Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/05/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Out of scope. Commons is not someones private photo album. High Contrast (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Probable copyvio; used for attack on en-wp at en:Sulaiman Al-Fahim. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete I edit conflicted over proposing this image's deletion. Think it qualifies as speedy. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 22:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- It might qualify as speedy, I haven't identified the source of the image of the face yet. The offender has been blocked indefinitely on English Wikipedia. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Adambro (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Serious doubt about the uploader's claim of this 1918 photograph being his own work, as that would make the uploader something like at least 110 years old. Asclepias (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep License changed for {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. Yann (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment A TinEye search suggests that this is en:Amelia Earhart. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. This is a fairly well known photo of Amelia Earhart with facial hair photoshopped on to her face. Prank image, false source/license claim, out of scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
masturbasi 202.70.61.3 18:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Do not delete it. Encyclopedias like this are made to develop awareness by intellectually discussing what is normally not demonstrated in public; hence that would require visual aids. This gif image is a useful illustrative demonstration of a normal body process alongside with a comprehensive discussion and information
do not delete 202.70.61.3 18:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Why delete it? It is demonstrating the process of ejaculation. It may contain graphic content, but almost everyone has seen a penis in human anatomy books, even children anatomy books. There are simply the organs in the animation, it does not show the face of whom the penis and testicles belong to. It is not pornography, it is simply showing the way the human body works.
- Keep has been nominated many times: [1] Otourly (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Kept, Commons is not censored. -- Editor at Large • talk 18:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The video is not necessary for understanding of the file. It is inapproprite for children to see this. 71.156.87.221 04:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Commons. Is. Not. Censored. -- Editor at Large • talk 04:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
copyvio, Design by Joan Miró Cameta (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This image uses a w:en:Joan Miró's (1893-1983) design. This artist isn't in the public domain.Cameta (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to me to be a work of art. Just like the other images in Category:Wine_labels_of_Château_Mouton_Rothschild --MGA73 (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Pymouss44: Copyright violation: Miró died 1983 !
File:Arthur_James_Balfour,_1st_Earl_of_Balfour;_William_Henry_Grenfell,_Baron_Desborough_by_Lady_Ottoline_Morrell.jpg
[edit]Nominating as a test case. I uploaded about 330 photos by Lady Ottoline Morrell, who died in 1938. She did all of her work in the UK, and I don't know when any of it was published, but any way you look at it it was copyrighted in the UK on the URAA date in 1996, which means it is still copyrighted in the United States. Is my reasoning correct here? Dcoetzee (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep If she died in 1938, that would make this 70 years PMA, and thus in the public domain in the UK. According to the National Portrait Gallery page, it was published as an album set in 1925. I inspected every picture in the album set and none displayed a copyright notice. This thereby demonstrates that the publication did not comply with U.S. formalities, and is thereby in the public domain in the U.S. per {{PD-1996}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- But {{PD-1996}} requires that it be "in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date", which is 1996. I have no idea whether these were PD in 1996 in the UK, but she was only dead 58 years in 1996. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- It depends on how you parse out those ANDs and ORs on the template. It may be a moot point anyway, as the URAA has been ruled unconstitutional in U.S. courts. [2] IronGargoyle (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- No it hasn't - there was prior discussion about this on Commons talk:Licensing and I believe the consensus was to follow the URAA while the case was still up for appeal. In particular, the decision is only binding in the U.S. District in which it occurred. I'm also confident that I'm reading the template correctly. I don't want to delete the images, but I do want to make sure consensus is clear one way or the other. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes it was ruled unconstitutional. Aside from the first amendment arguments ruled on by the court, ex post facto copyright restorations violate article 1, sections 9-10 of the U.S. constitution. This is because they can apply a retroactive criminal penalty on someone who took a public domain work and used it as such, or created a derivative work from it before its original copyright was restored. In addition, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. was also ruled on in district court and has never been appealed to the U.S. Supreme court. Principles of stare decisis mean that this ruling has impact elsewhere. IronGargoyle (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- All I'll say is that on Commons talk:Licensing a number of users who are aware of this case and seem to know what they're talking have said that the URAA should still be respected on Commons. Since there's no consensus around this the status quo dominates. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes it was ruled unconstitutional. Aside from the first amendment arguments ruled on by the court, ex post facto copyright restorations violate article 1, sections 9-10 of the U.S. constitution. This is because they can apply a retroactive criminal penalty on someone who took a public domain work and used it as such, or created a derivative work from it before its original copyright was restored. In addition, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. was also ruled on in district court and has never been appealed to the U.S. Supreme court. Principles of stare decisis mean that this ruling has impact elsewhere. IronGargoyle (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- No it hasn't - there was prior discussion about this on Commons talk:Licensing and I believe the consensus was to follow the URAA while the case was still up for appeal. In particular, the decision is only binding in the U.S. District in which it occurred. I'm also confident that I'm reading the template correctly. I don't want to delete the images, but I do want to make sure consensus is clear one way or the other. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- It depends on how you parse out those ANDs and ORs on the template. It may be a moot point anyway, as the URAA has been ruled unconstitutional in U.S. courts. [2] IronGargoyle (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- But {{PD-1996}} requires that it be "in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date", which is 1996. I have no idea whether these were PD in 1996 in the UK, but she was only dead 58 years in 1996. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The author has been dead for more than 70 years, which means {{PD-Old}} in both the UK and the US. {{PD-1996}} and/or URAA would only apply if this was not the case. Oh, and please don't place {{PD-Art}} on photographs, that would only make sense for a "photograph of a photograph". --Latebird (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm perplexed at how much misunderstanding there is on this issue. Detailed legal arguments were given at Commons talk:Licensing for why this image is not PD, and I'm going to have to delete them for my own protection. You can reupload them if you feel strongly about it. And yes, it was a mass upload and PD-Scan was the right tag. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've deleted the file as I mentioned for my own legal protection, but I take no position on whether it should be deleted permanently. I invite anyone here who wants to keep this or any other of Lady Morrell's hundreds of images to reupload them using their own accounts. If you are not an admin, contact me for a copy. Note that these images should be marked with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} and {{PD-old-70}}, if they are reuploaded. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This is a collection from a private album, donated to the National Portrait Gallery. IronGargoyle says it was published, but I see no evidence for that on the source page. Maybe none of these photos was published untill the NPG put them on the web. I think this would give the NPG publication rights. So while it is right to delete, it does not have much to do with the URAA. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're right that it's a private album donated to NPG. I don't have enough information about the collection to determine whether or not the NPG website was the first place of publication. If it was, the URAA is truly a nonissue, as it does not restore PD-old-70 works published in 2003 or later. But I can't rule out that there may have been prior publication. I also don't know if Commons respects publication rights. In general, this collection has been a highly ambiguous case to deal with. For what it's worth, although some of the photos are valuable as the only available depiction of their subjects, they're all low-quality - snapshots, not artwork. This makes the loss more bearable. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Dcoetzee: Per discussion on Commons:Licensing, probably not public domain due to URAA; my own upload, please re-upload under your name if you want to restore it
I reuploaded it under File:Arthur James Balfour, 1st Earl of Balfour, William Henry Grenfell, Baron Desborough by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg. Yann (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
unfree image with site logotype --Bandar Lego (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Watermarked — clearly not the uploader's work, violates copyright. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 14:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Really own work? Looks like promotional image to me. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. From http://taringa.net/posts/info/971851/Paint-Ball.html. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 14:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Not used and too low quality to be usable for anything grillo (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Too low quality to use or even make out what the image is of. Scapler (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Too low quality. (Tip: Next time choose bigger size from your camera's settings) Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 14:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Non-derivative ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved. → Derivative works forbidden → Not allowed at Commons. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 14:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose Plrk (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - not useful or educational. Scapler (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. OoS Coyau (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama in France. The pyramid is protected by copyright, the architect is active in its protection, and the pyramid is a major part in this image. -- Cecil (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As I remember, the architect lost some lawsuits. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please also proof that and not only remember. Because the France law as we currently know it is still on the side of the architect. -- Cecil (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- IM Pei initially won a lawsuit against Chuck Gentile over his Cleveland pyramid, but then lost on appeal, so that was a US pyramid that I remembered. Just label this one with {{FOP-France}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Cleveland is in the United States, not in France. Commons needs the fullfillment for France too. The FOP-template I just apply to those images where the pyramid is not a major part of the image. Here it is the focal point (the Louvre itself is not sharp). -- Cecil (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- IM Pei initially won a lawsuit against Chuck Gentile over his Cleveland pyramid, but then lost on appeal, so that was a US pyramid that I remembered. Just label this one with {{FOP-France}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please also proof that and not only remember. Because the France law as we currently know it is still on the side of the architect. -- Cecil (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I vote to just tag it with {{FOP-France}} as well and keep the image. Raeky (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No FOP in France. Coyau (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Used only on hoax pages --70.80.199.161 00:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment There are many fictional flags in Commons, marked with {{Fictitious flag}} and categorized in Category:Special or fictional flags. A policy decision is required if these flags are to be deleted and there is no reason to single out one of them. I propose to close this DR and open a general discussion about the subject. For now I added this paranoid Communist Antrarctica flag to that category and tagged it with the appropriate label. Sv1xv (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Fictional flags are certainly not deleted just because they're fictional, but on the other hand, if this image was uploaded for intentionally malicious and deceptive purposes, then it certainly can be deleted for that reason... AnonMoos (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- This file was never used, so you don't know the intentions of the uploader. You just assume them. Sv1xv (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I never said I knew anything about that -- I just listed one thing which is not a good reason for deleting a file, and one thing which is a good reason for deleting a file. Since no one seems to have proposed deleting all fictional flags, there's no real reason to start a discussion on the subject... AnonMoos (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep nothing particular against this file. Fictional is not a criteria for deletion when it's written. Otourly (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Plainly beyond the scope of the project. It isn't in use nor is there a realistic chance of it being used for educational purposes. I'd have to review whether any other fictional flags should be deleted on a case by case basis because I consider there may be instances where such a flag might potentially have some educational value. It is probably reasonably safe for the closing admin to apply whatever decision they make in respect of this deletion request to the other images uploaded by this user; File:Coat of Arms of the People's Republic of Antarctica.svg, File:Coat of Arms of the People's Republic of Antarctica.PNG, and File:Flag of the People's Republic of Antarctica.PNG. All of which are also unused and don't seem to have any educational value. Adambro (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Traditionally, fairly wide lattitude has been allowed for "Special and fictional flags" on Wikimedia Commons, as long as they are not deliberately deceptive and not primarily used for hatemongering. Applying a strict educational-only criterion would be a policy change, and should be debated as such (not to mention that such a policy would probably need a user page images exemption).
- P.S. I still don't understand what the supposed "educational" value of File:No Israel.svg and Image:Israel flag crossed.png is supposed to be (something which no one has ever bothered to make a semi-serious effort to explain yet), nor of course do I understand your passionate eager anxious avid desire to prevent me from even asking such questions... AnonMoos (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Ok, here is my vote. Either keep it, or file deletion requests for most stupid flags in File:Coat of Arms of the People's Republic of Antarctica.svg. Sv1xv (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete Delete it, obviously designed by KGB agents who operate in Antractica rusian base. M.Lahanas (talk)
- Delete Out of scope. Without further sources, this looks liks just a private fantasy of the uploader. --Latebird (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Private art of no realistic educational use, per COM:SCOPE. Nothing in our Scope Policy makes special allowance for private art of no educational use just because it is based on a flag. Note also that the fact that there may be other similar Out of Scope images on Commons is no argument for ignoring policy here. If there are other Out of Scope images they should be nominated for deletion as well. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Used only on hoax pages. --70.80.199.161 00:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the People's Republic of Antarctica.svg. My comments there also apply to this image as the comments from others also probably can be considered to do. I'd suggest anyone interested in this issue comments there to keep what would be a very similar discussion in one place. Adambro (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Private art of no realistic educational use, per COM:SCOPE. Nothing in our Scope Policy makes special allowance for private art of no educational use just because it is based on a flag. Note also that the fact that there may be other similar Out of Scope images on Commons is no argument for ignoring policy here. If there are other Out of Scope images they should be nominated for deletion as well. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC) MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Per discussion on English Wikipedia, all images from soccer-europe.com are believed to be copyvios - screencaps of copyrighted broadcasts claimed as original work. Ytoyoda (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete [3] Otourly (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio, No freedom of panorama in the U.S. Kevmin (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- The Diorama was created by an American federal institution, so is free of copyright in and of itself. As a 3D Public Domain work, the only possibly copyright would be that of the photographer, and as I am the photographer and released this work under a free license - there is no existing copyright. Sherurcij (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- There was a precedent to this, a photo of some artwork in the same museum I believe, if the museum hire's an artist to do artwork for them, he still owns the copyright to it. The author is not the museum, not the photographer, but the artist. FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- The creator of the diorama still retains the copyrights unless they are specifically transferred to the institution. As there are a number of institutions across North America which have the same dioramas (style not exact copies) this would indicate a private company makes these.--Kevmin (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- So far as I can ascertain, that isn't true. Do you have any evidence to support this? Otherwise, the assumption rests with the belief that a diorama which does not indicate any ownership other than the Museum was in fact created by the museum -- just like a reconstructed dinosaur skeleton ;) Per FunkMonk, since the image does not say which museum the diorama is housed in, I am curious as to how you are so certain that the "same museum" came up in "a precedent". Sherurcij (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- The text on File:Life in the Ediacaran Sea.jpg Shows the same grouping of creatures from a slightly different angle. The Charnia and "jellyfish"? are in the same positions with the trilobites and seaweed. The caption with the file clearly states the diorama is in the Smithsonian.--Kevmin (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's why I assumed it was the same museum. The other file was a painting of an extinct horse, but I don't remember much else. The museums usually mount and take casts of skeletons themselves, but that's not the same as creating a model from scratch, I believe they hire outside artists for that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- The text on File:Life in the Ediacaran Sea.jpg Shows the same grouping of creatures from a slightly different angle. The Charnia and "jellyfish"? are in the same positions with the trilobites and seaweed. The caption with the file clearly states the diorama is in the Smithsonian.--Kevmin (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hard to believe that the homepage that is stated as source owns the rights for this image. Moreover no further information is given on the authorship of this file and the fact that we have a North-Korean military vehicle here makes it most likely impossible that this can be a free photo in the sense of Commons 132.199.145.204 13:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyright protected work. Maps do not qualify as "official documents of state government agencies and local government agencies of municipal formations, including laws, other legal texts, judicial decisions, other materials of legislative, administrative and judicial character" and thus do not fall under {{PD-RU-exempt}}. --Blacklake (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Document are not just a text document. Document can take various forms: text, sound, image, video, etc. This map – an annex to the official documents of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR. // Wilder (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Maps can be part of government documents like laws etc and fall under {{PD-RU-exempt}}. However this one is part of a history book. Sv1xv (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- The book? Let me know the title of this book. And tell us who the authors of this book. // Wilder (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe I am mistaken, but the map looks like it was not published separately (small tears at the left margin, no publisher name, no publication date, a number 19 without the name of a map collection). However, even if it was published by itself, it copyright status is the same. Sv1xv (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence that this is an "official document of state government agencies and local government agencies of municipal formations". MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Excel spreadsheet of uncertain educational use. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. We do not accept documents in Excel format. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Excel spreadsheet of uncertain educational use. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. We do not accept documents in Excel format. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
A sudoku game implemented as an Excel spreadsheet with macros. While nifty enough, I'm not sure what, if any, educational use it might have. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. We do not accept documents in Excel format. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Excel spreadsheet of total Olympic medal counts up to 2004. Outside project scope due to non-free format and not being a media file. Apparently not in direct use, although referenced from discussions at w:Talk:Summer Olympics medal count and w:Talk:Winter Olympics medal count. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. We do not accept documents in Excel format. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be a logo of a private paintball team. Out of project scope. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Originally own image - no longer wanted --Wikiwoohoo (Talk), 22:35 28 April 2009 UTC
- Keep - still in use elsewhere. Release under the GFDL is irrevocable. Stannered (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. I see no educational use for this one. That one "use" looks rather like a silly joke to me (although strangely by a rather high-profile user). --Latebird (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. It is in use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Where is the prove that this image can be published under a US-Gov-licence? Just beacuse it is published in Janes does not mean that is provided freely under a US-Gov licence 132.199.145.204 14:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe user meant to say "self painted", and as the portrayed only died in 2000, this painting is still copyrighted. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Maybe also File:Arnold van Vessem.jpg (16th century) is a recent painting. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
non-free derivative of an image still copyrighted in Germany; someone needs to move it to en.wikipdia.org 84user (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted: Image is a deriative of a file not allowed in Commons, so it can't stay. It can't be moved to en.wiki either, fair use does not allow derivative works and won't count for a designed icon. Simply choose another simple image related to horror and remake it. Belgrano (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Belgrano: Copyright violation: Copyright violation: “Do not move to Commons”
Too young for PD-Ukraine. Denysenko is patriarch since the 1990s. sугсго 08:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted --Butko (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Butko: Copyright violation: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Patriarch Philaret.jpg: Too young for PD-Ukraine. Denysenko is patriarch since the 1990s.
not a free file Ori~ (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment With better resolution here; looks {{PD-Art}}, but maybe the painting is not really old enough. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no author information (author could be still alive, as icon art changed very little over the ages). Kameraad Pjotr 19:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Already published at http://picasaweb.google.com/asela38/AgniII#5334043943903274018 with all rights reserved Voceditenore (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- The uploader may own the copyright, but it is from a series of photos displayed at http://sites.google.com/site/agniopera/Home (What seems to be some sort of official web site for an opera.) Voceditenore (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
In picasaweb it has been put under the public domain (I am the one who uploaded that picture in the picasa) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.51.7 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 6. Jun. 2009 (UTC)
- At http://picasaweb.google.com/asela38/AgniII#5334043943903274018 it is still all rights reserved. Even if one assumes that that Asela38 is the same person as the uploader here, there remains the problem of the google site. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
It looks like an accomplished modernist painting of a cow & doesn't look self made. All user's other uploads have been removed from en: wiki, a lot with no source/author mentioned. (I don't have access to tineye at the moment to check what this might be) -- Deadstar (msg) 12:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Similar work is on the artist's site http://artjangor.spaces.live.com - I would assume it is uploader's own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Check shows no usage of image in Wikimedia. Given that and the minimal description, is this in project scope? Infrogmation (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
This file has no source, and was tagged as such, but I'm not very happy to delete it. It is easily found on the web, but it might be PD-old. I cannot find the relevant info, though. It is widely used on the projects. Eusebius (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Since you ask for input, this is mine: Hindu deity representations are the same since centuries (at least) and the actual painter is never mentioned. Therefore the usual copyright interpretation doesn't apply to such work. There is little originality in each individual painting, and these paintings are always anonymous works. I think this should be enough criteria for keeping these. Yann (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't think so. I'm fine with the work being anonymous, but we need to know when it was created. If it is from ten years ago, even if the characters are of "standard" design, it cannot be PD. --Eusebius (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- The issue is the lack of originality. Does copying an old master gives a new copyright? Although it is certainly an artistic performance, I am not sure. See f.e. this copy and this original. In addition, these hindu paintings are not meant to be works of art, but true representations of a belief. There are most of the time works for hire. The painters use a model following the the painting owner's request. This seems to support my claim. Yann (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- But the original artist has copyright over the copy, therefore even with your reasoning, we need to know that the original is old enough to be PD. --Eusebius (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- But the original is centuries old!... Yann (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- How do you know that? Where can we find the info that this picture existed long enough ago? That must be somewhere, I just didn't find it. --Eusebius (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is a tradition. More exactly the original is a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, ... of an original made centuries ago. The whole concept of copyright doesn't have any sense here. Yann (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I made further research on the subject: we have pretty much the same situation for many hindu deities representations (mainly Ganesh, Hanuman and Shiva), and even Christian. Would you ask for deletion for the following because we don't know who is the author: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.? Yann (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- All of them could certainly be considered as eligible for copyright, I wouldn't consider DRs on these files as nonsense, especially for the first one. NB: I will not close this DR myself, of course. --Eusebius (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- How do you know that? Where can we find the info that this picture existed long enough ago? That must be somewhere, I just didn't find it. --Eusebius (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- But the original is centuries old!... Yann (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- But the original artist has copyright over the copy, therefore even with your reasoning, we need to know that the original is old enough to be PD. --Eusebius (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- The issue is the lack of originality. Does copying an old master gives a new copyright? Although it is certainly an artistic performance, I am not sure. See f.e. this copy and this original. In addition, these hindu paintings are not meant to be works of art, but true representations of a belief. There are most of the time works for hire. The painters use a model following the the painting owner's request. This seems to support my claim. Yann (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't think so. I'm fine with the work being anonymous, but we need to know when it was created. If it is from ten years ago, even if the characters are of "standard" design, it cannot be PD. --Eusebius (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
This is definitely public domain. Netrat (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete No evidence this is public domain. Hekerui (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, source could easily be the Internet, and faithful copies of faithful copies of faithful copies, etc. are PD as long as the originals are centuries old. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- No evidence for faithful copy of PD work. Hekerui (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- As Yann says, these are the same as images from centuries ago; just look at images of very old paintings and you'll see that this is true. That's easily sufficient evidence. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- If it's so easy, show the evidence, link to it. Hekerui (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- As Yann says, these are the same as images from centuries ago; just look at images of very old paintings and you'll see that this is true. That's easily sufficient evidence. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept. After all of the searching and everything else I done, I tagged it as {{Anonymous work}} and decided it should be kept. If the author is ever known, another DR can be set up in the future. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I am renominating this image for deletion, because I believe the closure of the earlier discussion was incorrect. If there are images of Lord Ram that are centuries old, then let's use photographs of those images. If a present-day artist produces his or her own artistic interpretation of a deity, there is no reason not to recognize that this work is subject to copyright, just because it depicts the deity with his or her usual attributes. If I were to paint a portrait of Jesus Christ showing him with long hair and a beard, wearing a crown of thorns, and with injuries made by nails in his hands and feet, why should I not be able to claim copyright over it? It is no argument to say that Jesus Christ has always been depicted with these attributes over many centuries, so my work is in the public domain. People's idea of what Lord Ram looks like is not copyrightable, but copyright protects the expression of the idea. There is no evidence that the image of Lord Ram here is an exact copy of an old image that is already in the public domain, and no evidence of the age of the image so {{Anonymous work}} is inapplicable. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Even if the character's design were reproduced from a public domain source with complete fidelity and no changes or embellishments, which is very unlikely, this image contains innumerable other creative contributions such as the pose, relative positions of the persons, and background artifacts that more than meet the "creative spark" standard of U.S. copyright law. If Yann can indeed provide evidence that this was copied - directly and without substantial changes - from a public domain work, I will by all means reverse my opinion, but his argument above appears like mere hearsay. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom, no evidence of the PD...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Hindu religion is undated and it is impossible to prove the age of the original image. In fact, if anyone ever claims that this picture is his imagination, the whole concept of Ramayana being written millions of years ago will be challenged and I guess that would never happen. If we are specific about a proof of this, I can say that this is never going to come considering the fact that India has never had a history of managing its history until a few hundred years back from now. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- According to Holy Ramayana, Rama lived on earth during Tretha Yuga. The Timings of the Four Yugas has been described here. Tretha yuga was 1,296,000 years long and after that came Dvapara Yuga which was 864,000 years long. According to Hindus we are currently in Kali Yuga. I agree that these are only beliefs followed by Hindus, but my point is that at least for Hindus, the date of origin of the image can never be proved. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Oversaturated We are not discussing history here, we are just talking about the copyright of one picture...and about its ownership, You cannot get pierced into the epics or hindu myth or indian history, please stay in topic...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Sreejith, no one is disputing the long history of Hinduism or its depiction of deities. However, I am sure you are not insisting that this particular image is "millions of years" or even a few hundred years old, because there is no evidence that it is. If we were to accept your argument, then all new depictions of traditional iconography (Lord Ram, Ganesha, Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, Saint Sebastian, Robin Hood, King Arthur, etc.) would automatically be in the public domain. As far as I am aware, that is not how copyright law works in most jurisdictions. So long as you cannot show that this particular image is in the public domain, we can't have it in the Commons. It is, of course, open to any editor to scan a centuries-old image or photograph a centuries-old statue of a Hindu deity and upload the file to the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ejaculation_educational_ani_short.gif&action=history){kind=link}
- Delete unless authorship and publication evidence is forthcoming. By my reckoning, at the very least we need the country of publication and year of publication to determine copyright status if we are to consider this an anonymous work. And if we're going to consider this work unoriginal, there needs to be some documentary evidence that the original work has existed long enough to be PD. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am pasting the last part of my last comment here again for evident reasons. the date of origin of the image can never be proved. Any Indian will say that this image is at least a 100 years old. --Sreejith K (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Any Indian" is not documentary evidence. Documentary evidence would be, for instance, a photographic plate depicting this very image in a book that is itself PD, or old enough that the existence of the book shows that the image has existed long enough to be PD-anonymous. And, to agree with those folks above me, you seem to be confusing the subject with the artistic work. I won't rehash their arguments as they're doing a much better job than I. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle the date of origin of the image can never be proved - This doesn't mean that it should keep in commons as it is a 100% free project...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: The image appears on the cover of Roger Boesche's book The First Great Political Realist (2002). The back cover states: "Cover image: A modern illustration from the Ramayana ..." [underline added]. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - This image is available/used in a lot of places. See the results from tineye --Sreejith K (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Question Do any of those usages indicate the image is in the public domain? I'm not seeing any indication. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The tineye results does not give the source of the image, but it shows that the image it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. google image results are no different. --Sreejith K (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle the date of origin of the image can never be proved - This doesn't mean that it should keep in commons as it is a 100% free project...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Any Indian" is not documentary evidence. Documentary evidence would be, for instance, a photographic plate depicting this very image in a book that is itself PD, or old enough that the existence of the book shows that the image has existed long enough to be PD-anonymous. And, to agree with those folks above me, you seem to be confusing the subject with the artistic work. I won't rehash their arguments as they're doing a much better job than I. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am pasting the last part of my last comment here again for evident reasons. the date of origin of the image can never be proved. Any Indian will say that this image is at least a 100 years old. --Sreejith K (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Please see this Commons:Project_scope#Evidence--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 03:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- The evidence given ("A modern illustration...") again suggests that deletion is appropriate, since anything labelled "modern" on a 2002 book is quite likely to be recently created and not itself in the public domain. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- The "modern" mentioned here is "modern era" and not that it was completly redrawn in recent past. In fact, my grand mother is having this picture in her prayer room for over 30 years at least. To me, it feels that the book published in US is using an image in its front cover without crediting the original author is itself a proof that the image is in PD. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- According to "Commons:Licensing#India", assuming the image was published in India (and we have no evidence of this yet), copyright lasts for 60 years from the date of the author's death. Thus, regrettably, the fact that your grandmother has owned a copy of the image for "over 30 years at least" is not sufficient to show that the image is in the public domain. In fact, without knowing who the author is and when he or she died, it is impossible to determine whether the image is in the public domain or not. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- The "modern" mentioned here is "modern era" and not that it was completly redrawn in recent past. In fact, my grand mother is having this picture in her prayer room for over 30 years at least. To me, it feels that the book published in US is using an image in its front cover without crediting the original author is itself a proof that the image is in PD. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I agreed the lack of source for this image. But Sreejith clearly explain why this happens. Most of the images are centuries old, none do a detail study of calculating the age of most of the pictures. Except some pictures like Gajendra Moksha mural. Most of the hindu images are either derivative work of murals none can hold the copy right of a that derivative work( See this). We can see these images in most of the famous hindu temples across India and these images are kept there years ago. Please understand the scenario before an arguing otherwise you can nominate some more images from here for deletions. Thanks --Kiran Gopi (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Info Diversion to other stuff's existance are noted...- We can see these images in most of the famous hindu temples across India and these images are kept there years ago = The file is obviously common property. It can be found all over the internet and nobody has complained....COM:PRP--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The issue is not if the image is old enough, but whether there is originality in its depiction. I think we are applying copyright law much beyond what is the intend of the law. Artistic endowment is certainly necessary to produce such a work, but contrary to artistic works, the purpose is to reproduce it as close as possible to the original. There is no originality, because the purpose is not to have originality. The issue is the same as reproductions of master art: does this painting is eligible for a new copyright? I don't think so. Yann (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Contrary to your interpretation, copyright law has little interest in "purpose" - if I try to create my own copy of a Michaelangelo sculpture but do a very poor job of it to the point where it is barely recognisable as a copy, the resulting sculpture would be entitled to its own new copyright, being a substantially different work. On top of that, you are merely speculating as to the purpose of the artist; and additionally, you have not shown any public domain work even resembling this work. The argument given is completely without merit. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are bordering on bad faith here, or straw man arguments. It doesn't matter if the source work is 200 or 2000 years old. The result is the same: no original copyright for a nearly identical copy of an old work. Yann (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I see no bad faith. No one is saying that depictions of Lord Ram in general are not centuries old. That is not the point. The point is that it needs to be shown that this particular image is an exact reproduction of an image that is "200 or 2000 years old" and thus in the public domain. Right now, there is unfortunately no evidence of this fact. Without such evidence, the image is copyrightable and cannot be considered to be in the public domain. Here is another example. Artists have been making depictions of the Virgin Mary for centuries: see, for example, "Category:Paintings of Virgin Mary". The Virgin Mary is depicted in many different poses: seated, standing, kneeling in prayer, carrying the baby Jesus. There are also traditional attributes depicted in portraits of the Virgin Mary to identify her. For example, she is often shown wearing a blue veil and with a halo around her head, and with white lilies alluding to her purity. If today I paint a new portrait of the Virgin Mary with all her traditional attributes, but with a different pose or different colours, it is nonetheless an original work that is copyrightable. Even if I try my best to make my painting identical to an old portrait in the public domain, it will in all probability be slightly different and thus copyrightable. However, if I take a photograph of an old portrait of the Virgin Mary or scan a picture of such a portrait that is published in the book, it will be exactly the same as the original and not subject to copyright. At the moment we cannot apply that principle to this image because no one has produced any evidence that this particular image is very old and in the public domain. I'm not sure if I can be any clearer than this. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- N.B.: the copyrightability of manual reproductions with very small, difficult-to-see differences is actually somewhat contentious. But that's not really at issue in this case. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I see no bad faith. No one is saying that depictions of Lord Ram in general are not centuries old. That is not the point. The point is that it needs to be shown that this particular image is an exact reproduction of an image that is "200 or 2000 years old" and thus in the public domain. Right now, there is unfortunately no evidence of this fact. Without such evidence, the image is copyrightable and cannot be considered to be in the public domain. Here is another example. Artists have been making depictions of the Virgin Mary for centuries: see, for example, "Category:Paintings of Virgin Mary". The Virgin Mary is depicted in many different poses: seated, standing, kneeling in prayer, carrying the baby Jesus. There are also traditional attributes depicted in portraits of the Virgin Mary to identify her. For example, she is often shown wearing a blue veil and with a halo around her head, and with white lilies alluding to her purity. If today I paint a new portrait of the Virgin Mary with all her traditional attributes, but with a different pose or different colours, it is nonetheless an original work that is copyrightable. Even if I try my best to make my painting identical to an old portrait in the public domain, it will in all probability be slightly different and thus copyrightable. However, if I take a photograph of an old portrait of the Virgin Mary or scan a picture of such a portrait that is published in the book, it will be exactly the same as the original and not subject to copyright. At the moment we cannot apply that principle to this image because no one has produced any evidence that this particular image is very old and in the public domain. I'm not sure if I can be any clearer than this. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are bordering on bad faith here, or straw man arguments. It doesn't matter if the source work is 200 or 2000 years old. The result is the same: no original copyright for a nearly identical copy of an old work. Yann (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Contrary to your interpretation, copyright law has little interest in "purpose" - if I try to create my own copy of a Michaelangelo sculpture but do a very poor job of it to the point where it is barely recognisable as a copy, the resulting sculpture would be entitled to its own new copyright, being a substantially different work. On top of that, you are merely speculating as to the purpose of the artist; and additionally, you have not shown any public domain work even resembling this work. The argument given is completely without merit. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Yann. While cleanup and keeping the commons free of copy vios, I would assume that gods of any religion and its depictions in art are very delicate subjects and should be really thought thru before dealing with them like any other art work out there. Just a thought --Jyothis (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: We really need to keep religious sensitivities out of this. Once again, no one has any slightest intention to denigrate any faith. However, there are no special rules that exempt religious images from copyright laws. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Info Religious thoughts have no role in this discussion and please keep those things away from this talk page, as it will attract others view regarding the topic and the subject will be diverted from the point. This image will stay here only if a valid evidence is produced that this image is created before 200 or 2000 or 20000000 years...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete If we can find that this image is a copy of a work by an author dead long enough, or old enough we can be sure the author has been dead long enough, then we can keep it. If it's merely a standard pose, then painters have been painting new Venuses and Madonnas in standard poses for centuries. Before we say it's a copy of an ancient work, I want to see the ancient work. I'm sure Google Books has pre-1923 books on Indian religious painting, show me a picture of a work this is a copy of.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted because we are told above that this particular image is taken from a modern work. As several people have pointed out with different examples, it does not matter that there are many ancient images of Lord Ram. This image has its own copyright, because it will have different original details -- background, exact pose, etc. We cannot keep it unless someone can produce a PD work from which it is an exact copy. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
this data should be represented as, well, data, not a jpeg picture of a table. Plrk (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It is used on a talk page, in a discussion. Could be moved to enwp and deleted here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Would this be a copyvio of Excel or whatever program is used, since it is a screenshot? Scapler (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, it contains very little of the program user interface (only column and row numbers), the content and formating of the cells are decided by the user. Sv1xv (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Since it is actually used, it should be kept. It shouldn't be moved to enwp as it is actually free. I don't think it is a copyvio of the program used as no distinct features of any spreadsheet application is shown (and the features shown are surely PD-simple) Plrk (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- But the image is not educationally useful. Its only use is in that particular discussion on enwp. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's more use than can be argued for most images on commons, I'd say. But then again, it is an archived discussion over long ago - deleting it wouldn't hurt, either. Plrk (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- But the image is not educationally useful. Its only use is in that particular discussion on enwp. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZEWSKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a copyright violation, whether you like it or not. Lulu989 (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Has eBay logo, unsure whether this is own work. Might be PD-art; is this sufficiently 2D? Maybe also derivative work, is the depicted seal PD? ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept, it seems to be the original, 17th century, logo and it is 2D and therefore PD-Art. Kameraad Pjotr 19:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
