Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/12/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Tagged as CC-BY-3.0, but permission field also says "Non-commercial use only, also appears to be an "official" photo (see press release here where a full body version of this image is used), but (IMHO) no satisfying verification that the uploader rely has the rights to release this photo. --Sherool (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work --User:G.dallorto (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 02:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I am sorry. I made a bad mistake!!! I agree with the deletion request. Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Commons is not censored, but already has enough home-made educational examples of over-age-25 caucausian penises, --Outsider80 (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Only because that's one ugly penis. heh ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 07:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- In use on 3 wikipedia pages. --Tryphon (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Since it is used on a number of projects so this clearly has some educational value, regardless of whether people consider it to be "one ugly penis" which has no relevance to this discussion whatsoever. Adambro (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Speedy keep - in use, so within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of Scope - Not Educationally Useful / Redundant Bakertaylor28 (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Low-quality image, Commons is NOT censored, but already has enough home-made educational examples of over-age-25 caucausian penises, --Outsider80 (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- In use on 15 wikipedia pages (not counting user pages)! --Tryphon (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep since it is in use and because it isn't really possible to consider whether this should be deleted without considering it alongside other similar images and since the nominator hasn't highlighted such images I think it should be kept. There is no harm in having a larger number of penis images just as there is no harm in having a larger number of images of cars or whatever. Adambro (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep - in use = in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
poor image quality (very low resolution) 188.107.3.253 12:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy kept. Still in use. See above. –Tryphon☂ 12:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Commons is NOT censored, but already has enough home-made educational examples of over-age-25 caucausian penises, --Outsider80 (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- In use on 2 wikipedia pages. --Tryphon (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep since it is in use and because it isn't really possible to consider whether this should be deleted without considering it alongside other similar images and since the nominator hasn't highlighted such images I think it should be kept. There is no harm in having a larger number of penis images just as there is no harm in having a larger number of images of cars or whatever. Adambro (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep - in use = in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
inappropriate image 65.118.187.131 22:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep - No valid reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Commons is NOT censored, but already has enough home-made educational examples of over-age-25 caucausian penises, --Outsider80 (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Come on, this one is used on 12 wikipedia pages (not counting talk pages)! Please check usage before nominating pictures. --Tryphon (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep since it is in use and because it isn't really possible to consider whether this should be deleted without considering it alongside other similar images and since the nominator hasn't highlighted such images I think it should be kept. There is no harm in having a larger number of penis images just as there is no harm in having a larger number of images of cars or whatever. Adambro (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep - in use = in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The image is fine, but the description needs to be edited. 67.169.100.84 06:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Not a reason to delete at all. →Na·gy 08:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Commons is NOT censored, but already has enough home-made educational examples of over-age-25 caucausian penises, and adding labels in photo editing software does not automatically make an image more educational or professional looking. --Outsider80 (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- This one is in use on 1 wikipedia page. --Tryphon (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep since it is in use and because it isn't really possible to consider whether this should be deleted without considering it alongside other similar images and since the nominator hasn't highlighted such images I think it should be kept. There is no harm in having a larger number of penis images just as there is no harm in having a larger number of images of cars or whatever. Adambro (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep - in use = in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Commons is NOT censored, but already has enough home-made educational examples of over-age-25 caucausian penises, and adding labels in photo editing software does not automatically make an image more educational or professional looking. --Outsider80 (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- This one is in use on 2 wikipedia pages, and that makes it educational. --Tryphon (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep since it is in use and because it isn't really possible to consider whether this should be deleted without considering it alongside other similar images and since the nominator hasn't highlighted such images I think it should be kept. There is no harm in having a larger number of penis images just as there is no harm in having a larger number of images of cars or whatever. Adambro (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep - in use = in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Commons is NOT censored, but already has enough home-made educational examples of over-age-25 caucausian penises, --Outsider80 (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- In use on 17 wikipedia pages! I'm really starting to think you nominated random images of penises, regardless of their educational value. --Tryphon (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep since it is in use and because it isn't really possible to consider whether this should be deleted without considering it alongside other similar images and since the nominator hasn't highlighted such images I think it should be kept. There is no harm in having a larger number of penis images just as there is no harm in having a larger number of images of cars or whatever. Adambro (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep - in use = in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the nintendo screenshot are protected with copyright - Abigor talk 08:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Please just use {{Copyvio}} for such cases in future. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Doubtfully "self-made". This is a pretty well-known "hobo" picture, been floating around on the internet for a couple of years, see http://images.google.com/images?q=Angry%20hobo --Melanom (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, copyright violation. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 14:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. Also includes copyrighted Bugs Bunny character. --Liftarn (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Now this image is vandalism IMO. Bugs Bunny is evil and should not be tolerated. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyright of nhl.com, see http://www.nhl.com TaraO (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. copyvio Bapti ✉ 22:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I uploaded this picture with a new name. Shefshef (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{Bad name}} for this sort of thing in future. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of Scope - We have more than enough penis already - Abigor talk 18:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, because it's unnecessary and no wiki currently uses it. We have enough of these type of images.
Speedy close/delete per {{Nopenis}}. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of Scope - Do we really need this penis ? - Abigor talk 18:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, because it is unnecessary and currently used on no wiki. We have enough images of this type on the Commons. --Blurpeace (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 19:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Insufficient information about copyright, possible violation (source:Orkut!) Yanguas (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Author is unkown (maybe Günther Grass), H.-P.Haack is only uploader. sугсго 20:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I have a complaint in the system at otrs:2295234 exercising copyright. I can not verify the PD claim. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I first deleted per OTRS-unpermission, but as there was a undeletion-request at this place we will have to wait for the discussion and then delete/keep. abf /talk to me/ 20:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I just received the appropriate permissions. Please close this request. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Permission to use image received. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Uploader uploaded other ducati images from the ducati.com homepage. Author here is "Ducati", the upload date on Flickr is a strong indication of flickr"washing", anyone can view it does not mean that everyone can use this image for every purpose including commercial purposes. Martin H. (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Apparently we were having the same train of thought, Martin..while you were preparing this DR I was restoring the user's other deleted images to see if there was a match. There isn't, but I'm pretty sure this is flickr-washing. New, low-res uploads to flickr immediately uploaded to Commons. Brynn (talk!) 21:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I suspect this image may be flickr-washed. There are only three very recently uploaded, low-res images in the flickr photostream, all of which have been immediately uploaded to Commons. http://www.flickr.com/photos/33671073@N03/ Brynn (talk!) 21:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete i saw your efforts to review this flickr uploads and i agree with your suspicion, see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Duc1198s.jpg. --Martin H. (talk)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Uploaded on en-wiki with just {{GFDL}} and no source information. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Info I notified the suspected author on en-wiki, asking him to come here and tell us whether he is the author of that file. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
what do you mean, "no source information"? I drew it. I uploaded it. I tagged it with "GFDL-user|Dbachmann". Where is the problem? --Dbachmann (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I contacted an admin on en.wiki to check for the deleted revisions of this image and it turned out you just uploaded it with {{GFDL}} and no indication of you authorship. Now that we know you are the author, it can be kept, of course. Thanks and best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 02:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 02:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Low quality (out of focus, camera movement ??) Erik Baas (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 14:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted uploader requested reasonable deletion abf /talk to me/ 17:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
kinddney 68.217.53.240 01:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Could you clarify that please? -mattbuck (Talk) 12:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Provenance looks well-documented to me. I suspect 68.217.53.240 clicked the nomination link then fled in panic when it fired instantly. --Closeapple (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. No reason to delete. Original uploader notified - I merely removed a border. Currently unused. Finavon (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to close this as keep, since no reason for it to be deleted has been presented. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Commons is NOT censored, but web-posting of photo from a semi-private location (same-sex shower with expectation of privacy) may be in conflict with Commons policies regarding private-setting photos of identifiable persons requiring consent of said persons. --Outsider80 (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete For privacy reasons. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 07:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. COM:PEOPLE MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It isn't used, has no categories and a nondescriptive name, making finding a use difficult. If it depicts an event, change the name to reflect that and add better description Jonjames1986 (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 06:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It has a description:"Leśniczówka Pranie", good enough to categorize it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's a nice picture. I'm sure we can describe it better, and wikilink to appropriate categories. Leśniczówka is Polish for "forester's headquarters", usually a modest abode, but this one appears to be rather splendid as these things go. Pranie is the name of the place, maybe shared with a nearby village (it also means "the washing" in Polish, but that's neither important nor even confirmed). I'd not delete the image -- the flowers are very well shown -- a derived image (cropped) might be emminently useful. --Mareklug talk 00:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept per Mareklug abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 00:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Out of Scope - Abigor talk 07:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- In use, but description says "Screenshot from Spider powers flash". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - yes, in use, but there doesn't appear to be any context for it on the page. I'm personally going for delete as probable copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment Is the screenshot free? Abigor talk 12:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 14:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:L abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 00:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
derivative work Polarlys (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted whatever it should be it's a derivative work abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 00:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a poster. GeorgHH • talk 15:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:L abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 00:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a poster. GeorgHH • talk 15:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:DW abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 00:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Images from Fickr user bigbenblue 2xxx are not his/her own work, they are copied from various websites. Martin H. (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I agree that the images are copied from other sites. Abigor talk 11:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted for beeing likely a flickrwash abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 00:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
low quality, non-educational, Commons is not a personal repository for your naked pics, we've got enough anyway ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 21:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Unused, bad quality. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - poor lighting, low image quality. image is of litle educational or artistic value. Outsider80 (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per {{Nopenis}} abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 00:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that it is the own work of User:Rudnicki. You find the image on the website of Michał Szczerba (http://www.szczerba.waw.pl/) --Sicherlich Post 23:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This image is the user's only edit to commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:L and beeing from here abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 00:20, 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)
Absolutely no proof of Identity Ursula Daphi and User:Dampezzo Eingangskontrolle (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission: since December 27, 2008
Really bad quality, there are much more better pictures of the same theme (Category:1st courtyard (Prague Castle)) --Daniel Baránek (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - terrible quality. --Egg (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: User request: poor quality
Really bad quality, there are much more better pictures of the same theme (Category:1st courtyard (Prague Castle)) --Daniel Baránek (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: User request: poor quality
Really bad quality, there are much more better pictures of the same theme (Category:1st courtyard (Prague Castle)) --Daniel Baránek (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: User request: poor quality
Useless vandalism; was put in Category:Gay and then Category:LGBT but has nothing to do with LGBT people. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 03:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No copyright problem; this image is not vandalism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - this isn't vandalism, just CommonsSense. Faggot is, we all know, often used as a derogatory term for gay, so the autocategoriser put it in the category "Gay", which was then automatically moved to LGBT. I've corrected the categories, so unless you have reason to believe the image is out of scope or improperly licenced, I think this DR will be closed as keep. It is important to remember though, that just because an image can be used for vandalism, it doesn't necessarily mean that image itself is vandalism. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. A faggot is a legitimate foodstuff. ViperSnake151 (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The original uploader was User:Caveman80, who put it in the gay cat AND who also tried to get several penis/ejaculation images deleted (see Special:Contributions/Caveman80); Now there's User:Outsider80 that's trying to get every image of a penis he can find on Commons, deleted too (see all the penis deletion noms at Commons:Deletion_requests/2008/12/27). Yeah, I'd say it was an act of vandalism and this user is having issues with penis/gay whatever. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 17:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't get the penis thing. "OMG I SAW A PENIS" "STOP SEARCHING FOR PENIS THEN". I speedy kept most of the penises as they were in use. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment- on issues raised: dude, I'm gay. and being gay, I am not ant-gay or anti-penis. That being said, it is kind of suspect that the vast majority of the "educational" examples of penises on Wikimedia projects are home-made low-quality self-taken images (mainly of caucasian males over the age of 25 and over a body-mass-index (BMI) rating where a commerical website would actually pay them money for such contributions.) Commons is for images of a educational/informative context (Commons is not DudesNude, or any other variety of penis posting websites) (And adding labels in your photo-editing software does not make an image more educational/professional looking, it just makes it look more home-made). I am not for removing every penis picture from Commons, but at least 50% of them (probably higher) are crap images of unremarkable penises with no bonafide medical condition being illustrated, and their inclusion here leads to them being used in and polluting various Wikipedia projects. anyhow (gets off my soap box). peace. Outsider80 (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Uploader tagged with speedy delete. Was intended to demonstrate word usage (and placed in main gay/LGBT category - since no closer category existed. Did not realize this would be viewed as vandalism) . Was only in usage on 1 article on 1 project site, have removed from usage. Would log into original account to post this, but no longer have password access. Outsider80 (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: User request: due to abuse; also unused
Freely licensed on Flickr but it looks like a screenshot from a video and looking at the Flickr user's other uploads I am suspicious about whether this is really freely licensed. Adambro (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 14:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Come to think of it, now looking at the image it does look like a screenshot of a video. So i myself apologise for the upload and request it to be deleted.Legolas2186 (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Martin H.: Copyright violation: Flickrvio
Violation of copyright of Ville de Chambly --Fralambert (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Copyvio. From the source, the uploader's claims about being the copyright holder and about placing the image in the PD are likely false. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Sanbec (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
This image is copyrighted --Chris93 (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Very simple design, keep as {{PD-textlogo}}. --Tryphon (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete even if its not as sure I believe for commons' standarts it's {{Logo}} abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Sanbec (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
No encyclopedic value, self-promotion Denniss (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - seems perfectly within scope to me (adds it to the Tassimo page on en.wp) - a fairly standard store promotion of a popular coffee making device. That being said, copyright status may be a bit iffy, should probably npd it. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Use of NASA logos, insignia and emblems are restricted per US law 14 CFR 1221 --- Does this count for this logo also? Or is this one free? I hope its free, but the nomination is to be on the safe side. Abigor talk 08:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Yeah, I went around calling that non-free too at one point, but its US-GOV, so its PD. add {{Insignia}}. ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as tagged with {{Insignia}}. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 14:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The image is tagged as as PD-USgov however it's not obvious from the source website (White House Commission on Remembrance) that this is the case. The site has a clear copyright notice in the footer, and it's terms of use page further specify that "All contents of the White House Commission On Remembrance Web Site are: ©2007, White House Commission on Remembrance (content) & ANICS (portal) and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved.". --Sherool (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete: There are independent agencies, corporations and Federal subsidiaries that are exempt from US Government copyright status, and it looks likely the White House Commission on Remembrance, as an independent agency,[1] is one of them. Jappalang (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment can the person who deletes this replace it with his congressional photo in his wikipedia bio in the articles it is deleted from.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Indeed this does not appear to be PD, a mistake made in many government portraits like this. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
unbekannter Fotograf = unkown author. H.-P.Haack just owns a copy of that photo. sугсго 20:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Why can't the file get speedy deleted? It's a clear copyright violation (Urheberrechtsverletzung), for the photographer can't be dead for 70 years, if the picture was taken in 1955. --Paulae (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Derivate photo. --Korman (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
not a normative act or draft thereof, official document, material, sign or symbol, unsourced image. Martin H. (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- How do you define "official material"? In my opinion anything that a Polish goverment employee created during his work is "official material" and as such is in the public domain. This photo was made by a Polish Goverment agency (Agencja Mienia Wojskowego) and as such it is public domain.
Source: http://www.amw.com.pl/zos_product_info.php?cZosPath=3&zos_products_id=19&language=en
Note: AMW will cease to exist in the next few months, it will be replaced by Agencja Uzbrojenia (Armament Agency) and the links will probably go dead, that is why I did not link the image directly to he source of the image.
Mieciu K (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, images are copyrighted by the author at least 70 years after the authors death as you can see in Commons:Licensing#Poland, photographic works by polish government employees are not public domain. The website also does not give any hint that the image is pd but Copyright © Agencja Mienia Wojskowego 2007, so Delete --Martin H. (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- You did not answer my question. What is "official material" (pl:oficjalny materiał) of the Polish Goverment? Anything created by a goverment employee in the scope of his proffesional duties during his working time falls under the category of official goverment material, sign, symbol, document a normative act or draft thereof and under article 4 is exempted from Polish copyright law. Your interpretation of article 4 case 2 the Polish copyright law is confusing, can the Polish goverment create anything itself? No, everything created by the Polish goverment is also created by one or many goverment employees or electees, if those materials would fall under the category of materials copyrighted for 70 years after their death than article 4 case 2 of Polish copyright law is redundant and makes no sense. The AMW website does not give any hint that the AMW logo is also exempted from Copyright, but does this make the AMW logo copyrighted? Mieciu K (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep Look at the definition of offical material below. IMHO it is clear that photograps from Polish goverment websites fall under this category an as such are exempted from copyright law. Mieciu K (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete {{Polishsymbol}} is applicable only for normative acts or drafts thereof, official documents, materials, signs or symbols, which means that they NEED to be regulated by polish law. i.g. acts, statutes, other regulations. BTW there is NOTHING about photographies, unless they are part of those acts/lwas. It doesn't mean that EVERYTHING what is published by government or government agencies is PD. BTW. AMW (Agencja Mienia Wojskowego) is not governmental but military institution administrating army's property. Masur (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- "which means that they NEED to be regulated by polish law. i.g. acts, statutes, other regulations" the website/photographs have been created according to universally binding law of the Republic of Poland Did you read article 87 case 2 of the Polish constitiution? "Źródłami powszechnie obowiązującego prawa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej są na obszarze działania organów, które je ustanowiły, akty prawa miejscowego." unoficial translation : "Enactments of local law issued by the operation of organs shall be a source of universally binding law of the Republic of Poland in the territory of the organ issuing such enactments." In the military orders are the law. And the AMW website could not have been created without an order. The Military Property Agency is a government agency [2]. Mieciu K (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Corrections, I made a mistake while in the military orders are the law, when they are not related to everyone in some specific territory (like the bylaws concernig behaviour in a Military Museum) they are not universally binding law. Mieciu K (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete, per Masur's explanations. Photos like this, even when belonging to government-related organisations, are not "polishsymbol". One of the few glorious examples is the website of the Polish President, which distributes photos under GFDL :) Wpedzich (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- "are not "polishsymbol"" and why are they not "official documents, documentary material, devices and symbols,[3]"? Doesn't this photo document how a RPD looks? "the website of the Polish President, which distributes photos under GFDL" it claims that it's Photos are distribiuted under GFDL which does not mean that is their legal status according to Polish copyright law. Mieciu K (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete According to National Bank of Poland, even Polish currency design is not PD; broad discussin about BIP's in (public websites of administration units) in Polish Wikipedia settled, that they are not PD either. Even Highest Court settlement is not enough, because it's taken out of context and we don't know the whole case; courts in Poland only interpret law but not CREATE it by precedence! Other courts may take this case in account, but are not bound by it. A.J. (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep The definition is so vague, it's a subject to an open interpretation. One should assume good will.--Adi (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- we are not assuming bad will. But we arent talking about user's good or bad will, but about interpretation of the polish law. And here its better to be more careful than to cause precedences that we are not in a position to cause. Masur (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Where did our "BE BOLD" motto go? Both Wikipedia and legal systems of democratic countries are based on common sense, both the common sense and the interpretation of the Polish Highest Court clearly point out that "official material" is on purpose a term which should be interpreted according to common sense (in Polish it is konown as Klauzula Generalna) and photpgraphs made by goverment agency to document something are clearly "exempted from copyright". Mieciu K (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete Per above arguments. {{PD-Polishsymbol}} is not Polish Governement's version of {{PD-USGov}} and work is clearly marked "Copyright © Agencja Mienia Wojskowego". --Jarekt (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- per above arguments {{PD-Polishsymbol}} is exactly Polish Governement's version of {{PD-USGov}}. "Copyright © Agencja Mienia Wojskowego" they could have just as well written "copyright violators will be shot" in case of conflict what is more important Polish national statutes or some unnamed webmaster's declaration? Also please take a look at the website of the Polish MoD [4] or the Polish Goverment [5] I don't see any copyright tags there. Mieciu K (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- The absence of copyright statements does not mean that the content is free. We need a clear statement that everyone can use the content for every purpose (including commercial use). --Martin H. (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
What is "official material"
[edit]
The Civil Code Chamber of the Polish Highest Court defined official material (urzędowy materiał) in it's sentence from 26 September 2001 (sygn. akt IV CKN 458/00) as "that, which comes from an office or other national institiution, or concerns offical issues or was created as a result of implementation of official procedures" - my own translation. ("to, co pochodzi od urzędu lub innej instytucji państwowej, bądź dotyczy sprawy urzędowej, bądź powstało w rezultacie zastosowania procedury urzędowej")[6]. This interpretaion is used by Polish courts. Mieciu K (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
You can read about this in Polish here: [7], [8]
Under this interpretation images created for AMW are clearly "official materials" (that, which comes from an office or other national institiution) unless it is clearly stated that they are property of someone who is not employee, nominee or electee from that institiution. Mieciu K (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've read it: this case was about tests for driving license. A.J. (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Info This DR covers only one image, and I didn't know about its existence. I've deleted a number of images in the same case (npd tags were 7 days old), on the basis of my understanding of the license tag. The fate of the images I've deleted and the others should be bound to the conclusion of this DR, so I list them here:
- File:Jelcz 315.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Jerrycans AMW.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KPVT AMW.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:M-37 (82-PM 37).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:P-PTS.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:DShK.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:DPM AMW.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:14.5x114 B-32.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:14.5x114 BZT (1).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:14.5x114 BZT (2).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:14.5x114 MDZ.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:BLG-67 AMW.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:DP AMW.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
And the images in the same situation that I haven't deleted:
- File:Star 200 AMW.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Star 660 AMW.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Star 660 with B1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Star 266 AMW.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:RPG-2 AMW.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:RPG 43 AMW.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:ORP Wilk AMW.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:RGZ-89.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:ORP Darłowo AMW.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:SG-43 AMW.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:ORP Warszawa 61MP AMW.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:ZOP 912M AMW.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Rogarywka Polowa Puma AMW.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Rogatywka Polowa Moro.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Star 29 Osinobus (AMW 45).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Star 29 AMW 23.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Star 29 HDS AMW.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Star 244 AMW 21.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Ural 375D AMW.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KrAZ 257 AMW.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:SPG-9M.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
--Eusebius (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted.
Duplicate file mstachul (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The duplicate file is File:Skookum.jpg, but I'm not sure if either can be kept; on the image page, it is said: Permission granted by image author and owner of cat in photo, Beth Fillman, for the promotion of education. It doesn't seem free enough (it should be for any purpose) and would require OTRS permission anyway. --Tryphon (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The permission is not wide enough for our purposes. Images must have freedom for commercial use as well. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The reason for being in the PD is unfortunately supeseded by the new EEC directive on copyright. This images ought to be moved to it:Wikikedia, and placed under the {{PD-Italia}} licence, which unfortunately does not fit with WikiCommons criteria. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom. Later EU retrospective legislation now means that copyright expires 70 years pma.MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
No date of publication, and previously deleted for lacking said date. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: If the image is first published in the European union, it is a copyright violation, because it's author has died 1945. Copyright protection time in the European union is usually 70 years post mortem auctoris. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 06:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Low quality (out of focus, camera movement ??) Erik Baas (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, not so bad quality as the other one. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 14:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Low quality (out of focus, camera movement ??) Erik Baas (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Not really bad MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Commons is NOT censored, but already has enough home-made educational examples of over-age-25 caucausian penises, --Outsider80 (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not used. --Tryphon (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep since it isn't really possible to consider whether this should be deleted without considering it alongside other similar images and since the nominator hasn't highlighted such images I think it should be kept. There is no harm in having a larger number of penis images just as there is no harm in having a larger number of images of cars or whatever. Adambro (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 14:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: Not pornographic, but informative, comparative, and - so - encyclopedic. --141.155.135.66 19:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: Excellent closeup, no point in deleting it. foxtrotuk 11:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete If it's not used, get rid of it. There's plenty more penises around here to use in the future. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 07:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- To all, I submitted this photo because I did not see another high-quality, close-up photo of a circumcised, male glans. And, if it makes any difference, it is not another "over-age-25 Caucasian penis" as was mentioned above. It is an Asian. I, of course, respect the wishes of the Wiki-community if it votes for deletion.
Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
not used in any page and replacing the name of an used image of Bob Bryar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moraleh (talk • contribs) 05:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Commons is NOT censored, but already has enough home-made educational examples of over-age-25 caucausian penises, --Outsider80 (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not used except on one talk page. --Tryphon (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep since it isn't really possible to consider whether this should be deleted without considering it alongside other similar images and since the nominator hasn't highlighted such images I think it should be kept. There is no harm in having a larger number of penis images just as there is no harm in having a larger number of images of cars or whatever. Adambro (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 14:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - ugly penis and it's not being used except on a user talk page on the German Wiki. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 21:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- As a side note, this is the user's only image contribution to Commons, and that was 2 years ago. --✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 19:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept File is in use at german wikipedia. --GeorgHH • talk 14:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
an infringement of copyright@Japaneselaw -60.35.121.21 07:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Insufficient source information. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
an infringement of copyright@Japaneselaw -60.35.121.21 07:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Insufficient source information. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
an infringement of copyright@Japaneselaw -60.35.121.21 07:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted together with duplicate file File:Tossin.jpg. Insufficient source information. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
an infringement of copyright@Japaneselaw -60.35.121.21 07:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Insufficient source information. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
an infringement of copyright@Japaneselaw -60.35.121.21 07:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Insufficient source information. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Taken from http://gunsite.narod.ru/fg45.gif as stated at the (not mentioned) source: ru:Файл:FG-45.jpg. Copyright violation, not GFDL. Martin H. (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Gunsite link returns a 403 page in russian with a copyright 2008 notice. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that the claimed author Bugattist is the author. So the release in public domain is not substantiated. 92.131.20.92 13:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Unlikely own work claim. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
No proof provided that the copyright has expired or that the author died before 1939 (70 years). 92.131.20.92 13:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Bien que la carte postale n'ait pas circulé, et n'est donc pas datée par l'oblitération postale, cette carte postale date d'avant la guerre de 1914 compte tenu de ses caractéristiques intrinsèques et du type de locomotive photographié. Ni le photographe, ni l'éditeur ne sont mentionnés sur la carte postale. Compte tenu de tous ces éléments, on peut raisonnablement estimer que les droits d'auteur sont expirés. ce n'est que dans le cas d'une réclamation argumentée d'un éventuel ayant-droit qu'il faudrait envisager la suppression de la carte postale - Claude_Villetaneuse (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Google automatic translation : Although the postcard had not circulated and is not dated by the obliteration post, this postcard dates from before the 1914 war given its inherent characteristics and type of locomotive photographed. Neither the photographer nor the publisher are listed on the postcard. Taking all these factors, we can reasonably assume that copyrights have expired. it is only in the event of a claim argued for a possible beneficiary should consider that the abolition of the postcard - Claude_Villetaneuse (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)- Well I thought that we are looking for Commons at material which we know for sure is PD. Not material which is probably PD. If the photographer was born in 1880 (not an absurd hypothesis), the photographer could have lived till the 1960s. Hektor (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Bien que la carte postale n'ait pas circulé, et n'est donc pas datée par l'oblitération postale, cette carte postale date d'avant la guerre de 1914 compte tenu de ses caractéristiques intrinsèques et du type de locomotive photographié. Ni le photographe, ni l'éditeur ne sont mentionnés sur la carte postale. Compte tenu de tous ces éléments, on peut raisonnablement estimer que les droits d'auteur sont expirés. ce n'est que dans le cas d'une réclamation argumentée d'un éventuel ayant-droit qu'il faudrait envisager la suppression de la carte postale - Claude_Villetaneuse (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence for PD-old, not old enough to just assume PD-old. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Image from 1948, 1948+80=2028, PD Columbia is invalid, every other PD-old with live of the author +70 is invalid (2018), so the image is still missing a correct license. Martin H. (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Also:
- File:1958di9.jpg (1958)
- File:Campeon1975.jpg (1975)
- File:Imagessantafe1960.jpeg (1960)
- File:Campeon1966.jpg (1966)
- File:Campeon1971.jpg (1971)
Deleted all. No reason given why these should be PD. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Own work is a lie. H.-P.Haack was born in the same year, Arthur Holitscher died. Image is too young for PD-Old in Germany sугсго 20:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing permission, no evidence for PD-old. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW of the art work of book and CD. sугсго 22:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/terms.php (cited as the permission) links to CC-BY-SA-3.0, not 2.0 — but it could have been 2.0 at the time the image was copied (17 June 2007). --Closeapple (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment:Not sure if the license has any effect on the deletion request, but it was 2.0 when the image was copied: http://web.archive.org/web/20070710194410/http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/terms.php --Svgalbertian (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per Syrcro. Kameraad Pjotr 18:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
