a point and cause disruption whereas this image isn't by a notable artist and the sole reason for its creation and upload is to express Mbz1's own personal opinions. This certainly isn't what Commons exists for and it is a great shame that this simple fact is apparently being disregarded because people may agree with Mbz1's view. Adambro (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- If I may, I 'd like to repeat one more time that "a notable artist" got a second place in the controversial w:Iran w:International Holocaust Cartoon Competition and to me it says it all.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- What's your point? Notability is notability, be it for good or bad (from your perspective). Political views don't affect notability. Would you say that Mel Gibson is not notable, simply because he's allegedly antisemitic? Latuff is notable, as is his artwork (and so is Hitler's - do we have that anywhere?). -mattbuck (Talk) 18:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- If I may, I 'd like to repeat one more time that "a notable artist" got a second place in the controversial w:Iran w:International Holocaust Cartoon Competition and to me it says it all.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I simply stated my own opinion, which is that IMO "a notable artist" and w:International Holocaust Cartoon Competition cannot coexist because, IMO, if "art" created by "a notable artist" could motivate to kill, this "artist" cannot be called "a notable artist" or an artist at all for this matter. After gibson movie was released there were some w:pogroms. That's why I do not consider him an artist either.So latuff and gibson might be called notable, but they are not artists IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -- Out of scope political comment by nobody of note. If an artist of note had created the parody, or it was widely published, fine. It's just a single users soapbox Hohum (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'll never understand why File:No Israel.svg is into scope while my image is not.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- The subject of this discussion is File:Hate by latuff kills.jpg. That there is a plethora of other images that might need to be deleted, but have not been, is irrelevant. I'll make my opinions about other requests for deletion on their merits. You haven't countered the fact that you aren't an artist of note, the image isn't famous, and is simply a reflection of your own beliefs. It has no place on commons, which is not your personal soapbox. Hohum (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'll never understand why File:No Israel.svg is into scope while my image is not.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- May I please ask you, if you believe that so called "notable artists" that create hate propaganda images could have place on Commons only because they are notable? No matter what, my image could make no harm, latuff images could.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Any image could cause harm, you could for instance print it out and get a paper cut. // Liftarn (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- In reply to Mbz1; As I have already said. On this page we are discussing your image, which doesn't belong on commons. We aren't discussing others that also might not. However, images by notable artists, is exactly what commons is for. It isn't a place for you to soapbox. Keep rereading this until you understand, it will save a lot of time later. Hohum (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Any image could cause harm, you could for instance print it out and get a paper cut. // Liftarn (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-educational work by non-notable person. Allegedly "educating" other Commons editors by intentionally clogging the Commons process to make a point is not generally educational and not within scope — indeed, it's closer to vandalism — this is specifically addressed on a sister project in en:Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Baiting the system to promote ones own views about a different Commons file is self-promotion and not within scope. Per COM:SCOPE, Commons is not for "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use", "Advertising or self-promotion", or "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality." Commons is not your personal free web host. --Closeapple (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Question - Please forgive me for insisting but I'm quite new to this kind of discussion. What about this image (and many other similar flags, not only of Israel)), whose deletion was opposed recentely ? Was it made by a notable artist or has it any educational value other than the obvious polytical propaganda? Maybe the comparison of the two discussions might shed some light on my obvious ignorance. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)- Delete Closeapple has basically said all that I wanted to say on the subject and said it very clear. This almost seems like a setup so that Mbz1 can at some latter point say "See, Commons hates Israel" or something. Since the purpose of the image is to stir things up and get the image deleted, then it's outside of our project scope and SHOULD be deleted. --J.smith (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- The difference is that that image has an educational context - illustrating antisemitism and other anti-israeli sentiment. This is against one artist, and there is no (known/notable) widespread Anti-Latuff sentiment. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not so fast, please! What if Alvesgaspar (not Mbz1) wants to write an article about some artist (for example, Latuff), illustrating positive and negative opinions about his work? Will he not be allowed to show an expressive image like the one on discussion (like Marcel Duchamp did with Mona Lisa and Leonardo)? Please notice that the issue on the deletion of Latuff's images is already settled. So, that initative could hardly be considered as breaking a NPOV. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Even if he wanted to, using this image would be original research. Info If nobody can name a good reason for why this should be in our scope, I am inclined to speedily delete this. The creator himself has already stated, that this was just meant as a disruption of Commons, so I cannot think where this image could be useful on a WMF project. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- (Typical "argument of authority") Yes, I have a good reason for keeping the image, which is just "no censorship on Commons". Being highly controversial, the work of Latuff shouldn't be imune to criticism of asthetical as well as of political nature (like the state of Israel, BTW). I say again: the issue on the deletion of Latuff's images is already settled -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- PS - Original research? FGS !! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- You did not get me right, ChrisiPK because of my English I guess. My point in creating the image was to bring the attention to File:IsraHellburningbuses.png image and have it deleted together with my image.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Even if he wanted to, using this image would be original research.
- Not so fast, please! What if Alvesgaspar (not Mbz1) wants to write an article about some artist (for example, Latuff), illustrating positive and negative opinions about his work? Will he not be allowed to show an expressive image like the one on discussion (like Marcel Duchamp did with Mona Lisa and Leonardo)? Please notice that the issue on the deletion of Latuff's images is already settled. So, that initative could hardly be considered as breaking a NPOV. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Enough is enough. The uploader has stated that the "point in creating the image was to bring the attention to File:IsraHellburningbuses.png image and have it deleted together with my image". Don't disrupt Commons to make a point. Adambro (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe this is self-made. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
Not own work, as claimed MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Maxim: Missing essential information: license, permission, and/or source
Looks like a cover to me. But I am not sure enough to tag it as Copyvio - Abigor talk 22:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of Scope - Fair use??? - Abigor talk 22:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Sppedy deleted as pure advertising. User warned and other promotional content deleted. User risks being blocked if there are more uploads along these lines. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
website [2] states that this corporate logo is (c) Skier Dude (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, a commercial company having a freely licensed logo is so unusual. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 20:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
From the Swedish tv-show with the same name. It is not Public Domain, perhaps fair use... Ainali (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
From the Swedish movie with the same name. It is not Public Domain, perhaps fair use.. Ainali (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Photo of statue is not PD-Art, this is a scan from a book, plus we have a good free picture of this bust here (File:Thucydides pushkin01.jpg). BW picture is used in many projects, so should replace it with bot. --Shakko (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, should be replaced, but the photo from before 1888 is likely PD. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- hmm, sorry, i've missed the note with the year. So, if we have modern photo, the other one, old, with so bad quality, should be marked as dublicate, or what? I don't know the rule.--Shakko (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept, nothing to do here, even the image is old and of bad quality. --Martin H. (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplicate of File:BMW F650CS with topbox.jpg - I added it by mistake a second time TimTay (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unlikely that an obviously professional image of a proposed events centre is licensed like that without further explanation why the uploader is the copyright holder. Ingolfson (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 08:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 23:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 10:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 20:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 23:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 21:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted according to the description it's a logo abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 23:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope, no educational background Avron (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 21:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 23:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope, no educational background Avron (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 21:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 23:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope, no educational background Avron (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 21:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted personallity-rights + scope abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 23:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't find proof that this pdf nor the image inside the pdf are free. Abigor talk 11:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, I don't believe they are free. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 21:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted scope abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 23:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Out of Scope - Abigor talk 11:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- delete--Motopark (talk) 12:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:SCOPE; COM:FAIRUSE and COM:DW abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 23:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo, not PD-textlogo. MBisanz talk 20:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted sterkebak would say "Better safe than sorry" ;) abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 23:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Italic text
Copy of a copyrighted poster, no valid source. MBisanz talk 23:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyvio photo of a work that itself may be a copyvio. Obviously the "Hope" poster, one of several by Shepard Fairey first published in the United States starting around January 24, 2008. No evidence that Fairey has released copyright, and, according to Fairey, the Obama image itself was based on an unspecified "news photograph of the candidate off the Internet" (see "Obama's On-the-Wall Endorsement", Washington Post, 2008-05-18, page M1). A clearer version is already available for fair use at en:File:Obamaposter.jpg. --Closeapple (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- You are problaby right. Better delete the file, since the one on the English Wikipedia is better anyway. Tasja (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 00:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
_benefit.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_benefit.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I uploaded this thinking it was a celebrity, but it isn't him. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
_benefit.jpg){kind=link}
- I'm not sure what I did wrong, but the above file and File:John Rinaldi at the AIDS Project Los Angeles (APLA) benefit cropped.jpg should be deleted. I uploaded a bunch of celeb images (see my userpage) and I thought this guy was John Rinaldi, but it isn't him. Or it's a non-famous John Rinaldi, in any case. It is a free image, so if you want to keep it for any reason, you can. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
_benefit_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete, if not a celebrity. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 01:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
_benefit.jpg){kind=link}
For the reasons given at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael Nutter.jpg MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The image was freely given by Nutter through his campaign staff. It was verified and filed under the OTRS. This nomination is specious. I can add more emails to the OTRS paper trail if needed. Make this a speedy keep. Evrik (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- This can be kept, per Ticket:2008123010020376 which confirms that it is released into the public domain. I'm removing the reference to Ticket:2006092710010241 from the image as it is a with-permission only. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. OK with the new OTRS ticket. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
From the Swedish movie with the same name. It is not Public Domain, perhaps fair use.. Ainali (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
No proof provided that the image in fact originated from Journal officiel de la République Française, which is used as the permission tag. --Kjet (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Likely a copyright violation, and this particular user has a history of uploading non-free images both here and on the English Wikipedia. SchuminWeb (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
A vastly inferior reproduction of the painting in File:YuanEmperorAlbumAyurbarvadaBuyantuPortrait.jpg, with lower resolution and without colors. Unused. Latebird (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
A vastly inferior reproduction of the painting in File:YuanEmperorAlbumQaishanKulugPortrait.jpg, with lower resolution and without colors. Unused. Latebird (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
A vastly inferior reproduction of the painting in File:YuanEmperorAlbumIrinchinbalPortrait.jpg, with lower resolution and without colors. Unused. Latebird (talk) 13:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
An inferior reproduction of the painting in File:YuanEmperorAlbumTughTemurPortrait.jpg, in lower resolution. Unused. Latebird (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I am sure this isn't self-made, so PD-self can't be correct and it will be needed wether it can be used with another license. abf /talk to me/ 15:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. as PD-signature|Italy MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
This image is believed to be unfree, as there is no information from the source to indicate that it is free. This image was previously deleted from the English Wikipedia via the "potentially unfree images" process ([3]). SchuminWeb (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_October_25#Image:HMT_Mauretania_painting.jpg){kind=link}
- The author, Leonard Campbell Taylor, died in 1969, so this image is not {{PD-old}} yet. --Tryphon (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
No evidence of permission. Nothing at maritimequest.com indicates that anything on that site is licensed under the GFDL, including this image. SchuminWeb (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Undocumented claim about its copyright. Please provide source/ inforamtion about its status. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe that this is own work by the uploader. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC) Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Do we need this penis? Abigor talk 22:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Google search shows that Phimosis is an actual condition w/ wikipedia article, but the photo is blurry/low-quality (especially in area that the condition would be in). endorse delete. Outsider80 (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per {{Nopenis}} btw. "Do we need this Penis" is a nice formulation, wich seriously could be usefull in block-debates, too :P abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 23:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Likely flickrwash scan of a copyrighted cover. MBisanz talk 08:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Some evidence would be fine. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 20:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Unlikely to be Flickr user's own work. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work; the sign is probably copyrighted. Tryphon (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, there is full freedom of panorama in China. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 20:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The FOP in China applies to artistic works only, not to literary works (ie the printed text). MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The painter Václav Švejcar was born 1962; no evidence for permission. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
No evidence that this image is public domain. According to the source, it's used with permission there, indicating a level of unfree. SchuminWeb (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- According to this page, the author died in 1934, which makes this image free under {{PD-art}}; so the license is correct and we should keep this image. --Tryphon (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Sorted out. OK now. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
This photo was taken after January 1, 1923, thus not automatically public domain in the US, thus invalidating the license tag. Additionally, no information from the source indicates what sort of license it is available under, so it is quite possibly unfree. SchuminWeb (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. ~/w /Talk 14:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Undocumented claim about its copyright. Please provide source / information about its status. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. All images need a proper source if they are to be kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Unappropriate, non-cultural, which is it's utility? Fradeve11 (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Illustrative of Graffiti. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Unappropriate, non-cultural, which is it's utility? Fradeve11 (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Illustrative of Graffiti. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Insufficient licensing information: The santa hat seems to be a fotograph, where is it from? What is the license of the hat? ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
No source, listed only as "Internet". The license is likely correct, but no source information exists. SchuminWeb (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- It probably comes from this page. I'm not sure if we need more information about the source in order to keep this image. --Tryphon (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Looks ok to me, since it is PD-old anyway. Eusebius (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Call of Duty 2 Clan? Out of our projects scope. Martin H. (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Unable to properly ascertain the copyright status from the source. While it might be a free image, I have no way of finding out from the information given. SchuminWeb (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, no evidence that the photographer is South African. --Eusebius (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by ChristianBier: In category Unknown - December 2008; no source
The image was not taken by Lavelk, and is not his (or hers) to release as free. This photo was uploaded on 20:16, 26 August 2007. It is suspiciously in PNG format (a file format not typically used for photos). On 18 May 2007, a blogger posted a smaller picture on his site.[4] The picture is evidently from Flickr (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/197/504441291_0e25450573_o.jpg). Using the Flickr API tools, it can be determined that the original page for this picture has been made private (thus not showing up on Google searches), and can no longer be accessed by the public. The fact stands that Lavelk's photobucket collection comprises copyviolations (see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible to revoke OTRS?) and it is very likely this picture of Laozi's statue at Wuxi was taken without permission from the Flickr site by Lavelk, uploaded to photobucket and falsely released to Commons under an OTRS. Jappalang (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC) Jappalang (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 01:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Files uploaded by User:Nyo have been identified copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
superseded by better version : "BL 7.5 inch Mk V guns for HMS Shannon Vickers Works LOC ggbain 19618.jpg" --Rcbutcher (talk) 01:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, unused. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 02:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Image was previously listed on English Wikipedia and deleted under the "potentially unfree images" process ([5]). Still no evidence of this being a free image. SchuminWeb (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_October_12#Image:RMS_Mauretania_card.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep per {{PD-Pre1978}}. Based on my own investigation and the discussion on English Wikipedia, the image was first printed in the U.S. prior to 1978. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep the image's source was listed in Wikipedia:Public domain image resources. 66.27.52.186 21:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Images in the New York Public Library seem to be free - please read its permission page: http://www.nypl.org/permissions/ --miya (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Permission links to a web page that gives a very limited press license only. It says:"Dessa bilder får endast publiceras i samband med artiklar rörande Älgskadefondsföreningen och dess verksamhet. Vid publicering skall Älgskadefondsföreningen samt fotograf/grafiker anges som källa. För att använda våra bilder i annat ändamål än för journalistiskt bruk kontakta kansliet." Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Translation: ""These images may only be published in connection with articles about the Moose Damage Fund and its activities. [...] To use these images for other purposes than journalistic work, contact our office. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
No indication that this image is actually in the public domain due to the image's age (image was likely created late 1930s to mid-1950s based on when Cunard used the "Cunard White Star" name). SchuminWeb (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
copyvio. the picture is dated 1931, which is irrelevant for tagging it as PD. the author (photographer) must be dead since 1938 or erlier to do so --FordPrefect42 (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I know this image is widespread released in PD, Meyers Taschenbuch Lexicon where the image scan comes from doesn't cite a source nor author, as far as I can see. I think it is reasonable to keep the picture for the time being. If problems merge by people who can claim rights, we always can delete it a.s.a.p. i think. regards, Tjako van Schie (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I already called attention on this template, used together with Template:PD-ItalyGov, which stands on very shacky ground. It is being used as a way to intoduce a sort of "fair use" category for Italy, where the "fair use" discipline does not exists.
Please have a look at it and consider how it is been used, simply to surround the fact that images published in the it:Wikipedia under the only "{{PD-Italia}}" (a fancy name for "fair use" in this Wikipedia) license may not be otherwise uploaded in Commons (see for an example among others here: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Achille_Starace.jpg where, where, as in all {{PD-Italia}} images, it is cleary given the instruction: "Do not move this file to Wikimedia Commons!".
The 93/98 EC directive is normally interpreted as overruling the older national directives, including those valid in Italy until 1998 to wich this template refers.
Please give your piece of mind and help in settling the matter. In my opinion, this template should be banned, and the images checked, one by one, to see whether some other copyright tags might be used instead, otherwise moved to it:Wikipedia under a {{PD-Italia}} license, valid for Italy. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC) --User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- What is it you are proposing to delete? A template? A category? Clarification is needed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Both. The template, AND the category, since Template:PD-ItalyGov pour all of its files into the category.
- Meanwhile, I discovered a previous discussion had been held on this very same topic before,
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-Italy
and that its conclusion was (quote:
- "Decision. PD-Italy will be deleted as PD-Italy is incompatible with the copyright policy of Wikimedia Commons that requires freely licensed images only. A summary of the reasons...." (please follow the link to read the rest).
- It therefore appears now to me that the Template:PD-ItalyGov, which merely leads to a revived Category:_PD Italy (notice: "PD-Italy" was disbanded, and "PD Italy" - without a slash - was re-created), is but a trick created to surround a vote and a decision already taken about the matter. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- PS Since the page in the category do no list all of the files where the ItalyGov template has ben used, please refer to this page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-ItalyGov instead. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am still confused. We have PD-Government for many countries. {{PD-ItalyGov}} seems rather similar to those. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- The point is merely there is no Italian law allowing the PD-ItalyGov template... Italy has not even a law allowing the "Freedom of panorama", and the Governement does not want images of works of art it owns to go around... Of course, if you can cite me any such a law (the template refers to the old, superseded, pre-EU directive, as well as pre-war one, even mentioning the exemption made in favour of the "Fascist party"... I' m not joking, just follow the link!), I'd be happy. I'd be spared a lot of useless work to clean up the mess ;-) --User:G.dallorto (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Lupo's Template talk:PD-ItalyGov#This template is on very shaky grounds (see below Lupo's comment)--Trixt (talk) 08:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep PD is PD. We never had any problem with these images. --Sailko (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - the claim that PD-Italy is "a fancy name for "fair use" in [it.wiki]" deserves, at best, a {{citation needed}}. Balabiot (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- (note: this is not to mean that PD-ItalyGov makes any sense. Also, note that the PD-Italy category on it.wiki states that the images should not be moved to commons, exactly because PD-Italy was already deleted on commons once. My vote for keep means that the it.wiki pictures PD-Italy should be moved back to commons, and PD-ItalyGov should be deleted). Balabiot (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep is PD!!! Lo Scaligero (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with all of the above comments in favor of keeping. People who want to delete are ridiculously over-zealous Charvex (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Discuss the subject matter, not people's actions, please. Lupo 21:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per my previous comments at Template talk:PD-ItalyGov#This template is on very shaky grounds. According to a leading Italian commentary on the copyright law, the copyrights are held by the government during a 20-year term and revert thereafter to the real author for the remainder of the 70-year term. Lupo 21:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Lupo you are definitely wrong. And G.dallorto you are wrong as well. I cannot believe that an Italian wants to destroy and delete material connected to his home country here. G.dallorto what the heck makes you that sure that the template is "on very shaky grounds"? Who told you that Lupo is right? Why do you just accept what Lupo states as correct? Ever tried to investigate the truth and also whether he is right or not? I tell you again that you and even more Lupo are more than wrong. Read what I have written to what Lupo is trying to sell here for the ultimate truth. The truth is in fact that you Lupo did not understand what law commentaries are for and how to understand what can be found there. And you have also obviously no clue of Italian law as well no clue of law in general. I agree with all of the above comments in favor of keeping and as said in my answer to the incompetent statement by Lupo I will prove in the next time that either template and category are in rule with Italian law by a verdict of highest Italian court which is not a worthless statement taken from a minor opinion in a law commentary but legally binding law. And so I will prove that the template is on very solid grounds instead hoping to end this kind of discussion for good. Reptil (♣) 10:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I removed your useless personal attacks. Please avoid personal attacks and assume good faith, or you will be blocked from editing.--Trixt (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Reptil, I can read Italian, since Italian is my own language, and I can tell you for this reason that what Lupo reads in the legal commentaries to me seems exactely what the commentaries say. We have other examples, for instance in the copyright for a written text. You may sell it for a maximum of 20 years to a publisher, and after 20 years, it does not fall into the PD, but it reverts to the author. I know it since I am an auhtor myself. I can't see why only in case of images the Intellectual rights should not revert to the author.
- Second, there is no reason why an Italian should not want to remove images that are (IMHO) unlawfully posted in Commons just because they deal with Italy. Quite the other way. It is because I am Italian that I am reorganising and clearing the Italian area, in order to have a tool that can be safely used not only by it:Wikipedia, but by anyone else. I don't like this bizarre idea that since I am Italian I have to stick to anything Italians do, uncluding illegal things. That sounds to me like Mafia. Enough said.
- Third, my objection here is not that there are not images that are in the PD since they were produceed by the State (e.g. stamps from the Kingdom of Italy surely are PD-ItalyGov, however, they are also merey PD-Old, so I can't see the necessity of this template...), but only that the images I find in such category do not belong there, or that no evidence was given by the uploader about this fact. Therefore, please, chanting that "PD is PD" is simply ridiculous. Of course PD is PD. But "copyvio is copyvio", dear Sailko. Please remind it.
- Fourth, I am rather fed-up with the fact that no one of the Italians who voted for "keep" ever give us a reason why. Their reason is that these images "should not be deleted", and that they "do not want o have them deleted". These are not reasons, these are wishful thoughts. Now, let's get real. Let me take the very first image appearing in the catgory PD-Italy: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andrea_Doria_9.jpg
- This is a scan from a Polish book: "W. Supiński, L. Błaszczyk, Okręty wojenne 1900-1966, Warsaw, 1967".
- Since this is a book, there was the possibility to check author and copyright statue of the images. Neither thing was done. The image is simply given as PD since it was "Created by the government of Italy". Now, we are not even discussing about whether PDItalyGov makes sense or not. We are discussing about: where the information about this image having been produced by the Italian govenrment comes from? And how can you know it, if you don't know who the author is? This is nonsense. To know about copyright status you need to know about the author. Reasoning the other way rouns (since we assume these images are in the PD, then who cares abnout their author!) is mere nonsense. In short, please stop to vote "keep" without giving a reason. These votes, in Commons, count for nothing. Even if 100% of votes were in favour of keeping a copyvio, the copyvio should be removed.
- So please give (1) evidence of authorship of the images posting a PD-ItalyGov tag (2) give evidence of the fact that in Italy a law exists stating that works paid for by the government fall into the PD after 20 years. I know myself thet legislation is often uncertain. But in our case, first I don't like the fact that Reptile merely promises he will someday, when he feel comfortable, provide evidence. If he knows something we don't know, why does he not simply tell it us? That should be the reason for these debates! Secondly, since we guarantee that all files online in Commons are free from any rights, in case of doubt, for a prudencial reason we should delete them waiting to know better about the matter. They can always be undeleted when we get evidence about their PD status. (3) Since we are at it, I wonder why images from LEGITIMATE sources are not sought after and uploaded. Why not asking the Marina Italiana so that they provide freely usable images ? It it THAT difficult to do? This is the thing I would do if I were in the place of those who object. The truth is that the Marina was contacted in the past, and first gave a permssion, then when asked for a formal "ticket", i.e. a written permission, refused to do so. Therefore, we DO NOT have the permission from the source to keep those images. Is this enough?
- Best wishes.
--User:G.dallorto (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
About some of G.dallorto's fancy statements:
- "It is being used as a way to intoduce a sort of "fair use" category for Italy, where the "fair use" discipline does not exists."
- false: a "discipline" of fair use does exist in Italy (see, in particular, text in red). Apart from this, PD-Italy is a form of PD, and nobody at any level is making such a confusion between PD and fair use. It is used as a PD.
- "images published in the it:Wikipedia under the only "PD-Italia" (again, a fancy name for "fair use" in this Wikipedia)"
- false and misleading: the Italian copyright Act (LDA) is very very clear about the point and cannot be confused with any kind of fair use. It is a PD and IT IS NOT USED AS A FAIR USE IN IT.WIKI!!!
- "the instruction: "Do not move this file to Wikimedia Commons!"" has been added to it.wiki after an endless discussion here on Commons showed that this community wasn't going to accept any more this PD and admins started to delete images. The sense of the message is: "don't waste your time, it cannot be kept there" and also: "Don't run a bot to transfer this file and delete it on it.wiki". Nothing more than that.
- "The 93/98 EC directive is normally interpreted as overrluing the older national directives, including those valid in Italy until 1998 to wich this template refers"
- false and misleading: the acts by which this matter is ruled are "Legge 22 aprile 1941 n. 633, modificata dalla legge 22 maggio 2004, n. 128 articolo 87 e articolo 92". This is clearly stated in the template. (btw, "1998" truly was overruled by "2004", so this is what you need to look at, and there is no reason to specifically recall a date in which specifically no acts were issued about this matter); this means that Italy, well after the European Act, modified its law to accept and introduce only part of the directive, and not all of it. Interpretations are interpretations, however the Act is in its full validity in Italy and this is the only concrete thing on the ground. The Italian law says it is PD, so - should you like it or not it - it is FREE material. If you really don't like it, don't keep it; but there is no need to justify this decision. Even less need can be seen of justifying it with lies.
So, better to know Italian law, and even more useful it would be if someone could also read the concerning Italian act (and the Italian Wikipedia, if you wish), before trolling, presuming bad faith and writing false things. Thank you. - 207.97.213.169 12:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Template:PD-ItalyGov Deleted per the comprehensive arguments of G.dallorto and Lupo. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Italy as a result of which this template has already been deleted once. It appears to have been recreated without permission or discussion. I have left the PD Italy category for now; it can be deleted once it is emptied. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
No evidence that this image is actually in the public domain. The source indicates that it might be copyrighted. SchuminWeb (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I could not find any information on a painter named "W. Pearson", so I don't know when he died. All I can say is that it is probable that it was before 1939, since the painting was created in 1912. I've added all the info I could in the "painting" template on the image page. --Eusebius (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence for PD-old. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
