Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/07/05

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive July 5th, 2009
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Merced_metro.jpg

[edit]

Copyvio Sofree 03:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted by Lycaon as copyvio. Sv1xv (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vecchia_zia_old_aunt.jpg

[edit]

Has not been "flickr" checked. 132.199.211.3 06:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but then why didn't you put a Flickr-rev-tag on it, instead of filing an rfd. Image is formally fine on its Flickr source. I've put a rev-tag on it. --Túrelio (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Well, there was even no need for a review, since the file was uploaded by FlickrLickr. –Tryphon☂ 10:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Rebirth_EP_Cover.jpg

[edit]

Wrong licence. Should be fair use. 132.199.211.3 07:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted (speedily). Copyvio, contemporary music album cover. Sv1xv (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Athens International Airport footbridge and hotel.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama --77.49.26.65 07:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Airport terminal footbridge. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep just a photo of half a bridge and half a building. No panorama violation --Alaniaris (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Athens International Airport footbridge and hotel.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 141.237.32.177 12:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per above. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 11:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Burned_building_in_Akadimias_str._01.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece. 77.49.26.65 07:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Photo of fire damage. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Where's the art in that photo? --Alaniaris (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The subject of the photo is the damage not the building--Egmontaz♤ talk 22:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vrontisi_monastery_St._Antony_church.JPG

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 07:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Are you serious? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep That's an at least 400 years old building..... --Alaniaris (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Old enough. Please learn the basics of Copyright! -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Athens_Patision_student_dormitory.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama 77.49.26.65 07:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Just student housing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep --Alaniaris (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Attiki_police_headquarters.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of Panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 07:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Building has little, if any, originality. --Túrelio (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in Greece. Claritas (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously some originality in the design. --Claritas (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. No originality. Yann (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Attiki police headquarters.jpg

[edit]

No FOP in Greece. Greek copyright expires 70 years after architect's death. Elisfkc (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination, missed the fact that it was already nominated and kept Elisfkc (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Piraeus_port_pedestrian_bridge.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 07:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep A bridge! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:POT-MarinaFloisvou2.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 07:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Just a sea view with a patio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I transferred the image to commons. The original uploader in the greek wikipedia is the architect office which designed the building. --Ferengi (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep It was released in Greek Wikipedia by the architect --Alaniaris (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

trusting the words of Alaniaris as admin of Greek Wikipdia Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:POT-Psychiko.JPG

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 07:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I transferred the image to commons. The original uploader in the greek wikipedia is the architect office which designed the building. --Ferengi (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep It was released in Greek Wikipedia by the architect --Alaniaris (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

trusting the words of Alaniaris as admin of Greek Wikipdia Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:POT-Psychiko.JPG

The image is sourced to someone other than the uploader, and there's no evidence of permission of the original photographer. Diannaa (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept The original uploader appears to be the architectural office which created the building. Our colleagues at WP:EL are satisfied that both the image and the architectural copyright are properly covered, and I have no reason to doubt that. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Πολιτιστικό_Κέντρο_Μελισσίων.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 07:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Just some building. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep --Alaniaris (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:NYC pano test.jpeg

[edit]

no content --Simisa (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Fine for me. Yann (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:OTRS wait

[edit]

This template is effectively saying "I've uploaded this image without permission, but I've asked for permission so don't delete it". Permission should be secured before uploading the image, not after. The template is, in any case, unused. If deleted, the connected category Category:OTRS wait should be deleted too. --Stifle (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold Please discuss it first at the appropriate forum Commons talk:OTRS. It seems this template is not used frequently and could be deleted. Was it authorized by the OTRS team? Sv1xv (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. A user just felt that it was needed and created it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete As an OTRS volunteer and a commons admin, I don't think this is needed. Users should not be uploading files until after they receive permission to do so thus making this template unnecessary. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep:I tried to explain is use. I used it to show the author how commons will show his image, while us dialog. I've used it in twelve cases, the author grant permisions in eleven cases, and in one case not, and I the image for deletion, the same day he said tha we only could use the image as fair use. It's very dificult to explain myself in other languaje I use, and Commons seems to be a very closed comunity.
  • We're not trying to be a closed community, but you need to understand that Commons is quite strict on copyrights. You must get permission before uploading an image here. You can't upload it and say you might get permission sometime. Stifle (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Commons is (at least somewhat) multilingual, so feel free to post in Spanish if you prefer. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Redirected to {{OTRS pending}}. Yann (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Judge Floro

[edit]

These are all personal images uploaded by Florentino Floro, a former Filipino judge who was suspended for claiming that dwarves aided his judicial decisions.

Obviously, all the images are of a non-encyclopedic nature. I've performed a "check usage" query on every single one; the only in use anywhere is Judgefloro candle DSC 4584.jpg, on a hewiki userpage (and a talk page there). They were uploaded by User:Judgefloro, who is currently blocked on the English Wikipedia for being a sock of Floro's other account, also blocked (sulutil:Judgefloro and sulutil:Florentino floro). He is also indefinitely blocked on the English Wikinews for making threats.[1]

Originally, all the images were only in use on his userpage.[2] However, he is using that diff as a link to his "homepage" elsewhere around the internet, including his blog (see his Blogger profile), Twitter, and various postings on the Ambrosia Software webboards.[3][4] (it's actually on the Ambrosia boards that I'm most familiar with him, as I'm a super-moderator there)

These images need to go. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there seems to be no objection, most Deleted, with the 3 mentioned kept. Infrogmation (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Makedonia_Palace_Thessaloniki.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 16:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to nominate all other photos in Greece? El Greco (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Ordinary building. Yann (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Philip_II_of_Macedon_Statue_Thessaloniki,_Greece.JPG

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 16:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom --User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Aristotelous_Plateia.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 16:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cumulus-mediocris-east-horizon.1996.jpg

[edit]

a wrong name of the object of image Kitesinnov (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Uploader's request; you can use {{Bad name}} for this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted at uploaders request, bad name. Sv1xv (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Georgbiziinouthes.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 16:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Grigoris_Lambrakis_monument_in_Thessaloniki.JPG

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 16:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pontic_Greek_Genocide_Monument_Salonica.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 16:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ivanof_G._2.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 16:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Statue_of_Venizelos_03.JPG

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 16:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cretan_Macedonian-Fighter_1.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 16:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cretan_Macedonian-Fighter_4.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 16:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:PavlosMelas_statue_Thessaloniki.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 16:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kilamlogo1LO.jpg

[edit]

Log used as vehicle for spam Calton (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of project scope. --Martin H. (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:COMTECH_INSTITUTE.png

[edit]

Appears to be spam, and not useful. Calton (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Not in use, out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:LATEST_VOIPAXIS.JPG

[edit]

Obvious spam Calton (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete IMO, this could also have been tagged wit {{Speedy}}. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Spam. Yann (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Meiosis.jpg

[edit]

Not own work. See: [5]. Sv1xv (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Derekface.jpg

[edit]

Out of COM:SCOPE. Sv1xv (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope: personal picture, no educational use. Yann (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Fantômes_Landowski.jpg

[edit]

No COM:FOP in France, artist Paul Landowski died in 1961. Coyau (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lama_Palmo.jpg

[edit]

because i uploaded it twice Sherab1180 (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Kwj2772 (msg) 14:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Arton184-3c204.jpg

[edit]

Clearly watermarked as Fars News Agency; unlikely to be "own work by uploader". Delirium (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These other images uploaded together by the same uploader lack watermarks but seem similarly suspicious: File:Kazemynib.jpg, File:Mohajerani2009.jpg, File:4007ganji.jpg, File:Hajjariannia.jpg, File:Rohanihassani.jpg. --Delirium (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by User:Mardetanha. Copyvio. Sv1xv (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bohaterów_Stalingradu.JPG

[edit]

It is unlikely that the user has copyright. Source is "Postcard by KAW" (Polish publisher) pibwl (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Eglise_Sainte-Thérèse_de_l'Enfant_Jésus.jpg

[edit]

No COM:FOP in France, Architect Jules Criqui died in 1951. Coyau (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Marchal Affiche 1926.jpg

[edit]

Dubious description, license. Those familiar with automotive history can tell this certainly doesn't date to 1926 as claimed; style is of a decade or more later. Additionally, why would the uploader be the copyright holder of what looks like an old magazine ad? Image is not in use in Wikimedia. --Infrogmation (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Simca 8 Simcavite has dates 1946 - 1953. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 18:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Büble-Bier (Allgäuer Brauhaus).JPG

[edit]

old? new? artist? (contains a Brauhaus web address) --79.193.105.194 21:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no free material, not in use, heavy reflections, bad quality Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Angelica archangelica (3235428864) (1).jpg

[edit]

The double of File:Angelica archangelica (3235428864).jpg --bff (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Túrelio. Duplicate or a scaled down version of File:Angelica archangelica (3235428864).jpg. Sv1xv (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Logo-clermont-universite.jpg

[edit]

It's a mark, forbiden on Commons. Matth97 (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 18:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Athens_Karaiskaki_stadium_panorama.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 07:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why has this image been deleted?! It was just a stadium. --The daydreamer (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. This was deleted on 19:52, 29 July 2009 by Kameraad Pjotr. Reason given: "Copyright violation: No freedom of panorama in Greece". I would have restored it since this DR was open, however, since he gave a copyright-based reason and the comments here do nothing to counter that (I know "it was just a stadium", but see COM:FOP#Greece), please take it to COM:UNDEL if you think you have a sound (legally-based) argument. Rocket000 (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Omonoia_square_construction.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 07:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. It's a square, for God's sake!--The daydreamer (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. It's a work of art (a sculpture), which is copyrightable. On a square in Greece, where there's no freedom of panorama. For Darwin's sake. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Badseed (talk · contribs). Tiptoety talk 05:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kyveli_1.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 08:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the sculptor and/or when was the statue erected? --Túrelio (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The pedestal has a 1978 date on it, so this is recent -  Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a modern statue, uploaded back then under a provision of the greek law (see below). There are numerous other files, uploaded by numerous users that could be FOP violations (busts, statues, buildings, etc). There should be a centralized discussion about this, so we can settle it once and for all and/or see the images on a case-to-case basis. Some lawyer research done back at the greek wiki has been for the time inconclusive as to whether "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" of images of works of architecture, works of the fine arts, photographs, and works of the applied arts is allowed for works permanently situated in a public place" (the so-called FOP of Greece) is permissive or not (both cases are possible); not concluding is the reason why the images are still here Badseed talk 09:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. We still don't know what the Greek law is referring to exactly by "occasional" reproduction.--The daydreamer (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Badseed (talk · contribs). Tiptoety talk 05:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Nea_Smyrni_Chrysostomos_of_Smyrna_statue.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 08:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the sculptor and/or when was the statue erected? --Túrelio (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is to my knowledge a modern statue, uploaded back then under a provision of the greek law (see below). There are numerous other files, uploaded by numerous users that could be FOP violations (busts, statues, buildings in Greece, etc). There should be a centralized discussion about this, so we can settle it once and for all and/or see the images on a case-to-case basis. Some lawyer research done back at the greek wiki has been for the time inconclusive as to whether "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" of images of works of architecture, works of the fine arts, photographs, and works of the applied arts is allowed for works permanently situated in a public place" (the so-called FOP of Greece) is permissive or not (both cases are possible); not concluding is the reason why the images are still here Badseed talk 09:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Badseed (talk · contribs). Tiptoety talk 05:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Denkmal_Konstantinos_XI_Athen.JPG

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 08:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the sculptor and/or when was the statue erected? --Túrelio (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sculpture is standing on a great square of the city - everybody can see it and make photos! I cannot say where is the sculptor - I was a German tourist. Perhaps an inhabitant from Athen can do so? --44penguins (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. We still don't know what the Greek law is referring to exactly by "occasional" reproduction.--The daydreamer (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete now there is September, no freedom of panorama in Greece. Iconoclast (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No FOP in Greece, unknown copyright status of the sculpture ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Louis_Prince_of_Battenburg_Arms.svg

[edit]

Inferior near duplicate to Louis Prince of Battenberg Arms.svg. User requested at my Wikipedia Talk for that reason. Jarry1250 (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment File:Louis Prince of Battenberg Arms.svg (-berg with "e") seems to be a duplicate, as both files are 189 k, must be very inefficient svg code. But there is also File:Prince Louis of Battenberg Arms.svg at 197 kB. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After conversation, it is the last of the three that is to be saved: the other two can, and should, be deleted. Jarry1250 (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Pruneautalk 11:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Athena_Statue_Athens.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece. 77.49.26.65 07:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the sculptor and/or when was it erected? --Túrelio (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was erected in 1952 and the sculptor is Falireas.
Keep it! Stop deleting all Greek images just because of some unregistered user's obsession!--The daydreamer (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete now there is September, no freedom of panorama in Greece. Iconoclast (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Badseed: photographs of public art prohibited in greece

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Athena_Statue_Athens_closeup.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 07:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment When was the sculpture made? When did the sculptor die? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's good that we'll be discussing these, as there are numerous other files, uploaded by numerous users that could be FOP violations (busts, statues, buildings, etc), for example this is a ~late 30's statue. There's an IP making the rounds and tagging them, but there should be a centralized discussion about this, so we can settle it once and for all and/or see the images on a case-to-case basis (i notified him but he seems into it, really). Some lawyer research done back at the greek wiki has been for the time inconclusive as to whether "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" of images of works of architecture, works of the fine arts, photographs, and works of the applied arts is allowed for works permanently situated in a public place" (the so-called (non-)FOP of Greece) is permissive or not (both cases are possible); not concluding is the reason why there hasn't been discussion here Badseed talk 09:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Greece. "Mass media" clearly means that it is not ok to make postcards of this image, so it is not free enough for commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is not a keep vote. What I'm saying is that, exactly because we wanted to know if certain images are safe for Commons, users tried to look into it, based on actual law literature and publications; the outcome is still undecisive. They could be ok, and they could not be ok (some evidence was found for both). Otherwise, such images would be long ago nuked. What I am also saying is that there should be one discussion about this, so that there's a final conclusion and we gladly (at least for me) say 'good riddance' to this riddle, either by keeping the images or by deleting them - Badseed talk 13:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete now there is September, no freedom of Panorama in Greece. Iconoclast (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Badseed: per Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Greek FOP: conclusion?, still under CR

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Makarios_statue_Athens.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 07:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the sculptor and/or when was the statue erected? --Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Why is an unknown user 77.49.26.65, allowed to nominate images for deletion?, surely this could lead to abuse of the system. Why is it the case that an unregistered user can nominate images for deletion on here, but on all wiki(pedia, media, commons, etc) not create any new articles without having a user account? - please repond to my usertalk page on en.wikipedia.org, thanks User:Dreamweaverjack 00:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, IP-users are allowed to propose images for deletion. And that's no problem, because there is a discussion that allows input from everybody. --Túrelio (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of this notice User:Badseed and other are checking the ambiguity of the FOP legal passage in the greek law. As the image was uploaded 2 years ago and doesn't seem to have any commercial value, IMHO there is no need for hurry and we can leave this rfd open for some more weeks. --Túrelio (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Badseed: per Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Greek FOP: conclusion?

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Statue_of_liberty_Egaleo.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 07:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the sculptor and/or when was it erected? --Túrelio (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is most likely a modern statue (80's maybe), uploaded back then under a provision of the greek law (see below). There are numerous other files, uploaded by numerous users that could be FOP violations (busts, statues, buildings in Greece, etc). There should be a centralized discussion about this, so we can settle it once and for all and/or see the images on a case-to-case basis. Some lawyer research done back at the greek wiki has been for the time inconclusive as to whether "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" of images of works of architecture, works of the fine arts, photographs, and works of the applied arts is allowed for works permanently situated in a public place" (the so-called FOP of Greece) is permissive or not (both cases are possible); not concluding is the reason why the images are still here Badseed talk 09:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Badseed: per Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Greek FOP: conclusion? & not PD yet

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Peace_and_Friendship_stadium_Athens.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 07:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that we'll be discussing this, as there are numerous other files, uploaded by numerous users that could be FOP violations (busts, statues, buildings, etc). There's an IP making the rounds and tagging them, but there should be a centralized discussion about this, so we can settle it once and for all and/or see the images on a case-to-case basis (Take a look at Category:Peace and Friendship Stadium which the nominator must have missed). Some lawyer research done back at the greek wiki has been for the time inconclusive as to whether "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" of images of works of architecture, works of the fine arts, photographs, and works of the applied arts is allowed for works permanently situated in a public place" (the so-called FOP of Greece) is permissive or not; not concluding is the reason why the images are still here Badseed talk 09:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it.--The daydreamer (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Keep it.--Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Badseed: per Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 2#Greek FOP: conclusion?

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Peace_and_Friendship_stadium_Athens2.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 07:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that we'll be discussing this, as there are numerous other files, uploaded by numerous users that could be FOP violations (busts, statues, buildings, etc). There's an IP making the rounds and tagging them, but there should be a centralized discussion about this, so we can settle it once and for all and/or see the images on a case-to-case basis (Take a look at Category:Peace and Friendship Stadium which the nominator must have missed). Some lawyer research done back at the greek wiki has been for the time inconclusive as to whether "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" of images of works of architecture, works of the fine arts, photographs, and works of the applied arts is allowed for works permanently situated in a public place" (the so-called FOP of Greece) is permissive or not; not concluding is the reason why the images are still here Badseed talk 09:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is every picture about Greece going to be deleted? El Greco (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. --The daydreamer (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Badseed: per Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Greek FOP: conclusion?

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Egaleo_resistance_monument.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 07:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Modern sculpture. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous other files, uploaded by numerous users that could be FOP violations (busts, statues, buildings, etc). There's an IP making the rounds and tagging them, but there should be a centralized discussion about this, so we can settle it once and for all and/or see the images on a case-to-case basis. Some lawyer research done back at the greek wiki has been for the time inconclusive as to whether "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" of images of works of architecture, works of the fine arts, photographs, and works of the applied arts is allowed for works permanently situated in a public place" (the so-called FOP of Greece) is permissive or not; not concluding is the reason why the images are still here Badseed talk 09:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. We are still not certain what the Greek law is referring to.--The daydreamer (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete now there is September, no freedom of panorama in Greece. Iconoclast (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Badseed: per Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Greek FOP: conclusion?

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Airmen_monument_Athens.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 07:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Modern sculpture. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous other files, uploaded by numerous users that could be FOP violations (busts, statues, buildings, etc). There's an IP making the rounds and tagging them, but there should be a centralized discussion about this, so we can settle it once and for all and/or see the images on a case-to-case basis. Some lawyer research done back at the greek wiki has been for the time inconclusive as to whether "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" of images of works of architecture, works of the fine arts, photographs, and works of the applied arts is allowed for works permanently situated in a public place" (the so-called FOP of Greece) is permissive or not; not concluding is the reason why the images are still here Badseed talk 09:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Greece. "Mass media" clearly means that it is not ok to make postcards of this image, so it is not free enough for commons. Unless of course you have the same kind of clout that pikiwiki has at the wikimedia office. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the COM:FOP a la greque and it's the reason i stopped uploading such photos since it went red. My comment is not a keep vote. What I'm saying is that, exactly because we wanted to know if certain images are safe for Commons, users tried to look into it, based on actual law literature and publications; the outcome is still undecisive. They could be ok, and they could not be ok (some evidence was found for both). Otherwise, such images would be long ago nuked. What I am also saying is that there should be one discussion about this, so that there's a final conclusion and we gladly (at least for me) say 'good riddance' to this riddle, either by keeping the images or by deleting them - Badseed talk 13:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by J Milburn: No freedom of panorama in Greece, this is a modern statue

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Globe_in_Peace.JPG

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 08:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Modern sculpture. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. The law does not apply to occasional publications. We are not still certain what the Greek law refers to, so keep.--The daydreamer (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete now there is September, no freedom of panorama in Greece. Iconoclast (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment FOP discussion has not ended yet! --The daydreamer (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Badseed: photographs of public art prohibited in greece

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Memorial_of_Battle_of_Crete.JPG

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 08:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And stop nominating every single Greek image! This is an abuse! --The daydreamer (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete now there is September, no freedom of panorama in Greece. Iconoclast (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment FOP discussion has not ended yet! --The daydreamer (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Badseed: photographs of public art prohibited in greece

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Prokopios_Kerpinis.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 09:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the sculptor and/or when was the statue erected? --Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Badseed: photographs of public art prohibited in greece

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Andreas_Lodos.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 09:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the sculptor and/or when was the statue erected? --Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Badseed: photographs of public art prohibited in greece

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ioannis_Papadiamadopoulos.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 09:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the sculptor and/or when was the statue erected? --Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user who chose this sculpture doesn't know anything about these artifacts, he has just got a personal obsession about Greece. He is not even a Wikipedia registered user. The Greek law doesn't apply to Wikipedia and other occasional publications, so in my opinion this image should remain on Commons.--The daydreamer (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Badseed: photographs of public art prohibited in greece

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Marinos_Geroulanos_bust.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 09:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous other files like this, uploaded by numerous users that could be FOP violations (busts, statues, buildings in Greece, etc). There should be a centralized discussion about this, so we can settle it once and for all and/or see the images on a case-to-case basis. Some lawyer research done back at the greek wiki has been for the time inconclusive as to whether "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" of images of works of architecture, works of the fine arts, photographs, and works of the applied arts is allowed for works permanently situated in a public place" (the so-called FOP of Greece) is permissive or not (both cases are possible); not concluding is the reason why the images are still here Badseed talk 09:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
de:Marinos Geroulanos died 1960, probably the bust was made later than that. This image is not free enough to make a postcard of, wich is the usual criterium on commons (unless it concerns Israel). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Badseed: per Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Greek FOP: conclusion? & not PD yet

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Votsis_Dimarxos_003.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 09:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the sculptor and/or when was the statue erected? --Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Badseed: photographs of public art prohibited in greece

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sikelianos_Aggelos_6174.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 09:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the sculptor and/or when was the statue erected? --Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are hundreds or thousands photos of modern statues from Greece, and since there are some lawyers among us who believe that the relevant clause of the law is unclear and can be interpreted in many ways (meaning that it's not so restrictive), I believe that it would be better to start a wide discussion for the subject instead of nominating the images for deletion one by one. --Geraki TLG 14:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Badseed: per Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Greek FOP: conclusion?

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Alexander_the_great.JPG

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 16:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This law doesn't apply to Wikipedia, furthermore, you seem to have an obsession with Greek images. In my opinion this image should remain on Commons. --The daydreamer (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Badseed: photographs of public art prohibited in greece

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hannappel.JPG

[edit]

The photgraph is scanned from a magazine. Not own work. Sv1xv (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Subject was a murder victim 1923, {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know in what country? Was it somewhere in Europe or in the USA? Sv1xv (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see it was in Germany, so {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} would apply. Sv1xv (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hannover, Germany. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • False license, false source, false date. If true information can be substituted for the falsehoods currently in the description, and legitimate proof it is free licensed can be shown and corrected, might be kept; otherwise,  Delete Infrogmation (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the following on my talk page:

Hi Sv1xv. I noted that you have nominated a file I uploaded for potential deletion, but as to my knowledge, as the photo is >70 years old (at least 86), copyright has expired, and as the photo originates in Germany the PD-EU-no author disclosure is also applicable, as mentioned by another Wiki user. I did scan from a magazine for this image (the only instance I have ever done so), but, to my knowledge, after reading acceptable terms of this instance at [[6]], believe that as this was to be used for a non-profit, and educational source I was commenting upon, was only a very small portion of the entire work was used. I believe it is fair to have used this image for the article. I note that as of 5/7/09 a user has stated that proof it is free licensed needs to be shown. If you agree with the above, and inform me as such, I will be happy to state the above in the description and hope the request to be deleted can be removed. Kindest regards, Kieronoldham

Sv1xv (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Davepape: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pericles_statue_in_Athens.JPG

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 08:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the sculptor and/or when was the statue erected? --Túrelio (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The pedestal has a 2002 date on it.  Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. The law does not apply to occasional publications and the internet, otherwise Greek authorities will be continuously on the net to cancel images.--The daydreamer (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per COM:FOP. No evidence that the subject is in the public domain or is an exact replica of a public domain work.--Trixt (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dans_les_rues_d'Athenes.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 08:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. We still don't know what the Greek law is referring to exactly by "occasional" reproduction.--The daydreamer (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete now there is September , no freedom of panorama in Greece . Iconoclast (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment FOP discussion has not ended yet. We have to wait.--The daydreamer (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete No COM:FOP#Greece. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Tiptoety talk 02:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Flood_in_Central_Europe_Meteosat_200906221200_met8.jpg

[edit]

impossible tp publish this image under a public domain licence 132.199.211.3 07:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i dawdled - i had to look for correct attribution on http://www.eumetsat.int - i found an licence at File:Windstorm 08 jan 2005 1200Z.JPG
in fact, eumetsat says:
Note: All Meteosat images shown on our Web server are subject to EUMETSAT copyright. If you wish to re-use these Meteosat images, EUMETSAT's copyright credit should be shown by displaying the words "copyright {year} EUMETSAT" (where {year} is the current year) on each of the images shown. [7]
full policy is found in EUMETSAT Data Policy (pdf) via http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Basic/Legal_Information/SP_LEGAL_DATA_POLICY, where is stated at 4.
EUMETSAT shall make its Six-hourly Meteosat Data, the Meteosat Derived Products and the data offered through its Meteosat Internet Service available to all users world-wide on a free and unrestricted basis as "Essential" Data and Products in accordance with WMO Resolution 40 (Cg-XII).
as i understood, this image is rated "Essential"
is that acceptable? if we keep it, should i place a correct copyright © 2009 EUMETSAT into the image - maybe also the other file above? --W!B: (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, eumetsat is no USAgov. 77.49.26.65 07:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Free annd unrestricted, attribution required, if I understand the terms correctly. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I think it's free. --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 11:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Where is the difference to File:Windstorm 08 jan 2005 1200Z.JPG - if one is free, the other not? --K@rl (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete There you cannot find any information about commercial use or derrivative works. Looks more that the images are copyrighted: All Meteosat images shown on our web server are subject to EUMETSAT copyright. --High Contrast (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - Of course those images are copyrighted, as are most images on Commons. But they are licensed for free and unrestricted use with attribution. "Unrestricted" excludes restrictions eg. for derivative or commercial use, so that this license is perfectly acceptable for Commons. --Latebird (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these images licensed for free and unrestricted use with attribution? --High Contrast (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They specify such a license in their Data Policy for what they call "essential" material (IV). Images on their web site seem to count as "essential" (2.3). I'n not entirely sure how to read that paragraph, though. We might need to reduce the resolution to 800x800 pixels. --Latebird (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that this image is not actually taken from the EUMETSAT website, but from the personal web page of Bernhard Mühr at the University of Karlsruhe ([8]). Thus, I suspect it doesn't actually fall under the scope of the "Meteosat Internet Service" in the first place. Also worth noting, but probably of secondary importance, is that in using the term "free and unrestricted" the EUMETSAT Data Policy references WMO Resolution 40 (Cg-XII), which in a footnote defines that term as meaning "non-discriminatory and without charge" (and refers to another WMO resolution, which I couldn't find on Google). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete The copyright holder didn't state about commercial use and derivative works. So it should be recognised as those rights are reserved by EUMETSAT.--Kwj2772 (msg) 07:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In doubt, why not asking the people who created this image? --Túrelio (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, Ilmari Karonen is right, i misunderstood the source of the image - uni-karlsruhe.de is just the host of the archive, but it wont be for free anyhow without explicite statement - as Túrelio suggested, I'll try to contact one of the metreologigcal agencies associated with EUMETSAT, till then please (as the uploader)  Delete W!B: (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only copyright requirement is attribution. Of course this allows commercial use, that is what meteorological images are typically used for. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept - {{Attribution|EUMETSAT}} is fine (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Flood in Central Europe Meteosat 200906221200 met8.jpg

[edit]

Terms of Use in EUMETSAT only allows non-commercial use A1Cafel (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: File not present at source, and not on EUMETSAT website. Origin unknown. Ruthven (msg) 22:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Braai4Heritage_poster.jpg

[edit]

Not own work by uploader. Poster for an event in S. Africa. Sv1xv (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the artwork belongs to and is paid for by the uploader. The uploader is the person responsible for the Braai4Heritage campaign and briefed an ad agency, DraftFCB Cape Town, to develop the work for their 2008 campaign. The uploader therefore owns the right to distribute the visual. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.2.204.214 (talk) 07:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, please contact the OTRS, so that it can be confirmed that you are the copyright hoder and that you really gave the permission to use it here. Because, to be honest, I doubt that. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no permission (OTRS). Kameraad Pjotr 20:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:PikiWiki_Israel_3577_Ramat-Gan_City.JPG

[edit]

COM:DW, FOP does not apply (2D-work, not permanently situated). Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it's not permanently situated? Where do you think they're going to move it when the centenary is over? Surely they'll just throw it away. That makes this its permanent situation. -- Zsero (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Permanently situated has two meanings in this context: (1) fixed in a public place and never moved from there (2) a movable object that has the sole purpose of being displayed in public, an there no intention to collect it for future use. The content of this poster clearly indicates that it has no other purpose but being displayed in this public place (even if it is technically movable). 2D-works are covered under the Israeli copyright law, and I am afraid Pieter Kuiper is not the authority regarding the interpretation of Israeli laws. Drork (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is only one meaning. Your (1) does not exist — there is no such thing as a work that will last forever! Every work that is displayed in public will be removed eventually, whether after one year or a thousand; but it is obvious that this does not make it a temporary situation. As you say, what matters is whether it is intended to be put on private display afterwards, and in this case that is clearly not going to happen. Would Mr Kuiper claim that an ice or butter sculpture is not "permanently situated", merely because it will not be there for very long? -- Zsero (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, probably not ment to be permanently placed in a public place. Kameraad Pjotr 20:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:PikiWiki Israel 3577 Ramat-Gan City.JPG

[edit]

COM:DW, FOP does not apply (2D-work, not permanently situated).

Renominated after undeletion. The basis for undeletion was that "This display was meant to be shown for its entire life, and would only be removed when discarded, as such, it is a "permanent" display similar to the ice sculpture quoted and is covered by Israeli FoP" following the quote from Dr. Presenti referred to by Drork.

However, that reference to an ice sculpture being permanently situated until it melts is perfectly consistent with Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary which talks about the "natural lifetime of the work". The "natural lifetime" of this poster doesn't end when it is removed, it would end when it was destroyed by wind and rain if it left outside. The fact that the poster relates to a specific event and is unlikely to be reused doesn't mean that the "natural lifetime" of the work has finished. If it is disposed of then its "natural lifetime" has been artificially shortened.

The information from Dr. Presenti doesn't imply that we shouldn't consider the "natural lifetime of the work" in determining if something is permanently situated and so it doesn't confirm that this poster can be considered permanently situated.

In addition to considering the "natural lifetime of the work", Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary suggests we should consider the intent with which a work is displayed. In this case the intent is unlikely to have been to display the work indefinitely until its "natural lifetime" ended since it refers to a specific event and so may no longer be relevant long before the "natural lifetime" ends. Therefore, I don't think this work was permanently situation and therefore FoP doesn't apply and so it should be deleted. --Adambro (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

u rase a very good argument, and I admit it is difficult for me to be certain what is right. It is not a question of FOP but rather of permenant-v-temporary. In my opinion a commercial, even when is taked down and even if not ment to be reused, could still be reused, and the rights remain, because a publication company may choose to reuse a commercial years later, and its actual intention should be deemed as such. I do not think section 23 can apply to any commercial (whether for a product, a TV show, or an event). This, on the other hand, is a municipal sign, which is indeed ment for a one time use and then it will be discarded (thrown away). By that it is simmilar to artwork on the icing of a cake (that is thrown away but not eaten). I admit I am not sure whether to deem it as permenant or temporary. From what I understand, according to US or UK law, the intention of the artist should be considered - whether they intended it to be one time or not. In this case this is indeed a one time use, without further intentions, and ment to be thrown away (i.e. distroyes) at the end of the use. Therefore, I think it should be deemed as permenant without a presumption of reuse which can be assuemed for a regular commercial. Deror avi (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response to the points I raised. I do though think it is difficult to differentiate between this and a commercial/advertisement, many of which can refer to specific events or periods of time which would make their reuse unlikely. However, there exists some who collect advertising posters and so even when a poster is removed from its original location it might continue to exist.
You seem to suggest that in this case there was an intention was to use it once and then destroy it but surely an intention for what is done with it after it is removed exists isn't consistent with the idea of it being permanently placed. For it to be permanently situated would imply that the intention was to leave it there indefinitely, with no intention of removing it. I'm struggling to understand how this poster can be considered to be permanently situated. Adambro (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sign itself reads as a commemoration of a 100-year anniversary of Tel-Aviv/Yafo. This can not be reused, as there will never be another 100 year anniversary. Once the anniversary year is up, the poster becomes defunct and expired, and I consider that to be the end of its natural life. However, unlike an ice sculpture, it can persist beyond the year or be placed in storage. Although, an ice sculpture can be placed in a freezer as well. I made the undeletion decision based on the fact that the poster is a specifically dated anniversary poster (and not an advertisment) and it has a lifespan, after which it will almost definitely be removed and discarded, and that remains my opinion now. Fascinating points raised here, but I think this is still safely under FoP. -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think "natural life" means the same as useful life as is the point you seem to be making. I don't think that the fact that the poster refers to a specific event means that its "natural life" is limited to the period of that event. Also, even when it is no longer used for its original purpose, a poster like this may be reused by collectors for example. I don't think permanent means until it is removed and disposed of, it means there wasn't an intention to remove it in the first place. Your comment that "it will almost definitely be removed and discarded" and "that the poster is a specifically dated anniversary poster" does in my opinion add more weight to the view that the intention was for it to be temporarily situated rather than permanently situated. I'm struggling to understand how this can be considered permanently situated, particularly with reference to Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary.
    On a related issue, thanks for correcting the deletion request notice, I'd forgotten that I needed to update it. Adambro (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on what what was brought from Dr. Presenti, to me it seems that permanent does not mean forever, it means until the end of its life. If I am going to put a poster in public, and I know it will be removed and destroyed in a week, is that temporary or permanentm, vis-a-vis an ice sculpture? Agreed, I originally may have thought like you, but the ice sculpture depiction as permanent is compelling. However, I too am extremely interested to hear what other of our commons experts have to say :) -- Avi (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the dates; my pleasure. I forget to do those things all the time myself . -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are examples of photographs published in Israeli books and magazines, which include such posters without reference to the poster's copyright holder (hence without asking his/her permission, and without considering it a "fair use"). One example I saw was a photograph by Alex Levac of a huge poster "Tel Aviv celebrates 90 years" placed in Rabin Square in Tel Aviv. Another example was a huge commercial poster which was hung on a building, but it was quite obvious that the measurments and method of hanging was specifically adapted to that building. In this case it seems to me very much like the former example, hence my conclusion that it is okay. Drork (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is enough to say that examples of images of similar posters exist in particular circumstances, particularly where such examples would seem to suggest a position counter to Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary. It is difficult to say whether or not permission was sought but simply not credited in the book or their use was under a claim of fair use or similar. Unless we can find anything more solid to suggest Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary should be considered incorrect either just for Israel or more generally we should apply the precautionary principle and delete this. It feels quite unnatural for what seems to be accepted is a temporary poster to described as permanently situated. Adambro (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any more unnatural than describing an ice sculpture situated in the Middle East as permanent? -- Avi (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite strange I would agree but an ice sculpture has much shorter "natural lifetime of the work" so can only be permanently situated for a very limited time in a warm atmosphere whereas this poster hasn't reached the end of its "natural lifetime", it has been artificially shortened. Adambro (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This poster seems custom made for that building and that anniversary; I think it's natural for it to be used only in that place for that time, and then it is defunct. -- Avi (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question there is what meaning of "natural" are we using. I think you're meaning what is reasonable to expect in the circumstances, whereas I'm referring to how things happen in nature. That is what I think both Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary and Dr. Presenti's ice sculpture examples are alluding to, the idea that the ice sculpture is permanent as far as nature will allow. A poster would, in my interpretation of the phrase "natural lifetime of the work", have a "natural lifetime" dependent on the materials and printing process used, not the content of the poster which is what I believe is your interpretation. So in this case, whilst the poster's message may only be relevant for a year, it's "natural lifetime" would continue until the physical material disintegrated. Is this understanding of your position correct? Adambro (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I may well be wrong; we could really use an Israeli Copyright Legal expert here :) -- Avi (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep IMO we first need to distinguish what is temporary versus permanent. I believe that for something to be considered temporary, that something should be up for the removal by human actions. Otherwise absolutely everything is temporary because everything including the Universe itself will be destroyed by the forces of nature sooner or later .--Mbz1 (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is surely the aim of this discussion, to determine whether this qualifies as temporary or permanent. We already have Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary though and that talks about a "natural lifetime" which the removal of a temporary poster doesn't end. It makes it clear that it is the intent with which something is placed which is of primary concern, not what is done if the work is removed. If the intent is for something to remain indefinitely with no plan to remove it then it can be considered permanently placed. If something is displayed somewhere where it is reasonable to assume the intend was to later remove it then it should be considered temporarily situated. In my opinion this poster falls into the latter category. Adambro (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay at that point I believe I have not enough knoledge on the subject to vote. I will try to learn more about it, and then I might vote once again.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the exmples I mentioned earlier - in case a permission was sought, the name of the copyright holder should have appeared next to the image. This is also true for a case of "fair use" claim, although people tend to be less strict in these cases. However, the photographs I've seen were by a professional well-known photographer, and I doubt if he, or his book's editor, took a lax approach for that matter. Furthermore, it is possible that a certain legal principle would receive different interpretations in different countries. The question is - do we adopt a single unified Wikimedia Commons' approach, or do we follow each country's norms for images taken within its jurisdiction?
As for the image itself - take a look at the poster. It is not an ordinary standard poster. You can tell by its dimentions that it was designed for display in this specific location. Furthermore, its content indicates that its reuse is hardly possible. True, there is some doubt about whether it was meant to be "permanent" and yet this doubt is not a reasonable doubt. We cannot satisfy any doubt, we have to adopt a common-sense approach in these matters.
Last remark - while this photograph is neither a masterpiece, nor documents a rare event, the consequences of deletion goes beyond giving up one image. It has to do with outreach. A contributor whose image was deleted might not be willing to contribute again. This is something I learned when trying to promote outreach projects for Wikimedia Israel. It is the other side of the coin, and we should not ignore it. Drork (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent a lot of time explaining why I don't think this qualifies as permanently situated so I'd hope you'd not suggest "this doubt is not a reasonable doubt". I see very little in Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary which considers how a work is reused or whether it is. The primary question it seems to be asking is not whether a work could or is reused, but what the intention was when a work is placed somewhere. In this case the intention wasn't to leave it permanently situated for the "natural lifetime of the work", but probably only as long as the message the poster gives is relevant. I suppose that depends on your interpretation of the phrase "natural lifetime of the work" and so it would be perhaps helpful if you could confirm whether you share the interpretation that I've suggested Avi might in my comment above. Adambro (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the doubt which I, in my humble opinion, regard as unreasonable. The municipality that owns the copyrights will undoubtedly remove this huge poster before it decays naturally, because its content will be outdated. Now, you wonder whether this removal can be considered the end of the work's natural lifetime. We cannot get a compelling opinion on that, especially not from Israel, because no one ever complained about such copyright violation. However, we can ignore this doubt, because in such cases, you simply look at what people do and act accordingly. In Israel people take photographs of such works and publish them, and no one ever suggested it was wrong. Considering there is nothing explicit in the law against it, we can assume it is okay. We had a contrary case with Israeli stamps. While the authrities rarely complain about copyright violation, we cannot ignore a specific stipulation in the 2004 revision of the law, and we had to remove all uploads that violated it. We are also very caucious about doubtful cases, but here the doubt is slight enough to allow us to enjoy it. Drork (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is appropriate to suggest there is hardly any basis for the doubt I've expressed. Whether or not FoP Israel is valid for this situation depends entirely on answering the question whether or not this is "permanently placed". Where we have Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Israel saying that FoP is "permitted if that work is permanently placed in a public place", I wouldn't think it would be too difficult to have this doubt considering this poster is clearly intended to be temporary. A temporary poster being permanently placed until it is removed is a concept I'm struggling to grasp and I don't think it is too unreasonable to expect others might have the same difficulty. Unless "permanently" is defined somewhere in the law, I would have thought its conventional meaning, referring to something as being intended to remain situated in a public place for ever, would apply. This idea of a temporary poster being permanent would in my view be much more questionable than my own interpretation. Adambro (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we interpret the term "permanently displayed" by the intention of the copyright holder, then this poster is permanently displayed. The poster will be removed, no doubt about it, but it is very reasonable to think that the copyright holder wouldn't mind it being torn by the wind or fade in the son instead of being removed by the city's employees. Of course we cannot guarantee that 100%, but the likeliness is high anough, considering its content and the fact that the poster's dimentions were adapted to this specific location. Drork (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure to be honest. The contents of the poster very strongly suggests that the intention would be to remove it once it became irrelevant. I really cannot believe that the city would have intended to leave it up until it was destroyed by natural processes since that could take many years by which time the poster would look very unattractive. Surely they must have intended to remove it before it was destroyed by nature? That surely means it wasn't intended to be permanently placed? Adambro (talk) 11:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they intended to remove it and dispose of it, that would be the end of its natural life in my opinion, although we already clarified that we have a difference of opinion in that regard :). Can anyone approach an Israeli copyright expert and ask? -- Avi (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should start with what we all agree on:
The poster was probably made for that very place (It nicely fit the building) and for special occasion (we know that from the poster itself) If we agree with the above statements, it means that we probably could agree that the poster is not going to be reused in any other place. Now the only thing we should agree on is: Could we consider the placement permanent, if the subject is never going to be reused in other place. I believe we could.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I know that under Israeli copyright low of 2007 "Incidental Use" of any category of work is permitted. IMO we could consider it as "Incidental Use". A photographer was taken an image of the building, and poster just happened to be on his way.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, reply to Avi) The concept of "permanently situated" isn't unique to Israel so it probably isn't necessary to consult someone familiar with Israeli law since Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Israel doesn't seem to suggest a specific meaning of "permanently situated" in Israel. In the absence of any evidence to suggest otherwise, we should work from the explanation of Permanent vs temporary given at COM:FOP which in my view is pretty clear in suggesting this would be temporary. Are we in agreement that COM:FOP, at least as it stands, would define this as temporarily situated?
(reply to Mbz) I wouldn't disagree that this poster was specially made and unlikely to be reused once it is removed. I don't see how you get from that to the conclusion that it is therefore permanently situated though. COM:FOP makes no reference to considerations of the reusability potential or degree to which something is customised, it says the answer to the question of temporary versus permanent is "a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there". It seems reasonable to conclude that the intention when putting up a poster relating to a specific event would be to remove it once the poster is no longer relevant. Where does this idea that if it isn't reused then it would be permanently situated come from?
(ec x 2,reply to Mbz) It isn't possible to describe the poster as an incidental element of the work since it forms the main subject. Adambro (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the poster is the main subject, but does it mean that it was photographed intentionally? According to dictionary "incidental" means "occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation". In other words did photographer tried to take the image of the poster or he just did not think about that at all. I know from my own experience that sometimes I could get incidental and big subjects in my own images without even noticing it before I look at the image on the screen of my computer. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is clear that the poster is the intended subject of this picture. -- Avi (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess we all should agree with Adambro, and delete the image. If later the OTRS ticket is obtained, the image could be restored.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, if it is possible to get OTRS ticket for it?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We would need one from the city of Ramat Gan. -- Avi (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this, and read both the Hebrew and English versions of the copyright law, the more Adambro's point about permanence resonates with me. At this point, I'm thinking my initial understanding was wrong, and actually the opposite applies. If the govt of Ramat Gan leaves the poster up beyond the anniversary year until it gets pretty much ruined, that would indicate peranent placement. However, if they take it down at the end of the year, that may very well be temporary. OK, any commons regular living in Tel-Aviv/Ramat Gan, can y'all call the municipality please? . -- Avi (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I sent a question to the Municipality of Ramat Gan. I am interested to hear their answer on whether they regard this image as a copyright violation. Secondly, Adambro misunderstood my last remark here. I didn't say this poster is going to be left in its current place until it is ruined. I said it would be probably removed once its content became irrelevant. However we interpret "permanently displayed" by the intention of the copyright holder as we understand it by common sense. In this case, it is very reasonable to assume that the Municipality wouldn't mind this tear to pieces or fade in the sun once its content became irrelevant. If there were an ink that faded away once the content of the poster becomes irrelevant, the Municipality of Ramat Gan might as well use it for printing this poster. Therefore, it qualifies as equivalent to the "ice sculpture" example. Drork (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, if they plan on actively taking it down once the anniversary year is over, regardless of its condition, that may just well be "temporary" as Adambro says. The PLACEMENT on the building may be temporary, notwithstanding its quick trip to the garbage afterwards, and so it fails the Section 23 test of
קביעות
. -- Avi (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to Drork if I'd misunderstood your comments. To compare this to the ice sculpture example, both have a limited "natural lifetime" just the ice sculpture's is much shorter due to it melting. Just as if the intention of the creator of the ice sculpture was to leave it until it melts, i.e. it reaches the end of its "natural lifetime", it could be described as permanently situated, if it was intended to be removed before it melted away it would only be temporarily situated. In the case of the poster, if the intention of the creator was to leave it until it was destroyed by nature then it could be described as permanently situated but if it was placed with the intention of removing it before that occurred then it would only be temporarily situated. That is how I relate the ice sculpture example to this poster and how I form the opinion that this, and many other posters, will only be temporarily situated. Adambro (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adambro, we present here two interpretations that are both valid. Actually, the only way this kind of ambiguity can be resolved is looking for court rulings in similar cases. As far as the Israeli jurisdiction is concerned, I think there is no precedence. I am not an expert, nor even a lawyer, but in the past few years, due to my activity in Wikimedia Israel, I learned a bit about the subject, and I don't know of any appeal to an Israeli court about copyright infringement of this kind. As I said earlier, I found some examples of commercially published photograph similar to the one we discuss, and I never heard of complaints on behalf of the copyright holders. In my opinion, if the law can be interpreted in several ways and there is no compelling interpretation by a court or an authorized state official, then we should consider the norms and customs of the place where the photograph was taken. Well, that summarizes my position in such matters, I can't say it is better than yours. It is a question of policy. Drork (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I've just got a response from the Municipality of Ramat-Gan. They are checking under the authority of which department this case falls. Drork (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest that we wait for the municipality. Deror avi (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to rush things, more than happy to wait and see what we hear, any additional information could be helpful. Adambro (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I talked on the phone with the spokeswoman of the Ramat-Gan Municipality. She checked the issue with the legal department and came up with this answer: "if anyone wants to use this image, so be it. We will take no actions against it". I understood from her that they do not mind at all about non-commercial use of the image, and though not thrilled about commercial use, they are not going to do anything to prevent it. Now, I don't know if they will be willing to send a written response, which is a bit more compelling. Also, the answer says nothing about the extent of FoP or a permanent copyright policy of the municipality. It simply means that they have no interest to deal with this issue, and allow us the benefit of the doubt. Drork (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So their answer suggests that this poster is not covered by FOP (otherwise they would have said "there is nothing we can do about it" instead of "we will take no actions against it"). So I'd say  delete unless we get written permission from the municipality through OTRS. –Tryphon☂ 10:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It means nothing of the sort. Neither the city spokeswoman nor its legal department are experts on copyright law, and can be presumed to have neither the knowledge nor the inclination to give a legal opinion on FOP. All it means is that whatever rights they may or may not have, they have no interest in enforcing. Therefore even if we ultimately conclude that FOP doesn't cover objects that are intended to be removed and discarded, this particular image should be kept anyway. -- Zsero (talk) 12:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't acceptable for us to host images on the basis that the copyright holder is unlikely to take legal action per the precautionary principle. If we determine images aren't, or probably aren't, freely licensed then we simply can't host them. Adambro (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it's not that they "probably" won't take legal action; they've said that they won't. The precautionary principle therefore doesn't apply: there is nothing to be precautious about. But of course we still have to resolve the general question, and this response doesn't help either side. -- Zsero (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We still need this in writing, and a bit more precise ("we will take no action against it" is not really a permission; something along the lines of "we are the copyright holders of this poster and we give permission to anyone to use this picture of the poster for any purpose" is what we usually require). –Tryphon☂ 13:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I might not have been precise enough in my phrasing. We had in fact two conversations, because the spokeswoman had to consult the legal department. After consulting with the legal department, the spokeswoman returned to me and told me (and I translate as accurately as possible: "We are not interested in dealing with this issue. This poster was placed in a public place, so if anyone wants to use it, may he enjoy it". "אנחנו לא מעוניינים לעסוק בזה, המודעה נמצאת במקום ציבורי, מי שרוצה להשתמש בה, שיבוּשׂם לו.". This is not like saying "you violated our copyrights but we won't sue you". It is more like saying: "whether we have copyrights or not, we are not going to proclaim them". Now, getting this statement in writing is too much effort (at least for me) and I'd rather see this file deleted than trying to explain what exactly the problem is, and why we need a written letter. To sum it up - we have an oral consent from the copyright holder (somewhat reserved, but still a consent) to have this image here, it is not in writing. As for the FoP principle - we can never be sure whether it applies here. Drork (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I love that phrase שיבוּשׂם לו, which literally means something like "may it be fragrant for him" -- Zsero (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When a Hebrew-speaker uses this phrase, s/he usually means: "I'm not sure whether I like it or not, but I'm going to allow it". Drork (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or, "have fun and don't bother me". Actually, the English idiom closest in both meaning and connotation is "much joy may he have of it". -- Zsero (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete This would would need the permission of the photographer(s) of the two photos in this poster (unless the Municiplality owns all rights). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The municipality owns all possible rights on the poster according to an explicit paragraph in the Israeli copyright law. The photographer who produced this file has already waived its copyrights. The municipality's position is given above. We are not voting now. We are trying to figure out whether this file should stay or go according to the Commons' policy. There is no risk of complaints on behalf of the municipality. Drork (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vague... what explicit paragraph? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know you too well to realize that this is not an innocent question. If you want to flood this discussion with endless pseudo-legal arguments, you won't have my cooperation. Drork (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you were just bluffing about that "explicit paragraph"? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to assume not and would ask that Pieter doesn't make suggestions to the effect that another user was attempting to mislead. Nevertheless, it would be helpful that if Drork is aware of an "explicit paragraph in the Israeli copyright law" that means the municipality holds all the rights that he take the time to highlight the paragraph. Adambro (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, and I am not going to get into a sideline legal discussion about this, we are talking about paragraph 36, which determines that the State of Israel is the first owner of the copyrights on any work created by an employee of a statutory institution for the purpose of his/her work or in the course of his/her work, and on any work ordered by the state. The Municipality of Ramat-Gan is a statutory institution. The normal procedure is that the legal department of the relevant statutory institution manages the copyright issues, according to standard instructions periodically published on behalf of the state's Attorney General. There is a possibility of a special contract in which the state agrees to leave the copyrights at the hands of the artist. Had it been the case here, the municipality's spokeswoman would have told me that in our conversation over the phone. I trust she would have never misled me to think the municipality owned the copyrights (in principle, regardless of FoP considerations) had there been a special contract. Drork (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted (again). Reading through the discussion, the issue of "temporary" vs "permanent" is not clear (and "temporary" seems more likely), so we should follow the precautionary principle and not allow the image under Israeli FOP. Therefore, a release from the copyright holder (presumably the Municipality) is required. The phone correspondence is interesting, but for an image to be hosted on Commons "it requires the owner to provide a specific release under a suitably free license, which allows anyone to use them for any purpose, including commercial usage and derivative works" [quote from the relevant OTRS reply]. Saying that "not thrilled about commercial use, they are not going to do anything to prevent it" is not actually granting permission to use it for commercial purposes and there is no mention of derivatives. The file can be restored if we can get a release from the municipality through OTRS (Commons:Email templates] should help with that).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about this alot, and I agree with you. It is more "temporary" than "permanent". Deror avi (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:PikiWiki_Israel_3557_Gan-Shmuel_sb14-_1.jpg

[edit]

This is a weird collage; not in use; does not seem to be in scope. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not in scope - historical image of the people of the vilage. Deror avi (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not in use, I cannot see any educational purpose.  Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in use now, but it could easily be used in an article about Gan Shmuel. It's a charming photo of village life in the 1950s. -- Zsero (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same photo of the fish but mirrored is at File:PikiWiki Israel 1628 Kibutz Gan-Shmuel sk21- 184 גן-שמואל-דייג מים ודג 1960-5.jpg. This image here is a photo of a photomontage. Probably some internal kibbutz joke. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Did you read the description of this image? It explains exactly what this is, and it's a perfectly reasonable explanation. Strong keep. -- Zsero (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the image. This project's scope is wide enough. Drork (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to close the discussion and keep. -- Zsero (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, out of Project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tai_Situ_Rinpoche.jpg

[edit]

want to upload better qualitiy Nyinje1 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment You can use the link "Upload a new version of this file" on the image page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment. Something weird is going on here. File:Tai Situ Rinpoche.jpg was uploaded as own work by User:Nyinje1. A downscaled version was uploaded at File:KTSitu Rinpoche.jpg the next day and claimed as own work by User:Sherab1180. The latter should certainly be deleted, but I'm not sure what to do with the former. Pruneautalk 11:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, seems genuine (if you want to upload a better quality, us the "upload a new version of this file"-link). Kameraad Pjotr 20:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tai Situ Rinpoche.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Jarekt alt as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copied from https://www.ksdl.org/our-teachers The image was uploaded to Commons in 2009. It is unlikely that the abovementioned page existed in 2009; the oldest archived version I found is from 2020. The webpage does not provide server date information for files. IMO, we need some pre-2009 cource for applying NETCOPYVIO Ankry (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankry Claimed "own work", but credited to Lama Palmo / www.palpung.eu. Do you know what's going on there? Brianjd (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I missed this information. This needs at least an explanation via VRT. Speedying. Ankry (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ankry (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pericles_estatua_en_avda_Athinas01.JPG

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 08:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the sculptor and/or when was the statue erected? --Túrelio (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Heinrich Faltermeier (1909-1999), so  Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. We still don't know what the Greek law is referring to exactly by "occasional" reproduction.--The daydreamer (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The article §26 of the Greek Copyright Law establishes that: The occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media of images of architectural works, fine art works, photographs or works of applied art, which are sited permanently in a public place, shall be permissible, without the consent of the author and without payment. Dorieo (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The interpretation of "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" as it is perceived in Greece, allows for this use. Photos of any kind of public places are freely and widely use in any kind of media. Even more this is a public monument (in a public place), belonging to the Greek state and its cultural value is freely available to all people. --Dorieo (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pericles_estatua_en_avda_Athinas01.JPG

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece Iconoclast (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The article §26 of the Greek Copyright Law establishes that: The occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media of images of architectural works, fine art works, photographs or works of applied art, which are sited permanently in a public place, shall be permissible, without the consent of the author and without payment. Dorieo (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia is not occasional and is not mass media. Iconoclast (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The interpretation of "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" as it is perceived in Greece, allows for this use. Photos of any kind of public places are freely and widely use in any kind of media. Even more this is a public monument (in a public place), belonging to the Greek state and its cultural value is freely available to all people. --Dorieo (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Tiptoety talk 05:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pericles_estatua_en_avda_Athinas01.JPG

[edit]

No freedom of paranormal in Greece Iconoclast (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Statue by Heinrich Faltermeier (1909-1999). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Per COM:FOP#Greece. –Tryphon☂ 15:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Areios_Pagos_courthouse.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of Panorama i Greece 77.49.26.65 07:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's just a square building! Is he going to request deletion for the supermarket next to my house too?! --The daydreamer (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Not justa square building. Windows, pillars, tile placement are all specific architecture to the building and under copyright without knowing the date of the architect's death. -- Avi (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lambeti_theater.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 07:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Maybe should be deleted because of the poster, but the building seems rather common. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Scroll-work on building facade makes this more than just a block of concrete. -- Avi (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:PEAN_memorial_plaque.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panoArma in Greece 77.49.26.65 07:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Memorial for a 1942 event (I now notified uploader). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This is hardly a work of art - it is just a memorial plaque. --FocalPoint (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Memorial plaques are still copyrightable and useful FoP in Greece. -- Avi (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:DamaskinosStatue200509_CopyrightKaihsuTai.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 08:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the sculptor and/or when was the statue erected? --Túrelio (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pedestal has a 1949 date, modern sculture,  Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody know when works of art in Greece become PD? --Túrelio (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Must be the same as the rest of the EU: 70 years after the artist's death. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference: Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Greece. This is a crazy law, but it is the law nonetheless. Sigh. – Kaihsu Tai (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Georgios_Theotokis_statue_in_Corfu.JPG

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 08:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the sculptor and/or when was the statue erected? --Túrelio (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Name of sculptor: Georgios Dimitriades. Article: Art in Corfu until the 40’s.. Quote: "Nevertheless, during the first decades of the 20th century, public sculptures are mounted, mainly honorary busts, in areas of Corfu town. These come directly from Athenian workshops.", "Nevertheless, during the first decades of the 20th century, public sculptures are mounted, mainly honorary busts, in areas of Corfu town. These come directly from Athenian workshops. It is thus noted that commissions are now placed to other centres, capable to serve the needs of the local society, needs no longer covered by the local artists. It is at this precise time that busts of Nikolaos Halikiopoulos-Mantzaros and Petros Vrailas-Armenis by Evanghelos Kallos, the bust of Lorentzos Mavilis by Petros Roubos, the bust of Nicolaos Mantzaros, by Michael Tombros, the statue of Georgios Theotokis by Georgios Dimitriadis and the Memorial of the Fallen by Vasos Falireas, are all mounted in Corfu town." and "In most cases, these works are within the boundaries of the classic style. The statue of Georgios Theotokis, mounted on a pedestal emphasizes its distance from the spectator and attempts an idealistic impression of the person, following faithfully the classic principle."Dr.K. (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am against cancellation. It is almost 70 years, so PD.--The daydreamer (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commons isn't a collection of almost free content. The point is that it has not been 70 years since the author died. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Will enter the public domain on 1/1/2012. Two more years. -- Avi (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good news story. Thank you for the information. Dr.K. (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pericles_estatua_en_avda_Athinas.JPG

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 08:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the sculptor and/or when was the statue erected? --Túrelio (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Faltermeier, probably Heinrich, dead 1999, so  Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The article §26 of the Greek Copyright Law establishes that: The occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media of images of architectural works, fine art works, photographs or works of applied art, which are sited permanently in a public place, shall be permissible, without the consent of the author and without payment. Dorieo (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Now it is December, time to delete greek bullsit. Iconoclast (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pericles_estatua_en_avda_Athinas.JPG

[edit]

No freedom of Panorama in Greece Iconoclast (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The article §26 of the Greek Copyright Law establishes that: The occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media of images of architectural works, fine art works, photographs or works of applied art, which are sited permanently in a public place, shall be permissible, without the consent of the author and without payment. Dorieo (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia is not occasional and is not mass media. Iconoclast (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete I interpret "occasional reproduction" as de minimis only, and unfortunately the restriction to the undefined "mass media" is too much for us,
The interpretation of "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" as it is perceived in Greece, allows for this use. Photos of any kind of public places are freely and widely use in any kind of media. Even more this is a public monument (in a public place), belonging to the Greek state and its cultural value is freely available to all people. Dorieo (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is this user apparently unwilling to wait for the lawyers to complete their research into the topic, but he is again submitting many images in the same day for speedy deletion, in spite of the fact that he has been asked not to while the Freedom of Panorama issue is being settled. See [9] and User_talk:Iconoclast. -- ArielGlenn (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Not in PD until 2070. -- Avi (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:National_Glyptotheque_of_Greece,_Goudi_-_Athens,_May_2007.JPG

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 08:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. We still don't know what the Greek law is referring to exactly by "occasional" reproduction.--The daydreamer (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Occasional reproduction is very unlikely to include publication as postcards. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:National_Glyptotheque_of_Greece,_Goudi_-_Athens,_May_2007.JPG

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece. Iconoclast (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama#Greece. The user who submitted the deletion nomination was asked to wait until folks got some research back from the lawyers, instead of forcing people to reply on 25 separate pages a day. -- ArielGlenn (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2009/07/05&oldid=34056881"