Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/02/19
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.svg){kind=link}
Delete: copyright violation of this image. Ww2censor (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy close as already marked as copyvio to be speedy deleted --Tony Wills (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: Copyright violation
This file is no longer licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License, please remove this images . 89.139.82.129 22:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep, sorry but free licenses are irrevocable here on Commons. --Tryphon (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)- Keep, idem than Tryphon. Okki (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Irrevocable. Gridge (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC).
Speedy kept. Kanonkas(talk) 00:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete this unnecessary new image that does not comply with usual dimensions, colour or format by currently blocked (for copyvios) editor. A far superior svg image File:Flag of Ireland.svg already exists. Ww2censor (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
image from 1930 needs source info (i.e. photographer) before it can be proclaimed PD-old. All thats needed is that photographer survived 9 more years Lokal_Profil 17:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment A source is given - a 1995 book. If that book does not mention a photographer, it is safe to assume {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- But no information is given regarding whether a photographer is mentioned in the book or not. /Lokal_Profil 21:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- The photographer is not mentioned in the book and cannot be traced. It's more than 77 years. Lidingo (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- But no information is given regarding whether a photographer is mentioned in the book or not. /Lokal_Profil 21:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept as {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} Lokal_Profil 18:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
"For informational purpose only." is not enought. Also PD-old cannot be verified for an image from 1910 where the author is unknown Lokal_Profil 17:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Is the artist unknown by the uploader or does the book explicitly say "Cover by unknown artist". If it's the first then {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} doesn't apply. If it's the later then it's ok. /Lokal_Profil 18:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- The description says "a painting of Villa Foresta, by unknown artist around 1910". That sounds like a quote from the book. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes it's a citation from the book. The artist could not be traced. Lidingo (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- The description says "a painting of Villa Foresta, by unknown artist around 1910". That sounds like a quote from the book. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Is the artist unknown by the uploader or does the book explicitly say "Cover by unknown artist". If it's the first then {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} doesn't apply. If it's the later then it's ok. /Lokal_Profil 18:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. License changed to {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} and source/author made explicit.Lokal_Profil 18:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
89.16.12.238 16:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Speedy keep, no reason given. --Tryphon (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, I see no reason why is should be deleted. Bidgee (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Blurry headshot of some random... out of scope since Commons isn't your flickr stream. — Mike.lifeguard 23:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Unused private picture of a non-notable person. --Tryphon (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)- Delete per above. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Poorly composed shot of yet another penis. This adds nothing to what our repository already holds, thus is out of scope. — Mike.lifeguard 23:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Bidgee (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with nomination.--Jagro (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete It's even of lower quality than those already hosted Belgrano (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope - low quality, unusable apart from as an example of bad photography Tony Wills (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as Tony Wills -- Lychee (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope - low quality, unusable apart from as an example of bad photography Tony Wills (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope - low quality, unusable apart from as an example of bad photography Tony Wills (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as Tony Wills -- Lychee (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope - low quality, unusable apart from as an example of bad photography Tony Wills (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope - low quality, unusable apart from as an example of bad photography Tony Wills (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as Tony Wills -- Lychee (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that this is the uploaders photo since the source states just "Camera" the image is also found at (Copyrighted and was uploaded on that blog before it was uploaded here) http://www.vivalagraham.com/2008/09/20/coming-to-america-ladyhawke/ and http://www.morgenutgaven.com/2008/04/the-used-og-ladyhawke-til-hovefestivalen/ (Image is also on Ladyhawke's myspace page [1]) Bidgee (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This image is an incorrectly proportioned, and rarely used flag of Ireland. It doesn't look better beside similarly proportioned flags, it just looks wrong. The correct flag is: File:Flag of Ireland.svg. --Blue-Haired Lawyer (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, Flag of Ireland3-2.svg is used on at least 234 pages in 42 projects. Please refer to wiktionary:rarely. --Tryphon (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Where did you get that info from? As far as I can see there's only 4 pages on English Wikipedia that use the image and 3 of them are user pages. Blue-Haired Lawyer (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- From the check usage tool (there is a tab at the top of the image page). It's true that only four pages use this image on en.wp, but many other projects use it extensively. --Tryphon (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- In any case please note that the main reason for proposing deletion isn't that it's rarely used, but that it's incorrectly proportioned. Whoever using it should be. Blue-Haired Lawyer (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- But our policy doesn't allow us to delete images that are in use just because they are "wrong". It's up to the various projects to make the decision of using this image or not. --Tryphon (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Where did you get that info from? As far as I can see there's only 4 pages on English Wikipedia that use the image and 3 of them are user pages. Blue-Haired Lawyer (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- In which case I'm starting to wonder why you guys have an deletion request system at all. You might say that it's up to individual projects to use images or not, but it's impossible to delete this image on English Wikipedia because it's not on English Wikipedia. If I submitted a flag with the wrong colours, wouldn't that count as a reason for deletion?? Blue-Haired Lawyer (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- There are plenty of cases where images should be deleted (copyright violations, duplicates, out of scope, ...) I suggest that you read our deletion policy for a better understanding of those cases. --Tryphon (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- In which case I'm starting to wonder why you guys have an deletion request system at all. You might say that it's up to individual projects to use images or not, but it's impossible to delete this image on English Wikipedia because it's not on English Wikipedia. If I submitted a flag with the wrong colours, wouldn't that count as a reason for deletion?? Blue-Haired Lawyer (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use. Please see COM:PS#Media files. This explicitly deals with flags. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: what is educational value? EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
out of scope; obscene parody Man vyi (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, doctored image with penises added into it, was being used to vandalize en:Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. --Tryphon (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment If the parody is made by a Wikipedian then delete. If it comes from the wider sphere of political debate (obscene Iranian satire) and the PD status is genuine then keep. --Simonxag (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused probable attack imageMichaelMaggs (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Uploader is not the copyright holder. RockMFR (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
out of scope sугсго 22:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete Childish drawing that was (until I removed it) being used to vandalize a school Wikipedia page. --Simonxag (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW. Photo of a photo, sугсго 22:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Derivative image. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted image, credited on newspapers to: AP Photo/The Stamford Advocate, Kathleen O'Rourke Bobak (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Only image by this uploader. Seems suspicious. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann: Copyright violation
Faulty information: Map of Europe in the year 2008 with Yugoslavia; not unsed; editor inactive. --Kolja21 (Diskussion) 04:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC) --Kolja21 (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Plants and animals don't care too much for human notional borders so the distribution info isn't really effected by us changing lines on the map. Feel free to update the image if you have better info about where those "borders" should go. Yes the image does need a decent description though. --Tony Wills (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. pr Tony WillsFinn Rindahl (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Faulty information: Map of Europe in the year 2008 with borders before 2003 (Yugoslavia); not unsed; no description; editor inactive. --Kolja21 (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Plants and animals don't care too much for human notional borders so the distribution info isn't really effected by us changing lines on the map. Feel free to update the image if you have better info about where those "borders" should go. Yes the image does need a decent description though. --Tony Wills (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. pr Tony. Finn Rindahl (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic, persons on the photo have no apparent or aserted notability, photo reflects negative perception and defames the entire group of people claiming unproven and questionable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.182.56 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 2009 February 19 (UTC)
- When it comes non-copyright issues, I'm only concerned about the personality rights of the young boy. And not even so much about that as the image is already 16 years old. Other than that, I can't agree with anon's argumentation. With regard to copyright issues, the image lacks a proper combination of source and permission. Samulili (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- The image does not a proper combination of source and permission, you mean? It was released under the CC-by-sa by User:Evstafiev. Rama (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Right, the image does not have a proper combination of source and permission. On the page it says that the image is self-made by Evstafiev, but User:Evstafiev has not touched the page. Also, there is no link to a page (or an OTRS link) where he gives permission and announces that he is the person took the image. Samulili (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- In fact he most likely did: [2]. Further information is all around Template:Evstafiev Mikhail and [3]. Rama (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Right, the image does not have a proper combination of source and permission. On the page it says that the image is self-made by Evstafiev, but User:Evstafiev has not touched the page. Also, there is no link to a page (or an OTRS link) where he gives permission and announces that he is the person took the image. Samulili (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Evstafiev-bosnia-serbs-boy-gun-to-head.jpg&diff=next&oldid=8377809){kind=link}
- I agree that we know for sure that Evstafiev has been a photographer in ex-Yugoslavia in 1992-1993, but there is really nothing that would give strong or even strong-ish evidence that this image is one of his. Unfortunately, the current state of the image and the information given does not meet the standard requirements for an file. Samulili (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and I'd like to add that I checked Evstafiev's remaining and deleted uploads on Commons and on the English Wikipedia, and this image has never been uploaded by him. Samulili (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Bumping the page on the watchlists, just to remind that this issue is still not resolved. Samulili (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- This image comes from [4], which clearly shows it as a work of Evstafiev's. Rama (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- The page you provided as a reference does not exist and cannot be used to prove anything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.139.252 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Page excists, and seem to verify Evstafiev as photographer. Finn Rindahl (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- The page you provided as a reference does not exist and cannot be used to prove anything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.139.252 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- keep, negative perception is not enough reason and lapse of showed people either. dontworry (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- keep
- It is not "unencyclopedic" to document a war on the ground, and Commons is not Wikipedia, so the argument is moot anyway.
- The people on the photograph are indeed not notable, as is the case in the vast majority of the images of Commons. This argument is irrelevant.
- The photograph might indeed be read as rather negative to a bunch of undisciplined, unshaved militiamen, but their lack of standards are their own doing; one can hardly assert that the photograph was taken without their full knowledge, so this is how they see fit to appear. User:Evstafiev's perception of these people, negative or otherwise, is 1) in his head, to which nobody has access and 2) irrelevant to how photons impressed the film in his camera. Even having the outmost admiration for these people would not make them look like the 1st regiment of infantry of the Garde Républicaine; maybe proper attire, trimming, shaving, discipline would have, but well, there we are. In any case, this is irrelevant to the status of this image.
- That User:Evstafiev is an "unproven and questionable source" is gratuitously insulting and borders on defamation. Rama (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete This image should be deleted because it is clearly in contravention with the Official Policy of Wikimedia Commons. While it is correct that Commons is not Wikipedia, it should be understood that Commons is not Flickr, Pbase, Youtube, or a personal gallery either. This image is eligible for regular deletion under the following criteria that is clearly stated in the Official Deletion Policy of Wikimedia Commons:
A file or page can be listed for deletion on Commons:Deletion requests in the following cases:
- The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Examples of files that are not realistically useful include:
- Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on. There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere.
- Self-created artwork without obvious educational use.
- Advertising or self-promotion.
- 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.
Wikimedia Commons does not grant exemption from its policies based on the perceived greatness of the author in the eyes of his of her admirers. All that we are presented here is an image of a bunch of weirdos, one of whom the author claims was a "Serb commander". What is the name of that "commander"? What is his rank, "the Commander"? There aren't any ranks visible on his person. What is the name of his unit? What exactly is educational about this image? Thy shall not play with guns, or I shall post your image on Commons, perhaps? Comparison of this below-mediocre shot with the Pulitzer prize winner Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima[5] is an insult to those brave men and to the war photographer who took that image. Comparing it with the images of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib is preposterous - those images have clear origin, including the name of the military unit, the name of the military personnel and their commander. This staged photo-op does not contain any such information nor any other valuable information.
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WW2_Iwo_Jima_flag_raising.jpg){kind=link}
There is an image of a personal, non-military vehicle right behind the group that is in the image. Did those "military men" perhaps drive to their photo-op in their personal car for the alleged prisoner exchange? For all what it is worth, that image could have been taken in someone's front yard in the Midwest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.139.252 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete The whole setting seems to be posed and hence unencylopedic. The image shows only a few guys and a boy who play a weird game for the camera. --Eva K. is evil 00:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Double non sequitur:
- that the image is posed does not make it unencyclopedic: Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is posed, for instance, as are a number of images in Category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse;
- that it be unencyclopedic would not be an argument for deletion. Commons is not Wikipedia.
- Rama (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Double non sequitur:
Delete I agree with all the above arguments.The photograph illustrating serbs is posed and therefore misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.209.48 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 20. Feb. 2009 (UTC)
- this photo from same source also "...reflects negative perception..." and is "...a bad representation of one whole nation...": [6] ?? dontworry (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- ps. this photo "...reflects..." etc. [7] too - should we therefore all such documents delete? dontworry (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Evstafiev-ratko-mladic-1993-w.jpg?uselang=de){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-14468,_Berlin,_NS-Boykott_gegen_j%C3%BCdische_Gesch%C3%A4fte.jpg?uselang=de){kind=link}
- No, we should not "all such documents delete", with reference to the documents that you mentioned, because unlike this particular image that should indeed be deleted, the documents you referred to: a) do not put the entire nation on the spot based solely on the ethnic origin, b) have clear historical perspective, context and reference, c) have indisputable source (German Federal State Archives), including the date it was taken and the place.
Keep The reason given for deletion is that the image shows some group or other in a bad light. The Commons is not censored. Though the subjects are clearly posing for the picture it illustrates a bit of military jollity and the attitudes of those involved. --Simonxag (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete I agree with the deletion request. I believe the photo is meant to enflame anti-Serb bias. That the photo is posed is not reason in and of itself to be unencyclopedic. I would argue that it is unencyclopedic because the participants in the photo are not identified/verified and cannot be identified/verified as Serbs or of the Serb military. I believe the purpose of the photo is to incite hatred against Serbs as barbaric and warmongering. See how they treat their children?
- the photo don't show babarism, it shows only stupidity - like any multiple votings from the same person on this side! ;-) dontworry (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. There's no rationale to delete this image pr Commons:SCOPE, and I can't really see a copyright issue either. Finn Rindahl (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
out of project scope Ottre 09:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Finn Rindahl (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The uploaded states "Use my iniative and put it under cc-by licence". Obviously this leaves the licensing situation somewhat questionable. I appreciate this was uploaded a good while ago now when I assume the uploader was less familiar with licensing issues. Adambro (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I do note that there are over images from this photographer and others which appear to have similar issues. I would ask the uploader to look back through their early uploads and bring any which aren't definitively freely licensed to our attention. Adambro (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The photographer clearly allows use for making commercial 3D models. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Where have they said they agree to licence it under cc-by? "All are welcome to use the photographs however model manufacturers are asked to acknowledge sources when appropriate" isn't really good enough. Adambro (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with that. -- Lychee (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The source site now says "all rights reserved". I'd want an OTRS confirmation of any license. --Simonxag (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom Finn Rindahl (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
unknown author, CC license invalid Fuzheado (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
maybe copyvio. see same photo: [8], [9], [10] shizhao (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The first image is from a March 2003 web site whereas this image was placed here 4 years later in 2007. Probable copyvio. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Until recently in use in es:Oposición al gobierno de Hugo Chávez. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom. No longer in use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This image does not have a free license. RockMFR (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Non-free. §hepTalk 22:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
duplicate of old version of Image:Carte indicatifs téléphoniques français.svg, also bad SVG file -- Lychee (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, was a duplicate of Image:Carte indicatifs téléphoniques français.svg, which has since been fixed; no need to keep the old corrupted version. --Tryphon (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Image lacks provenance demonstrating it came from Pirate bay and that the license asserted applies. Lacking a link to the image on the site, it coud have come from anywhere. Needs fixing or should be deleted. ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- How hard is it to visit The Pirate Bay website and see the image staring you right in the face? A little due diligence before nominating for deletion in future, please. Astrojunta (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the person who nominated this for deletion needs his head examined. For refrence, the image is here: http://static.thepiratebay.org/doodles/kingkong.jpg --Intimidated (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- You missed the second part of the sentence ...and that the license asserted applies. Both precise source and permission from the author are needed. Also note that the image won't stay on the Pirate Bay's main page forever, so the direct link was necessary too. --Tryphon (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is absolutely clear to anyone simply glancing at ThePirateBay homepage that they intend for their content to be copied and to be rights-free. They have used the kopimi logo on the page, signifying that they wish for it to be copied. --Intimidated (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- How is it equivalent to public domain? Is derivative work allowed? Commercial use? The right to copy something is not equivalent to a free license. Think of freewares, which are very often non-free softwares (in the sense of freedom). --Tryphon (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is absolutely, completely, rights free. No license. No copyright. Is this really a difficult concept to understand? --Intimidated (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- How is it equivalent to public domain? Is derivative work allowed? Commercial use? The right to copy something is not equivalent to a free license. Think of freewares, which are very often non-free softwares (in the sense of freedom). --Tryphon (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Also, notice should be taken to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopimi#Kopimi which explains "official" usage of kopimi. Also, look at the license clause for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kopimi.gif, which hasn't been put up for deletion even though it simply states that; "The copyright holder of this work specifically requests that this work be used for any purpose, including unlimited commercial use and redistribution.". I feel that this image (due to the usage of kopimi on thepiratebay.org) will fall under the same category. Deletion should not be necessary, but changing "Public Domain" to the above statement might be necessary to reflect the correct "licensing" of this image. Everything doesn't fall under a neat category. -- Udoprog 83.168.233.103 10:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is absolutely clear to anyone simply glancing at ThePirateBay homepage that they intend for their content to be copied and to be rights-free. They have used the kopimi logo on the page, signifying that they wish for it to be copied. --Intimidated (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I had just made that template on the English Wikipedia, if you wanna make it up here that's fine. It was originally marked as PD-Author though. ViperSnake151 (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I really don't think it should become an official license on Commons. In fact, I don't even think it is a license. Look at the Kopimi homepage, there is just one line of "legal text" saying: kopimi (copyme), symbol showing that you want to be copied. (the rest of the line only tells you where to put the logo). Compared to the legal work behind the CC licenses for example, I really think it's not enough. --Tryphon (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- You missed the second part of the sentence ...and that the license asserted applies. Both precise source and permission from the author are needed. Also note that the image won't stay on the Pirate Bay's main page forever, so the direct link was necessary too. --Tryphon (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just slap Template:Copyrighted free use on this instead of PD. This is a pretty close approximation of what their supposed license is. Wickethewok (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- If the copyright holder is only giving permission for redistribution, then this is not a free license. It doesn't even seem to permit derivatives. The same would apply to File:The Pirate Bay logo.svg. Dominic (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I also see it this way. You're free to copy the image, maybe even for commercial purposes, but I didn't find any hint that modifying it is also allowed. -- Lychee (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- If the copyright holder is only giving permission for redistribution, then this is not a free license. It doesn't even seem to permit derivatives. The same would apply to File:The Pirate Bay logo.svg. Dominic (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Blustering about my needing my head examined is not helpful, and does not sort the issues that need sorting. The license needs to be clarified (since it apparently does not allow derivative work, it's not a free license)... and a permanent link to the image (not an ephemeral one) needs to be given. Absent those things, the image needs to be deleted. Perhaps someone could write the Pirate Bay folk, explaining the issue and asking for verbiage to be sent to OTRS that resolves the license issue, because just slapping another license on it isn't the right approach. ++Lar: t/c 11:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is widely accepted and acknowledged that ThePirateBay reject any and all forms of copyright - for entirely this reason. I am the original creator of this image, however I am not going to provide proof or evidence of this because I shouldn't have to. If you feel the need to protect the supposed "copyright" of people who don't wish to be protected, then my content hardly belongs here, and it just goes to show exactly how un-free Wikimedia is. For clarity, Kopimi is not a license. It signifies the absence of a license. --Intimidated (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's not that simple. If you are truly against copyright, then why don't you just release this under an actual free license, or into the public domain? At least that way the people that you want to reuse it can actually do so without also violating your copyright (regardless of whether you want it or not), and having to be dependent on the chance that you don't change your mind any time in the future and choose to enforce your copyright, which you have never disclaimed. Dominic (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody is trying to protect your copyright, this is in the interest of protecting Wikipedia. As Dominic said, there is already a way to release work that signifies the absence of a license. You should add your clarfication to the "kopimi" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitbit (talk • contribs) 14:15, 2009 March 8 (UTC)
- It is widely accepted and acknowledged that ThePirateBay reject any and all forms of copyright - for entirely this reason. I am the original creator of this image, however I am not going to provide proof or evidence of this because I shouldn't have to. If you feel the need to protect the supposed "copyright" of people who don't wish to be protected, then my content hardly belongs here, and it just goes to show exactly how un-free Wikimedia is. For clarity, Kopimi is not a license. It signifies the absence of a license. --Intimidated (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Closed this delete discussion since i believe the license has been ammended appropriately --87.106.221.66 23:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- http://www.inmagine.com/vl002/vl002072-photo from the Liquidlibrary Animals Realistic CD looks familiar, and the army of lawyers who drafted its license didn't make it too permissive. There may have been other agreements, of course... --Para (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, the above reference makes it a copyvio on top of not having an appropriate license. None of the concerns about the Kopimi "license" have been addressed, except by modifying the {{Kopimi}} template in a way that does not reflect at all what is said on the reference website (I will revert those changes after this DR is closed). --Tryphon (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep, The Pirate Bay have released "verbiage that resolves the license issue", see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Kopimi. --GRuban (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)- I'm glad there is a discussion going on about the Kopimi license. But regarding this image, it doesn't really change anything, as it seems to be based on copyrighted material (see the link above, provided by Para). --Tryphon (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. The copyright material is a piece of clip art, specifically intended to be sold to be used in making new pictures, like this. In general, if we ran into this image in any other context, I'd argue that we should assume they bought it. In this specific context, though ... yes, I agree there is some grounds for suspicion. :-) --GRuban (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad there is a discussion going on about the Kopimi license. But regarding this image, it doesn't really change anything, as it seems to be based on copyrighted material (see the link above, provided by Para). --Tryphon (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Recapping: 1)
There was a question about what source the image is from. Further assertion has been made that it comes from PirateBay but no permanent link has yet been given. This needs resolution but seems easy enough to fix by the uploader, if they are so inclined, or another interested party.2) The image was uploaded from a source that uses an "odd license". It's not yet clear that the Kopimi statement/license grants the necessary rights, including the right to create derivative works. Clarification on that is needed, but could be obtained if desired... absent that, the image is not properly licensed... no one has adequately refuted that claim, in my view, although there have been a lot of statements made in this discussion, they don't address the core point that the license is not satisfactory. Thus, deletion is justified on that ground. ("verbiage that resolves the license issue" may or may not). For the record I would love it if the Kopimi permission turns out to be adequate. 3) Finally, and more specifically, the image may not be something the uploader can freely license, because it is apparently a derivative work of material that asserts a copyright that does not allow derivative work. The gorilla image would need to be shown to have been sourced from a source that has a valid free license to it. Which has not been done, as far as I can tell. Any one of these things is sufficient for a finding of delete. Therefore I ask that if these are not resolved soon, this image be deleted (and restored if and when they are). ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)- No, 1) was corrected, there's a static link now. ++Lar: t/c 16:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it time we closed this? It is a a blatant copyright violation! Plrk (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation. –Tryphon☂ 12:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me but how it is an "obvious case" as it was described? I asked personally the author of the image to upload his picture to Wikipedia, he sent me an email which I later forwarded to the OTRS email. El bart089 (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- The reason for speedydeletion was: Permission given for non-derivative use only as per OTRS ticket 2009021810074117. So: Nino H. does not allow commercial use and/or derivative works of his photo, thats not free enough for Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. per Zureks speedy request after reviewing the OTRS ticket, nothing happend after this. Martin H. (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Uploader is not the copyright holder. RockMFR (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, The uploader claims to have created the screenshot which is licensed for use here. The owners of the malware in question do not own rights to screenshots of their "app", this is fair use. BaShildy (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually they more or less do. Commons isn't for fair use images...only certain projects accpet these types of images. §hepTalk 22:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete As an image that would need to be fair use. §hepTalk 22:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, It's not owned by the Malware itself.--Ukelay33 (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, they would own the end-user interface's design that we are seeing. §hepTalk 18:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- I meant the image, not the interface--Ukelay33 (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- So then they would claim the rights to any image of their interface. §hepTalk 01:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Anonymous works are often protected for many years even though the author is unknown. --AVRS (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, it’s a schreenshot of rogue app – no copyrights! user:A:-)Brunuś 09:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, screenshots of propriety applications appear throughout the Wikipedia nd generally considered fair use. Moreover, this program is a malware and probably is not entitled to any copyright claims.--76.31.205.97 04:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Commons isn't for fair use images. They're not allowed. Saying that it's malware makes it's front-end PD is baseless; that's like saying an amateur photographer can't claim all rights to their photos, but a professional one can. §hepTalk 07:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - A screenshot of a program should be allowed. Simply look at [11]'s article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mat128 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please read Commons:Project scope. --AVRS (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Screenshots of proprietary applications are not allowed at Commons, see COM:PS for what Commons is for. If you think a rogue app cannot be copyrighted, feel free to request undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests. AVRS (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
GADM is under a noncommercial license (cc-by-nc-sa-3.0-us) according to http://biogeo.berkeley.edu/gadm/ Lokal_Profil 21:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. "self-made from data collected by the GADM project" No copyvio in just using the data. Rocket000 (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This picture was not made bz the author as employee of the US Government, but as a free photographer Bahnmoeller (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept, correct, wrong licensed but public domain with Template:PD-Van Vechten, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/van.5a51976. To uploader: Please search "Van Vechten" in the search box prior to such an upload and look at some example images to figure out which licehse is correct. Not everything from the LOC is work of the Government. --Martin H. (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
In which country this image was shoot? What about Commons:Freedom of panorama? EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It was shot in France, but I don't think FOP has anything to do with it since it is a model of the actual castle, located inside one of its rooms. --Tryphon (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No freedom of panorama in France, not even for buildings. This is a modern model and will be copyrighted. --Simonxag (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploads by Ycubano
[edit]Uploads by Ycubano (talk · contribs) are suspected copyright violation
The inittial file for this mass-deletion request was File:Cumbre.jpg which is, including the filename, taken from http://www.bohemia.cu/2008/05/23/internacionales/cumbre.html. Also the uploads include old files of Fidel Castro that are obvious not the uploadser own work, official portraits with claim of authorship, and so on. The list below is sorted by subjects following my own mind, feel free to resort it. I suspect, that Ycubano is not the author of the images like claimed and that he dont have a permission from the original authors, photographers or holders of copyrights.
Portraits of Politicians
- File:Gretchenfeem.jpg
- File:Juan esteban lazo hernandez.jpg
- File:Machado.jpg
- File:Julio-1.jpg
- File:Ce-maria del carmen concepcion.jpg
- File:Ce-luis-saturnino.jpg
- File:Ce-leopoldo cintra frias.jpg
- File:Ce-julio-casas.jpg
- File:Ce-julio martinez ramirez.jpg
- File:Ce-juan jose ravilero fonseca.jpg
- File:Ce-juan almeida bosque.jpg
- File:Ce-jose ramon balaguer cabrera.jpg
- File:Ce-jose miguel miyar barrueco.jpg
- File:Ce-iris betancourt tellez.jpg
- File:Ce-ines maria chapman waugh.jpg
- File:Ce-guillermo garcia frias.jpg
- File:Ce-francisco soberon valdes.jpg
- File:Ce-dignora montano perdomo.jpg
- File:Ce-carlos-manuel-valenciaga-diaz.jpg
- File:Ce-alvaro lopez miera.jpg
Other politics related images
- File:Calderonrau.jpg
- File:Palco2.gif
- File:Pala1.jpg
- File:Elecciones01.jpg
- File:Alarcon-06.jpg
- File:2-electores-con-machado.jpg
- File:Palcio.jpg
- File:Canci-g.jpg
- File:Ujc.JPG (Logo)
- File:Asamblea.jpg
Raul Castro
Vilma Espin
- File:Vilma-homenaje.jpg
- File:Fidel castro vilma espin2.jpg
- File:Fidel castro vilma espin.jpg
- File:Vbiografia.gif (description: Foto oficial de Vilma Espín Guillois)
Juan Almeida Bosque
Carlos Lage
Other stuff
- File:Planox.gif
- File:Beisbol-g.jpg
- File:Beisbol-p.jpg
- File:Megalocno en el Museo de Historia Natural de La Habana.jpg
- File:Megalocnus mandíbula.jpg
- File:Yacimiento de zaza.jpg
- File:Iturralde2.jpg
- File:Céspedes.jpg
Not nominated
--Martin H. (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep the photo: File:Vbiografia.gif (description: Foto oficial de Vilma Espín Guillois) Since it was her official photo from the Cuban government. 66.104.175.146 04:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Of course it is, but who is the author of the photo and why should the photo be GFDL licensed by the holder of copyrights? --Martin H. (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, a selection of generally unsourced images yoinked from various places with dubious license claims. If any individual images can have actual sources identified, be shown to be free licensed, and have their description/license tag corrected, do so and keep. Everything else, delete. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted All. Wknight94 talk 11:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Not useful for Wikimedia projects. RockMFR (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No description, not used. Pruneautalk 10:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Not useful for Wikimedia projects. RockMFR (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Images of users are allowed as a courtesy. Pruneautalk 10:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Not useful for Wikimedia projects. RockMFR (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Images of users are allowed as a courtesy. Pruneautalk 10:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
GADM is under a noncommercial license (cc-by-nc-sa-3.0-us) according to http://biogeo.berkeley.edu/gadm/ Lokal_Profil 21:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete(I am the uploader) This nomination is based on incorrect reasoning, as the website mentioned is a source for the data contained within this map, but is not the map itself. What this license means is that it would be illegal for someone to copy the data from their website and sell it on a CD-ROM for example. See for example the featured image File:Isle of Man topographic map-en.svg which lists this copyrighted source and Microsoft Encarta atlas (1999 edition) a well known copyrighted atlas. Most wikimedia project content is actually based on copyrighted data! (Just look at the sources for almost any wikipedia article).
- However as this image is corrupt and is not used, it can be speedy deleted if you wish. Please note however that this image was not copied from the source website, it is not a copyright violation! Jackaranga (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just for interest you can see the specific copyright status of GADM GIS content at http://biogeo.berkeley.edu/gadm/sources.html (USGS data is PD by virtue of American law). Jackaranga (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- You may also find this phrase funny General sources of administrative boundary data: Statoids, and the country entries in Wikipedia, it's a bottomless abyss. Jackaranga (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination based on the detailed source reference. As for it being corrupt I've got a working version at home (which is how I came across the licensing issue in the first place). /Lokal_Profil 16:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've sent an e-mail to GADM to get a clarification on whether there might have been any copyrighted additions by them to the USGS data. In the meantime File:Blank map of Afghanistan districts.svg now exists and is covered by this nomination. /Lokal_Profil 19:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- You may also find this phrase funny General sources of administrative boundary data: Statoids, and the country entries in Wikipedia, it's a bottomless abyss. Jackaranga (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, cleared of copyvio but corrupt file now superseded by File:Blank map of Afghanistan districts.svg Badseed talk 01:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
PD-Sweden-photo isn't applicable since it's a painting. Lokal_Profil 17:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, but what is the name of the painter: Bertil? Bodil? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Painters name seems to be Bertil xxx. The rest is not readable. Lidingo (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the painter´s name is Bertil Dumm. Dumm was a painter born in 1887 and ended his career as professor at the Royal Academy of Arts the same year that he died, 1942. He is not specifically known as a portrait painter, but for Swedish artists trained in the early 20th century, portait painting was an art mastered by almost all painters. Data on Dumm can be find on standard Swedish Artists´ Dictionaries, e.g. Svenska Konstnärer, Biografisk Uppslagsbok 2002, ISBN 91-973689-8-9.
- Painters name seems to be Bertil xxx. The rest is not readable. Lidingo (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think that we fairly well can attribute the painting to Dumm, and thus keep the image on Wikimedia.Boberger (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Dumm died 1942, you say. That means that his work will be free after 1942 + 70 = 2012. Maybe his work was free in 1993, but expired copyrights were resurrected because of Sweden joining the EU, and the EU believes that its principle of non-discrimination is stronger than other time-honoured legal principles. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, painter did not die before 1938 (died in 1942). Kameraad Pjotr 15:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
en:Jan G. Smith died 1966, not PD until 2036 Lokal_Profil 17:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Are machine drawings copyrighted? This is the kind of material protected by patents. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ritningen ägs (själva pappret) numera av Tekniska museet som inte har några förbehåll för publicering av ritningsutkastet som bild och det är fritt fram att fotografera deras material. Detta är en historisk skiss som knappast saknar annat värde än just som historia. Lidingo (talk) 11:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Owning the paper does not mean owning the copyright. Why would machine drawings not be copyrighted? /Lokal_Profil 18:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Jag fick ett besked om att spridning av dessa maskinskisser är OK vid mitt besök i Tekniska museets arkiv. Det har varit flera där och fotograferat för olika böcker. Räcker inte detta så föreslår jag att du ringer dit och frågar. Copyright på skisser på maskinritningar utan måttskalor och materialdata från 1924 som tillhör en produkt som är nerlagd för länge sen ju rena larvet. Du letar efter ett halmstrå för att kunna fälla en bild. Vad är du ute efter egentligen? Lidingo (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt that a machine drawing would have been regarded as "konstnärlig verk" (artistic work) according to the law that was in effect in 1925. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Om inte artisten som ritat bilden uttryckligen har efterskänkt upphovsrätten till den till Tekniska museet (i så fall har de nog ett kontrakt nånstans) så äger han fortfarande upphovsrätten till den oavsett om Tekniska museet äger den fysiska kopian av skissen. Vad gäller huruvida en sådan skiss inte skulle nå upp till "konstnärlig verk" får du i så fall hitta lagstöd för, annars måste vi anta att den (liksom alla andra verk) är upphovsrättsligt skyddad. /Lokal_Profil 18:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- A machine drawing is
not a litterary work, nor is it a work of art in the sense of the law, because it is not made with an artistic purpose. "Som konstnärliga verk räknas i princip alla former, i vilka verk skapas i syfte att nå en konstnärlig verkan, t.ex. i bild, rörelse eller toner." (source of this quote). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)- It seems technical drawings are regarded as literary works in regard to copyright law. There was a Swedish Supreme Court case in 1998. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- A machine drawing is
- Om inte artisten som ritat bilden uttryckligen har efterskänkt upphovsrätten till den till Tekniska museet (i så fall har de nog ett kontrakt nånstans) så äger han fortfarande upphovsrätten till den oavsett om Tekniska museet äger den fysiska kopian av skissen. Vad gäller huruvida en sådan skiss inte skulle nå upp till "konstnärlig verk" får du i så fall hitta lagstöd för, annars måste vi anta att den (liksom alla andra verk) är upphovsrättsligt skyddad. /Lokal_Profil 18:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Owning the paper does not mean owning the copyright. Why would machine drawings not be copyrighted? /Lokal_Profil 18:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ritningen ägs (själva pappret) numera av Tekniska museet som inte har några förbehåll för publicering av ritningsutkastet som bild och det är fritt fram att fotografera deras material. Detta är en historisk skiss som knappast saknar annat värde än just som historia. Lidingo (talk) 11:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
