Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/07/12
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Non educational, personal image Backslash Forwardslash (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep Image appears to be within scope and is in use here. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)- Keep Image of a celebrity + free image = is of use to Wikipedia. Wikignome0529 (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept In use on en-wiki. Sv1xv (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
No evidence the painting is in the public domain. It was painted in 1929 for it to be PD the painter would have to have to have died no later than 1939, there is no evidence of this. Polly (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete Unfortunately, the nominator is right. --Korman (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment This discussion would also apply to File:MariaGoretti.jpg, another photo of the same painting by unidentified artist. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)- Painter was Giuseppe Brovelli-Soffredini[1], see signature bottom right. However, his life dates are a bit more complicated:
- 1867-1939
- born 1867-08-18
- born 1863-03-16, died 1936-11-26 (offical website of his hometown)
- died before 1938 from Guerri, Giordano Bruno: Zwei Arme Schweine auf dem Weg zum Himmel - Wie Maria Goretti zur katholischen heiligen wurde, ISBN 3894845031. (Original: Povera Santa, Povero Assassino - La vera storia di Maria Goretti, Mondadori 1985, still available as ISBN 8845261026.)
- Given that 1936 seems to be just as likely as 1939, and even if 1939, the image would be OK in half a year, I'd say let's Keep this. Lupo 15:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Be bold Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe that this image originates from here which says copyright 2007 at the bottom of the web page. This suggests it is a copy vio unfortunately. Leoboudv (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete In addition the permission statement of in wikipedia does not imply a license free enough for Commons. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is not a copy vio. the permission was granted to wikipedia by CMPV, the owner of the picture, and was not copied from a website, was delivered to me via email when I asked for it, and there's the email listed with it, from which the picture comes from. Although, I wont care if the picture is deleted in wikipedia, because some of you are more papist than the pope and it gets annoying, and I started using my own shot (because it does better its job than this one). hugs --PedroPVZ (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- furthermore the permission is "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5". so please stop speaking random stuff. -PedroPVZ (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment There is no permission message given. So, there is no way to verify the license in this situation, I think. I wish there was a higher resolution image of this marina to replace this low resolution image but I don't see any on Commons. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Since PedroPVZ seems to be a reputable uploader, I withdraw my nomination and assume good faith here. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No (OTRS) permission; not specific enough in any case. –Tryphon☂ 13:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
This is Eduard Szekesi's only flickr image on Commons and I don't see any evidence his images were licensed freely. Even at the first failed flickr review, there were NC and ND restrictions. Leoboudv (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet the requirements of COM:L. The image license has become even more strict as its currently licensed as All Rights Reserved on Flickr. Could be speedy perhaps?--Captain-tucker (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Unused image and out of project scope. Tabercil (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity picture of a non-notable person. Related article was deleted on enwiki for the same reasons. --Latebird (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of COM:SCOPE. Sv1xv (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The last time this image was reviewed, it was licensed as 'ARR.' Since this is marieta pide pan's only flickr image on Commons, I think it is a copy vio. If not, there should be a few more images from this person's flickr account. But there is nothing. Leoboudv (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, Does not meet the requirements of COM:L, would think this could be speedy deleted. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 12:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Foto was unfree when last reviewed by flickr. Likely should not be kept here. Korman (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. unfree deleted Flickr image with no proof it was ever free. Huib talk 08:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Wrong license. Picasso died 1973. SvonHalenbach (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Platonides (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Underpopulated category with other categories that could be used (create the category when it becomes necessary). –blurpeace (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Finding things is the issue, not how many members there are to a category. Especially rare and scarce theme ressourcces are between hard to impossible to find, when not properly categorized. Remember also, that for non-English readers the upcoming multilingual category tree may most often be the only way of access to items of a given subject matter here. --93.131.41.27 15:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Contrary to Wikipedias, we accept low-populated categories as long as they are relevant, which is the case here. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
MPEG4 video file uploaded with a ".jpg" suffix. Unused. Subject unclear: only description given is "it shows the talent of the beautiful teachers of Ragay", video shows women in colorful costumes dancing to percussion music on a basketball court. Without knowing what this video actually shows, it's hard to think of an educational use for it. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
wrong file format, useles without description Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Just another not in use penis Huib talk 08:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No penis! --Leoboudv (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Wrong license. Pablo Picasso died 1973. Lupo 08:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Platonides (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Wrong license. Pablo Picasso died 1973. Lupo 08:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Platonides (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
illogical hypothesis, insulting delineate for living people Sysywjel (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per we've already have the proper template on the description page. And please remember to add this to Commons:Deletion requests/2009/07/12.--Jimmy xu wrk (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Don't try to delete featured images based on a whim or on your morals. The commons community will not tolerate it. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Speedy kept please use AGF Huib talk 11:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The license stated is {{Attribution}}, yet the author is given as ‘unknown’, and no indication is given as to who holds the copyright. This seems not to add up. --Ian Spackman (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete If this is the official portrait of Arcangelo Tadini during Beatification and Canonization as its listed on en:Arcangelo Tadini then it would have been made somewhere in the 2000's. So the artist would still hold copyright. Would need proof of {{Attribution}} via COM:OTRS to keep. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence of claimed copyright status. Sv1xv (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Alberto Marvelli was born in 1918 and died in 1946. The license stated is PD-old, but no evidence is given that the (unknown) author of this image died 70 years ago. --Ian Spackman (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a nother low quility penis. We have much better image of this. and its not in use anywhere. Huib talk 11:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
bad derivative of File:Positionskartenerstellung - Signaturvorlage ru.svg--Bandar Lego (talk) 10:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Creator requested, unusedNilfanion (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The renewed and good-named image was uploaded. PLS set any bot to changing the images on different wikis --Zac allan (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, i didn't put the name of the new file, here it is.
- Zac allan (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
.png){kind=logo}
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 21:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Given the uploader's history, I find it difficult to assume good faith with respect to the authorship claims. I haven't been able to find where this was taken from, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
deleted, notorious uploader of copyvios --Polarlys (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
No author ; No encyclopedic value ; Out of project scope --Civa (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep In use. It is own work by the uploader. --Simonxag (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept, in use and actually useful. This picture represents a map of the en:6th arrondissement of Paris, a residential and wealthy district. The graffiti on the billboard reads "93, the administrative number of en:Seine-Saint-Denis, a rather poor suburb of Paris. It can illustrate civil unrest in France. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
(picture did not load) --Dincher (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Túrelio ("File page without media: content was: '{{speedy|no content}}'"). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
(picture did not load) --Dincher (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Since that's more of an obvious case, I tagged the image with {{speedy|no content}}, because I couldn't see why this needs to be discussed in a DR. Admins: If that's not allowed, please let me know. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for provided the template for speedy no content. I will probably have to use it for other flickr uploads that don't load. Dincher (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: File page without media: content was: '{{speedy|no content, DR is obvious enough, IMO}} {{delete|REASON(picture did not load)}</nowiki>}'.
self created artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Out of Scope Huib talk 19:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No educational value. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Out of Scope Huib talk 19:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No educational value. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Out of Scope Huib talk 19:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete It is the incomprehensible Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan project. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No educational value. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems that this image is imporplery tagged. It is obviously a screen capture of the TV series "Scrubs", meaning that it is not "ineligible for copyright". At best this is a fair use image that does not belong on Commons. Its only use on the English Wikipedia was in the article on High Fives, which would also be a violation of fair use policy there. Nick (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
the license is a problem. Source ("owner") is a criminal "non-profit-organisation" in canada: classiques.uqac.ca more in talk of this picture Onkel Karlchen (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - nonsensical deletion request. The image is of course {{PD-Old}}, and the uploader is not the author, but that can easily be fixed. --Latebird (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
the license is a problem. the "owner" is "classique.uquac.ca" see talk Onkel Karlchen (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - nonsensical deletion request. The image is of course {{PD-Old}}, and the uploader is not the author, but that can easily be fixed. --Latebird (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism --Воскресенский Петр (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The user added this to my talk page "It is frank vandalism. The inscription on the poster is altered - the slander there is written--Воскресенский Петр (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)". I can't read the text on the images and would prefer an admin that could read the text closed the DR. --MGA73 (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It's photoshopped attack image. Text on banner: "Death to russians!!! More murders" (Смерть русне!!! Больше убийств). Original text (link): "Your silence -- justification for murders" (Ваше молчание -- оправдание убийств). And possible copyvio, see this link. Trycatch (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Shown pictures might be copyrighted, Commons:Derivative works. --Noddy93 (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 02:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Why should this image be in the pd? Not even the author is given... --Chaddy (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- It may fall in a certain time-frame when works are considered PD. The original author is probably lost to time, and is simply today an anonymous photographer. I suggest retaining the image on an historical basis. Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Say the picture was taken in the 1910s (the Dying Swan was created in 1905); if the photographer lived for 40 years after that, he died in the 1950s and his work is protected until the 2020s. The picture could fall under {{PD-RusEmpire}}, but we have no proof of that since Pavlova performed in many countries and was pictured by non-Russian photographers (see here a German postcard, also on Pavlova as the Dying Swan). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This image is in use on a lot of merchandise; are their images from here? Anyway, Time Life has this mounted original postcard portrait which they do not know anything about. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept - certainly pre-1923, possibly {{PD-RusEmpire}}, license changed to {{PD-anon-70}} (non-admin closure). //Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Licensing not reasonable. I highly doubt that the author/copyright holder is jazzbows.com -- ShaggeDoc talk? 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep "Price 50c" but no copyright notice. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, almost certainly a copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 21:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Images by Basitraja
[edit]User:Basitraja (contribution has uploaded multiple non educational images of persons. I request the deletion of all his uploads except the ones that are of educational value.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Two images of Category:Gulyana kept, they might have educational value. Mormegil (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
FOP dubious: not from public area (house or something) [[ Forrester ]] 09:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think that COM:FOP has anything to do with this image since its not a permanent display.--Captain-tucker (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I do not know more than this, might look up in a comment on the law [[ Forrester ]] 21:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - It's obviously in a public place, but not a permanent installation. Forrester's link says that application of FOP for vehicles is not entirely clear, but legal opinions tend to accept it. Current Commons practise is to keep such images, if they show the vehicle as a complete vehicle, and not just a cropped out paintwork detail. --Latebird (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
based on Forresters argument and like Latebird Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why this was kept. FOP doesn't apply, and the artwork is far from accessory. If the point is to illustrate this type of truck, it's surely not that hard to find one without copyrighted graphics. –Tryphon☂ 20:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete I think the subject of the picture is the artwork. --Simonxag (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. DW, FOP does not apply. --Eusebius (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Unnecesary image 81.38.86.121 23:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment No reason for deletion! However definitely the wrong licence!! --D-Kuru (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is the wrong license. GFDL would work if it were properly credited (like, to MediaWiki and/or Wikimedia Commons). About it being unnecessary, COM:SCOPE considers it educational if it's being used in a Wikimedia project, which it is at Spanish Wikipedia. -kotra (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Keep and change license to GFDL. --GRuban (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm unable to see any image 88.12.252.237 11:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Seems to be OK now. --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept, see no problem. Kameraad Pjotr 21:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Unnecessary image, most people knows how to specify the licenses 88.12.252.237 11:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Seems to be used on a userpage to explain commons licenses. --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per Mbdortmund. Kameraad Pjotr 21:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
NPG images protected by the URAA
[edit]- File:Arthur James Balfour, 1st Earl of Balfour, William Henry Grenfell, Baron Desborough by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Reginald Brabazon, 12th Earl of Meath by Sir William Orpen.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Abdülmecid II with his family.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Gustav Holst by Herbert Lambert.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Abdülmecid II (1931).JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:A school of untouchables near Bangalore by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Arthur David Waley by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Cosmo Lang.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Agnes Mure Mackenzie by Bassano.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
These images uploaded from the National Portrait Gallery (NPG), London's website, according to the available date information, are or may be protected in the United States under the URAA. Although the URAA has been contested, in light of the existing legal battle with the NPG, I believe it is unwise to fight a battle on two fronts, and/or to give them any reason to pursue action in the United States. For the protection of all involved I'm (once again) suggesting their deletion. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The images should be deleted as soon as possible. They are under the current US law and the URAA agreement act against the law. We can't rely on the "Golan v. Gonzales" case to stand against the URAA, unless the board decides to do so of course.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Dcoetzee: In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arthur James Balfour, 1st Earl of Balfour; William Henry Grenfell, Baron Desborough by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg you wrote:"please re-upload under your name if you want to restore it." Which Yann did. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- In light of the NPG's suit, I've changed my mind. I believe that action exposes me, Yann, and the Foundation to serious legal risk. It's not difficult for NPG to trace some of these images to me and I need to consolidate my defense. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Dcoetzee. I don't think the URAA in its entirety has been contested -- the copyright restorations are required by Berne. I think the ruling was that the law went beyond Berne's requirements, and that the liability of people already using such works (the "reliance parties") should be reduced, but not that the entire URAA restorations be thrown out. Subsequent uses likely aren't helped by the Golan ruling -- they would be straight-up copyright infringements. Anyways, since these are against policy, and also because of legitimate request by uploader, I think they should be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. In view of the current developments surrounding the NPG, I take the liberty to close this already as per Carl. Lupo 15:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Offers no intellectual value. Crude image. 69.86.72.74 11:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Come on... It is in use... --MGA73 (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use, so useful. Sex relate images should not be assumed to be of no value. --Simonxag (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:HardttcoreEatsIndoMiMiPussy-1.JPG (2nd nom)
[edit]
It' PORN! 189.49.119.63 03:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure): Was discussed above already. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:HardttcoreEatsIndoMiMiPussy-1.JPG (3rd nom)
[edit]
Unlikely to be {{own}}. Author listed as "hardttcore". Looks like account has uploaded nothing but copyrighted porn and would need valid source and COM:OTRS at least. --Wknight94 talk 19:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Own not unlikely (see Pieter Kuiper arg)--DieBuche (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep see Commons:Deletion requests/File:IndoMiMiPussyCream-1.jpg; nominator, please consider mass DRs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep in use on da:WP, and a valid illustration of cunnilingus. However, I'd be grateful if closing admin could rename the image to something more useful, informing the projects using the image of the name change. Description text needs work too. --JN466 21:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment I checked all three images uploaded by the user in Tineye; Tineye found no matches for any of them. Metadata of the cameras used would be consistent with these pictures having been taken by the user, and I would be prepared to AGF (unless there is a long history of deleted copyvios that I can't see). --JN466 21:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept Feel free to improve the description text and propose better image name. Infrogmation (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
There's no evidence it was published before 1923, so more information is required to assume it's in the public domain. NE2 (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- It says Pre1907 on the caption, refer back to enwiki? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Pre-1907 is when it was created, which means nothing with respect to copyright (except indirectly as imposing a rough upper bound of around 2000 on the death of the author). --NE2 (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've also added an e-mail address that leads to a member of the history department of the Patchogue-Medford Library for more information. I don't know why you never considered using it before tagging the image for deletion. In any case, I've written to the Patchogue-Medford Library myself to request some pre-1923 publication dates, and I'm still waiting for a reply. ----DanTD (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Here's another link that proves this bridge was built in 1907, which means the image was taken before then. ----DanTD (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- You don't understand; the date the photo was taken has no bearing on its copyright status. We need to know when it was published. --NE2 (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you had read my earlier post, you'd see that I do understand. Why won't you write to Patchogue-Medford Library for more info, if you haven't done so already. The address is right there in the image description. ----DanTD (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's not up to us to prove that the image you uploaded is public domain. --NE2 (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you are the one who is casting doubts about whether it is or not. ----DanTD (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's not up to us to prove that the image you uploaded is public domain. --NE2 (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you had read my earlier post, you'd see that I do understand. Why won't you write to Patchogue-Medford Library for more info, if you haven't done so already. The address is right there in the image description. ----DanTD (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- You don't understand; the date the photo was taken has no bearing on its copyright status. We need to know when it was published. --NE2 (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Here's another link that proves this bridge was built in 1907, which means the image was taken before then. ----DanTD (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've also added an e-mail address that leads to a member of the history department of the Patchogue-Medford Library for more information. I don't know why you never considered using it before tagging the image for deletion. In any case, I've written to the Patchogue-Medford Library myself to request some pre-1923 publication dates, and I'm still waiting for a reply. ----DanTD (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Pre-1907 is when it was created, which means nothing with respect to copyright (except indirectly as imposing a rough upper bound of around 2000 on the death of the author). --NE2 (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom.--Trixt (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
