Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/05/28
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This is an old picture of myself for a wiki user page which I have deleted. KidCrime (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Per user request. Feel free to {{Speedy}} such images next time. Regards, ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
No evidence uploader is the owner of the copyright of this work. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image Chen101689N187 (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Scan of a 1933 newspaper frontpage that includes copyrighted photos and text. There's no proof that the authors were anonymous or died more than 70 years ago. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Obviously anonymously published - I do not see an author's name anywhere. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- That doesn't necessarily mean that it really is an anonymous work. The authors of the text could easily be credited on another page or in the impressum. de:Tempo (Zeitung) mentions some authors by name, so at least some issues/parts of the newspaper weren't published anonymously. And we don't know if the photos were taken by photographers employed by this newspaper or taken from a news agency. --Kam Solusar (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No proof that the authors died before 1939. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 15:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Undeleted For unsigned or anonymous article, copyright expires 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or made available to the public. Yann (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Every newspaper has publishing information, often stating who created the articles. At least a scan of such information should be provided to proove that this is indeed anonymous. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Not in this case. This newspaper does not have an impressum. In 1933, it was not legally necessary for newspapers to print such information. But apart from that: copyright expires after 70 years not only for anonymous articles, but also UNSIGNED ones, which is the case here. This means that it is of no importance if any journalists or staff writers are mentioned anywhere else in the paper (in an impressum or otherwise), as long as the articles in question are unsigned, which they clearly are. --Johung (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The text on the left botom side says "Foto: Lampersdorf, Alle Rechte vorbehalten" which would be "All rights reserved" in english
-- D-Kuru (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete copyvio Otourly (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
screenshot from copyrighted series of films (ESkog)(Talk) 18:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Trivial modification of existing image File:Tdkc60cassette.jpg that adds nothing (for general use) and is unlikely to be of any use beyond the author's original specific purpose.
(I'd also have complained about it being mislabelled as "public domain" when the original wasn't, but that's fairly irrelevant if it gets deleted anyway).
Ubcule (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- You can speedy it if you want. I never intended for it to get to commons, don't need it, and the license looks wrong. Delete! XF Law talk at me 00:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation, false license. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Low resolution image, many copies here: http://images.google.com/images?hl=cs&q=Carlos%20javier%20palomino&lr=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi no metadata ---> probably copyvio 94.112.226.47 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, copyright violation and out of scope -- Editor at Large • talk 20:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Krystian Kuchta is likely not the painer of this painting Jarekt (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
deleted, copyvio like a lot of other uploads from this user, three dimensional subject (frame), no proper source information. --Polarlys (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Image comes from here: http://sportni.bg/ph/pictures/2006.07.10bulgaria-nederland/index_4.htm I don't see any evidence that the photographer and the uploader at the Bulgarian Wikipedia are the same person, or that the image is in the public domain. Ytoyoda (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted. You're perfectly right, Ytoyoda. When I transfer images from BG WP I usually try to locate them if copyvio and compare against the other uploads of the user, but sometimes assuming good faith leads to situations like this... Thanks again for discovering this copyvio. →Spiritia 04:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Autor Wojtek Wilczyński =/=user:Krystian Kuchta Jarekt (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Possible copyvio from http://www.royalchristmas.nl/. - Erik Baas (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 19:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Own work doubtful, has eBay logo. Unsure whether this is PD-art, shadow indicates that it's not a mere scan. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Background definitely looks like a scan, and the shadow could simply indicate that it the object did not rest perfectly flush with the surface of the scanner. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Since when does a scanner only supply light from the extreme left? And how is this relevant to the copyright question? --Latebird (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- It still looks like a scan to me. You can even see some scratches on the scanner glass. True, it wouldn't be the user's own copyright, but instead {{PD-art}}. That said, I am canceling my earlier comment per Commons:Watermarks. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Since when does a scanner only supply light from the extreme left? And how is this relevant to the copyright question? --Latebird (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete the watermark shows it is not uploader's own work, therefore uploader does not have right to release the copyright as own. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious ebay download. --Latebird (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 19:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Microsoft Word document with ".ogg" suffix; fails COM:SCOPE due to non-free format and not being a media file. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
No FOP in France, architect is still alive. Coyau (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A photo of some windows. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment Nor even for the uploader (see name and description of the photo). --Coyau (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A zoomed in stylistic photograph of an architectural element I think isn't enough to say this image violates FOP, at least thats my opinion. Raeky (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Taking a photograph at night, where the lighting results in a particularly stylish appearance, doesn't negate the copyright of the architect. And it isn't just any random windows either, but shows several architectural elements (including windows) of unusually creative design. --Latebird (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. I hate that laws, but there it is. Sorry for uploading, 'll be more carefull. Romanceor [parlons-en] 14:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Useless image, superimposed to File:H1N1 Argentina Map.svg --201.255.148.64 22:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. I fail to see a proper reason for deletion. The both images are not the same, and there for will I not delete it as superseeded. Huib talk 19:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
WAV file with ".ogg" suffix, appears to consist of almost 6 minutes of random household noises. (I can hear some children arguing(?) in Spanish(?) and a dog barking in the background.) Uploaded by an indef-blocked user, no educational use that I can see. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Original uploader's images clearly had a lot of rights problems. If it is, indeed, the official logo of a Dartmouth fraternity, it's hard to believe it's his own work, and that he has the right to release it into the public domain. If it's not, and it's just something he made up, then it is misleadingly named and categorized. --Jmabel ! talk 16:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Uploader on en:Wikipedia (not active since 2007) also uploaded album covers as supposed "own work". -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
No reason why PD-Japan should apply. Anonymous-EU needs some kind of evidence that the image is anonymous, however none at all is presented. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- A typical ChrisiPK nomination, compare Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kafka.jpg. The file description here mentions four works on Eichman. If the 1916 school photographer is not mentioned there, he is unknown. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, do these four works really mention no author at all? Who is Ronald Leo Ricado? -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete An author is named in the description, so it's obviously not anonymous enough for {{Anonymous-EU}}. The originally included {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} would only apply if first publication in Japan could be shown. --Latebird (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC) (PS: Personal attacks against the nominator don't change any of that.)
Kept. Anonymous-EU. I removed PD-Japan-oldphoto. Nothing new since Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Otto Adolf Eichmann0.jpg. Yann (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Renomination of an image that I !voted to keep. I changed my mind because there is no clear source for the identification. This could be a British school photo from the 1960's. See also User talk:Yann#File:Otto Adolf Eichmann0.jpg. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment There are two information. First of all, this photograph is not in the one having taken a picture of the student in the 1960's. And, he is not Adolf Eichmann in another. The person of this photograph is Josef Mengele. He was a person notorious as a doctor of the Nazis's concentration camp. When the documentary program that TV station ZDF in Germany produced 11 years ago is broadcast in Japan, I have the memory of seeing this photograph. I found the information about this documentary program. "Hitlers Helfer" Josef Mengele - Der Todesarzt (1998)--Corpse Reviver (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP this file keeps getting re-nominated; it's eichman, 1916; the image is from a book about him, the book treats the image as PD; unknown author. presumably they did their research correctly? i have trouble with assume good faith, when it seems to conveniently result in erasing material about historic persons associated with controversial subject/subjects about which people have strong personal feelings. keep & stop re-nominating! Lx 121 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please tell us what book it is from. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
ok, i've spent some time researching the material here. key points:
1. the file was from ja wiki; original uploader probably had limited english abilities
2. the file description/info lists a series of books. i cannot tell from google books' limited access if any or all of them use this particular image. from what i can tell, standard practice in published works appears to regard such older images (childhood photos of long-dead nazis) as fair game: public domain, author unknown, no photocredit needed, no copyright concerns.
3. there is no Ronald Leo Ricado; he's nowhere on google, google image, & google book searches, there isn't a Ronald Leo RicaRdo either.
i would assume that somehow the upload form info got garbled. it might be a composite of names, might refer to the uploader, might be a lot of things; the one thing Ronald Leo Ricado doesn't appear to be, is the author of this 93-year old photo of a dead nazi.
as to whether it really is eichmann or not; it looks plausibly like him & this site: http://www.mosflo.ru/ seems to regard the image as authentic. but that's a separate issue: correct identification of the subject. it's not what we are debating here. the picture is not of "1960's british schoolboys"; the cut of the clothing is very wrong. see especially the jacket of the child to eichy's left & the boy in the wide-collared white shirt & kerchief-tie-thing behind him. the hairstyles aren't really "right" for 60's brit schoolboys either
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can reasonably assume that the author is unknown, (& long dead). the image meets the criteria to survive on wmc. the requirement to delete in this case should be to prove that the author is not unknown/anonymous, & not the other way around. how exactly would one go about "proving" the negative (that the author is unknown) anyway?
(for that matter, considering the photo is 93 years old, if you wanted to assume that Ronald Leo Ricado was the author; then it should be necessary to identify that person & prove that he did not die less than 70 years ago)
if we really want to set the bar so high; it could be used to censor & remove a great deal on historic material: to really play it safe, maybe we should delete all works, author unknown, that are less than 125 years old?
(taking that as a maximum human lifespan)
as to whether it really is eichmann or not; it looks plausibly like him & this site:
seems to regard the image as authentic.
but that's a separate issue: correct identification of the subject. it's not what we are debating here. the picture is not of "1960's british schoolboys"; the cut of the clothing is very wrong. see especially the jacket of the child to eichy's left & the boy in the wide-collared white shirt & kerchief-tie-thing behind him. the hairstyles aren't really "right" for 60's brit schoolboys either
we have exactly 4 face pics of the man; this is one of them. & it still bothers me, a lot, that this approach, of repeatedly nominating the image (& other, simillarly "uncomfortable" material) is (possibly, sometimes) being used as a way to "sanitize" wmc (& history).
Lx 121 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No proper source, not even a clear identification of the subject. In essence, we have a photograph taken at an unknown date (maybe 1916) at an unknown location (maybe Linz, Austria, maybe not) showing unknown schoolboys (maybe Eichmann, maybe Mengele, maybe neither). Although I don't see anything off-hand that would make Mosflu.ru an unreliable site (except their notorious non-sourcing of images), I also don't see anything that would make it more reliable than User:Corpse Reviver's comment above. The haircut of the child in the center is in any case very similar to Mengele's on this photo. Lupo 08:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - now there is a source, a book - it is used in the German Wikipedia for over a year, so there is a high propability, that a false picture will be disputed there. Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- What book? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- sorry this was an erroneous (spelling?) edit of mine... - as "source" is a collection of important books about Eichmann given - not "one" book. Perhaps one of this books is the source?? But this collection of books as "source" makes no sense. If this is the main problem: I can send an e-mail to a research center concerned with antisemitism in Berlin (Technical University). I had contact with them some time ago. Perhaps they have the necessary time and knowledge to identify this image (they are not experts especially on Eichmann, as far as I know.) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have sent an e-mail to this center, hopefully I will get an answer in the next 10 days - so please wait with a decision. Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; broken DR. --Indeedous (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect file name.According to the video uploaded on YouTube, you can be sure that the person in the picture is Josef Mengele.I think this image file should be deleted or renamed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkvul9SENoA
Chacmool (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; feel free to correct it. --Indeedous (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely that this is a work by the US government. Might be PD in the US as seized Nazi property, but not free in country of origin, Germany. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PD in the US is not enough for Commons. It must be PD in Germany as well. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Bottom right says "Alle Rechte vorbehalten", meaning "All rights reserved". I initially thought this might be PD-USGov, but it seems not to be created by a US government organization. All it says "mit Genehmigung der Militärregierung", meaning "with permission by the military government". The US was part of this government, but they were not the only part. Furthermore it seems like the government was not really affiliated with the creation of this map. http://www.presidentialtimeline.org/html/record.php?id=552 lists this image with unrestricted copyright status, but they don't offer a rational. As this is not a work of a US government organization, it is certainly not PD in its country of origin. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- KEEP As you said, it is the same map (probably even the same file!!), and creator Johannes Sünnecke had "Alle Rechte vorbahlten" printed on it. However, it is in public domain, which is confirmed by the page you found. No need to delete. --Flammingo (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- They just claim it's PD, but they don't give a reason for this. As the creator obviously wanted all rights reserved, it's unlikely that this is PD in the country of origin (Germany). Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio. This is only public domain in the U.S. if it was public domain in Germany by January 1, 1996, and since its creator must have been alive in 1946 I don't think it could possibly have been public domain in Germany by that date. It won't be PD in the U.S. until 2042-01-01 and not in Germany until 70 years after Johannes Sünnecke's death (whenever that was; I can find nothing about him on the Web except that he's the creator of this image). —Angr 09:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this map has been and is ineligible for copyright in Germany anyway since it lacks any originality. It's the most basic depiction of the occupation boundaries possible, decorated with some Public Domain flags. Keep --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- The map also features various cities, not only the basic boundaries. IMHO the map is eligible for copyright because of the generalization, see also de:WP:BR#Karten an de:Rechte_an_Geoinformationen#Karten_und_Pl.C3.A4ne. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 08:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- The map was published by an outfit called Atlanta-Service of Frankfurt-am-Main (you can see its attribution at the bottom centre) in 1945. It seems to have published a series of occupation zone maps (see e.g. [1]). There is no specific declaration of copyright, but I presume that would be covered by the "all rights reserved" declaration. What would be the status of a presumptively copyrighted item published in Germany in 1945? Would it still be under copyright? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. Even it was considered an anonymous work, it would be protected until 1. January 2016. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader's GFDL license claim clearly bogus; not demonstrated to be free licensed for some other reason. Infrogmation (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Missing author and date information. No evidence for PD-old. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- If this portrait was painted during queen's life it could be PD... Otourly (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- May well be PD-Art, but without info on when the painting was done nor who it was by, we can't confirm that. A little searching on tineye and google shows what seems to be the same painting used on the cover of an edition of the book "Queen Victoria: A Personal History", [2] but I didn't find out a date nor author. A bit more research might reveal useful info. But if we don't have any more data than we do now, I'll have to say Delete -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Created by Adolf Eichmann, dead 1962. Not PD in country of origin, Germany. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Relevant would be the country of first publication, not the country of origin. I don't know if submission to his superiors for a promotion would count as "publication", so that German law doesn't necessarily apply. --Latebird (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence that image is in the public domain.--Trixt (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Very unlikely to be the original work of uploader, as claimed: it is apparently the logo of a religious/fraternal organization founded in 1928 (the Hermandad de Santa María de la Alhambra). Perhaps this is just a licensing issue, in which case I'd be glad to see it fixed, but I suspect that the logo of an organization founded 1928 is copyrighted. On the other hand, the style suggests the logo may be older and predate the organization, in which case it may be public domain. The near-complete nonsense in the summary section (especially the meaningless source) is not useful in sorting this out. --Jmabel ! talk 06:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment If the old (1879) spanish copyright law applies, someone fluent in Spanish please check http://www.derecho-internet.org/node/365 for a possible answer. Sv1xv (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- The key phrase there would seem to be "La propiedad intelectual corresponde á los autores durante su vida, y se transmite á sus herederos testamentarios ó legatarios por el término de ochenta años." In short, life + 80 years. Also Cuando este hecho se prueba, el autor ó traductor ó sus derechohabientes sustituirán en todos sus derechos á los editores de obras anónimas ó seudónimas." In other words, if the author is anonymous, the rights go to the publisher (though this seems to make life + 80 years a bit problematic). - Jmabel ! talk 15:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Zugehöriger Artikel wurde in der de.wikipedia gelöscht(siehe wikipedia:de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/8._Juli_2008#Osnatel (erl., gelöscht)) Jan Luca (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Sourced from a book published in 2001. No reason why this should be PD. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- the book is form 2001, the map is form 1905 and created with the University of Kiel. Uni Kiel --Sendker (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- So why is it licensed under the GFDL then? Is that the license of the book this comes from? Infrogmation (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment That legend looks modern. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per Sendker. Kameraad Pjotr 22:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
