Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/04/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
No evidence of GFDL. The same image is at w:en:File:NIMSlogo.jpg, and is tagged as non-free there. Quadell (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment This looks rather simple. Is it eligible for copyright according to Japanese law? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know. It is probably ineligible for copyright under U.S. law, but I don't know Japan's take on it. Quadell (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Please reach consensus with me before deleting the image. NIMS logo is essential for the English and Japanese version of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Materials_Science The logo is official and is copyrighted, as mentioned at http://www.nims.go.jp/eng/siteinfo/site-policy.html
If additional information on copyright of this image is required, please specify, and I shall obtain it from the NIMS administration. Please keep in mind that the period 29 april - 6 may is a regular and the biggest holiday in Japan (golden week). If there is a more appropriate copyright status please advise.
There are three copies of the logo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NIMSlogo.jpg (which I transferred to WikiCommons) http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB:LogoNIMS.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LogoNIMS.jpg I am happy to keep only one, if it can be used on both Japanese and English NIMS pages. Here is my talk page Best regards. NIMSoffice. 144.213.253.16 03:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - This looks creative enough to attract copyright in the US, although it would be a borderline case. Not sure what the status would be in Japan, but it needs to be free in the US as well to be hosted here. The English article has already been switched to use the local en.wiki version, BTW. Kaldari (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
duplicate --Sumanch (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: duplicate or a scaled down version of File:IN Rear Admiral Shoulder Board.png
duplicate --Sumanch (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Cecil: duplicate or a scaled down version of File:IN Commodore Shoulder Board.png
Dubious license; info needed. If film this still is taken from is PD, we need some confirming info and change copyright tag as appropriate. If no evidence film is PD, image is not free. Either way, current Creative Commons license seems wrong. (Also, image might be more potentially useful if "the actor" shown is identified by name.) --Infrogmation (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello Infrogmation,
The film is PD without a doubt. "Brideless Groom" is one of the four Stooge shorts that fell into that field after the copyright expired in the 60's.
See the following links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brideless_Groom http://www.stoogeworld.com/_Videography/Filmography/BridelessGroom.htm http://www.pdcomedy.com/Movies/ThreeStooges/BridelessGroom/ThreeStooges-BridelessGroom.html
Regards,
--Stoogeophile (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Look at:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:The_Three_Stooges.jpg
THIS is not Public Domain. The user has included this photo as being from "Disorder in the Court" (PD title), but this is incorrect, because the shot is from "Healthy, Wealthy and Dumb" (Copyrighted title).
http://www.stoogeworld.com/_Videography/Filmography/HealthyWealthyDumb.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy,_Wealthy_and_Dumb
Regards,
--Stoogeophile (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your detailed reply. From the info in the links you provided, I added the name of the actor shown in the image and (more importantly for this deletion discussion) changed the license tag to "PD-US-not renewed". I think that's more accurate. I'll change my vote here to
Keep. Take a look at my changes to the image description page; if you concur I think I can close this discussion as kept. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello Infrogmation,
You're welcome. Yes, I do agree the license tag was wrong. Everything looks fine in the description now. Thanks for your help!
Regards,
--Stoogeophile (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept, problem resolved. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Duplicate of http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Tetsuyas-Mont-Blanc-Dessert.jpg and unused on any projects. I am the original uploader of both files. Camw (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by LERK: Incorrectly named: duplicate of File:Tetsuyas-Mont-Blanc-Dessert.jpg
source indicates the copyright is reserved. Kwj2772 (msg) 14:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme.--Kwj2772 (msg) 09:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The design on the board could be copyrighted. Contacted through OTRS, Duret's manager says that there will be no problem with this picture, but he cannot give a formal authorization because the rights were held by a now defunct company (which is apparently not the current one, not the same status). I have no idea how intellectual property is dealt with in such cases, so I guess that in doubt we should delete... Eusebius (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Successfully sorted out through OTRS ticket 2009042710042265 (new company inherited the rights). Sorry for the useless DR. --Eusebius (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
is poster, not free license. see File:800px-Yanukovych-2004-08-17 small.JPG and [1] --shizhao (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is not just a copy of a poster. It shows a poster yes, but also suburban dwelling houses in Vinnytsia. If this picture should be deleted then all pictures from cities should be deleted since there are always posters somewhere. Narking (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Focus of image is reproduction of the billboard; description and categories don't even mention the existance of the portion of a building seen behind the billboard. Purpose of image is clearly to reproduce the billboard, not to show a city scene with billboard inclusion being only incidental. Unless there is some indication that the poster/billboard is free licensed or this type of derivitive photo is allowed by Ukraine law, Delete. I note Commons:Freedom of panorama says no FOP for Ukraine. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- And how would you illustrate an election campaign without having pictures where posters are present? Would be very strange articles in the newspapers I would say. This is clearly an example of copyright paranoia. Narking (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, not covered by COM:FOP, not Commons:De minimis. The Focus is on the poster, the head cropped of is a clear copyright violation.
Articles in Newspaper are different to Commons. Images on Commons are free for every purpose by everyone including every possible commercial use, a newspaper needs images that are free for their purposes for them only. Newspaper maybe use deminimis images, ask for permission or argue that educational purposes are counting - thats not valid for Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This guy is a writer. After a while I decided that this image should be presented on his website, not necessarly on wiki. Rectum irae (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone delete it? Please.
- Deleted. Author request. Samulili (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
"Own work" doubtful, given the TVN watermark. dave pape (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also conflicting info on upload page; uploader has made other dubious copyright claims. -- Infrogmation (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Very poor quality image portraying the person in a negative way (we had actually a complaint from the widow). She send much better photo for replacement: File:Lucjan Kydryński 1.jpg -Zureks (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life. Yann (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It's difficult to argue that any stained glass work is PD-Art, because stained glass has texture, has raised bars between sections, and because setting up the backlighting may involve creative input by the photographer. If we can agree it's not there are a number of similar files that may have to go. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It is actually easier to make a photograph of stained glass than of a painting, because one can use natural lighting. But no source is given for this image, we do not know what church (?) this is from, when it was made (Victorian or medieval?), and we do not know if this is supposed to be Edgar I. Encyclopedically useless. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Disagree: I would argue against deleting photographs of stained glass windows on the grounds that they are slightly three-dimensional ... very few works of art are truly two-dimensional: the grooves and scratches left by the dried paint or action of the brush and palette knife let alone the glass and frame holding the artwork all create surfaces off which a photographer's lighting could reflect. On those grounds you would have to remove all photographs of artwork. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would gladly agree that most pictures of stained glass windows are PD-art (those where the walls are not visible, where only the glass/lead, and not the stone, is the subject). For this one, it's clearly not, because it's not faithful, because of the crop. But regarding the DR, as Pieter said, no date, no source, no evidence for PD, no encyclopaedic value, Delete. --Eusebius (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would gladly agree that most pictures of stained glass windows are PD-art (those where the walls are not visible, where only the glass/lead, and not the stone, is the subject). For this one, it's clearly not, because it's not faithful, because of the crop. But regarding the DR, as Pieter said, no date, no source, no evidence for PD, no encyclopaedic value,
However, without any provenance information, we cannot verify that the window itself is in the public domain. It could be a window that was done a week before the pic was uploaded, for all anybody knows.—Werewombat (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep (changing my mind). I have information on the background of the window, and a high-resolution scan of the complete artwork to upload. If we can all agree that stained glass art with natural backlight is valid PD-Art, then I'm happy to take advantage of consensus. However, I should note that there are many crops of PD-Art images on Commons - do these need to be revisited? Is a crop by itself creative enough to carry copyright? It seems to me that if it the cropper releases the rights to their crop, it ought to be okay. Perhaps there should be a tag for this. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Great! With the background info added to the image description, this is a keeper in my book. As for the cropping issue, I would think (though I'm a tad out of my depth here) that most crops don't constitute original expression and wouldn't attract copyright — especially one like this that merely focuses in on a detail of the overall work. It's still a faithful reproduction of (a portion of) the original 2D work, so PD-Art should apply. The instances where the cropping is significant enough to substantially create a new derivative work must be comparatively rare, as in something that actually alters the viewer's understanding of the work, and I'm struggling to come up with an example. —Werewombat (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Would be ok for me. About the crop, my point is not that cropping attracks copyright, but merely that it does not look compatible with the current phrasing of the WMF statement, which is the ground on which we base the PD-art logic. --Eusebius (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I will add the info soon. I did some thinking about cropping, and between {{PD-retouched-user}} and my new template {{PD-modifications-ineligible}}, I think our bases should be covered. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Concerns about PD-art validity addressed, concerns about source and provenance addressed. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Superseded by File:UK tax NIC pounds.svg, which is a better way to aggregate the historical versions of this file than creating a new one each tax year. I made both this and the originals. --Splash (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Superseded by File:UK tax NIC percentages.svg, which is a better way to aggregate the historical versions of this file than creating a new one each tax year. I made both this and the originals. --Splash (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
No FOP in US for modern sculptures on Commons. This is copyrighted Leoboudv (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Gotta agree. This is a nonfree derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture. Freedom of panorama in the United States encompasses buildings only, not 2D or 3D works of art, including sculptures. No evidence is given that the sculpture itself is released under a license acceptable on the Commons. —Werewombat (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo. Listed at w:en:File:RugMark-Foundation.jpg as non-free. Quadell (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Nom. This is clearly a reproduction and not "own work". --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unknown author of 20th century work; no evidence author is dead more than 70 years --Infrogmation (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Going by the filename, this might be Konštantín Bauer (1852-1924); but why the 1928 date? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep According to sk:Konštantín Bauer, the painter lived 1893-1928. Pieter, you mixed up the Bauers. There's a German painter named Constantin Ludwig Bauer (1852-1924), and there's a Slovenian painter Konštantín Bauer (1893-1928)... Lupo 07:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- BTW: Pieter, where did you find the 1924 death year? It took me quite a bit of searching to find it; most Internet sources including de-WP just say "unknown"... (I've added it to de-WP now.[2]) Lupo 07:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I found the death date for (the other) Konstantin Bauer after I had found his birth year. Googling on the combination "Konstantin Bauer" 1852 gave some results. But you found a much better source. And you cleared up my mistake in identity. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks! I had hoped you had some super-duper source I wasn't aware of. I just tried "Constantin" instead of "Konstantin", and only found the death date searching on Google books for +"Bauer, Constantin" +1852. Lupo 09:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I found the death date for (the other) Konstantin Bauer after I had found his birth year. Googling on the combination "Konstantin Bauer" 1852 gave some results. But you found a much better source. And you cleared up my mistake in identity. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As a Lupo Jedudědek (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Good detective work! Thanks for adding information. I think this can be closed as Keep now. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Good detective work! Thanks for adding information. I think this can be closed as
- BTW, why not upload the larger reproduction available here (after having cloned out the watermark in the lower right corner)? As an aside, "Internet" won't do as the source; it should be at least something like "Immediate image source: [3]", and if we could identify the museum holding the painting today (or determine that it's in a private collection), that'd be even better. Lupo 13:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Tryphon☂ 05:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
if Filipović was hanged in 1946, how can be this be public domain based on life + 70 years? --Ricky81682 (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No info on photographer; unless evidence this is PD/free licensed for some reason should be deleted. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing essential source information. –Tryphon☂ 07:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
You'd need to be an admin to see this but the original license at en:File:Glina-crkva.jpg was public domain-self by en:User:Benkovac (not pd-art) who was blocked as a vandalizing sockpuppet, making this concerning. At en:Glina, Croatia, it indicates that the church was destroyed in 1941, but that doesn't make the age of this image clear at all. --Ricky81682 (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm an admin at English so message me there if someone needs me to undelete the page history. I don't pay that much attention here, to be honest. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing essential source information. –Tryphon☂ 07:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Image copied from the English Wikipedia, where it was deleted in 2007. Deletion log on WP says "No Justification Given for Fair Use". The image has no information about author and source, so there's no reason to assume that this is indeed an GFDL image. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. "Sourced" only to en:Wikipedia. The image there was in turn "sourced" to "Web source: http://www.billsparks.com/", a reuse site with a clear copyright notice on the front page; no indication of free license. Bogus "GFDL" claim; no evidence presented that image is free licensed for any other reason. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 07:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Its a great picture. But the image failed flickr review within 10 days of upload as "All Rights Reserved." Leoboudv (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; not free licensed and no confirmation was ever free licensed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am sure it was correctly licensed when i uploaded it.. however i have no problem with its deletion since the license had changed since i moved it here and before the FLICK R review took place. --Ltshears (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It is not in public domain, as the uploader claims. The copyright is held by Daniel Handler, author of A Series of Unfortunate Events. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 08:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, it looks way too simple to be eligible for copyright. –Tryphon☂ 07:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
No source. "Author=Desconocido" (unknown), not uploader's "own work", has no authority to license. (Said to date from 1921; might be PD for some reason, but more info would be needed to cofirm that.) --Infrogmation (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Cecil (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Lack of any usable quality, the image is completely out of focus. Usage checked, unused. --G.Hagedorn (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per nom without objection. Badly out of focus, unused; Commons has multiple better images to illustrate the subject/ -- Infrogmation (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Images of A Victory of Love
[edit]- File:Levent Istanbul Bosporus Bridge.jpg: appeared in http://www.uaegoal.com/vb/showthread.php?t=136684&page=6 on 7 February 2008, spread to http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=564000&page=4 (resized) on the 15th.
- File:Levent Istanbul.jpg: appeared in http://www.uaegoal.com/vb/showthread.php?t=136684&page=6 on 7 February 2008, spread to http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=564000&page=4 on the 15th.
- File:Istanbul Skyline Panorama.jpg: cropped from an image that appeared in http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=564000&page=3 on 30 January 2008
These photos spread around on forums, coming from imageshacks, wowturkey, or other sources of unknown origins, more than 2 months before they were uploaded here. The uploader is unlikely the photographer. Jappalang (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 07:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
In France, it is against the law (moral right of the author) to publish a picture of a building, the architect of which hasn't been dead for more than 70 years. -Remi Mathis (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Just a school. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Architectural works are copyrighted in France, which has no freedom of panorama exemption to allow photographs. Seems unfortunate that Commons can't collect photos of routine buildings in France (such as schools), but this picture clearly is a violation of the copyright laws of the country in which it was taken. —Werewombat (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Pymouss Tchatcher - 16:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Lack of any usable quality, the image is completely out of focus. Usage checked, unused. --G.Hagedorn (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nick (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Rousseau Metal
[edit]- File:APP a ENTR 01.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Counter 01.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Usine 2008 vue aérienne.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:APP gt MERCEDES sun motors PA 02.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:APP cmf MAN 01.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Acier 05 m s mod.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:APP RLR Indianapolis In 11.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:APP ct MAN 07.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I believe that User:Isabellb's images used to illustrate the article on fr:Rousseau Métal inc. all come from the websites of the company at [4] and [5]. These websites are copyrighted and the images they contain do not show any indication that they are not also copyrighted. They are professional photos used to showcase the company's products. The uploader says that she has permission from the company to use these photos. That may be true but that is not sufficient to be able to use those photos on Commons or on Wikipedia. Under Commons:Project scope/Evidence, uploader has to demonstrate that these images are free of rights and have a proper license. Cortomaltais (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. All files deleted since they are copyright vios (Also included reupload of copyrighted files). Bidgee (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
COM:FOP. There is no FOP in France, and the eiffel tower by night is protected. -- Cecil (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Are fireworks protected in France?? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Don't know, but the eiffel tower by night. So unless you can remove it from the firework, the question about protection of firework is rather secundary. And considering the copyright laws of France, I would bet on a protection of fireworks, too ;-) -- Cecil (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd agree if there was some special lighting of the eiffel tower visible on this image (i.e. like in blue color as it was recently for a few months, or some text), but on this image, it is "only" lighted. If this was really enough to have a copyright on it, you wouldn't be able to depict any building at night. Obviously, there's a claim that images at night are copyrighted, but this would IMHO require a proof that the first illumination has been added less than about a hundred years ago. After the french article on the eiffel tower, the tower was illuminated from the very beginning. Also, since even the french wikipedia has very similar images in it's article, I suggest keep, as this copyright thing seems nothing but copyfraud. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- The lightning was changed in 2003 and SNTE (the company who claims this copyright) has told that they don't request compensation from private uses, but for commercial one they do it (and have already done so). So it is against Commons rules as being non-commercial. And considering Frances copyright laws you will loose at court, there are already enough sentences to proof that. I for one will not expose users who don't know about that special law to that kind of experience, even if you are willing to let them run into a trap. -- Cecil (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd agree if there was some special lighting of the eiffel tower visible on this image (i.e. like in blue color as it was recently for a few months, or some text), but on this image, it is "only" lighted. If this was really enough to have a copyright on it, you wouldn't be able to depict any building at night. Obviously, there's a claim that images at night are copyrighted, but this would IMHO require a proof that the first illumination has been added less than about a hundred years ago. After the french article on the eiffel tower, the tower was illuminated from the very beginning. Also, since even the french wikipedia has very similar images in it's article, I suggest keep, as this copyright thing seems nothing but copyfraud. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Don't know, but the eiffel tower by night. So unless you can remove it from the firework, the question about protection of firework is rather secundary. And considering the copyright laws of France, I would bet on a protection of fireworks, too ;-) -- Cecil (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmmm... One thing here: Is the eiffel tower actually lit in this image or does it only seem to be due to the fireworks? I don't want that anybody runs into a trap, but this seems to be a bit overcautious here. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I think caution is the name of the game here. I would be surprised if that fireworks display weren't copyrighted — in France or any other country. It's original expression that attracts copyright, not the medium. I participated in a similar deletion discussion about a parade float composed of flowers. The flowers per se aren't copyrighted, but they were assembled into a work of original expression; the float was therefore a copyrighted work. Same here: those fireworks are a highly unique and original expressive display. In any event, the whole of la République would rise up to defend the proprietariness of this national symbol; it's a losing argument for the Commons community. —Werewombat (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I think this is the same photo as in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Photo 417.jpg (which was kept). I don't think the tower is lit by anything else than the fireworks, and according to the Image casebook, photos of fireworks are fine. Pruneautalk 15:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hadn't seen that one. But now that I see it, the only one except you who voted for keep was the admin who then decided the deletion request weeks later. That's not a neutral thing to do. You are either voting or deciding, not both of them. I hate that kind of action. We are maybe low on admins, but never that low. -- Cecil (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- On the other hand (and slightly besides the point, sorry), the only person to vote for delete was the nominator, and four months elapsed between MichaelMaggs' vote and his closing of the DR. Pruneautalk 17:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, there was a second user who added an extra reason. Not everybody uses voting-templates. -- Cecil (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Errr.... Are deletion discussions votations on Commons? *confused* --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- what? They're talking about admins closing deletion requests they voted in. I hate that too (although the 4 months in between makes it slightly less wrong). Rocket000 (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yea, I got that, but I was confused about the word "voting" in that context. "Argue" or something would be more appropriate. I'm being pedantic, am I?--PaterMcFly (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- what? They're talking about admins closing deletion requests they voted in. I hate that too (although the 4 months in between makes it slightly less wrong). Rocket000 (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Errr.... Are deletion discussions votations on Commons? *confused* --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, there was a second user who added an extra reason. Not everybody uses voting-templates. -- Cecil (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- On the other hand (and slightly besides the point, sorry), the only person to vote for delete was the nominator, and four months elapsed between MichaelMaggs' vote and his closing of the DR. Pruneautalk 17:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hadn't seen that one. But now that I see it, the only one except you who voted for keep was the admin who then decided the deletion request weeks later. That's not a neutral thing to do. You are either voting or deciding, not both of them. I hate that kind of action. We are maybe low on admins, but never that low. -- Cecil (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I'd say keep - Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_claims, while partly unsourced, seems to suggest that it is the lighting display and not the tower that is protected. Since this is a photograph of a firework display, and not the lighting display as normally seen, I'm not certain it should be deleted. If the photograph showed a wider view of the tower, encompassing the lighting in its entirety, I'd say it could be deleted. Mind you - were the lights actually on while the fireworks were lit? If they were off, then there isn't a problem. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The lighting display is not on. Fireworks are not a fixed medium, per above. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept COM:FOP#France Says "...the company operating the Eiffel Tower claims copyright of images of the tower when lighted at night". IronGargoyle says the light is off and as Parrot of Doom says "If they were off, then there isn't a problem". Even if the lights were on it would be de minimis as it is the lights can't be seen. Has been kept before as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Photo 417.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- The rest in Commons:Deletion_requests/Eiffel_Tower_by_night. JackPotte (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Renomination #1
No FOP in france+ fireworks is protected by copyright AMERICOPHILE 14:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Any evidence for fireworks copyright? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Excuse me. I withdraw my deletion request. I didn't pay attention that this file has been nominated for deletion before. AMERICOPHILE 17:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept Because fireworks are never written or recorded in a fixed medium, they never have a copyright, see Commons:Image_casebook#Fireworks_displays. Whatever the status of the Tower's lighting, it is not visible in this image. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Invalid Discuss on category talk page. --Ipatrol (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Polarfahrt Categories
[edit]- Category:Images from the German Federal Archive, topic Polarfahrt Dampfer "München"
- Category:Images from the German Federal Archive, topic Polarfahrt mit Dampfer "München"
- Category:Arctic expedition SS München
I'm not exactly sure whether this is the right place for this request, but I suggest merging these three categories into one, since they depict the very same event: The Polarfahrt (polar voyage) of the "München" in Summer 1925. Which one is to be kept may be discussed, I propose the second one. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think also, only one category is enough. --El-Bardo (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- The first two categories are temp categories added by a template. When the categorization is done these will be deleted anyway. Multichill (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Probably not under public domain. Kyro (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I was worried about the right way to import such image... Note : this is a personnal work based on several images under copyright. There is no other equivalent of this entire image.
So it's only a problem of license ? Or I can't import at all this image ? How can I import (in the right way, this time) such image ?
PS : The problem will be the same with several other images I imported in category:Forgotten Realms... Dr Brains (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment English: probably keep like the Middle-earth maps.
@Dr Brains : could you please give your sources ?See hereFrançais : probablement à conserver comme les cartes de la Terre du Milieu.Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 08:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)@Dr Brains : peux-tu indiquer tes sources ?Voir ici
Deleted. There's no way to create a map of a world that someone else has imagined without infringing on their copyright and making a derivative work. BanyanTree 12:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image is at w:en:File:Germany 2003 10 euro Gottfried Semper Obverse.gif, tagged as non-free Quadell (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. I would need a reason why someone thinks it's un-free to evaluate before deciding to delete. BanyanTree 12:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
I am American, so I'm only guessing but this sure looks like the national side of the euro; COM:MONEY#Euro says this is copyrighted, and template:PD-GermanGov doesn't include coins in the provision for non-copyrighted materials. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 00:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images by Kolding
[edit]User:Kolding has uploaded a few handball images, some of which I suppose are his own work, while others are not.
Firstly, there are images of teams. They are all taken in different surrounding and have no EXIF data. Some of them are clearly set poses for a professional photographer (with sponsors and everything):
Secondly there are EXIFless files with varying quality:
- File:Cristianmalmagro.jpg
- File:Perramon.jpg
- File:Veniolosert.jpg
- File:Raulcampos.jpg
- File:Perezcanca.jpg
- File:Omeyerrocas.jpg
Then there are some images that need not be deleted, IMHO:
- File:Carlosviver.jpg, File:Edufernandez.jpg, File:Vicentealamo.jpg, File:Palauesportsgranollers2.JPG, File:Palauesportgranollers.JPG, File:Pabellonmunicipalgranollers.JPG, File:Pabellontubo.JPG.
Finally there are some images that have already been deleted as copyvios:
Samulili (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Mixed result. Deleted those identified as suspect. Kept others. BanyanTree 12:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
No permission, copyright holder has requested removal ([6]). This might be PD-textlogo, though. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Too simple for copyright protection according to German law, compare de:Datei:Laufendes-Auge.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I also think it is to simple to be a work of art. --MGA73 (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
