Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/05/07
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Commercial advertisment poster. Sv1xv (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment There are more suspect uploads by User:Favrycio, see Special:Contributions/Favrycio. Sv1xv (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by MichaelMaggs: Promotional content. –Tryphon☂ 22:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Movie poster, most likely copyvio. Sv1xv (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Uploader contacted me and explained it is free by Japanese law. Sv1xv (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
- Accidentally copyright paranoia. Japanese posters 50 years old of Japanese films published in Japan in the name of an (Japanese) organization are free (public domain). (Very briefly it means that today the most of pre-1959 Japanese film posters are public domain. See Category:Japanese movie posters). See the license template. --Snek01 (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept, request withdrawn by nominator. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
90 degree rotated duplicate of Image:Fighting 69th Monument in Ballymote.JPG; this version is not used in any other part of Wikimedia Fattonyni (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Duplicate. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Scan of a magazine cover page. Sv1xv (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious copyright violation/derivative. Photo of magazine you did not make the cover for cannot be licensed as "own work". -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Commercial promotion material, bogus free license, the only contribution so far by this user. Sv1xv (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation [1] / out of scope. –Tryphon☂ 22:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Internet download, see [2]. Sv1xv (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious copyright violation. You can use {{Copyvio}} when you find the exact source. –Tryphon☂ 22:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Youtube video capture. Sv1xv (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, clear copyright violation. Screenshot of video made by someone else cannot be licensed as "own work". -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Images of Inessousadiaspascoal
[edit]- File:Pedro-granger2.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Alexandraalencastre.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Beneditapereiraaa.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Sara.mcabarradas.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MarianaMonteiro.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Ritiiinha.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Sofia-alvesm.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Jessicaathaydemca.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Inescastelobrancoo.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Joanaduartematildemca.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I believe that User:Inessousadiaspascoal's images are all copyvios taken from various websites. Smooth_O (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Martin H.: copyright violation. –Tryphon☂ 22:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Fairuse. Copyrighted poster. -Vantey (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Kwj2772 (msg) 16:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted Kyro (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. "All rights reserved" on Flickr. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
see [3]: "Picture not taken by me." shizhao (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. "Picture not taken by me" means, that the flickr uploader is not eligible to share this image under a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted on Flickr Kyro (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Failed Flickr review MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be unused vanity image; out of project scope as far as I can see. --Infrogmation (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Person name only given as first name, not reusable. G.Hagedorn (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete Not used, not usable. Nillerdk (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Person name only given as first name, not reusable. G.Hagedorn (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not used, not usable. Nillerdk (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
"due to YouTube's copyright policy, all videos are uploaded without a copyright." is nonsense. We need an explicit permission from the author to use it. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Image is used on a Wikipedia page which is an orphan, created by same user name as the uploader of this. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Not an illustration, A close up of a Prehistoric diorama such as in the AMNH, no freedom of panorama in US Kevmin (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for my ignorance, but what is it actually? Is it a photo of a reconstruction of a prehistoric animal in an museum? If so, can the museum claim original authorship? Isn't the nature the original creator? Nillerdk (talk) 08:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Fossils them selves do not fall in copyright laws. However this is a photograph of a model specificly created for museum dioramas and unless the designer/creator of the diorama specifically cedes the copyrights to the insitution where the diorama is housed then they still have the original rights. This is compounded by the fact that in the U.S. there is no freedom of panorama thus images of sculptures, dioramas, etc can not be published by the photographer without permission from the copyright owners. Thus if nothing else this image needs OTRS permission.--Kevmin (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Looking into the image further shows the photograph was taken in the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History: Hall of Fossils exhibit aka The Dinosaur Hall. --Kevmin (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. This would need permission from the original model maker. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the Daily Mail isn't a part of the US Federal government. A picture from the Vietnam era of him in a suit doesn't mean it's a picture from the military. --Ricky81682 (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom unless some evidence it is a US Federal work is presented. (Note: I tried looking for matches on tineye, and images.google .mil and .gov only, without success.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- It was actually taken in 1970 at Fort Benning.[4] Corbis claims copyright of course, but does not give an actual author. Could be USGov, or (more likely) there were reporters there and this is a standard press photo. Not a Daily Mail photo though. Delete Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as probable press photo per COM:PRP MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Wrong licence on flickr Kyro (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete same image appears on this homepage which licenced under CC-by-nc-3.0. Non commercial licences are not accepted on Commons. --High Contrast (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Flickr contributor appears to be uploading images that s/he finds on the internet with no regard for copyright. Highly unlikely that uploader actually took the image. Royalbroil 04:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
obu toyokawa 219.66.145.83 01:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep or Speedykeep I do not know the meaning of this request. --Vantey (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Tryphon☂ 05:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Very poor quality --George Chernilevsky 09:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Quality so poor it is not realistically usable for any educational use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This not 2D art work. shizhao (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PD-art cannot be used for photos of 3D works. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Images of BiHVolim
[edit]- File:Stadium BosniaHerzegovina Sarajevo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Stadium BosniaHerzegovina Zenica.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Nasa raja iz09te.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I believe that User:BiHVolim's images are all copyvios taken from various websites. Smooth_O (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 05:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
incompatible license - stated to be for Wikipedia use only which is inconsistent with the GFDL license and free terms required. Mfield (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Images of GIGABYTESmiling
[edit]- File:Logo gigabyte.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:2009 gbt motherboard.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:2009companyprofile-6.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:2009companyprofile-5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:2009companyprofile-7.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:2009companyprofile-6en.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I believe that User:GIGABYTESmiling's images are all copyvios because they were taken from various websites. Smooth_O (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. These appear to be promotional images, and are hence out of scope. COM:PS MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Work by U.S. artist Herbert Morton Stoops, who died in 1948. Dubiously tagged as GFDL; too new to be PD-Art, no reason to think it is free licensed. (Note: Image at writing is in use on pages in multiple Wikipedias.) --Infrogmation (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Possibly {{PD-1923}}, or {{PD-norenewal}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- If so, info about date of the work, first publication, would be needed. -- Infrogmation (talk)
- Direct source appears to be http://www.army.mil/cmh/art/225/225-War.htm . Some info on Stoops here; sounds like he started covers for Blue Book in 1935. This page mentions a Blue Book cover by Stoops depicting the Battle of New Orleans; this would seem to be it. This page says that issues of that magazine were renewed, but have no idea if Stoops or the magazine owned copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Impressive research; unfortunately this looks like delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Direct source appears to be http://www.army.mil/cmh/art/225/225-War.htm . Some info on Stoops here; sounds like he started covers for Blue Book in 1935. This page mentions a Blue Book cover by Stoops depicting the Battle of New Orleans; this would seem to be it. This page says that issues of that magazine were renewed, but have no idea if Stoops or the magazine owned copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Drawing by a British author who died in 1956. Not PD in its country of origin. For more information, see the image talk page. --83.89.16.138 21:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Long lived author; not yet PD-Old, no alternative reason it should be PD seen. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Since indeed the author died in 1956, delete. BTW, I am impressed that 83.89.16.138 came up with the identity of this author. Well done. Constantine ✍ 00:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Istria peninsula (far west on the map) was not part of NDH, not even after fall of Italy, compare to other maps in Category:Maps of NDH. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Valid request. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not a reason to delete, the map can be corrected. But the problem is, there is no authorship information, so delete. –Tryphon☂ 05:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted because "Electionworld is not the creator of this map". No indication of who the author was. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
"for use in wikipedia article" is not free enough. We need a permission that allows anyone to use this image for any purpose. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
More images from the same source with unclear permission:
- File:AL1.jpg
- File:AL2.jpg
- File:AL3.jpg
- File:Manu1.jpg
- File:Manu2.jpg
- File:Playground1.jpg
- File:Tennis10.jpg
--Kam Solusar (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No OTRS permission. –Tryphon☂ 21:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Unused personal photos are out of project scope. In addition, the photos is not big and it has no metadata, so copyright violation is also possible. Taivo (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Delete same picture here http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/t1.0-0/c0.37.960.566/s180x540/1507595_604680479608342_363187013_n.jpg Motopark (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
deleted. INeverCry 00:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Certainly not own work, it looks like a scan. What is the source of the original picture? –Tryphon☂ 12:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course, scan. Photo was made about 15 years ago. Digital (not expensive) photocameras appeared in Russia only 5-7 years ago. Pushkin A.I. dead in 2002. Original is in family's archive. Rootaria (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- So you should indicate that in the Source field, and if you are not the original photographer, you must change the Author field to reflect that. You may need to send an email to OTRS to confirm that you own the rights on this picture. –Tryphon☂ 14:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
What I has to write in source field? I'm beginner. Rootaria (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)rootaria
- You should write as much information as you have about the origin of the picture. Where was it taken, on which occasion, how did you obtain it (anything that helps establishing that you have the right to release it). Also, it's very important to fill the Author field in correctly. –Tryphon☂ 20:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
It's diffucult to remember, when and where this photo has been made, it was about 15 years ago. It was in Moscow exactly...Rootaria (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Seems not to be work of uploader as tagged. No indication it is free licensed for any other reason presented. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No source other than "own work" which it is not MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Likely a copyvio as a screenshot of a probable copyrighted program. Entreprise home page say "all rights reserved". df. (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I see nothing in that screenshot that can be considered as a "work". The window itself is trivial, and the two icons are so small that they should not trigger derivative work. Nillerdk (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Doesn't reach the threshold of originality to qualify for copyright protection in my view MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Changed from speedy: "Coins from Denmark not PD - use is restricted by http://www.nationalbanken.dk/DNDK/money.nsf/side/Brug_af_pengesedler_som_illustration!OpenDocument (cur) (prev) 09:11, 7 May 2009 Nillerdk (Talk contribs block) (950 bytes) (pretty sure not PD) (undo)" by --MGA73 (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep The link says (my translation):
Gengivelse af mønter
Gengivelse af mønter kan, ligesom for sedler, ske i sammenhænge, hvor mønterne skal symbolisere økonomisk værdi.
Modsat pengesedler er der ikke retningslinjer for størrelsen eller opløsningen af gengivelser af mønter, så længe mønterne ikke gengives på materialer, der kan forveksles med ægte mønter, jf. reglerne om pengefalsk.
Hvis en gengivelse sker på en måde, hvor selve designet eller dele af designet er i fokus, må gengivelse som udgangspunkt ikke finde sted.
Ved gengivelse af mønter skal man også være opmærksom på, at man ikke må gengive statssymboler eller billedet af Dronningen uden tilladelse fra henholdsvis Rigsarkivet og hoffet, jf. reglerne om brug af statssymboler og retten til eget billede...Rendering of coins
Rendering of coins can, as the notes made in contexts where the coins symbolize economic value.
Unlike notes, there is no guidance on the size or the dissolution of reproductions of coins, as long as the coins are not reproduced on material which could be confused with real coins, see the rules on counterfeiting.
If a reproduction is done in a manner in which the design or part of the design are in focus, the representation as the basis not take place.
When reproducing the coins should also be aware that we can not reproduce the state symbols, or image of the Queen without permission from the Danish National Archives and the Danish Noble court, pursuant to the rules on use of state symbols and the right to own image...In my view the image does not focus "in a manner in which the design or part of the design are in focus". It simply shows the whole coin. Just like you can show a picture of a whole building with a company logo on the building but not cut off all except the logo.
If you can't bring a photo of a coin then the National Bank simply could have written that it was forbidden to bring photos of Danish coins. --MGA73 (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Thank you for changing my "speedy" request to normal. In case of doubt, it is always better to support deletions by consensus.
- I have found an English edition of the document above, see [8]. The design of the coins is copyrighted by someone (the page doesn't say by who) - notice for example the sentence The provisions of the Copyright Act on protection of works of art, including banknote and coin designs.
- Since design of the coins is protected and we have no permission to re-release as PD or anything else, the file can't stay on Commons. The page also mentions many other restrictions for the use of coins and bank notes, but those are likely to be irrelevant for copyright (because covered by counterfeiting laws).
- I don't know if your arguments hold: 1) If you make a right-on photo of a coin, how can the design not be in focus? 2) That they didn't forbid the use of coins completely doesn't mean it is free enough for Commons (see my argument above). Nillerdk (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Cool. Better than my translation. In my view the details are not in focus if you show the whole coin (like the building/logo). Second you have to judge is it is a work of art. The form of the coin and the hole should not be a work of art. The letters and numbers are clearly not. But is the "wawe" a vork of art? I say not. But that is only relevant IF we believe that detalis are in focus. --MGA73 (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Personally I do believe the waves are works of art. But the two words and the number is not. And as Nillerdk I think of the design being in focus. --|EPO| da: 16:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I looked at some of the images in Category:Money of Denmark
![[1]](http://nsa02.casimages.com/img/2008/06/30/0806300239453871436.png){kind=link}
If the coin 5 kr. is work of art, then we should concider to delete the images above.
By the way to the euro coins have the: {{Money-EU}} I'm I the only one having problems with the link? --MGA73 (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- The link [9] is broken. Otourly (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Should be changed by [10], [11] etc for all languages. Otourly (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Links corrected. Otourly (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Should be changed by [10], [11] etc for all languages. Otourly (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. That helped a lot. It is clear that pictures of banknotes are ok according to article 2, no. 3, (f) if word SPECIMEN is printed diagonally across or if resolution does not exceed 72 dpi etc. but I can't find a place giving permission to show images of coins. Am I missing somthing? --MGA73 (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Here ([12] is a legal document about copyright of euro coins. It allows 2D copies, an even 3D copies if not of real size. But the Commision require "faithful likeness" of copies - in our jargon "no derivative", so the euro coins aren't free as well. Can someone explain me, how the {{Money-EU}} can be used on Commons for coins when it is really no free license? Nillerdk (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. That helped a lot. It is clear that pictures of banknotes are ok according to article 2, no. 3, (f) if word SPECIMEN is printed diagonally across or if resolution does not exceed 72 dpi etc. but I can't find a place giving permission to show images of coins. Am I missing somthing? --MGA73 (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- How old is the design on the coin? Copyright expires at some point. There is also a level of originality needed; this coin is pretty close to the borderline but I'm not sure which side (especially no idea how Denmark defines it). Restrictions on state symbols are common and typically not a problem here; it is specifically the copyright restrictions which matter (see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions). We use "public domain" specifically as it pertains to copyright status. (And no, the "faithful likeness" on the euro restrictions does not mean "no derivatives".) The restriction that the design on the coin cannot be the main focus of the image does seem problematic here though, unless that restriction is part of anti-counterfeiting laws instead of copyright (though if simply hosting the image here could be a violation of that law, that could still be a problem). Such restrictions seem completely illogical to me, but if they are there... Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry. Forgot this debate. The coin is only a few years old. So PD-old or somthing is not an option. --MGA73 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment In September 2008 I wrote an e-mail to the National Bank of Denmark to ask if they could enlighten us about copyrights on Danish currency. In short they do either can't or will answer to such specific topics. Actually I didn't get anything at all from asking them.. Not even really old coinds. So must be up to our "legal department" to tell us what to do. --|EPO| da: 18:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment In my view "the waves" are not interesting. If they were on a painting no one would notice or bother to take photos of them. It is the coin or what it represents, that are interesting. --MGA73 (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment If the result is kept then Commons:Currency#Denmark should be updated. --MGA73 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Danish coins are not PD. Christian Giersing (da:) 13:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- With what argument? --MGA73 (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, as per Commons:Currency#Denmark. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
