Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/02/15
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
The source is [1]. It is map published in 1984. I don't think that it is {{PD-RU-exempt}}. Anatoliy (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
![[1]](http://download.maps.vlasenko.net/smtm200/l-40-30.jpg){kind=link}
Keep The editor of the map (on the top of the sheet) was Glavnoe Upravlenie Geodezii i Kartografii pri Soviete Ministrov SSSR, it means "the Main Board of Geodesy and Cartography on Ministry Council USSR". It means it is official document of state government agency, and Russian Federation is the law successor of USSR, as we read in the comment of template:
According to interstate and international compacts, the Russian Federation is the legal successor of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; therefore, this license tag is also applicable to official symbols and formal documents of the Russian SFSR and the USSR.
Julo (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)- So, we may upload all Soviet topografic maps (for example from maps.vlasenko.net) to Commons, may not we?--Anatoliy (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
These images have similar sources: File:Александров.PNG, File:Владимир.JPG, File:Curonian Spit. North.jpg, File:Curonian Spit. South.jpg.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
questioned result
[edit]
kept Julo (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. The works created by official agencies are not always official works. This map was created by official agency, but it is not official work, because this work hasn't got legislative, administrative and judicial character. In addition the maps created by Soviet and Russian official agencies are copyrighted due to article 10 of Law No. 230-FZ. Alex Spade (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete Not an official or formal government document. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per Alex Spade cs. Kameraad Pjotr 09:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Commons:Fan art. deerstop. 01:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Fan art, see Love Hina series. deerstop. 01:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
It's (maybe) impossible to use in encyclopedic purposes. deerstop. 01:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Taken from the manga Desert Punk. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Fan art. deerstop. 01:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- copyright violation/derivate from en:Inuyasha. delete. --Don-kun (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Fan art. deerstop. 01:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not a Fanart, but screenshots out of the anime. -> copyvio, delete. --Don-kun (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Fan art (Naruto character). deerstop. 01:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Fan art. deerstop. 02:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like scan of the original without permission. delete. --Don-kun (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Logo of Princesse Tutu TV series. Copyrighted. deerstop. 02:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Flickr source: http://flickr.com/photos/the_smart_snake/272174019/, it has been tagged as "All Rights Reserved" Rico Shen contact... 02:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
It is stated that Naoko Taukeuchi released image into the public domain, but there's no proof. deerstop. 15:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyright violation Malkinann (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Copyvio -> delete. --Don-kun (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Im unsure about this category: It is in the category tree of Category:African Union within Category:Politics of Africa but it does not contain any media related to the African Union but a list of countries with all their content. The reuslt is, that ALL categories of african countries (Geography, Nature, People, Maps, Buildings, Animals...) duplicated into this category. That serves no purpose and makes catscan useless. We can have a Gallery for the Member states of the African Union with their locator and official insignia --Martin H. (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- And for completion the situation in some local wikis:
- The english w:en:Category:African Union member states sortes the countries but only a very few country categories. The wiki is incosistent: I checked a few countries randomly on their versionhistory, Membership categorisation is removed in many cases [2], but on the other hand their are still member categories even if they are not fit into the hierarchic system
- The german w:de:Kategorie:Afrikanische Union contains only articles related to the AU and its institutions directly, no associative subcategories.
- The french w:fr:Catégorie:Union africaine contains a subcategorie w:fr:Catégorie:État membre de l'Union africaine with all countries categories. --Martin H. (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- The spanisch w:es:Categoría:Unión Africana contains all countries directly, they are consistent on this in other international organizations were categories instead of articles are categorized.
- --Martin H. (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- No comments, so i solve it myself:
- All subcategories (52 country categories) will be removed - the categorization is wrong: A subcategorie gots the characteristics from the maincategory and Category:Nature of Kenya is not related to Category:Politics of Africa in any way.
- All country articles (52 articles) are added to the category to keep the information
- We keep and use the category for images related to membership in the AU, like File:Map of the African Union Corrected.svg in future.
- --Martin H. (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- No comments, so i solve it myself:
closed. --Martin H. (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Source is Outdoor Water Solutions which proves not that the image is public domain. In my view it is copyright violation: image can be found here and here in other resolutions. High Contrast (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I don't believe this is own work, looks like a promo image to me. Abigor talk 11:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Looks like a derivative of a 3D scene design in an museum (possilby the Smithsonian?. No freedom of Panorama in the US Kevmin (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Why GFDL? I don't see a release anywhere. Multichill (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete the IPF press site tell : All pictures are copyrighted to the IPF or to their authors. and Please, do not forget to mention the copyright and the photographer when you are using one of our pictures. Moreover, TinEye give two results alos unfree.
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Photo out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not a private photoalbum. High Contrast (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, private picture. Also note that the source is Zach Burns' Myspace, so {{No permission}} too. --Tryphon (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Recent work of art, no FOP in France. Eusebius (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be an improbable "own work" Image can be found here and here. Tabercil (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Copyright violation from "KLM\"_+\"MD-11\"_+\"Quito\"\'_IN_BOOLEAN_MODE))_&sort=_order_by_photo_id_DESC_&prev_id=1147004&next_id=0898407 airliners.net image. Obviously the original author of this photo gave no permission to distribute this file under a GNU licence. High Contrast (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- See also File:KLM taking off from UIO.jpg, i just added the incomplete delreq to the log Commons:Deletion requests/2009/02/15. This airliners.net images are realy inscrutable. --Martin H. (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, most of the airliners.net images on Commons are verified through an "OTRS-Ticket". --High Contrast (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- See also File:KLM taking off from UIO.jpg, i just added the incomplete delreq to the log Commons:Deletion requests/2009/02/15. This airliners.net images are realy inscrutable. --Martin H. (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
No permission visible; Is 5 AM CHUI from airliners.net identical to the local uploader? --my name 14:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I added this to the log of February 15 09, it was not included to any log and a very similar deletion request is above this request now. --Martin H. (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The Copyright notice of the stated homepage http://media.militaryphotos.net says: All photos, text, and information on this site are for educational and non-commercial use only. The photos in these albums are user submitted and are the property of those users. Consequentl< this image cannot be published under a GNU-licence. This would be copyright violoation. High Contrast (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The Copyright notice of the stated homepage http://media.militaryphotos.net says: All photos, text, and information on this site are for educational and non-commercial use only. The photos in these albums are user submitted and are the property of those users. Consequentl< this image cannot be published under a GNU-licence. This is copyright violoation. High Contrast (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The Copyright notice of the stated homepage http://media.militaryphotos.net says: All photos, text, and information on this site are for educational and non-commercial use only. The photos in these albums are user submitted and are the property of those users. Consequentl< this image cannot be published under a GNU-licence. This is copyright violoation. High Contrast (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The Copyright notice of the stated homepage http://media.militaryphotos.net says: All photos, text, and information on this site are for educational and non-commercial use only. The photos in these albums are user submitted and are the property of those users. Consequentl< this image cannot be published under a GNU-licence. This is copyright violoation. High Contrast (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Delete per nom. Non-Commercial use restriction. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright notice: All photos, text, and information on this site are for educational and non-commercial use only. and no claim or proof about another licence. --Dezidor (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The Copyright notice of the stated homepage http://media.militaryphotos.net says: All photos, text, and information on this site are for educational and non-commercial use only. The photos in these albums are user submitted and are the property of those users. Consequentl< this image cannot be published under a GNU-licence. This is copyright violoation. High Contrast (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Support--Sanandros (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The Copyright notice of the stated homepage http://media.militaryphotos.net says: All photos, text, and information on this site are for educational and non-commercial use only. The photos in these albums are user submitted and are the property of those users. Consequentl< this image cannot be published under a GNU-licence. This is copyright violoation. High Contrast (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The Copyright notice of the stated homepage http://media.militaryphotos.net says: All photos, text, and information on this site are for educational and non-commercial use only. The photos in these albums are user submitted and are the property of those users. Consequentl< this image cannot be published under a GNU-licence. This is copyright violoation. High Contrast (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The Copyright notice of the stated homepage http://media.militaryphotos.net says: All photos, text, and information on this site are for educational and non-commercial use only. The photos in these albums are user submitted and are the property of those users. Consequentl< this image cannot be published under a GNU-licence. This is copyright violoation. High Contrast (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The Copyright notice of the stated homepage http://media.militaryphotos.net says: All photos, text, and information on this site are for educational and non-commercial use only. The photos in these albums are user submitted and are the property of those users. Consequentl< this image cannot be published under a GNU-licence. This is copyright violoation. High Contrast (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, it is currently in use on Basilan_Jaycees. --Tryphon (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
We hope you took the time to read the wikipedia article "Basilan Jaycees" before deciding to think that the abovementioned picture is a photograph fit for private photo albums alone. Taken into the context of the article, the activities for the 60th Anniversary mentions "celebrations", which the picture honestly portrays. No names were mentioned. Thank you. - jjarivera
Keep Used --Simonxag (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Appears to be validly in use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
probably a copyvio; I don't believe this was made by the uploader; I just deleted a copyvio from Getty Images, uploaded by the same user who has a history of copyvios. Túrelio (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I found new copyvios from this user. Okki (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nom. --Martin H. (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; non-sense image without any usability. Túrelio (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, I don't know if you're referring to the most recent image or to the naked guy in the past revisions, but the former is a copyvio and the latter is out of scope. --Tryphon (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy, so the copyright status of the work of art depicted is needed. Trixt (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
A higher quality version exists at File:Pioneer5 with test equipment.jpg Van der Hoorn (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Also the image is no longer used, except on the author's own pages. Van der Hoorn (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator --Daniel Baránek (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as the uploader of the original low quality version, is see no need to keep the low quality version, if we got a better one --GDK (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Smaller duplicate. --Dezidor (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Most likely a copyvio. A celebrity photo that looks like a professional promo photo. It was uploaded from Flickr where it's not longer available. All the other images of that Flickr user seem to be from holiday trips, parties, etc.. but no other celeb photos. Can also be found on the net in higher resolution, here (that site also has another image from the same photo shooting) and here. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This is more likely a thumbnail image from a website, not one that the uploader owns copyright to, in which case why has it been uploaded in such a small size? russavia (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No source ("Wikipedia" is not a valid source on its own) MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
better pic: File:Peking University.svg --Dingruogu (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, we usually don't delete raster images just because there is a vector image. In this particular case, the SVG is not even a faithful reproduction of the JPEG, and quite frankly, a rather bad vectorization (see the shaky contours), so people are likely to use the JPEG instead. --Tryphon (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept - totally not superseded. Obviously. — Mike.lifeguard 03:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The SVG is NOT A REPRODUCTION of the JPEG. See the history and usage of SVG. For most pages and most of the time, SVG is used. The only change I have made to SVG is the color. The official color (北大红) in CMYK is c0m100y100k45[1][2][3]. If anyone could help, please revise my edition in SVG and change the color of User:Shizhao edition. Surely enough, you could contribute to this JPEG too, and I would not insist on deletion of JPEG with correct color.
BTW, I seldom visit commons.wikimedia.org, thus please contact me at zh:User:Dingruogu and zh:User talk:Dingruogu. Thanks.
BTW2, I did not notice this page was archived, so I edited but later revised. What about raising another deletion request? Sorry to trouble you again. --Dingruogu (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Again, if the JPEG is different from the SVG, there is absolutely no reason to delete it, even if no one uses it at the moment. The JPEG comes directly from the university's website, so it can be used as a reference if someone wishes to make another SVG, for example. As of the color, if it's wrong you or anyone else can change it, there is no need to delete either. You can raise those concerns on the image talk page, if you want potential users to be aware of this issue. --Tryphon (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Image of a museum site. Why Creative Commons Licensing? Avron (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment "No permission" added. Many problems from uploader. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Shizhao: In category Unknown as of 16 February 2009; no permission
Image lacks usable description - who is the player? what team does she play for?? Tabercil (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think the lack of description is a good enough reason for deletion. Even anonymous, this image can be useful to illustrate volleyball in general. But it hasn't got a license, so I tagged it with {{No license}} and warned the uploader. --Tryphon (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by MichaelMaggs: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Stoilova_def.jpg
COA is misnamed, badly watermarked, not used and superseded 85.179.174.111 12:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, looks like it was based on this image (the only change is the color of the cross and the watermark), which makes it a copyvio. --Tryphon (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio. WJBscribe (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The Roche logo is copyrighted. Bidgee (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Keep, the Roche logo is so basic that it is {{PD-textlogo}} anyway. Besides, I think de minimis would apply here. --Tryphon (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Disagree. If the logo is copyrighted on Wikipedia the same applys here. Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia tends to be overly careful about logos, because they have the possibility of keeping them anyway under fair-use. But if you read {{PD-textlogo}}, you'll see that it matches exactly this situation: one geometric shape (an hexagon) and one word (Roche).
As a side note, one can always make copyright claims on something (and I'm sure Roche does) but that does not make it true. Take for example the wikimedia logo, I doubt it is eligible for copyright, and it is All rights reserved nonetheless. --Tryphon (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia tends to be overly careful about logos, because they have the possibility of keeping them anyway under fair-use. But if you read {{PD-textlogo}}, you'll see that it matches exactly this situation: one geometric shape (an hexagon) and one word (Roche).
- Comment: Disagree. If the logo is copyrighted on Wikipedia the same applys here. Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Otherwise you would have to delete every photo of packaging and so on. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The logo is not the main motif of this image. Similar photos are also much more and Commons has accepted there. --Vantey (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. shizhao (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
A contemporary map (1967) of land holdings in 1658 in a town in Quebec; as a 1967 (not 1658) work, not public domain in Canada, and no indication iit has been freely licensed by copyright holder skeezix1000 (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Image not used + cannot be displayed Zigeuner (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's one of those SVGs trying to embed a bitmap image, thus failing to be rendered by the Commons engine (but you can still see the SVG in firefox, by following the direct link to the file). It's easily fixable, but I'm guessing the result would not be accurate without the bitmap. Maybe the uploader can do something about it. --Tryphon (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not fixed so far. Unused. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Icon written in 2005[3], uploader is not its author sk (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 18:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Excerpt from copyrighted movie. Looks like The Sixth Sense, though I couldn't find that exact sequence when quickly browsing through the movie. Original image description says courtesy of Adakin Productions, The Night Before, but the depicted actor seems to be Haley Joel Osment, who did not star in that movie. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This cannot be a copyright free image. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Earlier upload on en:Wikipedia, uploader described "Permission= Image courtesy of Adakin Productions. "The Night Before" 2003." Image is in use in Wikipedias in 11 languages, in several on more than one page. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- It would need an OTRS message then... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, subject to contacting the uploader & verifying permissions. the uploader is a professional cameraman working in LA, and has a good history on wiki. presumably the footage is his, if it happens to have been used in a film as well, the film might be copyrighted, but his specific footage is still his own. (or there might be some other circumstance, that was covered in the original upload, but has gotten lost in the moving around. we need to check that as well) 65.93.199.197 12:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Follow-up. I just checked the original uploader's talkpage on wiki (no idea if he has a WMC account). HE HAS NOT BEEN NOTIFIED OF THIS DELETION REQUEST. that needs to be fixed, asap. 65.93.199.197 12:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Even if the uploader is a professional cameraman, he has probably agreed to hand his copyright for movie productions over to his employer. Thus we would need permission from them and not from the actual creator. BTW, the original uploader has been notified by now. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure he did assign rights for use in the film to the company making it, but that doesn't mean he assigned ALL RIGHTS for all the footage, for all purposes. I would expect that he retains some rights of use (and/or ownership); to demonstrate his work, for example. copyright law in the USA does acknowledge the individual rights of authors of a joint or corporate work. also, the original assignment suggested that he had gotten permission from the prod. company. i'm not sure where the onus lies for proof on this one. has the uploader responded? (don't think it is osment; just looks a bit like him.) Lx 121 (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think he assigned all rights, except the ones for private use. What movie company would give their employees permission to commercially use their work for every purpose? This wouldn't make sense as the movie company wants to be the only one with the right to use the content commercially. Otherwise the cameraman could just sell his work to several movie companies at once. Thus it is unlikely that he is in a position to release this for commercial use, thus the permission is not sufficient for Commons. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure he did assign rights for use in the film to the company making it, but that doesn't mean he assigned ALL RIGHTS for all the footage, for all purposes. I would expect that he retains some rights of use (and/or ownership); to demonstrate his work, for example. copyright law in the USA does acknowledge the individual rights of authors of a joint or corporate work. also, the original assignment suggested that he had gotten permission from the prod. company. i'm not sure where the onus lies for proof on this one. has the uploader responded? (don't think it is osment; just looks a bit like him.) Lx 121 (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Even if the uploader is a professional cameraman, he has probably agreed to hand his copyright for movie productions over to his employer. Thus we would need permission from them and not from the actual creator. BTW, the original uploader has been notified by now. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Follow-up. I just checked the original uploader's talkpage on wiki (no idea if he has a WMC account). HE HAS NOT BEEN NOTIFIED OF THIS DELETION REQUEST. that needs to be fixed, asap. 65.93.199.197 12:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I vote to keep; this appears to be fair use. Image size is small and can't really be used commercially, and it is clear that the photo's intention is to show what a strip of color film looks like.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.32.201 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
- Please read Commons:Licensing#Material under the fair use clause is not allowed on Commons for why we cannot host fair use images. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. This would need permission to OTRS MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
عاشق ولهان
--212.118.140.235 22:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Although I don't understand Arabic (which google translates as Aeshek and Han which is barely helpful), I'd say keep, because the source seems legitimate and I see no other problem with the image. --Tryphon (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure but I believe this is a derivative work. The plate is made for the woman in 1944/ 1945 so it is not PD yet Abigor talk 15:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't COM:FOP#The_Netherlands apply? This is in a public space, right? --Tryphon (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Tryphon is right, I think. The image about the 'Hunger Winter' of 1944-1945 here appears to be in a public space or at least in a public setting...and can be kept. It would not be a copyright infringement under Dutch FOP law. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Dutch Freedom of Panorama law allows this. Pruneautalk 10:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure but I believe this is a derivative work Abigor talk 15:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think this should be seen as a problem. It's the "coat of arms" of the Dutch amutomobile association. You never see it nowadays, but several decades ago, people would fix it to their car to show their membership. (Often accompagnied by a similar shield saying "ww", for "Wegenwacht", their breakdown service. Both the ANWB and the Wegenwacht still exist -in fact, the ANWB is probably the largest Dutch association in terms of membership- but I can't remember having seen these shields since, say, 1970. I hardly think the ANWB will object to this picture. MartinD (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Than somebody have to ask them and get permission to use it and send it to OTRS. Abigor talk 16:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Pruneautalk 10:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure but I believe this is a derivative work Abigor talk 15:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is not a derivative work, it is the original. The other 'Wegenwachtschildje' was made when the Wegenwacht existed 40 years. Both are originals. Please remove the deletion request. Tasja (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please read Commons:Derivative works for more information, the main problem is that the schildje is protected with copyright and you can not just take a picture of it and claim copyright on it. Abigor talk 15:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see. Then you must remove a lot of other files as well. Please start with this one: File:Automobileclub_Badges_NL.jpg. I hope you have some spare time at hand. Tasja (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please see what I have written on the talk page of File:Schildje ANWB Nederland.jpg. MartinD (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see. Then you must remove a lot of other files as well. Please start with this one: File:Automobileclub_Badges_NL.jpg. I hope you have some spare time at hand. Tasja (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please read Commons:Derivative works for more information, the main problem is that the schildje is protected with copyright and you can not just take a picture of it and claim copyright on it. Abigor talk 15:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 18:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
not used anymore Aaltonen (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Copy from discussion-page:
"This is a cover of band Amiina EP. Wikipedia gives a permission to freely upload the covers of CDs and EPs. --Aaltonen (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- No. The English Wikipedia uses copyrighted album covers because of an exception in US copyright law called en:Fair use. Commons and most other Wikipedias don't allow such uploads of copyrighted works because they are not free, see Commons:Licensing#Material under the fair use clause is not allowed on Commons. --Kam Solusar (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)"
Deleted No proof of permission. --MGA73 (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
ot of scope Abigor talk 18:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not certain what "ot of scope" is intended to mean, but this image appears to be free and is used to illustrate the en:Unabomber for President article on the English Wikipedia. Astrojunta (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
how is this "out of scope"?
- I also fail to see how this is out of scope. Rob T Firefly (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept it is in use and therefore in scope. --MGA73 (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Probably copivio
- Keep I found no reason to asume it is a copyviolation. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of Project Scope (too small). Kameraad Pjotr 19:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
duplicate - File:Fedorovka_map.jpg
- Delete Duplicate, not used. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
