Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/04/15
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
All of the images in this category (276 at this writing) are {{Copyvio}} candidates. Contrary to the claims on the individual image pages, the images are not creations of the U.S. Govt. and are not in the public domain. The license terms, which are not Commons-acceptable, are described at the PDB website, where it clearly reads "Molecule of the Month illustrations are copyrighted." —Danorton (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment (The {{Copyvio}} box was getting crowded.) A more complete excerpt from the PDB Polices & References page reads:
- Molecule of the Month illustrations are copyrighted. They are available for educational purposes, provided attribution is given to David S. Goodsell and the RCSB PDB.
- A Google search reveals a couple of dozen more such images not included in this category. (I suspect that there are a few more.)
- The supporting reference links are no longer valid, but this page from archive.org at about the same time does not provide any suggestion that the works are creations of the U.S. Govt. or that they are in the public domain:
- The bottom of that page reads "© RCSB Protein Data Bank".
- This collection of {{Copyvio}} violations seems to be symptomatic of the common misconception that anything that is funded by the U.S. Govt. is a creation of the U.S. Govt. and, consequently, in the public domain. (See W:Work of the United States Government#Exemptions.) —Danorton (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are true. I think the Policies & References page did not exist (or, at least, it was not that clear) when I started uploading images. Anyway, I ask you to let me try to ask RCSB to release the images in cc-by, since the images are a lot (and a lot of projects commonly use them). I'm not confident that I'll succeed, but let's try... --Giac83 10:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I sent them the request (OTRS ticket 2009041510031969). Cross the fingers... --Giac83 11:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Bad answer!
- For the time being our policy is going to stay as listed at http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/static.do?p=general_information/about_pdb/policies_references.html
- Unfortunately, I think we should start to delete all Molecule of the Month images... :-( --Giac83 09:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. What a pity! --Patho (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Bad answer!
- I sent them the request (OTRS ticket 2009041510031969). Cross the fingers... --Giac83 11:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The files were supplied by different sources. Some of it is government work, some are contractors, some may be university researchers. A whole category should not be deleted in this manner. In particular, uploaders must be notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The fact that the sources are multifarious provides support for deletion, as source information that would allow verification of image licenses isn't generally provided. The uploaders should be notified for deletion of the individual images, but this issue is only about the category page, and only the creator of the page need be notified for this purpose. —Danorton (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Actually, the quantity of Commons images affected by related licensing issues isn't simply "a lot", but it numbers in the tens of thousands. See a typical example at Commons:Deletion requests/File:1axc tricolor.png. —Danorton (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Good that I finally came upon this discussion, after uploading half a dozen more from the MOM page. And I thought the biggest problem in the Commons proteins section is the bot-made SCOP hierarchy... I have a radical proposition: instead of uploading all those again as stills, start at once with animations (rotating) and let the 2D world behind, once and for all. --Ayacop (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
No consensus for deletion, default to "keep". –Juliancolton | Talk 01:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
All images in the category not PD. see PDB Usage Policies: "Molecule of the Month illustrations are copyrighted. They are available for educational purposes, provided attribution is given to David S. Goodsell and the RCSB PDB". see Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/03/Category:PDB.org's Molecules of the Month shizhao (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Since they are all, at least by the terms of the source site, copyvio, it is not necessary to notify each uploader -- they are by our rules delete-on-sight. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have to agree, though I like that stuff. However, as to copyright concerns
Delete. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC) - CommentUploader of each file must be get warning first.--苹果派.留言 20:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why exactly? If we have a copy violation, what do we need to contact the uploader? --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- See the list at Commons:Deletion requests/PDB dummy and below set up to allow DelReqHandler to deal with these. (DRH will not deal with Category lists and doing 200+ deletions without it is dumb.) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio per discussion -- uploader notice is not required to delete copyvios. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Television screenshot, no proof that the cameraman or the station released this into the public domain. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Screenshot from broadcast television described as "own work"; uploader not copyright holder, no right to license. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio Sofree 03:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Essjay: Category:Images with unknown source as of unknown date 2006
Copyvio Sofree 03:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by MECU: In category Unknown as of 23 April 2007; not edited for 7 days
Copyvio Sofree 03:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
Copyvio Sofree 03:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Shizhao: Copyright violation
out of COM:SCOPE; filename resembles name on vanity "gallery" Alejandro javier ontiveros bacelis by same user --Túrelio (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of scope along with the vanity article. Commons is not for articles, Wikipedia is not for articles about non-notable person - so the file is not usefull. --Martin H. (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The flickr account owner Sarah and Iain have licensed 40+ images freely which have passed flickr review but not this image. Rojk uploaded an unfree image here. I contacted the flickr owner about altering the license of some images with a 'Non-Commercial restriction' and she said no. So, this cannot be kept on Commons. Leoboudv (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This is an obvious case and I have added the {{Copyvio}} tag to it. —Danorton (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you for the suggestion. But since so many images of this flickr account have been uploaded legally, I thought a formal DR was preferable. Anyway, there are excellent replacement images including this: File:Panorama quilotoa crater lake ecuador.jpg Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see any evidence whatsoever that the upload is valid, there's nothing that seems disputable, and the uploader is no longer active on Commons. All of the uploader's images I checked seem to lack valid source information. —Danorton (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Yes. I saw a fair bit of copy vio by this long gone user and had several deleted. You can see this from his talkpage. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Owner was contacted and said no. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Does not allow for commercial use: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sarahandiain/278542619/
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator sadly. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope Commons is not a host for personal images. Huib talk 18:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope Commons is not a host for personal images. Huib talk 18:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unusable personal image. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
apparent copyvio from flickr Mangostar (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment why? you don't think it was the work of ursulakm? --Ysangkok (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete I'm afraid it's really too good to be true. That particular flickr user has posted and tagged numerous images of Emma Watson which I recognize to be non free. --Stephantom (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy
Deleted, see Commons:Questionable Flickr images. Emma Watson is subject of the article of the day in the english Wikipedia, regretably this account is the only account on Flickr with good images but all are copyvios, so keep your eyes oopen. --Martin H. (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Imagen repetida --Nicolás Pérez (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: Dupe of Image:Valladolid esculturas arena Cervantes 05 ni.jpg
The history of the uploader (no longer active) lists many copyright violations, none of the reference information in this image is verifiable, and the source information is questionable (and circular). —Danorton (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete unfortunately. I don't think the uploader (Rojk) is the copyright owner (Mr. Wilken) here. It may have been taken from flickr. Over here, Rojk is Faschaun, not Wilken. No precise source is given for that image either...if you check. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment So far, it seems that the source information on all of his uploads is fake. —Danorton (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 07:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope: user has uploaded nothing but this personal picture, which is unused. Eusebius (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- User has separately uploaded File:Nattux foster.JPG (included as first version in above mentioned image), which is from a myspace page.--Túrelio (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Both user self pictures, I believe? --Eusebius (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- May be or may be not, considering the edit summary for the 2nd-version upload "LOVER MARRIED MODEL PHOTOGRAPHER PHOTOSHOPPER PAINTER YOUTUBER BESTFRIEND GROWINGUP STILLEARNING SLEEPSLIKEOWL *-* EDITER FASHIONIST Hola a todas las personas que se toman la molestia de leer este pequeño fragmento de información acerca de mi. pues yo".--Túrelio (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Both user self pictures, I believe? --Eusebius (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Both deleted per (e-mail) request of the user. Eusebius (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Personal image. Watermark. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not educational, inartistic and the water-mark. --Starscream (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Starscream. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --High Contrast (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 04:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The history of the uploader (no longer active) lists many copyright violations, none of the reference information in this image is verifiable, the source information is questionable, the image is not in use in the referenced source wiki, and many superior alternate images are available. --—Danorton (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Some de: admin needs to check the deleted file information on de: wiki (deletion information here) -- Deadstar (msg) 10:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Yes, that seems to be a general problem, but I doubt it's worth it in this instance. —Danorton (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- The image was uploaded to the German WP by de:Benutzer:Faschaun. There was only a lone PD tag on the image description page, but no information about the author or source. Faschaun's only contributions were this upload and one edit to add the image to an article. That was over three years ago, so it's pretty unlikely that he would notice a message on his talk page. Should IMHO be deleted due to the lack of author/source information. --Kam Solusar (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Thanks for checking Kam Solusar. Delete on basis of no author/source. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Just look at the number of copyvios I've nominated on Rojk's talkpage. This person doesn't respect other's work. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 08:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
University logo; claim of a release under GFDL is incredibly dubious. Fuzzy510 (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Sole image by uploader. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per nom -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
How does this image differ from what we already have? Tabercil (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No penis! --Leoboudv (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, probably redundant to much of Commons :) Garden. 08:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per nom, no objections, redundant penis -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
University logo; Creative Commons license claim is dubious Fuzzy510 (talk) 05:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Tag as {{Npd}} and delete in a week. --Kjetil_r 06:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Somehow I don't think the uploader holds the copyright over a University logo. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Painting made (according to description) in 1936. The subject of the painting died in 1945. I cannot find information on author/painter Aimé van Belleghem, so unable to verify if PD-Old or PD-Art apply. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- According to artnet Anime van Belleghem died in 1996 ([1]). delete. sугсго 10:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that info Syrcro. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete --Leoboudv (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Not PD-Old as claimed -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Pet photo with a watermark. Effort needed for cleanup outweights usefulness. Jarekt (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep That is just a date stamp. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)- Very weak keep. Watermarks make images useless for Wikipedia and many uses. However this one can be cropped without removing the main subject. Yann (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, as the watermark could easily be cropped out while retaining the image's value. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept per discussion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
No valuable source stated, en-wiki as source is not sufficient. Low image resolution and the missing EXIF-data may be a sign of copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. License does not match that on supposed source on en:Wikipedia, and uploaded to Commons without attribution. Local copy on en:Wikipedia restored. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see the educational value of the picture. Eusebius (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Undescribed, uncategorized, unused. I see no evidence of this being of any potential use in project scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, holiday photo. Yann (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Personal photo. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not educational, inartistic, unsightly, very boring and very poor quality. Also the lack of the description in English and the lack of the English-speaking title. Unnecessarily supplants at the server. --Starscream (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Unused, noneducational, outside of project scope as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not educational, inartistic, unsightly, very boring and very poor quality. Also the lack of the description in English and the lack of the English-speaking title. Unnecessarily supplants at the server. --Starscream (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Lack of English language title or description is not a reason for deletion on Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Right. But it would make easy very much and would make pleasant the traversal. --Starscream (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Unused, noneducational, outside of project scope as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Juliancolton. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I question scope inclusion for this file, as it is mainly textual in nature, and almost promotional. Eusebius (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, it is in use, so we should probably keep it for now. –Tryphon☂ 08:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I understand your reasons, but it poses a deeper problem: if a jpeg copy of a poem by Victor Hugo (with only text) is hosted here on Commons, and used in an article about Victor Hugo, does it make it in scope, in spite of the fact that the poem should obviously be hosted, in text form, by wikibooks? --Eusebius (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, definitely, I'm just being procedural here. Ultimately, I think this file should go, I'm just uncomfortable with removing it while in use. But if someone involved on en.wp deals with it there, and it becomes unused, then I won't have any objection. –Tryphon☂ 20:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I understand your reasons, but it poses a deeper problem: if a jpeg copy of a poem by Victor Hugo (with only text) is hosted here on Commons, and used in an article about Victor Hugo, does it make it in scope, in spite of the fact that the poem should obviously be hosted, in text form, by wikibooks? --Eusebius (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 18:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio Sofree 06:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted not by me -- Deadstar (msg) 13:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio Sofree 19:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete --Leoboudv (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted again. Yann (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio User:Sofree 04:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- What does this picture show? What is a Sofree? Sv1xv (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sofree is the nominator. Punkmorten (talk) 11:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Speedy-Deleted by User:High Contrast as copyvio from http://www.metro.df.gob.mx/red/estacion.html?id=59. --Túrelio (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The underlying source data from which the image is derived is not licensed in a manner that is compatible with Commons licensing. See the RCSB pages "Policies & References" and "Advisory for the Use of the PDB Archive". —Danorton (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment RCSB is partially responsible for this confusion, but it's important to note that nowhere do they indicate that the material is in the "public domain". Much of their material comes from a large variety of sources worldwide and there's no evidence that they even have the authority (much less the resources) to place it all into the public domain.
- In particular, note this restriction at "Policies & References" that makes the content unacceptable for Commons:
- "By using the materials available in the PDB archive, the user agrees to abide by the conditions described in the PDB Advisory Notice."
- Here are the pertinent restrictions detailed at "Advisory for the Use of the PDB Archive" (the aforementioned "Advisory Notice") :
- "Redistribution of modified data files using the same file name as is on the FTP server is prohibited."
- "The user assumes all responsibility for insuring that intellectual property claims associated with any data set deposited in the PDB archive are honored."
- —Danorton (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep: This image has apparently been rendered by the uploader. The question is whether this image constitutes a derived work of the original data and whether these data are eligible for copyright and whether this is of sufficient significance (see Commons:De minimis). I doubt that the original data meets a threshold of originality such that COM:DW isn't an issue in my opinion. The cited restrictions, as I understand them, are not related to copyright. They are terms of usage to which those are bound who download them but which do not concern us at Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As AFBorchert: rendered by the uploader. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I modified the subject image page, providing a link to the page for the underlying source data. That page has no separate license information that would seem to override the information above, and a notice at the bottom reads "© RCSB Protein Data Bank". —Danorton (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: The software that rendered the data (VMD) is provided under a license that asserts rights over the use of its output ("reports or published results"). The VMD license has these additional restrictions:
- "2. ...Except as explicitly provided below, this License shall apply to any derivative work as it does to the original Software distributed by Illinois..."
- "6. The user agrees that any reports or published results obtained with the Software will acknowledge its use by the appropriate citation as follows:..."
- "7. Commercial use of the Software, or derivative works based thereon, REQUIRES A COMMERCIAL LICENSE..." (emphasis in the original)
- The relative originality of the rendered output can be measured by the answers to these questions:
- "Are alternative sources of the underlying data currently available?"
- "Are alternative rendering methods currently available?"
- The answer to both questions is indisputably "no."
- Although the use of the data and the software is practically unencumbered for educational use, it has restrictions for commercial use that make anything derived from PDB data or the VMD program unacceptable for Commons. —Danorton (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please Danorton, we are not concerned with anything but copyright here. Everything you are mentioning above is not related to copyright. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm sorry, but I don't follow you. Can you elaborate? I describe above the details of a license that assigns rights and restrictions for use of derivative works and, to me, that certainly seems related to copyright. —Danorton (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- All these rules in the EULA can at most be binding for the user of the software - they do not have anything to do with copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I appreciate your opinion, but how do you support that opinion? You seem to argue that this is a "House rules" issue, but such an argument doesn't address either the copyright of the source data or the copyright of the additional and distinct originality provided by the authors of the VDB software conveyed by that software in the derivative work, the "published results." The first question I posed above points to the copyright protection owed to the authors of the underlying data. The second question points to the copyright protection owed to the authors of VDB. —Danorton (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are using legal terms like "derivative work" and other big words ("conveyed", "distinct originality") but you should read up on copyright. The software company has no copyright on images produced by the rendering software (and is not claiming that either), and the same goes for the database. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: There's no need to make this about me, personally. I claim no special expertise or authority.
- Please Danorton, we are not concerned with anything but copyright here. Everything you are mentioning above is not related to copyright. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- On the other hand, I have no reason to believe that this is not a derivative work, that the underlying data is not subject to copyright, or that the rendered output in this instance is not due copyright protection. Several seem to have expressed the opinion that "rendering" of an image voids any copyright protection, automatically and without further consideration. But no one has provided any argument to support that opinion, nor has anyone provided any other external reference that supports that opinion, either broadly or in this specific instance. —Danorton (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I haven't been around much for a while and just now noticed this. For reference, VMD is open-source, and 'derivative work' in the context of its license refers to modifications to the code, not to images or analyses produced using the software. The only restriction on distributing images and analyses is that VMD must be identified as the software that produced them. With regard to the PDB usage restrictions, the original data set is impossible to reconstruct given only the rendered image, so there's no meaningful way this can be considered a redistribution of that data. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This is bullshit. If you delete this picture you have to delete every protein picture here. The structural data of a protein does not contain any original authorship. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep From "Policies & References":
Free of all copyright restrictions. See, for instance, File:HoxB1-Pbx1 heterodimer binding DNA 1b72.png for an example of correct original reference attribution—the only care we should have when uploading images self-created from PDB data. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Data files contained in the PDB archive (ftp://ftp.wwpdb.org) are free of all copyright restrictions and made fully and freely available for both non-commercial and commercial use. Users of the data should attribute the original authors of that structural data.
Kept. Rocket000 (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Not free according to NBP policies (permission required, commercial usage not completely allowed etc., other usage not completely allowed: i.g. "showing notes, which suggests their destruction, cutting, creasing is NOT permitted") NBP Masur (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Comment Notes designs taken from official polish governmental law (usually they are presented there as attachments) would be "polish symbol" but othwerwise its a copyright violation. Masur (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Per nom, it's not PD. Herr Kriss (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as voices above. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as voices above. Karol007 01:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Masur (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Masur: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:10_złotych.jpg
COM:DW. en:Richard Bell (artist) ist still alive. sугсго 09:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Dubious creation claim. Uploader has repeatedly uploaded copyright violations, as well as prank images and vandalism on en:Wikipedia. Note border of image. Looks like taken from website, not scanned photo. Queenpedia.com has two identical versions of the same photo ([2] and [3]) without original source info, but both were uploaded there more than a year before this one was uploaded here. --Infrogmation (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Mormegil (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope Commons is not a host for personal images. Huib talk 18:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Pruneautalk 12:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
This page, which is intended for correspondence, has remained dormant for over three years (since 2006-03-09). —Danorton (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, it looks like it's been unused by looking at the history, but that's because of the transclusion; changes happen on Template:Requested Translations and Template:Completed Translations, which are transcluded on Commons:Requests for translation. –Tryphon☂ 07:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The first link you referenced hasn't had meaningful activity in over a year and the second hasn't had meaningful activity in over four years. —Danorton (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe these pages should be better advertised, or a better procedure put in place, but I fail to see how deleting these pages would improve anything. –Tryphon☂ 19:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Although I believe that it was created with a noble goal and what it might be could be an interesting discussion, in actual practice the page provides no benefit and does nothing to advance Commons' aims. With all due respect to its noble goals, it is currently nothing but clutter. Consequently, it is outside of the project's scope. —Danorton (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination —Danorton (talk) 05:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Just because it's inactive doesn't mean it should be deleted. This project is exactly what I was looking for and if it was deleted I wouldn't have known where else to look. I think it just needs to be better advertised. Wizard191 (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Trixt (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
village pump 61.90.25.198 18:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Speedy kept: Vandalism. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
The history of the uploader (no longer active) lists many copyright violations, none of the reference information in this image is verifiable, the source information is questionable, and the image is not in use in the referenced source wiki. —Danorton (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Can a de: admin check the deleted file information for the original upload of this file. (deleted file information here) -- Deadstar (msg) 10:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Image in use in multiple Wikimedia pages. Per Deadstar, we need an admin with access to de:Wikipedia to check history of this image. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Look at his talkpage. He uploads other people's work here under different names or unfree flickr licenses sometimes. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. BanyanTree 11:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Ticket stub for the Egyptian Museum (Cairo) - user has licensed this as PD-self which is incorrect. I'm not sure but the design of the ticket could be copyrighted by the museum. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know why de PD-shelf licensens is incorrect? The ticket it self is quite old, I bought it in 1988.... Ivan 17 may 2009
- Keep Applied art {{PD-Egypt}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. BanyanTree 11:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment That probably needs to read "kept". I've changed the license per Pieter Kuiper and removed the template off the image page. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Too young for PD-Russia-2008. sугсго 06:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It was uploaded on the free older Russian license. It should be deleted if its not the uploader's work though as it has a watermark on the upper left corner. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Cannot be PD-Russia-2008. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Doubtful "own work", ungrounded PD claim. Eusebius (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Фото Ivan Korolev, которое я разместил в Википедии "номинировано на удаление". Почему? Я взял это фото из семейного архива, Иван Королев (здесь есть его страничка - ru:Королев, Иван Николаевич - генерал-майор). Кто как не я вправе разместить это фото в последствии на его страничке? — Preceding unsigned comment added by S-Serge (talk • contribs) 05:42, 17 april 2009 (UTC)
Autotranslated from Russian: Photo Ivan Korolev, which I posted on Wikipedia, nominated for deletion. Why? I took this photo from the family archive, Ivan Korolev (here is his page - Korolev, Ivan - Major General). Who else, but I have the right to place this picture later on his page?
- Could you tell us who has taken the photo and in which conditions? Because it's normally the photographer who holds copyright over the picture, and has the right to disclose it under a free license. машинный перевод: Смогли вы сказать нам которые принимали фото и в которые условиях? Потому что это нормально фотограф который держит авторское право над изображением, и имеет право показать его под безвозмездной лицензией. --Eusebius (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader does not actually say that the sitter is his father, or that he inherited the copyright. A photo from a shoebox. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted: Image source has not been clarified Belgrano (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
