Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/05/17
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Daylife says it is a photo from The Associated Press. AP says © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. Is Sybten really the Author, as he claims? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- No OTRSA-permission, so delete--Motopark (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete copyvio [1] Otourly (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Kwj2772 (msg) 13:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Misleading source, misleading Author. Image is abundantly available in all kinds of blogs, but copyright status is unknown. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete [2] just 206 blogs & co. Otourly (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
It is a logo, not free possibly Egmontaz♤ talk 09:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete yep as File:Pbc logo.jpg from the same uploader too. Otourly (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
* 03:44, 18 May 2009 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:BUR LOGO.jpg" (Copyright violation) (view/restore)
Screenshot is probably copyrighted Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio of course. Otourly (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Uploader does not become copyright holder of BBC broadcast by taking a screenshot. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete you're right. Otourly (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not used in Wikimedia. I don't see any way this would be useful to project scope. Looks like personal vanity image or joke among school friends. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Probably out of scope. Commons is not a personal file storage, unless this image is going to be used in sensible way it might be deleted. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I'm agree Otourly (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, not used in Wikimedia. - Infrogmation (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Exact duplicate of File:Victa Export.GIF, incorrectly uploaded in XPM format (despite the ".gif" suffix). Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Source is English Wikipedia where it has already been deleted in 2007, log. Ö 14:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted. Version on en:Wikipedia was deleted as it was under a CC-no commercial license. (And even if it was under the license claimed by the Commons uploader, this upload would have still been a copyright violation for omitting attribution.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope; low res personal image. No use in Wikimedia found. --Infrogmation (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete As the other one File:Jiwon Joo.jpg Otourly (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; photo of obviously non-notable person, likely violating personality rights and unusable- Túrelio (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete attacking description Otourly (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
This file was misnamed on upload and has been replaced with an accurately named duplicate of the same image. Joel Bradshaw (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- File:Honolulu-NippuJiji-bldg.JPG is the correct duplicate. I marked the misnamed image as "bad name". --Isderion (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as a wrongly-named exact duplicate. Wknight94 talk 02:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Blurred silhouette, completely lacking any informational value. Postdlf (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure that this is an derivative work. I took a picture of my game but I don´t know if I am making an derivative work by doing this.
--Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC), fixing incomplete nomination on behalf of User:Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira
Deleted. Yes, it is a derivative work. Unless stated otherwise, most board game designs are copyrighted. See COM:CB#Board_games Eusebius (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Bad quality. Commons have enough images of domesticated cats. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- +1, delete, bad quality --Isderion (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Used on the Spanish Wikipedia. Eusebius (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to renominate the image. The articel in which the image was used on es got deleted (see here), which is not a big surprise. The reason for deleting this image is stated above (bad quality). --Isderion (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Lacks educational value. --Eusebius (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. Copyright status not clear. Abundantly available on various blogs [3], only a slight modification. Commons is not a personal file storage. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete As of Tineye the most high-res version is on Photobucket and that means, copyvio is highly likely. --Túrelio (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, also for File:Chingchongcho1.jpg. Those photoshop kiddies... Lupo 19:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. In fact, speedied. Hundreds of tineye hits, and this one from dailymail.co.uk, watermarked "Solo Syndication". Lupo 19:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Photo of a modern sculpture in San Antonio, Texas; thus not free per COM:FOP#United States. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
MP3 file with a ".djvu" suffix. Converted to Ogg Vorbis format and reuploaded as File:Entrevist-Interview-Alejandro Quiroz-About -Sobre Antorcha Amistad.ogg. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- This should be speedy, assuming the converted OGG isn't copyvio :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Image is so blurry and out of focus that it is unusable. This could be speedied. Leoboudv (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope: very low quality. Yann (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Screenshot of non free content, and of non free software Egmontaz♤ talk 10:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Tagged with CC-license on Flickr, but that is probably not correct for art by an artist who died 1976. Ö 14:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Flickr uploader made the photo, but CC is not a valid license for this image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. COM:DW Yann (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Questionable copyright claim. With a bit of looking, I didn't see any evidence that the 1957 film is public domain in country of origin, USA. In any case the "PD-self" tag seems wrong as the uploader does not become the copyright holder by taking a screengrab. --Infrogmation (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. COM:DW Yann (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Поради истриването на водния знак, без моето разрешение! Vasilmitov (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Due to deletion of the watermark, without my permission! Vasilmitov (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
- Translated by: →Spiritia 17:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The image was uploaded under the free license CC-BY-3.0 which explicitly allows modification. Watermarks with copyright statements are strongly discouraged in Wikimedia Commons. The author's attribution is made visible in the concomitant image description. Please see the rest of the user's nominations. →Spiritia 17:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)- Oppose. Same reasons as Spiritia. --5ko (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep A free CC license allows removal of watermark. Watermarks are strongly discouraged. Sv1xv (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Поради истриването на водния знак, без моето разрешение! Vasilmitov (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Due to deletion of the watermark, without my permission! Vasilmitov (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
- Translated by: →Spiritia 17:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The image was uploaded under the free license CC-BY-3.0 which explicitly allows modification. Watermarks with copyright statements are strongly discouraged in Wikimedia Commons. The author's attribution is made visible in the concomitant image description. Please see the rest of the user's nominations. →Spiritia 17:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Same reasons as Spiritia. --5ko (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Поради истриването на водния знак, без моето разрешение! Vasilmitov (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Due to deletion of the watermark, without my permission! Vasilmitov (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
- Translated by: →Spiritia 17:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The image was uploaded under the free license CC-BY-3.0 which explicitly allows modification. Watermarks with copyright statements are strongly discouraged in Wikimedia Commons. The author's attribution is made visible in the concomitant image description. Please see the rest of the user's nominations. →Spiritia 17:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Same reasons as Spiritia. --5ko (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Поради истриването на водния знак, без моето разрешение! Vasilmitov (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Due to deletion of the watermark, without my permission! Vasilmitov (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
- Translated by: →Spiritia 17:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The image was uploaded under the free license CC-BY-3.0 which explicitly allows modification. Watermarks with copyright statements are strongly discouraged in Wikimedia Commons. The author's attribution is made visible in the concomitant image description. Please see the rest of the user's nominations. →Spiritia 17:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Same reasons as Spiritia. --5ko (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Поради истриването на водния знак, без моето разрешение! Vasilmitov (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Due to deletion of the watermark, without my permission! Vasilmitov (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
- Translated by: →Spiritia 17:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The image was uploaded under the free license CC-BY-3.0 which explicitly allows modification. Watermarks with copyright statements are strongly discouraged in Wikimedia Commons. The author's attribution is made visible in the concomitant image description. Please see the rest of the user's nominations. →Spiritia 17:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Same reasons as Spiritia. --5ko (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Поради истриването на водния знак, без моето разрешение! Vasilmitov (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Due to the deletion of the watermark, without my permission! Vasilmitov (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
- Translated by →Spiritia 16:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Visible tags or watermarks inside images are strongly discouraged at Wikimedia Commons. The picture was uploaded and marked with the CC-BY-3.0 license which explicitly allows modification. С качването в Общомедия под лиценз CC-BY сте разрешил промяната на снимката, a водни знаци силно не се препоръчват в Общомедия. Името на автора е въведено в метаданните на снимката. --5ko (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Same reasons as 5ko. Please see the rest of the user's nominations. →Spiritia 17:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC) →Spiritia 16:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Поради истриването на водния знак, без моето разрешение! Vasilmitov (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Due to deletion of the watermark, without my permission! Vasilmitov (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
- Translated by: →Spiritia 17:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The image was uploaded under the free license CC-BY-3.0 which explicitly allows modification. Watermarks with copyright statements are strongly discouraged in Wikimedia Commons. The author's attribution is made visible in the concomitant image description. Please see the rest of the user's nominations. →Spiritia 17:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC) →Spiritia 17:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Same reasons as Spiritia. --5ko (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Поради истриването на водния знак, без моето разрешение! Vasilmitov (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Due to deletion of the watermark, without my permission! Vasilmitov (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
- Translated by: →Spiritia 17:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The image was uploaded under the free license CC-BY-3.0 which explicitly allows modification. Watermarks with copyright statements are strongly discouraged in Wikimedia Commons. The author's attribution is made visible in the concomitant image description. Please see the rest of the user's nominations. →Spiritia 17:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Same reasons as Spiritia. --5ko (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Поради истриването на водния знак, без моето разрешение! Vasilmitov (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Due to deletion of the watermark, without my permission! Vasilmitov (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
- Translated by: →Spiritia 17:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The image was uploaded under the free license CC-BY-3.0 which explicitly allows modification. Watermarks with copyright statements are strongly discouraged in Wikimedia Commons. The author's attribution is made visible in the concomitant image description. Please see the rest of the user's nominations. →Spiritia 17:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)tr
- Oppose. Same reasons as Spiritia. --5ko (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Поради истриването на водния знак, без моето разрешение! Vasilmitov (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Due to deletion of the watermark, without my permission! Vasilmitov (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
- Translated by: →Spiritia 17:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The image was uploaded under the free license CC-BY-3.0 which explicitly allows modification. Watermarks with copyright statements are strongly discouraged in Wikimedia Commons. The author's attribution is made visible in the concomitant image description. Please see the rest of the user's nominations. →Spiritia 17:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Same reasons as Spiritia. --5ko (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Поради истриването на водния знак, без моето разрешение! Vasilmitov (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Due to deletion of the watermark, without my permission! Vasilmitov (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
- Translated by: →Spiritia 17:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The image was uploaded under the free license CC-BY-3.0 which explicitly allows modification. Watermarks with copyright statements are strongly discouraged in Wikimedia Commons. The author's attribution is made visible in the concomitant image description. Please see the rest of the user's nominations. →Spiritia 17:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Same reasons as Spiritia. --5ko (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Поради истриването на водния знак, без моето разрешение! Vasilmitov (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Due to deletion of the watermark, without my permission! Vasilmitov (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
- Translated by: →Spiritia 17:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The image was uploaded under the free license CC-BY-3.0 which explicitly allows modification. Watermarks with copyright statements are strongly discouraged in Wikimedia Commons. The author's attribution is made visible in the concomitant image description. Please see the rest of the user's nominations. →Spiritia 17:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Same reasons as Spiritia. --5ko (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Поради истриването на водния знак, без моето разрешение! Vasilmitov (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Due to deletion of the watermark, without my permission! Vasilmitov (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
- Translated by: →Spiritia 17:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The image was uploaded under the free license CC-BY-3.0 which explicitly allows modification. Watermarks with copyright statements are strongly discouraged in Wikimedia Commons. The author's attribution is made visible in the concomitant image description. Please see the rest of the user's nominations. →Spiritia 17:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Same reasons as Spiritia. --5ko (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Поради истриването на водния знак, без моето разрешение! Vasilmitov (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Due to deletion of the watermark, without my permission! Vasilmitov (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
- Translated by: →Spiritia 17:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The image was uploaded under the free license CC-BY-3.0 which explicitly allows modification. Watermarks with copyright statements are strongly discouraged in Wikimedia Commons. The author's attribution is made visible in the concomitant image description. Please see the rest of the user's nominations. →Spiritia 17:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Same reasons as Spiritia. --5ko (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Поради истриването на водния знак, без моето разрешение! Vasilmitov (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Due to deletion of the watermark, without my permission! Vasilmitov (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
- Translated by: →Spiritia 17:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The image was uploaded under the free license CC-BY-3.0 which explicitly allows modification. Watermarks with copyright statements are strongly discouraged in Wikimedia Commons. The author's attribution is made visible in the concomitant image description. Please see the rest of the user's nominations. →Spiritia 17:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: The image's watermark was not deleted / cropeed, only Template:Watermark was put on the description page. →Spiritia 07:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. This picture cannot be cropped, so there is no need to keep it. --5ko (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope: watermark can't be removed, so no encyclopedic value. Yann (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Поради истриването на водния знак, без моето разрешение! Vasilmitov (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Due to deletion of the watermark, without my permission! Vasilmitov (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
- Translated by: →Spiritia 17:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The image was uploaded under the free license CC-BY-3.0 which explicitly allows modification. Watermarks with copyright statements are strongly discouraged in Wikimedia Commons. The author's attribution is made visible in the concomitant image description. Please see the rest of the user's nominations. →Spiritia 17:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Same reasons as Spiritia. --5ko (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Поради истриването на водния знак, без моето разрешение! Vasilmitov (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Due to deletion of the watermark, without my permission! Vasilmitov (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
- Translated by: →Spiritia 16:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The image was uploaded under the free license CC-BY-3.0 which explicitly allows modification. Watermarks with copyright statements are strongly discouraged in Wikimedia Commons. The author's attribution is made visible in the concomitant image description. →Spiritia 16:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Same reasons as Spiritia. --5ko (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Will not work within Wiki Quebec Route format; must be Qcxxx.png format only Gordalmighty (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- From what I'm reading at en-wiki's Administrator's noticeboard, this should very simply be moved to File:Qc211.png. Amalthea (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, since the image at hand has some compression artifacts, and I'm guessing that image moving has been deactivated here at Commons as well, I would recommend the image at hand to be deleted as requested by the uploader, and that an admin uploads http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/6808/qc211.png using the name File:Qc211.png, to get it past the Titleblacklist; It's based on File:Qc112.png, and my small part of pixel-pushing it to the current state shall be released into the public domain.
Thank you, Amalthea (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)- Assuming this isn't an isolated case, it would probably be reasonable to add an exception for these files to MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist. Something like "
File:Qc[0-9]{3}\.(png|svg)" ought to do it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)- Yes, but I'm not sure that's necessary. It seems that most of them have already been created (en:List of Quebec provincial highways), and once the image move functionality is back the whole series could easily be moved to follow a different naming convention. Personally, I'd prefer that as a longterm solution, the current names aren't particularly descriptive anyway. Amalthea (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- True, but as long we are staying with this naming scheme, might as well whitelist them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but I'm not sure that's necessary. It seems that most of them have already been created (en:List of Quebec provincial highways), and once the image move functionality is back the whole series could easily be moved to follow a different naming convention. Personally, I'd prefer that as a longterm solution, the current names aren't particularly descriptive anyway. Amalthea (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Assuming this isn't an isolated case, it would probably be reasonable to add an exception for these files to MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist. Something like "
- Actually, since the image at hand has some compression artifacts, and I'm guessing that image moving has been deactivated here at Commons as well, I would recommend the image at hand to be deleted as requested by the uploader, and that an admin uploads http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/6808/qc211.png using the name File:Qc211.png, to get it past the Titleblacklist; It's based on File:Qc112.png, and my small part of pixel-pushing it to the current state shall be released into the public domain.
I've uploaded File:Qc211.png, though I'm not sure if the image description details are correct. I just c&p'ed the image description from File:Qc112.png. Please fix. Anyway, this one can be deleted now, it seems to me. Quadell (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
De facto non-derivative. No evidence of OTRS, and requirement to keep watermark as a form of invariant section. ViperSnake151 (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- You are using lingo on me that I am not familiar with. The copyrightholder requested that his watermark be kept on the WP version of the image. If that makes it ineligible for commons, I understand. The image was never OTRSed. I obtained consent by flickrmail and of course the change in licensing.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. "Specific permission to post as licensed only if watermark remains" is too narrow for Commons. We require the ability to make derivative works, including removal of watermarks. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The {{PD-CzechGov}} does not apply here. Acoording to the source www.army.cz, images from http://www.army.cz are not in the public domain (© 2005 Ministry of Defence of Czech Republic). --High Contrast (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not free according to copyright information on source website. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The {{PD-CzechGov}} does not apply here. Acoording to the source www.army.cz, images from http://www.army.cz are not in the public domain (© 2005 Ministry of Defence of Czech Republic). High Contrast (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The {{PD-CzechGov}} does not apply here. Acoording to the source www.army.cz, images from http://www.army.cz are not in the public domain (© 2005 Ministry of Defence of Czech Republic). High Contrast (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The {{PD-CzechGov}} does not apply here. Acoording to the source www.army.cz, images from http://www.army.cz are not in the public domain (© 2005 Ministry of Defence of Czech Republic). High Contrast (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Unused semitransparent map apparently designed to be overlaid on some other image, does not seem educationally useful on its own. I also suspect it's probably taken without permission from some web page, but I haven't been able to confirm this suspicion. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Tomchong claims this to be his own work, although [4] shows exactly the same picture without the lettering. The website claims copyright, but Tomchong denies copyvio. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- There is also www.flyyellowairtaxi.com as a possible source. Two other uploads by the user were from that site and have been deleted. However, I couldn't find the current image on the website. Nevertheless, if the uploader was able to put the name and machine # so exactly on the image from istockphoto.com, he might be a Photoshop-genius. --Túrelio (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Still, compare the position of the propellor blades in motion, compare the rubber tracks on the tarmac, compare the position where the line in the tarmac intersects with the leftwing. This is the same photo. And since the image here is slightly cropped, it is likely that this is the copy. Assuming this is a copy from Istockphoto, their license agreement when purchasing the photo, does not give Tomchong the right to put this image in the public domain, even if he photoshopped it. As far as I understand, no license used on Commons is compatible with the license agreement of Istockphoto. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- On the other hand, the plane from Istockphoto does not show a registration number. Since planes in general all have a visible registration number, it makes that photo suspect of being manipulated, instead of the one here on commons. I think Tomchong has to provide some sort of evidence that he is the owner of the picture. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Here it says that Ivan Cholakov made this picture, and the website says on its homepage "All images are copyright of their owners". So unless Tomchong gives a convincing explanation, this image should be deleted. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
+++I am the owner of the original photo (Ivan Cholakov) which I took at Fort Lauderdale airport and uploaded into my pbase gallery. The photo is not public domain. I own the copyright to it and I am not sure who, when and where presented it as their own. Please delete. +++
Deleted on the basis of COM:PRP while evidence remains lacking that the uploader really did take this image (there has been no response to a message on the user's talk page). If evidence is forthcoming we can reconsider. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Contemporary architecture. No FOP in Italy --User:G.dallorto (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Just a plain highrise office building. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep By the logic of this deletion request, most contents of Category:Architecture of Italy would be copyvios, which clearly isn't the case. --Latebird (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No architect or copyright holder mentioned by anyone. Yann (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy Friedrichstrasse (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted --Denniss (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The Mannerheim monument in this image was erected after Mannerheim's death in 1951, therefore its creator can't be dead for more than 70 years, and Finland has freedom of panorama only for buildings, not for sculptures, see Commons:FOP#Finland. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Es stellt sich die Frage, ob bei derartigen Bildern das Kunstwerk Hauptmotiv ist. Wenn nicht, wäre es nach finnischem Recht akzeptabel. --Marcela (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Auf diesem Bild ist das Denkmal mindestens so prominent wie das Gebäude, ausserdem hast du es unter Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Postkarte_von_1900 selbst mit der Unterschrift "Mannerheim-Denkmal in Helsinki, aufgestellt nach 1951" versehen, was dafür spricht, dass auch du als Fotograf hauptsächlich das Denkmal im Sinn hattest. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
English: In his post above, Ralf Roletschek/Marcela poses the question whether the sculpture is the "central element" in such an image. If not, it would be acceptable according to Finnish law. In my opinion, the monument in this image is at least as central an element as the building, and furthermore, Ralf Roletschek as the photographer and uploader seems to have mainly the Mannerheim monument in mind, as he himself used the caption "Mannerheim-Denkmal in Helsinki, aufgestellt nach 1951" ("Mannerheim monument in Helsinki, erected after 1951") for a thumbnail in the German Wikipedia's copyright discussion. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, my english is to bad for a diskussion here. Meine Intention ist klar: darf ich ein Kunstwerk abbilden, wenn es "scheinbar" nicht Hauptbestandteil des Fotos ist? Darf man FoP umgehen, indem man das Objekt der Begierde zum Beiwerk macht? Dabei ist es unerheblich, wie das Bild beschrieben wird. Ich hätte auch sagen können: "Bibliothek der Uni Helsinki, links am Rand ein Denkmal". Mir geht es nicht um dieses eine Bild, mir geht es um eine generelle Klärung. Was ist mit einem Nachtbild von Paris mit dem Eiffelturm, bei dem der Turm nur unwesentlicher Bestandteil ist? Wo ist die Grenze? --Marcela (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ich glaube nicht, dass man das darf, wenn es die Absicht ist, das Kunstwerk abzubilden und das Bild genau dafür verwendet wird, alles andere im Bild also nur "Alibi" ist. So hat das der finnische Gesetzgeber mit dem Hauptmotiv sicher nicht gemeint. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Again a translation service for readers who don't understand German :-) : Ralf asks whether it may be possible to use images for the purpose of showing a work of art (a sculpture in a public place) when there is no freedom of panorama, but the sculpture also seems not to be the central element of the image in question. I'm of the opinion that this doesn't seem likely: if the whole purpose of the image is to show the work of art and it's used in this way, I do not believe that a Finnish court would accept the attempt to declare the sculpture as "not central" by including its surroundings merely as an alibi. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- thank Gerstumblindi for Translation. --Marcela (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The relevant passage of the Swedish text of the Finnish law is: "Konstverk får avbildas om verket är stadigvarande placerat på eller vid en allmän plats. Om ett konstverk är huvudmotivet för en bild får bilden inte användas i förvärvssyfte." Paraphrasing: the restriction to non-commercial use of images of public art is only for cases where the artwork is the main motive. (And when it is the main motive, images can still be used as illustrations of text in newspapers magazines. Freedom of panarama in Finland would be good enough for wikipedia. The problem is with the overly restrictive commons policies.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm of the opinion that the work of art is the main motive in the image discussed here, or maybe one of two equal main motives (the monument and the building). Gestumblindi (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- It shows the square Mannerheiminaukio with the Kiasma Museum of Contemporary Art and the Mannerheim statue. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm of the opinion that the work of art is the main motive in the image discussed here, or maybe one of two equal main motives (the monument and the building). Gestumblindi (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- The operative phrase indeed seems to be "main subject" (fi: "pääaihe", sv: "huvudmotiv"): whereas noncommercial use of the picture is clearly permitted by the Finnish copyright law (§ 25 a), commercial use is only allowed if the statue is not the main subject. I tried to look for some case law or statements from the Finnish Copyright Council on how prominent a pictured work must be to count as the main subject, but my cursory search didn't turn up anything directly relevant to the case at hand.
- That being the case, I would personally have to say that both the statue and the building together seem to constitute the main subject of the picture: it appears that the picture has been deliberately composed such that the statue appears to be riding along the top of the building's roof, and so as to contrast the traditional statue on one side with the modern building on the other
, as representations of different aspects of Finnish identity and the public image of Finland (as suggested by its title). If the picture was cropped or digitally altered so as to remove the statue, or if it had been taken from a slightly different angle such that the statue was not included, not only would its composition suffer but it would no longer portray the contrast that seems to be its purpose and intent. As such, I would have to say that the statue is, if not the main subject of the picture, then certainly a main subject of it.
- Therefore, unless someone can come up with evidence that my interpretation of the law above is mistaken, I believe that we'll unfortunately have to Delete this image due to the incompatibility of the restrictions on commercial use with the Definition of Free Content as referenced in our licensing policy. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- On a second though, I may have been reading too much symbolism into the picture. However, I do feel the balance of my argument still holds. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ps. If anyone would like to translate the gist of my comment into German, I'd be grateful; I don't feel my own German is anywhere near good enough to attempt it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- The law does not say: "a main subject", "a major component", "an essential part" or something like that. The Finnish law says: "huvudmotivet", "the main subject". This image is free for making postcards or other commercial use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Somewhat interestingly, the Finnish text of the law does not make the same distinction: "kuvan pääaihe" could be equally well interpreted either as "the main subject of the picture" or "a main subject of the picture". Of course, both versions are official, but I think any legal argument that relies on the differences between Finnish and Swedish grammar is pedantic at best.
- The law does not say: "a main subject", "a major component", "an essential part" or something like that. The Finnish law says: "huvudmotivet", "the main subject". This image is free for making postcards or other commercial use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Anyway, while of course I don't know how a court or the copyright council would rule on it, I can't believe it that an interpretation that would allow one to circumvent the restriction on commercial use merely by widening the crop a little and saying "no, this isn't a picture of your sculpture, it's a picture of your sculpture and a tree / house / person / whatever next to it" could possibly be in accordance with the intent of the law. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, ich glaube nun auch, daß es besser ist, diese Datei zu löschen. --Marcela (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - The statue takes such a small area of the picture, that I find it hard to believe that it would be made into the "main subject" by law (unless maybe if you want to assume that the pedestral is also copyrighted, which I doubt). Looking at the image composition, the museum is clearly the main subject here, with the statue being used to frame it. And yes, I think that evading the restriction by "widening the crop" is perfectly in line with the intention of the law. Otherwise, there would be no way at all to include a copyrighted sculpture in a picture of a public space, rendering the "main subject" clause irrelevant. I'm all for deleting clear copyright violations, but let's not be unnecessarily paranoid. --Latebird (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- "the museum is clearly the main subject here" - I do not think so. The Mannerheim monument is at least as prominent in this image, and immediately draws attention by the way the picture was taken (rising into the sky). There are two equal main subjects, at least. Furthermore, the uploader was (by his own admission) fully aware of the potential discussion when uploading this image, intending to make an example of it and to use the decision made in this case as a "leading case", so to speak, to judge whether we can show copyright protected works of art (installed in Finnish public places) in a similar way in the future. See this post by Marcela/Ralf Roletschek dated 8:55, 17. Mai 2009: "Wenn ich Unrecht habe, wird es derartiges von mir nicht mehr geben, wenn das Bild bleiben darf, dann können wir auf ähnliche Weise Kunstwerke abbilden." - transl.: If I'm wrong, there will be nothing more of this kind from me. If the image is allowed to stay, we can depict works of art in a similar way. However, Ralf (the creator and uploader of the photo) is now himself of the opinion that it's better to delete it (see above, "Ok, ich glaube nun auch, daß es besser ist, diese Datei zu löschen"). Gestumblindi (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Finland has almost-FOP. The only restriction is that images in which the artwork is the main subject can not be used commercially when they are not illustrations of text. Typical examples would be T-shirts, other merchandize, posters or postcards, and use in advertisements. But an image like this one of the city square is not suitable as merchandize of the statue. That is why the lawmaker did not think it needed to be protected. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- According to the Finnish copyright council, at least, the non-commercial clause in § 25 a of the copyright act also forbids e.g. unauthorized use of photos of sculptures (or, in the particular case where I found this example, gravestones) to illustrate books printed and sold for profit, assuming that they pass the threshold of originality and that other statutory "fair use" exceptions to the copyright law don't apply. Also, I certainly feel that the picture we're discussing here could well be commercially used e.g. as a postcard — indeed, it seems to me that the composition would actually work better as a postcard (though you'd probably want to crop just a few percent off the right edge) than as an illustration for an educational article. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict). One could wish to print the image e.g. upon a coffee cup with intent to sell it in a Mannerheim fan shop ;-) - or, more realistically, use it for a postcard. If it's not acceptable to use this image for a postcard according to Finnish law, it's not acceptable on Commons. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Finland has almost-FOP. The only restriction is that images in which the artwork is the main subject can not be used commercially when they are not illustrations of text. Typical examples would be T-shirts, other merchandize, posters or postcards, and use in advertisements. But an image like this one of the city square is not suitable as merchandize of the statue. That is why the lawmaker did not think it needed to be protected. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- "the museum is clearly the main subject here" - I do not think so. The Mannerheim monument is at least as prominent in this image, and immediately draws attention by the way the picture was taken (rising into the sky). There are two equal main subjects, at least. Furthermore, the uploader was (by his own admission) fully aware of the potential discussion when uploading this image, intending to make an example of it and to use the decision made in this case as a "leading case", so to speak, to judge whether we can show copyright protected works of art (installed in Finnish public places) in a similar way in the future. See this post by Marcela/Ralf Roletschek dated 8:55, 17. Mai 2009: "Wenn ich Unrecht habe, wird es derartiges von mir nicht mehr geben, wenn das Bild bleiben darf, dann können wir auf ähnliche Weise Kunstwerke abbilden." - transl.: If I'm wrong, there will be nothing more of this kind from me. If the image is allowed to stay, we can depict works of art in a similar way. However, Ralf (the creator and uploader of the photo) is now himself of the opinion that it's better to delete it (see above, "Ok, ich glaube nun auch, daß es besser ist, diese Datei zu löschen"). Gestumblindi (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Die bisherige Diskussion zeigt mir, daß ich mit diesem Bild gegen Commons-Regeln verstoßen habe. Zugegeben, ich wollte ausloten, was geht und was nicht. Das war vielleicht ein Fehler. Ich wollte nicht provozieren. Ich vertsehe die englischen Beiträge zumindest sinngemäß, kann aber selbst nicht so gut englisch, um auch so zu schreiben, daß ich verstanden werde. Ich werde derartige Bilder nicht mehr nach Commons laden, man muß nicht alle Grenzen der Gestze bis ins letzte Detail und auf Klage-Gefahr hin ausreizen. Bitte löschen. --Marcela (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- You've certainly come up with an interesting test case. :-) Just to make it clear, I'm certainly not arguing here because I'd have anything against you or your picture — I'm just as interested as you seem to be in figuring out how Finnish law and Commons policy actually interact here. Unfortunately, my take on the situation is that this picture is likely out of bounds: Commons policy says that any files we have here should be free for anyone to, say, print on a postcard and sell, and unfortunately it seems unlikely to me that Finnish law would actually permit that in this case. But if someone with more authority on the subject (and let's face it, I don't really have any to speak of) came and said I was wrong, I'd be quite happy. (In fact, I'd half seriously considered asking for the Finnish copyright council's opinion on this: a case like this would seem to fall right in their ballpark.) Anyway, thank you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Aside
- 1995 copyright act supplement
Ps. I found some information in the supplementary material to the 1995 copyright act that might be relevant here. According to the explanatory notes (Finnish, Swedish) provided by the government:
- Suomi: "Arvioitaessa sitä, voidaanko taideteosta pitää kuvan pääaiheena, on huomiota kiinnitettävä kuvan kokonaisvaikutelmaan ja taideteoksen kuvaamisen tarkoitukseen. Luvanvaraista ei olisi esimerkiksi sellaisen maisemakuvan käyttäminen, johon taideteos sisältyy, ellei taideteos ole selvästi kuvan pääaihe. Jos taideteos on otettu osaksi lavastettua mainoskuvaa ja muodostaa keskeisen osan kuvasta, voidaan sitä pitää pääaiheena mainostettavan tuotteen sijasta."
- Svenska: "Vid bedömning av om ett konstverk kan betraktas som huvudmotiv för en bild, skall uppmärksamhet fästas vid helhetsintrycket av bilden och syftet med avbildandet av konstverket. T.ex. nyttjandet av en sådan landskapsbild i vilken ett konstverk ingår skall inte vara beroende av tillstånd, om inte konstverket klart och tydligt är bildens huvudmotiv. Om ett konstverk har tagits med som en del av en redigerad reklambild och utgör en central del av bilden, kan den betraktas som huvudmotiv i stället för den produkt för vilken det görs reklam."
These notes are not part of the actual law, and therefore not really normative, but the copyright council does seem fond of citing them as evidence of legislative intent, and it seems likely that a court would also take note of them in deciding how the law should be applied. My own best-effort translation to English would be something like:
- "In determining whether a work can be considered [the/a] main subject of a picture, attention must be paid to the overall appearance of the picture and to the purpose of picturing the work. For example, using a landscape picture that includes a [copyrighted] work should not require permission, unless the work is clearly [the/a] main subject of the picture. If a work has been included as a part of a staged advertising picture and constitutes a central part of the picture, it may be considered to be [the/a] main subject instead of the product being advertised."
Alas, I'm not sure if that really clarifies the situation with respect to this particular picture in any way. If anything, I'd like to point out the part of the first sentence that says that the purpose of picturing a work should be considered a factor in determining whether it is the main subject. Given that the link provided by Gestumblindi above seems to strongly suggest that the sculpture has indeed been deliberately included in the picture, rather than its inclusion being merely accidental or unavoidable, and that the intended use of the picture is indeed specifically to portray the sculpture, I would have to say that it does seem like the main subject here, even if it might not be considered so in some other picture showing it with equal prominence, but with clear intent to primarily depict something else (like, say, a nearby building on fire). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- It should not matter whether a work was "deliberately" included in a picture or not (who's gonna prove that?), but only how it appears in the result. In line with the landscape example, I would rather be inclined to ask: Can this part of the building be photographed in full without also including the statue somehow? I haven't been there, but I doubt it. --Latebird (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- One could take a photo with a longer lens, and then one gets something like File:Kiasma2.jpg (the statue is there twice, also as its shadow in the museum facade). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- We have several pictures of the building in Category:Kiasma, some of them showing the statue and some not. While it's hard to show the entire building from this particular direction without including the statue, it's worth noting that the small and rather unremarkable part of the building visible in this picture could in fact be easily shown just about as well without including the statue. (Indeed, the statue could simply be cropped out of this picture without losing much of the building at all.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Based on the text Ilmari Karonen cited, this is clear Delete. Samulili (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted per Ilmari Karonen. The statue is main motive of the image. Samulili (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 |
| |
| State symbol? | Official sign? |
Copyright infringement. The quote from the Moldovan law doesn't say anything about stamps not being protected. If it turns out that I'm right then the same is valid for all files in Category:Stamps of Moldova, 2001. AdiJapan (talk) 06:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- See Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Moldova --Butko (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as State emblems and official signs (flags, armorial bearings, decorations, monetary signs, etc.)" as Works Not Protected by Copyright; therefore images of stamps are deemed to be in the public domain Otourly (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Otourly's comment. --Olahus (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment Sorry, I don't understand. Why are stamps considered "State emblems and official signs"? The postal services in Moldova may or may not be run by the state, but even if they are, that doesn't mean stamps are state emblems. The National Theater may be run by the state too, does that make all its posters public domain? If your only argument is Article 7 of the Moldovan Copyright Law then you should start looking for a better argument. Since when do a zebra and a bear symbolize the Republic of Moldova?!- Here is the text of the law in its original wording: "Nu constituie obiecte ale dreptului de autor [...] simbolurile şi semnele statului (drapelele, stemele, ordinele, semnele monetare etc.)" [5]. By what reasoning can we afford to "deem" that stamps too are excluded? --AdiJapan (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- See also law of the republic of Moldova about post - [6] (on Russian) - "Министерство имеет исключительное право издавать, пускать и изымать из обращения почтовые марки. Оно разрабатывает годовые программы их выпуска, устанавливая структуру и тематику" и "Почтовые отправления, принимаемые "Пошта Молдовей", должны быть франкированы только официальными марками Республики Молдова" - automatical translate: "The Ministry has the exclusive right to publish, withdraw, and put out of service stamps. It develops the annual program of the issue, setting the structure and themes" and "Mail by" Mail Moldova, to be frank only official stamps of the Republic of Moldova" --Butko (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Otourly. Maybe poor translation of foreign laws into English hinders understanding. Let me explain why the word "sign" is consistently used in such contexts? It is just to indicate something that serves as an indication, a sign (a small thing) that certifies that another big thing (so big that it cannot be placed here) is true. Let me explain this using postage stamps as an example: After you have pre-paid a sum of money to postal administration for them to send your letter where you want it, you cannot glue the money you paid onto the envelope of your letter, instead you stick a small piece of paper (a stamp) to your letter. This postage stamp serves as a sign that you have pre-paid the postal tariff, and the post office will have to deliver it to the addressee. BTW, same thing is true of other type of official signs, such as banknotes (which are mentioned in the non-exhaustive list in the MD Copyright Law) which serve as official signs of payment (legal tenders). I guess you can now better understand what do they signify, and why they are called official signs. Postage stamps are not official symbols, which symbolize the country. Official symbols like a national flag and a national emblem, are usually defined in the Constitution, or in specific laws on National Flag or on National Emblem. --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I think the words "semnele monetare" in the MD Copyright Law should be correctly rendered into English as "banknotes" (or "currency units"), and not "monetary signs". I doubt that "monetary signs" makes much sense to English speakers. --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, but you didn't tell me anything I hadn't already known. --AdiJapan (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, it is not what is shown on postage stamps that matters here; the postage stamps per se are official signage, and therefore not copyrightable. Postage stamps can be of any design. Leonid Dzhepko --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, but you didn't tell me anything I hadn't already known. --AdiJapan (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- See also law of the republic of Moldova about post - [6] (on Russian) - "Министерство имеет исключительное право издавать, пускать и изымать из обращения почтовые марки. Оно разрабатывает годовые программы их выпуска, устанавливая структуру и тематику" и "Почтовые отправления, принимаемые "Пошта Молдовей", должны быть франкированы только официальными марками Республики Молдова" - automatical translate: "The Ministry has the exclusive right to publish, withdraw, and put out of service stamps. It develops the annual program of the issue, setting the structure and themes" and "Mail by" Mail Moldova, to be frank only official stamps of the Republic of Moldova" --Butko (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Official Moldova stamps are official symbols as "денежные знаки" (the term "денежные знаки" means also "signs of payment") and/or "другие" (the list of official symbols is open list). The request for throughindication of PD-status is incorrect. Alex Spade (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept as public domain in originating country. Tabercil (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Leoboudv (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete sure Otourly (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment is in use in pt:Wikipedia. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. It has been in use for some time on ptWiki, strangely enough MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyright status unknown. Source does not acknowledge that this is really public domain Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete : my bad, I thought this image was a personal work of the original uploader, I didn't see that photographer and uploader were apparently two different people. Alchemica (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Pruneautalk 16:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
A clear source or the name of the author is completely missing. According the Licencing policy of Wikimedia Commons, this is not enough! 132.199.211.17 18:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The image description seems perfectly plausible. I believe author name is not required for copyright if it is an institutional work that would be of the same copyright status no matter which member of the institution took the photo, although if photographer name is known crediting them is usually good policy. Better sourcing than "United States Marine Corps" would be good. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree - the copyright status isn't affected, though better sourcing would be nice to have. Keep — Mike.lifeguard 15:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, a clear source is provided. FieldMarine (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that this logo is not copyrighted. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Поради истриването на водния знак, без моето разрешение! Vasilmitov (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Due to deletion of the watermark, without my permission! Vasilmitov (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
- Translated by: →Spiritia 17:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The image was uploaded under the free license CC-BY-3.0 which explicitly allows modification. Watermarks with copyright statements are strongly discouraged in Wikimedia Commons. The author's attribution is made visible in the concomitant image description. Please see the rest of the user's nominations. →Spiritia 17:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC) →Spiritia 17:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Actually, the watermark was not deleted here, only the image was taged with Template:Watermark. Thanks 5ko for pointing this out. →Spiritia 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support. If cropped, nothing notable will stay, so there is no need to keep it. --5ko (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Someone can erase the watermark. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No reason to delete. {{Watermark}} template is OK there. --Alpertron (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Suspected copyvio because one of the authors, Boris Iofan, died in 1976. The {{PD-Russia-2008}} template requires one of the three conditions to be met and each fails. Unless Boris Iofan did not create this design (then the English, French, Dutch wikipedia entries need fixing). Or else the PD-Russia-2008 needs to be clarified. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Palace of Soviets 84user (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- As the uploader, I second with deletion of this and all Soviet architecture photographs, not to mention original architectural drawings. But why did you pick just this one? Last year I filed some 300 images for deletion (all my own upload) and only recently some five or six (including this one) were relisted. I don't upload anymore en mass, this selectivity (keep here, delete there) pisses me off. Be bold, start with deleting all images in category:Lenin Mausoleum and most images in its parent category:Red Square for starters. In my estimates, some 2/3 of images in category:Moscow are COM:FOP vio. But who has the guts to use the hatchet instead of pin pricks? NVO (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Let me explain why deleting the whole content of category:Moscow is simpler. Apart from obvious cases of state copyright, as in the case of Iofan or Rudnev or Shchusev, a lot of apparently "historic" buildings in Moscow are, in fact, contemporary buildings with personal, architect's (not state) copyright. But you have to have an eye for details to realise that the "old" building is, in fact, a modern concrete box eligible for copyrignt for many years to follow. For example, File:Moscow, Spasopeskovsky 6.jpg appears to be a nice post-1812 house, and is listed as such on the city heritage register. Dig deeper and you will find that the historic building was demolished in 1994; what you see is a concrete replica, architectural drawings signed by a bunch of still living architects. Now they, and not the anonymous craftsman of 200 years ago, are the "copyright holders". Since commons uphelds this twist of putinoid laws, fine, delete all, or change policy, but be consistent. NVO (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
