Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/06/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
copy violation? http://comercial.rederecord.com.br/Default.aspx Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion this image NOT only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text and it does meet the threshold of originality. I see a quite complex logo here. Masur (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted and SALTed. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
copy vio? http://intertvonline.globo.com/redeintertv/index2.html Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
PD-United Arab Emirates not applicable, since it is not a photographic work. PD-Syria irrelevant. Eusebius (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep Looks like a photographic work to me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep "Sorry Eusebius, I first had to correct the name of my country". First, I think the photo should not be deleted, and it is a photographic picture. The Series itself is in the public domain, because the company that produced it does not exist any more. It used to be "AGPC" Arabian Gulf Production Company. I know because at that time I used to work for it. Second, the law in the UAE does not prohibit derivative photos of Video Productions Created in 1977. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Producer (talk • contribs) 11:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
- Pieter: it is a still from a video. Producer: the disappearing of the company does not generally make the material PD. Could you point us to a regulation saying that video works created in 1977 in the UAR are PD? --Eusebius (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- By the way it is the UAE in English and not the "UAR". I would like you to show us where in the UAE laws it says that it is not allowed! This is easier since you can prove what exists and I cannot prove what does not exist. Also since this is not mentioned in the law, it is not protected under the law. If I am wrong I will apologize! Secondly, I know that the material is "Public Domain", you will have to take my word on that. --Producer (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- About UAE: Sorry, that's what I meant.
- About references: article 20 of the copyright law 01/07/2002-1423, No. 7 of the UAE. It fixes copyright duration to 50 years after the death of the creator, with an exception for applied arts (paragraph 4, same article) which is 25 years from the first publication. From what I understand, photography can be considered applied art, but cinematography is not. I have no idea about how much this law can be retroactive, I only see that it cancels the previous federal copyright law.
- About "taking your word on that": not without a few references, sorry. --Eusebius (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- By the way it is the UAE in English and not the "UAR". I would like you to show us where in the UAE laws it says that it is not allowed! This is easier since you can prove what exists and I cannot prove what does not exist. Also since this is not mentioned in the law, it is not protected under the law. If I am wrong I will apologize! Secondly, I know that the material is "Public Domain", you will have to take my word on that. --Producer (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Pieter: it is a still from a video. Producer: the disappearing of the company does not generally make the material PD. Could you point us to a regulation saying that video works created in 1977 in the UAR are PD? --Eusebius (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- My friend, the UAE was formed on 2 December 1971, by 1977 the Intellectual Property Laws did not exist. The law you have mentioned only applies for works done during the last 25 years. I have been working in Dubai Media especially Dubai Television since 1974. I know what applies and what does not, I also care to protect intellectual property, and I believe in Wikipedia as a concept, and I understand the thin Ice you some times have to tread on. When I said take my word on that, I meant that I know the situation. Till now there is no office in Dubai to register Public Domain material as such, unless I go to Court to prove it. I am not that rich and would rather have the photo deleted, but I cannot see why not to keep it based on all what I have just stated. Cheers.--Producer (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do not misunderstand me, I didn't mean that we shouldn't trust you, just that we needed at least a few explanations around the statement. As I said, I found nothing about the 2002 being retroactive. Apparently the last sentence of the PD template says that images published before 1992 are automatically PD, according to a legal document
for which I couldn't find a translation(translation here - apparently nothing said about works published before 1992, but I've only had a quick look). So I guess it is ok to Keep anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do not misunderstand me, I didn't mean that we shouldn't trust you, just that we needed at least a few explanations around the statement. As I said, I found nothing about the 2002 being retroactive. Apparently the last sentence of the PD template says that images published before 1992 are automatically PD, according to a legal document
- My friend, the UAE was formed on 2 December 1971, by 1977 the Intellectual Property Laws did not exist. The law you have mentioned only applies for works done during the last 25 years. I have been working in Dubai Media especially Dubai Television since 1974. I know what applies and what does not, I also care to protect intellectual property, and I believe in Wikipedia as a concept, and I understand the thin Ice you some times have to tread on. When I said take my word on that, I meant that I know the situation. Till now there is no office in Dubai to register Public Domain material as such, unless I go to Court to prove it. I am not that rich and would rather have the photo deleted, but I cannot see why not to keep it based on all what I have just stated. Cheers.--Producer (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Tarawneh (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Renomination #1
A television program is not an applied art; it is another kind of work and Authors Life + 50 years have elapsed since the creation of the art (art. 20-1). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per last time around. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I did find this old law; ARTICLE (20): The copyright shall be valid during the author's lifetime and for twenty five calendar years after his death. The validity period of the copyright shall be twenty five calendar years from publication date for the following works: Cinema films and the works of the applied arts. Works made by legal persons. With that, I am going to withdraw. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Info Its a screen shot...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept withdrawn by nom Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
this is a Associated Press photograph See http://www.apimages.com/Search.aspx?sh=10&st=k&remem=x&kw=michael+jackson+slash&intv=None . File can not be Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright infringement on Flickr, the flickr user is not eligible to license this images freely. I already wrote him yesterday. --Martin H. (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Copywritten and was deleted once before WillC 20:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete Reuploaded from File:WWE-SUMMER SLAM-2009.jpg, File:Wwe-SUMMER SLAM 2009.jpg and File:Wwe-SUMMER_SLAM_-2009.jpg (along with a successful deletion request for the third case) -- Oakster 21:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong name --ToAr (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Empty. Yann (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The picture shows the signal of the rainstorm warning in Macau. In case, the signal should, must, be show with the actual one with the offical issue as SMG, the weather department of Macau Government, which is animated_rainstorm3.gif. However, the picture is uploaded in here is having a totally different with the offical one. --AG0ST1NH0 (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, please provide any references to prove the image above is different from the offical one. I could just find this image for the warning signal from SMG offical website. Moreover, if the picture above were wrong, it could be just corrected by uploading new version for the image, but not through deletion. --CDIP No.150 repair meter 11:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Disagree; With the reason mentioned that the self-made one by user:Cdip150 is totally having a big difference with the offical one which is provied on the offical website of the weather department of the Macau Government. For the difference, that is not only a little bit difference compare to the offical one, therefore, i subbmit the deletion request once i notice this problem. Moreover, Wikimedia Commons do NOT allow something which is not real to the real one as the govenment issue. --AG0ST1NH0 (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: On the rainstorm page of offical website of the weather department, I couldn't see any big differences or differences that would cause any contortive meaning from the offical one, or see any other pictures for this signal. --CDIP No.150 repair meter 17:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Disagree; please use your eyes and focus well to compare. if you need me to point out for you, please wait me till the meeting in Macau on July 11, 2009 since i have no your MSN and others communication. --AG0ST1NH0 (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: please check again the current picture (modified since UTC19:30). I'm on Skype now (username: cdip150). --CDIP No.150 repair meter 19:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment; the error remain the same. --09:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: since I can't find any more mistakes on the picture yet, please point out the main mistake here immediately NOW rather than waiting till 11th of July, so that I can correct it as soon as possible and not-letting any "error" existing for a longer time. --CDIP No.150 repair meter 13:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Disagree; creator should and must have his/her ability to adjust with his/her work , not arguing with the time begining. In the mean time, I pointed out the error which can be compare to the offical one already.--AG0ST1NH0 (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Of course I should have the ability, but you also have the responsibility to explain your opinion more detailedly in this case. Just now I did a small adjustment, and I have zoom in the images many many times but still can't see any major and conspicuous mistakes at all. If you still think that is wrong, I think I need others to help in the comparison. --CDIP No.150 repair meter 19:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Disagree; i do not think that you really made the adjustment for the one you edited. The adjustment is needed and how can you cannot find that out? That is really clear with the diagram. you just compare them TOGETHER, then, i think you can do the adjustment better. --AG0ST1NH0 (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Of course I should have the ability, but you also have the responsibility to explain your opinion more detailedly in this case. Just now I did a small adjustment, and I have zoom in the images many many times but still can't see any major and conspicuous mistakes at all. If you still think that is wrong, I think I need others to help in the comparison. --CDIP No.150 repair meter 19:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep To me they look exactly the same but even if it is different that is not a reason to delete. It is a great icon for representing storms regardless of whether it's the "official" icon. --Yarnalgo (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Disagree; there is really having big difference if you really compare and focus to those two icons which is the offical one and the one in here, wikimedia common. Well, with the reason that the different with the diagram is really occur, not because of the colour and the grey and black colour in the diagram which is create by the user.--AG0ST1NH0 (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep It's an icon, not a faithful photographic reproduction. And even considering that, there really isn't any significant difference between the two pictures (except for clarity and scalability, which is actually a plus, and animation, which cannot be done in SVG). AG0ST1NH0 should point out the differences instead of posting "disagree" icons everywhere and telling everybody to find them. --Yerpo (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept; there is no valid reason for deletion. Kept; how an image is being used is not relevant. Kept; editorial decisions like that are made by the local projects. Kept; upload new versions if you want but deletion isn't the answer here. Rocket000 (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
useless --Giezzy (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, Commons is not a personal repository. Yann (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Exact but loweer resolution from File:5kingdoms.png. I nominate because the speedy policy only covers duplicate. Vinhtantran (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{dupe}} next time - lower-resolution version are indeed covered by that process. — Mike.lifeguard 17:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Apparently not two-dimensional and therefore ineligible for PD-Art [[ Forrester ]] 17:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
To avoid conflicts: Same painting, same file-name, but now without the frame. --Eisenacher (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Deleted version with frame. [[ Forrester ]] 17:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Non encyclopaedic, personal image Backslash Forwardslash (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, this too was an experiment and I meant no harm. This image is a valid hitorical photo related to a page talking about the history of a local church group in Parramatta. The image, like the article is not promotional but factual and fully encyclopaedic. I take your criticisms in good faith. I don't object to the deletion since the image is now out of context since the USER page it was linked to has also been deleted.
- Strong delete Backslash beat me to posting this here, but I was going to nominate it for deletion as copyright violation. The file page claims that it is released for any use, but the website gives no indication of that. Without OTRS verification (see here for instructions) there is no evidence that this image is free. Rjanag (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete possibly copyvio Otourly (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Korman (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
not realistically useful for educational purposes 92.227.155.43 08:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Confucius say: COM:DW of an image of Giosue Cozzarelli. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Looks like derivative work. --Dezidor (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Unused version of File:Konqueror logo.svg. OsamaK 11:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
If we delete the Adidas logo, how could this one be PD-textlogo? Eusebius (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Why do not you request undeletion of the Adidas loga instead? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Because I have no strong feelings about either case, I just wonder where the limit is. Application of PD-textlogo seems arbitrary to me (or here, motivated by the fact that Adidas is very aggressive on their logo). --Eusebius (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Are they? Of course they would protect their trademark. But as a German company, their logo does not pass the threshold of originality according to German standards; compare de:Datei:Laufendes-Auge.jpg. The problem on commons is deletionist admins applying their own thresholds of originality. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agree for the Adidas case, but we haven't clear thresholds for every country, so of course it becomes easy to call admins deletionists... --Eusebius (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Are they? Of course they would protect their trademark. But as a German company, their logo does not pass the threshold of originality according to German standards; compare de:Datei:Laufendes-Auge.jpg. The problem on commons is deletionist admins applying their own thresholds of originality. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Because I have no strong feelings about either case, I just wonder where the limit is. Application of PD-textlogo seems arbitrary to me (or here, motivated by the fact that Adidas is very aggressive on their logo). --Eusebius (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I agree that the license is questionable as to if this is a simple text/geometric shapes logo or can be considered a copyrightable graphic design. I note, however, that this says it has OTRS permission confirmation by the copyright holder. Did the Adidas? What does the OTRS say? Possibly license should be changed to released to PD by copyright holder? -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- If this file (or the Adidas logo) is considered PD-textlogo, then no need of a permission. The "OTRS received" tag I have added means that there is an associated OTRS ticket, but for now it does not give a valid permission. It is very unlikely that this ticket results in a permission from the copyright holder, the uploader is just mistaken about the permission process. --Eusebius (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I think it's more than PD-text. (moutain with sun) Otourly (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Fictional flag of no use. 62.1.245.13 16:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Normally "Special or fictional flags" are not deleted unless there's malicious or hatemongering intent. This seems to be a combination of related historical flags, so I don't really see what the big problem is... AnonMoos (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept. There is a tradition for keeping fictional flags, though in some cases I have trouble seeing how they fit into our scope. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
image already avalable as File:Brooklyn Museum - Egypt-Gizeh (pd).jpg. consider a redirect. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete For this you can use {{Duplicate}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Duplicate. --Dezidor (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Duplicate of this image: File:Bombay25.jpg The original uploader (Aam422) had placed high resolution photos on Wikipedia and then unintentionally saved and uploaded the lower resolution images on Commons in my view Leoboudv (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Too out of focus to be useful J.delanoygabsadds 22:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; not useful in project scope, silly caption "information". -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Pictures taken in 1932, from an unknown photographer. The archives only warrant nobody claims copyright on this picture, not it's public domain. Dereckson (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The following messages are recopied from Dereckson's talk page and is an exchange about the speedy deletion proposal of the picture.
Several archives make pictures that are in the public domain available in Flickr The Commons . Because the reason why these pictures are in the public domain differs for every picture, a "no known copyright status" has been created. This is one of these pictures. Could you please revert your nomination. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please read carefully the Flickr The Commons disclaimer (the caps lock are the original case): BY ASSERTING "NO KNOWN COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS," PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS ARE SHARING THE BENEFIT OF THEIR RESEARCH WITHOUT PROVIDING AN EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTY TO OTHERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO USE OR REPRODUCE THE PHOTOGRAPH. IF YOU MAKE USE OF A PHOTO FROM THE COMMONS, YOU ARE REMINDED TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF APPLICABLE LAW BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH A PARTICULAR NEW USE.
- Please also read the summary of the debates on Commons here.
- The picture have been taken by an unknown photograph in 1932. There are a lot more of people taking photos in 1932 living than dead in 1939. So there a more chance this picture is still copyrighted.
- On de. they have fixed a 1923 ceiling.
- Do you have the feeling we should use a regular DR instead? --Dereckson (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, I don't know what a DR is. Secondly, Spaarnestad transferred their photo database to the Nationaal Archief for preservation. Nationaal Archief has put these particular pictures in the No known copyright status, meaning, as far as their research has gone, no one claims rights. So, in general Wikimedia has accepted them, like images from many other archives, to be in the public domain, and created an appropriate copyright status. Even, if they aren't in the public domain, Nationaal Archief is to blame, and only then is the time to take appropriate actions. There is a saying in the Netherlands "being holier than the Pope" which means that when everyone is saying that it is white, someone is still persisting that it is black. At the moment, you are in the last category. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your expression is true, because yes on copyright issues, I act as an ayatollah when I'm on Commons. Because I consider it's one of the moral goal of Commons not only to be compliant with copyrights laws but also to give the WARRANTY to every people using our resources it's TRULY and UNDOUBTEDLY free. To attain this objective, we must be holier than the Pope.
- A DR is a deletion request, the process to delete a picture when there is debate. I cancel my speedy deletion request, in favour of this procedure, so, ours arguments will be calmly reviewed by other members of the community interested in the process. --Dereckson (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and as I stressed with the previous sample, no, a 1933 picture is not accepted everywhere. On de. it's only for < 1923. --Dereckson (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, I don't know what a DR is. Secondly, Spaarnestad transferred their photo database to the Nationaal Archief for preservation. Nationaal Archief has put these particular pictures in the No known copyright status, meaning, as far as their research has gone, no one claims rights. So, in general Wikimedia has accepted them, like images from many other archives, to be in the public domain, and created an appropriate copyright status. Even, if they aren't in the public domain, Nationaal Archief is to blame, and only then is the time to take appropriate actions. There is a saying in the Netherlands "being holier than the Pope" which means that when everyone is saying that it is white, someone is still persisting that it is black. At the moment, you are in the last category. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, no known restrictions per Nationaal Archief of the Netherlands. I would presume we'd treat them for Netherlands works in much the same way we treat the Library of Congress for USA works-- generally accept their statement of copyright status unless we have a particular reason to think they made a mistake in a specific case. Or is their an arguement that they are unreliable? Should we blacklist the Nationaal Archief of the Netherlands? -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Released from the Spaarnestad agency. Probably because the copyright had expired anyway because of {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, see discussion above. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Thank you Pieter to have pointed our attention on {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. You see, Jan, the discussion have been constructive and we now know WHY it's admissible. --Dereckson (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Better version exists and is in use Burkhard (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept. ineligible for deletion. Kwj2772 (msg) 14:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Copyright modern flag --62.1.245.13 16:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is silly. First of all, it's a government agency flag, ergo not under copyright. Second and more importantly, it is a photo of a flag, taken by me, so again, no copyright other than what I would claim, which I don't. Constantine ✍ 22:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept The flag design is {{PD-GreekGov}}. Sv1xv (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
derivative work, also the cropped version File:Campagne Ben Ali 2009-edit.jpg. Martin H. (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I am the uploader of the picture. I wanted to say that my english is not enough to explain my opinion and that's why I contact User:Moumou82 to do it inside of me. Besides, I will be on vacation in real life from tomorrow until 7 July. So, I'm sorry. But, I think that Moumou will explain my opinion in english to make you understand what I want to say. Maybe, he will have his own opinion on this subject. Thanks. (I think I can't vote "Keep", because I will not be able to read arguments in opposition with mine. So I just give a comment.) Cimoi (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC).
- Keep Even if the derivative work could apply here, I consider these are not commercial works but politically-oriented documents with the purpose to be distributed freely. If I search for electoral posters or affiches, lots of electoral posters are linked to recent elections. May I missed something? Moumou82 (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Whether it is a commercial work or not is irrelevant, it enjoys copyright protection anyway, and derivative works cannot be freely licensed without the copyright holder's permission. –Tryphon☂ 08:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Copyright violation. w:Breaking Open the Head, not prior to 1923. Aleator (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this image is public domaine Avron (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this image is public domaine Avron (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
No indication from the given website that this publicity photo (not produced by said website but actually from a racing team) matches the copyright information given by the uploader. The359 (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
No evidence that the photographer of this image has been dead for 70 years. What is the "Galatasaray Book"? --Ytoyoda (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
No evidence the author has been dead for 70 years, since the image itself is only 71 years old. What is the Galatasary Book? --Ytoyoda (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Since the author is unknown we cannot know that his death was more than 70 years ago [[ Forrester ]] 19:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Does it meet condition 1? [[ Forrester ]] 17:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Since the mister on the picture died more than 70 years ago I believe its save to assume it meets condition 1 Huib talk 11:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The Picture is a cut out version of a photo with is credited as Boeing Photo on this page: http://pictopia.com/perl/ptp/dc3/?ptp_photo_id=711459 --84.60.106.112 11:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Probably pictopia is wrong. It is much more likely that image is USMC-Source.--Avron (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Most likely it's originally from marines.. --EsaL-74 (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep USMC watermark as depicted in the photo, it's inadequate in Boeing's material. --EH101 (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept File from USMC as expressed on the watermark. --Alpertron (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Contains copyrighted elements: background and the blooded girl (de minimis?). Dereckson (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, I don't think it counts as de minimis, as it would have been easy to avoid including the copyrighted material in this image. –Tryphon☂ 08:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 05:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Ion is non-free software. It uses a license with clauses that make it non-free. They do count as non-free per the DFSG, but do they under our terms? ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the licence does not have any bearing on whether or not an image of this WM can be used on Wikipedia, since the terms added over and above the LGPL simply prevent distribution of forks of the project under the "Ion" name. I do not believe that a visual depiction of the software can legitimately be called a fork so these terms plainly do not apply; the fact that it is "non-free software" by some definition is not clearly sufficient to motivate removal of the image, particularly since the appearance of a WM is its primary functional characteristic and hence the image is notable in the context of the article. Oppose deletion. 94.169.108.69 20:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept, unfree sections do not apply to screenshots. Kameraad Pjotr 21:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The linked "terms and conditions" page (Google translation) says nothing about copyright; the page footer has a clear "all rights reserved" copyright statement. --Carnildo (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:SBYApr2909.jpg which uses the same text - it is allowed to quote the page entirely or in parts. Thats says nothing about commercial reuse, in extreme redistribution, or the creation of derivative works. Thats not a sufficient permission for Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand why this does not fall under the purview of {{Attribution}} while {{Attribution-NavyofBrazil}} does. The website of the latter also does not mention commercial use or derivative works. The permission for the former is in the statement itself, that given full attribution of the source, "pengutipan" (whose meaning is more than just a quotation of pure text) is permitted. Arsonal (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Cant someone simply ask the office if their photos fulfill the Commons:Project scope#required licensing terms? At the moment we have a decided deletion request and quite obviously a press license or something like that which is not free enough. Everything else like comparing the license tag to other license tags is not helpfull.Freedom can only be given by the copyright holder and is not a question of interpretation, if they grant freedom it would be no problem for them to confirm this. --Martin H. (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do. It's a bit difficult as I'm not personally in Indonesia at the moment. Give me a some time. Arsonal (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I enforced the deletion of the images using this bogus template, Ill also check for links to the template from various sites in the project namespace. Images are deleted in one batch, so if a written permission will come true we can restore them from my deletion log. --Martin H. (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
User has a long history of uploading pictures of French politicians or celebrities (en:Dominique de Villepin, en:Xavier Bertrand, en:Carla Bruni, etc. and even the official portraits of former President Jacques Chirac and current President Nicolas Sarkozy) lifted from the Web and claiming own work. Each time pictures look like pro work, have no EXIF data (with the exception of File:Giscard (02).jpg) and are uploaded in Web resolution.
I could not trace the source of the two pictures discussed here, but I see no reason why they should not be copyvios as well. File:Giscard (02).jpg has EXIF data and the user could very well own a Nikon D200, a semi-pro DSLR, but he claims 2006 as the date of the picture, whereas the EXIF data mentions September 3, 2007. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Completing a DR I had forgotten to link to COM:DEL's.
.jpg){kind=link}
- Update: I asked the uploader on his talk page (on his mother WP, fr:) to confirm whether he was he was the photographer or not. He ignored the question and blanked it, as well as a question asked by another Wikipedian regarding File:Evajoly01.jpg, a proven copyvio (http://img.ozap.com/02018424-photo-eva-joly.jpg). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the Giscard image: The EXIF gives more info then shown: "Empreintes - Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, la France au fond des yeux". Giving this to google leads to http://www.france5.fr/empreintes/index-fr.php?page=recherche&recherche=estaing. Same day, same situation, same agency? --Martin H. (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}