Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/02/28
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Im not the creator of this file. It was taken from an old Pro Wrestling Illistrated magazine. Pro Wrestling Illistrated is still in business. PWI which also stand for Pro Wrestling Iron is out of business. Whatever I dont care, ill use a personal picture I took. I just thought it would be nice to have a wrestling picture up instead.
Hard to believ that the uploader is the creator of this file. Even PWI (Pro Wrestling Illustrated (?)) went out of business it is not be necessarily in public domain. High Contrast (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted; uploader cannot claim to be copyright holder of someone else's photo scanned from magazine. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
A better larger resolution image is available File:Stamp Armenia1992 1-3.jpg Ww2censor (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just use {{Duplicate}} --Butko (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Butko: Duplicated of or superseded by: File:Stamp Armenia1992 1-3.jpg
Private picture. Photo out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not a private photoalbum. High Contrast (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete, clearly. --Tryphon (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Out of project scope: and probably an attack image
Image is originally from WireImage - see here. Image was already uploaded and deleted once by me as a copyvio, but has been reuploaded with the comment: "I Own Every bit of this photo so please do not delete". Tabercil (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment said about a small web sized resolution photo found on the web with a clear watermark. Sheesh. If the uploader is the photographer and copyright holder, they can upload a high res unwatermarked version of their photo. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private potoalbum. EugeneZelenko (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - some families personal picture is not needed here. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This is apparently a map from 1900 which can hardly be "own work". Original source and author are missing. AFBorchert (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- The uploader has meanwhile provided a source: Die Provinz Sachsen in Wort und Bild Pestalozziverein der Provinz Sachsen I.Band Verlag von Julius Klinkhardt 1902 Seiten 95 ff. This book was edited by the Pestalozziverein but given this reference we still don't know the name of the author or are sure that this map was published anonymously. BTW, this book was published first in 1900 and then reprinted without any changes in 1902 (I've researched this at the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek and the Staatsbibliothek Berlin). --AFBorchert (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep At User talk:Biberbaer, you have identified the author as "Friedrich Wernicke". That guy wasn't hard to find at all: Wernicke, Friedrich, 1839-09-01 – 1909-11-23. The fourth hit on this Google search brings you to the "Magdeburger Biographisches Lexikon", who do have an entry on him. Tag as {{PD-old}}. Lupo 14:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept per Lupo. Thanks for researching this. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Apparently a derived work from a coat of arms sticker. There is no indication that the COA is not protected by copyright. AFBorchert (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Bad quality, no use. --Don-kun (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- deleted. Samulili (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
not used (enterprise is al local player in de:Terlan MartinS (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing permission. –Tryphon☂ 19:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
nicht benötigte Außenansicht eines KMU in Terlan MartinS (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- This is picture for an Article in De which was deletet, other uses are not thinkable----MartinS (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing permission. –Tryphon☂ 19:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
verletzung der rechte am eigenen Bild und unbrauchbar MartinS (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A good illustration of a person at work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- This is a picture for an Article in De which was deleted, other uses are not thinkable----MartinS (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Bad quality, useless. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing permission. –Tryphon☂ 19:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
and File:Zitruspresse IMGP3282 wp Orange.jpg.
Derivative work of a copyrighted design. Though this is not a toy, I think it has sufficient originality. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Was unterscheidet das Bild von anderen hier? -- smial (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Die Schöpfungshöhe bzw. der Grad an originality, um den amerikanischen Terminus zu verwenden. Auch auf der von dir verlinkten Seite finden sich Sachen, deren Bild IMHO nicht hier sein dürfte, z.B. File:Juicy salif.jpg. IMHO hört die direkte angewandte Kunst dort auf, wo wesentliche Abstriche an Funktionalität zugunsten der Kunst gemacht werden. Die genaue Linie vermag ich nicht zu ziehen, aber allgemein würde ich formulieren: Wenn man ohne die Bildbeschreibung nicht direkt erkennen kann, was der Gebrauchszweck ist, liegt die Vermutung nahe, dass es eine ausreichende Schöpfungshöhe hat, um geschützt zu sein. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Mh, also wer bei dem Ding nicht auf Anhieb sieht, daß es eine Zitronenpresse ist, hat vermutlich noch nie eine gesehen, dafür braucht es wohl keine Bildbeschreibung. -- smial (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ich habe es ehrlich gesagt nicht gesehen, bevor ich den Dateinamen gelesen habe. Davon abgesehen ist hier IMHO allein die Schöpfungshöhe durch ein signifikantes Abweichen von der Durchschnittsgestaltung gegeben. Wir alle wissen, wie eine normale Zitronenpresse aussieht und das hier ist definitiv etwas besonderes. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Der Golf I war auch etwas besonderes. Sieht das wie eine Uhr aus? Sag nicht, "Seiko baut halt Uhren, also ist es klar", denn könnte es nicht auch so etwas in einem besonderen Design sein? Würdest du dieses fischige Etwas als Zitruspresse erkennen, wenn es nicht als solche beschrieben wäre? -- smial (talk) Ps.: Nicht, daß wir uns falsch verstehen: Es geht mir völlig am Arsch vorbei, ob dieser Designunfall als Foto in der WP verbleibt oder nicht, aber ihr solltet euch über die Konsequenzen klar sein: Heutzutage ist nahezu jeder Gebrauchsgegenstand ein Designobjekt - bei Ikea ist beinahe jeder Artikel mit dem Namen des Designers verbunden. Da wird es auf Dauer schwierig werden, überhaupt irgendein Foto irgendeines industriell gefertigtes Produkts in der WP zu verwenden.
- Es stimmt, jeder Gegenstand ist ein Designobjekt, aber manche haben mehr Originalität als andere. Bei den von dir verlinkten Beispielen sehe ich keine große Schöpfungshöhe. Die Uhr ist eine simple Pyramide. Zwar nicht als Uhr erkennbar, aber trotzdem eine simple geometrische Form. Selbiges beim Metronom. Sieht aus wie ein Metronom, nur mit leicht veränderter Grundform. Beim Fisch wird es schon etwas kniffliger, das könnte eventuell schon schutzfähig sein, da bin ich mir allerdings etwas unsicher. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Der Golf I war auch etwas besonderes. Sieht das wie eine Uhr aus? Sag nicht, "Seiko baut halt Uhren, also ist es klar", denn könnte es nicht auch so etwas in einem besonderen Design sein? Würdest du dieses fischige Etwas als Zitruspresse erkennen, wenn es nicht als solche beschrieben wäre? -- smial (talk) Ps.: Nicht, daß wir uns falsch verstehen: Es geht mir völlig am Arsch vorbei, ob dieser Designunfall als Foto in der WP verbleibt oder nicht, aber ihr solltet euch über die Konsequenzen klar sein: Heutzutage ist nahezu jeder Gebrauchsgegenstand ein Designobjekt - bei Ikea ist beinahe jeder Artikel mit dem Namen des Designers verbunden. Da wird es auf Dauer schwierig werden, überhaupt irgendein Foto irgendeines industriell gefertigtes Produkts in der WP zu verwenden.
- Ich habe es ehrlich gesagt nicht gesehen, bevor ich den Dateinamen gelesen habe. Davon abgesehen ist hier IMHO allein die Schöpfungshöhe durch ein signifikantes Abweichen von der Durchschnittsgestaltung gegeben. Wir alle wissen, wie eine normale Zitronenpresse aussieht und das hier ist definitiv etwas besonderes. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Mh, also wer bei dem Ding nicht auf Anhieb sieht, daß es eine Zitronenpresse ist, hat vermutlich noch nie eine gesehen, dafür braucht es wohl keine Bildbeschreibung. -- smial (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Du fragst nicht ernsthaft, warum sich eine Uhr von einer Angela-Zitronenpresse unterscheidet? [[ Forrester ]] 21:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hä? -- smial (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Du ziehst Product Design als Argument heran und fragst, was Bild von diesen unterscheidet. Daraufhin fragte ich bezugnehmend auf ein Beispiel aus der Seite, die du anführst, File:Behrens-watch.jpg, ob du ernsthaft fragst, warum sich eine Uhr (diese) von einer Angela-Zitronenpresse unterscheidet. Verstehst du, was ich meine? ChrisiPK hat vollkommen recht, so sieht (zumindest nach meiner Erfahrung) keine Zitronenpresse aus, die sich vornehmlich als Zitronenpresse definiert. Oder anders gesagt: Du kannst File:Zitronenpresse fcm.jpg als Zitronenpresse zutreffend beschreiben, lässt du jedoch die äußergewöhnliche (und damit schutzwürdige) Gestaltung der Merkel-Zitronenpresse außer Acht und beschreibst diese lediglich als "Zitronenpresse" und nicht als "Zitronenpresse im Angie-Design", lässt du etwas charakteristisches weg. [[ Forrester ]] 11:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hä? -- smial (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Die Schöpfungshöhe bzw. der Grad an originality, um den amerikanischen Terminus zu verwenden. Auch auf der von dir verlinkten Seite finden sich Sachen, deren Bild IMHO nicht hier sein dürfte, z.B. File:Juicy salif.jpg. IMHO hört die direkte angewandte Kunst dort auf, wo wesentliche Abstriche an Funktionalität zugunsten der Kunst gemacht werden. Die genaue Linie vermag ich nicht zu ziehen, aber allgemein würde ich formulieren: Wenn man ohne die Bildbeschreibung nicht direkt erkennen kann, was der Gebrauchszweck ist, liegt die Vermutung nahe, dass es eine ausreichende Schöpfungshöhe hat, um geschützt zu sein. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ich habe keineswegs die Absicht, Uhren und Zitruspressen miteinander zu vergleichen. Wie kommst du auf die lustige Idee? Die Bildbeschreibung hast du gelesen? Da steht „Zitrusspresse Angela“. Was genau wurde da weggelassen? Wie sich ein Stück angemaltes Plastik selbst definiert, will ich lieber nicht wissen. -- smial (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Entschuldige, aber nichts anderes hast du mit "Was unterscheidet das Bild von anderen hier?" getan. [[ Forrester ]] 15:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ich kann nichts dafür, wenn du unbedingt etwas bewußt falsch verstehen willst und genau ein unpassendes Beispiel herauspickst. Mit nur ganz wenig Phantasie wirst du auf der Seite auch passendere finden. Ach ja: Was ist mit den anderen Vorwürfen? Nicht richtich nachgeguggt? Oder lieber schnell totschweigen? -- smial (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Meta: Für das "bewußt falsch verstehen" bist du normalerweise erstmal AGF-fällig. Ferner kannst du sehr wohl etwas dafür, dass ich ein unpassendes Beispiel herauspicke, denn du hast ja darauf verwiesen. Ich wollte dir vor Augen führen, dass es eben nicht so ist, dass schlichtweg alle Gebrauchsgegenstände geschützt sind. Mit "Oder lieber schnell totschweigen" ist nochmal AGF verletzt worden. Ich empfehle und bitte um einen sachlicheren Diskussionsstil.
- Inhaltlich: Großartig was anderes hast du eig. nicht gesagt außer vllt. "Da steht „Zitrusspresse Angela“. Was genau wurde da weggelassen?". Damit meinst du wahrscheinlich das: "Du kannst File:Zitronenpresse fcm.jpg als Zitronenpresse zutreffend beschreiben, lässt du jedoch die äußergewöhnliche (und damit schutzwürdige) Gestaltung der Merkel-Zitronenpresse außer Acht und beschreibst diese lediglich als "Zitronenpresse" und nicht als "Zitronenpresse im Angie-Design", lässt du etwas charakteristisches weg." Und verstehst mich falsch: Es geht nicht um die tatsächliche Beschreibung, ich wollte so argumentieren, dass wenn du über File:Zitronenpresse fcm.jpg sagst, dass es eine Zitronenpresse ist, das ausreicht. Dieses Bild hier als Zitronenpresse zu beschreiben ist nicht ausreichend, da das Wesentliche - und gleichzeitig auch Gestalterische - fehlt. Verstehst du, was ich meine? [[ Forrester ]] 20:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- AGF wortreich zu beanspruchen und gleichzeitig bei anderen negieren - lustig. Der Rest: Völlig unverständlich. Dafür bin ich zu dumm. -- smial (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ich kann nichts dafür, wenn du unbedingt etwas bewußt falsch verstehen willst und genau ein unpassendes Beispiel herauspickst. Mit nur ganz wenig Phantasie wirst du auf der Seite auch passendere finden. Ach ja: Was ist mit den anderen Vorwürfen? Nicht richtich nachgeguggt? Oder lieber schnell totschweigen? -- smial (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Entschuldige, aber nichts anderes hast du mit "Was unterscheidet das Bild von anderen hier?" getan. [[ Forrester ]] 15:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ich habe keineswegs die Absicht, Uhren und Zitruspressen miteinander zu vergleichen. Wie kommst du auf die lustige Idee? Die Bildbeschreibung hast du gelesen? Da steht „Zitrusspresse Angela“. Was genau wurde da weggelassen? Wie sich ein Stück angemaltes Plastik selbst definiert, will ich lieber nicht wissen. -- smial (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Keine Schöpfungshöhe. --AM (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep keine SH (und ein Grund mehr, sowas nicht auf Commons sondern .de zu laden...--Marcela (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Du weißt doch, daß dort die gleichen Bürokratieanbeter und Vorschriftenausdenker lauern, um dann Löschanträge wegen GFDL-1.2-only zu stellen. Das sind die Leute, die mit ihrem Bürokratiewust der WP mehr Schaden zufügen, als es tausend Vandalen an einem Tag schaffen. --Eva K. is evil 01:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Danach dürften hier viele Fotos von Alltagsgegenständen garnicht eingestellt werden, weil bei deren Design in irgendeiner Form geschützt ist. Der Löschantrag ist eine reine Spitzklickerei und kaum mehr als zweifelhafte Reiterei von angeblichen Regularien, die nicht existieren. --Eva K. is evil 01:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete "Danach dürften hier viele Fotos von Alltagsgegenständen garnicht eingestellt werden, weil bei deren Design in irgendeiner Form geschützt ist." und genau so ist das ja auch. Urheberrechtlich schützfähiges bzw. geschütztes Design >> nicht hochladen. Ist doch auch irgendwie logisch oder? Der Punkt ist, dass nunmal die meisten Alltagsgegenstände keine besondere Kreativität aufweisen. Das jedoch, was einen Alltagsgegenstand aus der Masse des Durchschnittlich-Gewöhnlichen heraushebt, liegt nur selten vor, hier allerdings schon. [[ Forrester ]] 21:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hast Du noch richtige Argumente, oder möchstest Du auch in Commons deine Bilderbürokratie aufbauen, Herr Förrster im Bilderwald? Mal ein Tip von Herzen: Kauf dir endlich eine Kamera, mach selbst Bilder und lad sie hoch, dann darfst Du auch fachlich mitreden. Vorher aber schweige und belehr nicht andere, die schon ein wenig mehr Erfahrung im Leben haben. Danke! --Eva K. is evil 00:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ich lasse mich nicht auf das Niveau deines Beitrags herab. Und erst recht maße ich mir nicht an, anderen das Recht an der Beteiligung eingestehen oder entziehen zu dürfen. Das hast du mittlerweile bei mehreren Leuten gemacht und es gefällt mir gar nicht. Es steht dir frei, auch auf Wikimedia Commons die Bürokraten anzulügen (oder formulieren wir es etwas mäßiger: falsche Gründe vorzuhalten) und mich deadminisieren zu lassen (wobei das hier nicht klappen wird, da ich hier nicht 1 Jahr inaktiv bin...). Alternativ kannst du auch meine Abwahl beantragen. Ändern wird das nichts daran, dass ich - genau so wie du - an Diskussionen hier teilnehmen darf. Ferner kannst du von mir aus mit Leuten, die dich mögen, deine Spielchen spielen. Ich brauche das jedenfalls nicht. Insofern ist das mein letzter Meta-Kommentar hier. [[ Forrester ]] 11:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Es wird dir von da unten, wo Du dich mit deinem Beitrag hinbegeben hast, auch sehr schwer fallen, dich noch auf etwas herabzulassen. --Eva K. is evil 13:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ich lasse mich nicht auf das Niveau deines Beitrags herab. Und erst recht maße ich mir nicht an, anderen das Recht an der Beteiligung eingestehen oder entziehen zu dürfen. Das hast du mittlerweile bei mehreren Leuten gemacht und es gefällt mir gar nicht. Es steht dir frei, auch auf Wikimedia Commons die Bürokraten anzulügen (oder formulieren wir es etwas mäßiger: falsche Gründe vorzuhalten) und mich deadminisieren zu lassen (wobei das hier nicht klappen wird, da ich hier nicht 1 Jahr inaktiv bin...). Alternativ kannst du auch meine Abwahl beantragen. Ändern wird das nichts daran, dass ich - genau so wie du - an Diskussionen hier teilnehmen darf. Ferner kannst du von mir aus mit Leuten, die dich mögen, deine Spielchen spielen. Ich brauche das jedenfalls nicht. Insofern ist das mein letzter Meta-Kommentar hier. [[ Forrester ]] 11:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Per COM:DW and applying the separability test: Registration of claims to copyright in three-dimensional useful articles can be considered only on the basis of separately identifiable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features which, [...] while physically inseparable by ordinary means from the utilitarian item, are nevertheless clearly recognizable as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work which can be visualized on paper, for example, or as free-standing sculpture, as another example, independent of the shape of the useful article, i.e., the artistic features can be imagined separately and independently from the useful article without destroying the basic shape of the useful article. –Tryphon☂ 19:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
supposedly copyvio, derivative or original without permission. --Don-kun (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 19:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Uploader stated www.presidencia.gob.mx as source of the image. Because this site is an official mexican homepage it is impossible that the uploader could have had found this file under a PD-USGov-licence. Image is copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No indication that this file is a work of the United States Federal Government. –Tryphon☂ 19:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Uploader stated www.presidencia.gob.mx as source of the image. Because this site is an official mexican homepage it is impossible that the uploader could have had found this file under a PD-USGov-licence. Image is copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No indication that this file is a work of the United States Federal Government. –Tryphon☂ 19:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
copyrighted newspaper ad --Kungfuman (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please check also detail File:MärklinNewspaperDetail.JPG and possibly File:Märklin baukasten deckblatt.jpg (age of this image?) --Kungfuman (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Was ist das Problem? Das Foto wurde von mir selbst erstellt und zeigt neben der Werbung noch weitere Märklinbauteile, was ein ganz neues Bild ergibt. Selbst der Name der Zeitschrift ist aus diesem Zeitungsausriss nicht mehr erkenn- bzw. eruierbar. File:Märklin baukasten deckblatt.jpg ist nicht von mir, dürfte aber auch so um die 1960er sein. Schaue hier und frage dort mal an, der scheint sich besser damit auszukennen. Dieses Bild [1] zeigt ebenfalls ein Baukastenbild mit Zubehör. Gibts es da Probleme? Gruß Bernhard --StromBer (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Bilder in Zeitungen u.a., gerade Werbung, (sofern jünger als 100 bzw 70 Jahre) sind idR urheberrechtlich geschützt. Ebenso Grafiken von Verpackungen u.ä. Die kann man nicht so ohne weiteres abfotografieren. Es sei denn, man hat die Erlaubnis des Verlags. --Kungfuman (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
![[1]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:M%C3%A4rklin_neu.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Derivative work. –Tryphon☂ 19:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
obviously not work of the uploader bzw derivate work of copyrighted material. JD {æ} 18:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 19:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
And all other uploads of Ray-kun (talk · contributions · Statistics): photos from different authors from different sites without perissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted all of them as missing permission.–Tryphon☂ 19:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
File not compliant with COM:SCOPE : useless for educational purpose. Probably import for advertising. Duch.seb (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as a plain copyvio of the website www.appartementenparamaribo.nl. --Tryphon (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The Flickr license checks out, but I think it is flickrwashing. Abigor talk 08:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Same for
[edit]
- File:PAznar.PNG
- File:MFornolles.PNG
- File:M Aznar III.PNG
- File:GTabunar.PNG
- File:EGonzales.PNG
- File:ACabatingan.PNG
- Delete The Flickr user has uploaded 11 photos, which correspond to the 11 former presidents of some university in the Philippines, according to [2] (from 1946 to today). I don't believe that the Flickr user owns the copyright to all these photos, which cover at least a 50-year span. Pruneautalk 11:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Images out of the private archive of Biberbaer
[edit]- File:Kriegsschiff1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Dampfer Berlin (1895).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MV Belvedere FGS 01 (alt).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Templin06.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MV Libelle.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Dampfer Friedensbote.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Dampfer Potsdam.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bastion im Volkspark Glienicke.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MV Nedlitz FGS 01.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MS Kiewitt FGS 01.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MV Berlin FGS 01.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MV Sanssouci 03.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MS Caputh FGS 01.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MS Strandbad Ferch FGS 01.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}
All these images were uploaded by Biberbaer. As source is given family archive or company archive without naming the original photographer or copyright holder and without providing the necessary permission or providing any proof that these images are meanwhile public domain. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This is a very heterogenous mass deletion request. Some of it is old, some are rastered, some seem to be private originals. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- This DR is a follow-up to this discussion and this thread on the uploader's talk page. I've already split up the questionable uploads into four DRs including two mass deletion requests. It is no problem to take a candidate out of this list if a satisfactory permission is sent to COM:OTRS. --AFBorchert (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Kriegsschiff1.jpg seems to be no problem in this collection, here IMHO we could trust him that he succeed all rights from his family member.--D.W. (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- We do not know the photographer's name nor do we have the photographer's consent or that of all his or her living heirs. And all this as to be processed through OTRS. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Aha, sehe ich nicht ganz so (Motto: „bleibt mal auf dem Teppich“). Das Bild ist von seiner ganzen Erscheinung als Privataufnahme zu identifizieren und Biberbaer hat bereits geschrieben, das es aus dem Nachlass eines nahen Verwandten stammt. Willst du dir dann auch den Erbschein (<klugscheiss> alternativ Testament mit Eröffnungsniederschrift, § 35 GBO analog </ klugscheiss>) vorlegen lassen? Ansonsten ist hier kein Deut mehr AGF nötig als bei jedem anderen "own work"-Upload..--D.W. (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hallo D.W., das ist keine Frage von AGF, da ich hier den Angaben von Biberbaer vertraue und aufgrund seiner Stellungnahme steht fest, dass wir die Bilder nicht behalten können. So wie ich ihn verstanden habe, stammt das eben aus Familienbesitz, aber der Photograph ist leider unbekannt und damit die komplette Rechtefrage. Der legale Besitz eines Bilds genügt noch nicht, um es veröffentlichen zu können. Es muss auch kein Erbschein vorgelegt werden. Es würde vollkommen genügen, wenn per OTRS die Details (Urheber, Erbfolge, Einverständnis aller Erben etc) offengelegt werden – dies muss nicht hier öffentlich ausgebreitet werden. Aber dieser Prozess entspricht den Politiken auf den Commons entsprechend COM:PRP. Das würde bei der Dateiüberprüfung auf de-wp kein Deut anders ablaufen. Ich gehöre im übrigen zu denen, die teilweise sehr viel AGF und Aufwand investiert haben, um hier Bilder zu retten, indem ich mit den Hochladern zusammengearbeitet habe, nachdem deren Bilder auf de-wp bereits voreilig gelöscht waren (siehe etwa hier). Deswegen lasse ich mir ungern mangelnden AGF vorwerfen. Viele Grüße, --AFBorchert (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hallo, um die Sache zu beenden und hier nicht unnötig Arbeit eurerseits zu binden, bitte ich um Löschung der Dateien. War ein Fehler von mir, sorry. Der Aufwand ist es nicht Wert. Danke an alle Beteiligten für Eure Bemühungen. Gruß --Biberbaer (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Aha, sehe ich nicht ganz so (Motto: „bleibt mal auf dem Teppich“). Das Bild ist von seiner ganzen Erscheinung als Privataufnahme zu identifizieren und Biberbaer hat bereits geschrieben, das es aus dem Nachlass eines nahen Verwandten stammt. Willst du dir dann auch den Erbschein (<klugscheiss> alternativ Testament mit Eröffnungsniederschrift, § 35 GBO analog </ klugscheiss>) vorlegen lassen? Ansonsten ist hier kein Deut mehr AGF nötig als bei jedem anderen "own work"-Upload..--D.W. (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted because of their unclear copyright status and on request of the uploader. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Images of mairie de Puteaux
[edit]- File:La_mairie_de_Puteaux_le_matin.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mairie de Puteaux.Entrée de la Poste by Line1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mairie de Puteaux.Façade nord 01 by Line1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mairie de Puteaux.Façade sud-est 01 by Line1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mairie de Puteaux.Façade sud-est 02 by Line1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mairie de Puteaux.Façade sud-est 03 by Line1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
All these pictures should be deleted because this building has been designed by Jean Niermans (1897-1989). As there's no FOP in France, photos of this building will only be free on 01-01-2060, 70 years after the death of the author. Pymouss Tchatcher - 23:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be copyvio, "after a character from the manga "ああっ女神さまっ"". --Don-kun (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ist der Manga irgendwo im Westen erscheinen, daß man mal gucken/suchen könnte?--Flattervieh (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- So ziemlich überall erschienen. Das ist AA Megami-sama bzw Oh My Goddess. Siehe zB en:Oh My Goddess --Don-kun (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work. Kameraad Pjotr 11:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of fameless doujinshi and bad quality, not in use. --Don-kun (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, either derivative work or out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 11:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Low resolution, high quality of the image, no EXIF data and exclusiveness of the shot makes it very doubtful that User:Bgpen has taken this photo. Most likely copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, probably a copyright violation (similar images appear on the web). Kameraad Pjotr 11:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
AVRS (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no proof that the coat of arms was created prior to 1938. Kameraad Pjotr 11:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This category included files with no common subject. They were easily assigned to other more accurate categories, and there is no use to keep this category anymore Drork (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that sounds reasonable unless you see it as an opportunity for more censorship. // Liftarn (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Liftarn - If you came here for political propaganda, you came to the wrong place. I suggest you open a blog. Drork (talk) 06:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It would be preferable in future if suggestions to delete categories were brought up for discussions before the category is emptied. If "They were easily assigned to other more accurate categories", it would surely be easy to explain where you intend to move the images before doing so to allow for it to be properly discussed. Adambro (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept, has potential to be a useful (meta-)category. Kameraad Pjotr 11:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
If this image is from 1882 or even 1892+, it can hardly have been created by the uploader. It is also not clearly PD as the publication time is unknown. Source is missing, too. AFBorchert (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per AFBorchert. Kameraad Pjotr 11:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Website states that commercial use is not permitted. http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/notices-avis-eng.asp Adambro (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Also File:Chief9999.jpg and File:Obama99911.jpg, both credited to the Canadian Government but no evidence that they actually permit commercial use. Adambro (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Wikimedia is not commercial it is not for profit. The image is used on the Internet elsewhere image First World War (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- All files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons must be available for commercial use. If you are acknowledging that these images are not available for commercial use then they should be deleted. Adambro (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, is there no +tag we can use for license for Wiki use only? I thought there was one. First World War (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- No there isn't and there's a reason for it. If you look at Commons:Licensing (which lays out what what is and what is not acceptable for uploading to Wikimedia Commons), it clearly states the following:
- The following restrictions must not apply to the image or other media file: Use by Wikimedia only (the only non-free-licensed exceptions hosted here are Wikimedia logos and other designs which are copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation).
- The reason for that is because "Wikipedia-only" license does not allow everyone the ability to use the picture. Tabercil (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- No there isn't and there's a reason for it. If you look at Commons:Licensing (which lays out what what is and what is not acceptable for uploading to Wikimedia Commons), it clearly states the following:
- File:Obama99911.jpg is actually from the Canadian Press, as seen here. That should be (and will be) deleted outright as a copyright violation - see here for the copyright policy of the CP. Tabercil (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Same thing for File:Chief9999.jpg - from CP as seen here, and deleted outright as copyvio. Tabercil (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- The original source for the Harper and Obama pics is here the Prime Ministers Office has posted them there, so anyone can take them and use them, including news organizations or Wikinews, which is where it is being used by me. Now put them back in WikiCommons. In future, post an AFD +tag! First World War (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'll take the CTV website over the PMO's website as the CTV site actually states who is the photographer in both cases. The Obama99911.jpg image is credited "Tom Hanson / The Canadian Press" and the Chief9999.jpg image is credited as "Adrian Wyld / The Canadian Press". And no, I will not restore as I feel the case for the image source being CP is persuasive... but you are welcome to list both images at Commons:Undeletion requests. Tabercil (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- There remains no evidence that these images are freely licensed, allowing commercial use. Far from it actually, there are statements that it isn't allowed. The Canada National Defence Forces website, presumably the source of Bear9991.jpg, states that "commercial redistribution is prohibited". Adambro (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- And I dug further into the PMO website and found their copyright notice. There is nothing there which puts everything into the public domain; it says "Reproduction of multiple copies of materials on this site, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution is prohibited except with written permission from the Government of Canada's copyright administrator, Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC)." (and I'm not sure off hand if Wikipedia haves such consent on a blanket basis). It also says "Some of the materials and graphical elements found on Government of Canada Web sites are subject to copyrights held by other organizations," and I believe this covers the Obama and McKay images. Tabercil (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not too sure why Wikipedia Commons has a problem with Comercial Use policies, as this site is not Commercial, this is a non-profit website, correct? I can understand if a photograph is copyrighted, that is one thing, but Commercial Use, is the use for the purposes of generating a profit. Hence, a photo being used to generate profit for someone or someones, must also generate profit for the author, and thus, the author must be privy to all of it's uses, and grant the authority to use stated works for stated purposes. In this case, and all cases involving Wikipedia, Commercial Use should be irrelevant.
- And I dug further into the PMO website and found their copyright notice. There is nothing there which puts everything into the public domain; it says "Reproduction of multiple copies of materials on this site, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution is prohibited except with written permission from the Government of Canada's copyright administrator, Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC)." (and I'm not sure off hand if Wikipedia haves such consent on a blanket basis). It also says "Some of the materials and graphical elements found on Government of Canada Web sites are subject to copyrights held by other organizations," and I believe this covers the Obama and McKay images. Tabercil (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- There remains no evidence that these images are freely licensed, allowing commercial use. Far from it actually, there are statements that it isn't allowed. The Canada National Defence Forces website, presumably the source of Bear9991.jpg, states that "commercial redistribution is prohibited". Adambro (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'll take the CTV website over the PMO's website as the CTV site actually states who is the photographer in both cases. The Obama99911.jpg image is credited "Tom Hanson / The Canadian Press" and the Chief9999.jpg image is credited as "Adrian Wyld / The Canadian Press". And no, I will not restore as I feel the case for the image source being CP is persuasive... but you are welcome to list both images at Commons:Undeletion requests. Tabercil (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Clear copyright violation per nom, which nobody in this discussion has disputed. No commercial use is permitted--cut and dry. - Gump Stump (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Pymouss Tchatcher - 23:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
hvhv 59.98.221.90 05:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Waht is the reason for deletion? None is given. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No reason to delete. Pruneautalk 19:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
File is identical with: British-Route-Bus-Berlin1.jpg BajanZindy (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Low quality duplicatie of File:British-Route-Bus-Berlin1.jpg. Not used. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate (image not used). Kameraad Pjotr 19:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
error Firtp6u40 (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader requested deletion. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
copied from www.vvhoogeveen.nl . Most likely without permission Miho (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
copyright violation, uncategorized, useless, etc Frédéric (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete File is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Probable copyvio. Low quality. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 19:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tirkon#Image%20Tagging%20Image:Victorbur_Ortseingangsschild2.JPG --Tirkon (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Uploaded under GNU FDL, which is not very likely. Are german plates like these copyright protected? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept, PD-ineligible. Kameraad Pjotr 19:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Changing a speedy to a normal DR Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Lokal Profil proposed speedy deletion with the motivation "[3] The crown is a derivative of that on the official (copyrighted) representation fo the National Lesser Coat of Arms [4]. Not PD (© Riksarkivet. Gäller samtliga illustrationer)" But in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sweden-lesser-coa.png an IP-number had complained that the design was "distortet", and Lokal Profil had argued that this should be kept. Indeed, this design is different. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
![[3]](http://www.statensarkiv.se/Sve/Bildarkiv/Filer/heraldik/a-lilla-riksvapnet.jpg){kind=link}
Also take into account this comment, left on the undeletion page by Koyos:
This illustration is based on the 
, which is free and which in turn is based on the 
which is from 1908 are is therefore in public domain. Please check your facts before you start deleting useful images left and right.
--Tryphon (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you compare the dates on the images you can see straight of that that claim is wrong. File:Sweden_greater_coat_of_arms.jpg was created a lot later (and in addition isn't PD but that is irrelevant). Also if you in fact visit the page [5] you can see that the crown is a straight of derivative. /Lokal_Profil 16:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
is from Rikskalendern 1908. Probably the deisign is older. It has a few crowns in it, and the crown on the image here is very similar to one of them. All these drawings of heraldic elements are so traditional that there is no artistic creativity. They even put the rubies and the emeralds in the same way. Anyway, it was wrong to label this for speedy deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just realised I should clarify. I'm talking about the crown on top of the shield. That's the one that is a straight of copy. /Lokal_Profil 16:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- And it's not only the placement of gemstones but everything down to individual lines that are the same. /Lokal_Profil 16:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- They all use very traditional designs. The crown on top of File:Sweden-lesser-coa.png is very similar to the one in the center of File:Sweden greater coat of arms.jpg. It also has vertical pairs of pearls between the sapphires and the rubies. Something so unoriginal is not eligible for copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Similarities are not a problem. Exact replicas are. AS a comparison every photo of Big Ben will be similar (they depict the same thing) but using a crop of a specific photo of Big Ben violates the copyright of that photo. Same thing here. In addition File:Sweden lesser arms.svg, File:Lilla riksvapnet.svg and File:Coat of Arms of Sweden Lesser.svg all exist and don't have the same copyrightlike problem. /Lokal_Profil 19:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is not a replica of the links that you are presenting. If this drawing was made with a modern version of the CoA as an example (of which I am not certain), this would be similar to a Swedish supreme court decision in the Välinge case. There is no copyright on some lines in a drawing of a crown. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Are you seriously claiming that you don't see that the crown in these images are a straight of derivative of the ones on the Statens Arkiv page? If anything
and 
make it clear that there are many different ways of drawing the crown. Is the fact that the one we are discussing and the copyrighted one are almost identical just a coincidence? /Lokal_Profil 22:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- The image at Statens Arkiv is a heavily compressed jpeg, only 118 pixels wide, just 12k in memory. This is a clean png with much better resolution. It is not a straight replica. There are also differences. For exemple, when you look at the leaves, the pearls are surrounded by three v-shapes. In the commons version, the v's on the leftmost amd rightmost leaves are the "wrong" way around, which showed how free and creative the artist felt to go against traditional representations. One might even suspect anti-royalist sentiments. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Are you seriously claiming that you don't see that the crown in these images are a straight of derivative of the ones on the Statens Arkiv page? If anything
- It is not a replica of the links that you are presenting. If this drawing was made with a modern version of the CoA as an example (of which I am not certain), this would be similar to a Swedish supreme court decision in the Välinge case. There is no copyright on some lines in a drawing of a crown. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Similarities are not a problem. Exact replicas are. AS a comparison every photo of Big Ben will be similar (they depict the same thing) but using a crop of a specific photo of Big Ben violates the copyright of that photo. Same thing here. In addition File:Sweden lesser arms.svg, File:Lilla riksvapnet.svg and File:Coat of Arms of Sweden Lesser.svg all exist and don't have the same copyrightlike problem. /Lokal_Profil 19:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- They all use very traditional designs. The crown on top of File:Sweden-lesser-coa.png is very similar to the one in the center of File:Sweden greater coat of arms.jpg. It also has vertical pairs of pearls between the sapphires and the rubies. Something so unoriginal is not eligible for copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- And it's not only the placement of gemstones but everything down to individual lines that are the same. /Lokal_Profil 16:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just realised I should clarify. I'm talking about the crown on top of the shield. That's the one that is a straight of copy. /Lokal_Profil 16:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
@Lokal Profil: I can't believe you deleted File:Sweden-lesser-coa.svg without waiting for this DR to be closed. There is obviously no consensus about this. Please restore it, so that it can be discussed along with this image. Thank you. --Tryphon (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I deleted the image because it was undeleted based on it being a derivative of a PD image which it wasn't (© Riksarkivet. Gäller samtliga illustrationer). /Lokal_Profil 19:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not a PD image, a PD design, it's not the same thing. But that's not the point. It was speedy deleted the first time, and obviously it's not a clear-cut issue. Undeletion allows everyone to discuss those issues and reach consensus, but if the image is deleted before that consensus is reached, we're just back where we started. Even if your opinion is made up on this, I'm sure you can see that other people disagree, and with the image deleted already, it gives the feeling that the discussion won't matter anyway. Please reconsider. --Tryphon (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Undeleted and added to this DR. It got redeleted because I read the undeletion as having completely misunderstood the reason it was originally deleted (i.e. Kyos comment which simple date comparison can disprove) and the undeletion as therefore having been in error. Anyhow now it's part of this DR instead. /Lokal_Profil 22:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Tryphon (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Undeleted and added to this DR. It got redeleted because I read the undeletion as having completely misunderstood the reason it was originally deleted (i.e. Kyos comment which simple date comparison can disprove) and the undeletion as therefore having been in error. Anyhow now it's part of this DR instead. /Lokal_Profil 22:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not a PD image, a PD design, it's not the same thing. But that's not the point. It was speedy deleted the first time, and obviously it's not a clear-cut issue. Undeletion allows everyone to discuss those issues and reach consensus, but if the image is deleted before that consensus is reached, we're just back where we started. Even if your opinion is made up on this, I'm sure you can see that other people disagree, and with the image deleted already, it gives the feeling that the discussion won't matter anyway. Please reconsider. --Tryphon (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- COM:LICENSING#Finland has links to official opinions on CoA's that are ineligible for copyright. The Nordic countries coordinated their copyright legislation. The law in Sweden is the same. This can be kept. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, allthough it is not a clear-cut case, I believe that it is too similar to be accidental and I believe this is a derivative work. Kameraad Pjotr 19:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
What about this file that also links to this DR? File:Sweden-lesser-coa.svg --MGA73 (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, same as above. Kameraad Pjotr 18:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
