Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/07/15
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.JPG){kind=link}
This file clearly comes from http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/leute/0,1518,grossbild-800413-471847,00.html and is unfree - copyright violation on Flickr and also a part of the users Flickr set "Favorite Shots I Did Not Take (Set)". All uploads by this Flickr user needs a review probably. Martin H. (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete: clear case of Flickr-washing. Christopher Macsurak's images warrant a check as well. Jappalang (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by High Contrast: Copyright violation
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No evidence museum concerned gave permission for photography Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept (speedily). Museum permissions and similar stuff do not affect copyright. Sv1xv (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Circuit board design/ product Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept No copyright problem per COM:CB. Copyright paranoia or disruptive editing. Sv1xv (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Sourced to British Library , No indication of permission from that archive ( Nomination because of the NPG issue) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept (speedily) No permission is needed, per WMF policy. {{PD-scan}} applies. Sv1xv (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Per apparent policy - Nom Withdrawn. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
"pretty much free to use for press and such as far as I'm concerned" does not explicitely mention derivative works and the freedom to redistribute as a standalone work. Teofilo (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete File was deleted and uploaded again. No real information about its copyrigt status. An OTRS message was promissed in February 2009 but the OTRS did not receive it. Sv1xv (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Tryphon: re-uploaded after deletion; still no permission
This seems to be a copyvio - Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Abigor: In category Copyright violations; not edited for 1 days
Typo in filename Dh3201 (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: duplicate or a scaled down version of File:HLE 1206 Schellebelle 2.jpg
this is simply an identical copy of copyrighted logo. As such licensing info given is invalid. --Wjemather (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Political poster in Germany. Not "permanenly located". Nicht bleibend - keine Panoramafreiheit Teofilo (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- To bad. --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 21:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Image of product - Product design may be protected Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes but not by copyright. Our main concern on Commons is copyright and copyright law does not apply to "useful articles" at least in the United States : Commons:applied arts#cars & chairs. Teofilo (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Products aren't protected by copyright. Other protection rights like patents, trademarks, registered designs, etc. are not relevant for Commons. --Latebird (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)- Keep Not an artwork. --Simonxag (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
PD art - but lacks sourcing other than to Wikipedia. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Nom withdrawn following IRC disscusion. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
FOP in Germany - only covers exterior Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - FOP is irrelevant here, as the Moorish Kiosk was built in 1867, the architect de:Carl von Diebitsch died in 1869, and all possible copyright protection on the building and its decoration has long since expired. --Latebird (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Model - presumably in private attraction - Does FOP cover this? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- How does a faithful (if scaled down) reproduction of existing buildings establish a copyright of its own? --Latebird (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Artistic cratfmanship in the modellers skill. I am prepared to accept that as it's on display FOP would cover it. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- In fact, COM:FOP#Austria is unusually liberal, and covers photographs taken from publicly accessible private property, as seems to be the case here. In other words, we can Keep without worrying whether the models are eligible for copyright in the first place. --Latebird (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- In fact, COM:FOP#Austria is unusually liberal, and covers photographs taken from publicly accessible private property, as seems to be the case here. In other words, we can
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Only sourced to Wikipedia Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nom withdrawn. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope: just a phrase «This work is dedicated to my mother who brought me up and to Egypt who taught me...» etc., etc. Abanima (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Sign Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Withdrawn nom. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Only sourced to Wikipedia Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Withdrawn nom Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
No sourcing - (NB this appears to be a transfer from when Commons helper had issues - Suggest checking enwiki logs) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nom withdrawn Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Only sourced to Wikipeda ( This may be a transfer from when Commons Helper had issues) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nom withdrawn Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Renominate. Image is still unsourced. Uploader on en:W was notified and asked for info back in July. --Infrogmation (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Looks very pre-1923 to me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Anybody can easily tell that the image is pre-1923 but I don't recall the source (likely a photo I took of an exhibit at the Yosemite museum or an outside display). So I just uploaded File:Automobile in Yosemite Valley in 1914.jpeg, which has a known date, author and source. In short, I don't really care what happens to File:Early automobile in Yosemite Valley.jpeg now. --Mav (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No information on author or soure. --Martin H. (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama for monuments in Russia. Installed after 1982. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 21:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Although the diagram is self created - It could be considered to be based on/derived from the original loco designer(Charles Collet)'s design, He did not die until 1952 so the design on which this may be based is not out of copyright until 2022) ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I dont think you can copyright a design. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 14:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep You must submit more evidence to nominate it for deletion as derivative work. Without it this DR is only disruptive editing. Sv1xv (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- A 'self-created' drawing of a UK loco would be fine if it were of an older loco whose designers had died
prior to 1926.
The loco designer of the specfic loco class shown did not, so there may be elements of the loco design that are down to the designer concerned. The issues in contention are :
- Are there 'artistic' elements in a loco design (in particular the specfic one shown)?
- Does the image nominated include those 'artistic' elements?
- Would the designer in any case hold the copyright in the design given that it was presumably made for the
Great Western Railway? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nom withdrawn pending fuller discussion on this elsewhere. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Superseded with File:AutoCAD drawing of a Great Western King.png (27. Juli 2010) — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 00:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC) changed 00:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Isn't the older version needed for source attribution? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think it is. Jcb (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Kept: for proper attribution. --Jcb (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- definitely not PD --Simeon87 (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Google wordmark.png --AVRS (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Should be the same result as the above-mentioned DR. Probably not copyrightable, but it is impossible to prove that there wasn't hand-tuning on the shading pattern, and that may be reason enough to delete (especially as this is a high-profile logo). Without the shading is definitely OK, or a user-recreated shading would also be OK, but possibly not the version downloaded directly from Google. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Possible Copyio - Tineye gives 6 hits for this... mainly news sites Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep Image taken, in my opinion by the uploader. Image is embeeded with exif. Of the 6 hits, 5 tineye hits show a cropped picture of this one (or its source if indeed is a copyrigh violation), the other is equal but 5 times smaller and from a blog. The sites, where tineye shows the hits (all cropped), three are vietnamise news sites, in one doesnt mention its source and another in korean mentions "ⓒ Wikimedia Commons".
I havent found the image on the others websites but from my argumentation above, and if nothing on the contrary appears i say this file can bee keep. Tm (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also on Corbis and Getty Images there are several images of the same event but non as the same as this one. Tm (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- And here in commons there is 2 images (this and this sourced from here), where there is a clear statement about their author (Matthew Yohe) and license (CC-BY 3.0), the same author as stated on this image (also the user who uploaded this to the en wikipedia has a similar username), requested to be deleted, and all 3 images where taken with a Canon 20D. Tm (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Thanks, Tm, for the detective work. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Video game Screenshot and artwork - Highly unlikley to be out of copyright Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 21:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Inadequate licensing information. Abraham Del Pozo is not identified as the photographer or owner, and whatever legal release is not shared on page. Make and model of talkbox is not specified. --Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 21:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
not in the project scope, terrible quality Mbdortmund (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete agree with above, quality not good. 64andy (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep We do not have many images of this act so the image is useful. Project scope does cover sexual acts (as well as all other subjects) and the Commons is not censored. --Simonxag (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Terrible quality, no apparent value for the project. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 21:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
This is not an Ogg file, but a Microsoft ASF file with v1 DRM. It plays just fine on Windows Media Player, but I have so far been unable to remove the DRM to allow it to be converted to a free format. Any help would be welcome. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Info Just to clarify, I did not nominate this file for deletion. 84.44.154.120 (talk · contribs) added a deletion tag to the file without giving a reason, and MGA73 (talk · contribs) completed the nomination using a comment I had left earlier on the file description page as the "reason". Personally I feel that, since it may still be possible to fix this file, we should Keep it for the time being. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)- SORRY! Thanks for correcting my mistake. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Info Anyway, I finally managed to convert the file to Ogg Vorbis myself, using Audacity and these instructions. I think this request can probably be closed now.(?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Although Switzerland allows freedom of panorama for permanently installed 2D works of art, it seems unlikely this advertisement for a buffet is going to be 10–20 years running. Jappalang (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC) this is not a permanently installed outdoor artwork.
- I tried to look carefully at the bottom of the panel to see if it can easily be removed from the ground or if it is fixed with bolts, but I remain clueless on this question.
- Perhaps they can change the food prices (are these prices in the first place rather than working hours? 12.50 could be 12 francs 50 cents or 10 minutes to 1 PM ?) without needing to delete the picture. Teofilo (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
It's the prices, it's Franken and Rappen. You're right, the ad was taken in, I wasn't sure if I'd use this on the ETH Zurich wikipedia entry, I won't so it's fine if you remove it. No sense to keep media when not used in articles... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gürkan Sengün (talk • contribs) 04:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
- Well, Sengün clarified that it is not a permanent installation ("the ad was taken in"), so it cannot qualify for FoP then. Jappalang (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not permanently installed in a public space, hence COM:FOP#Switzerland doesn't apply. –Tryphon☂ 07:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope, non notable band, collage is not usefull in any context and the origin of the parts of the collages, photos and other artwork is questionable. Martin H. (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 07:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I can not find the CC license at the source. In any case I would keep this images as {{PD-ineligible}}. ALE! ¿…? 09:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment Right now there this link that says "You are permitted (and welcome) to use any of the contents of this website but please acknowledge the source of any such information.", but no addressing derivatives use but digging in the internet archive that appears the same page, dated from 27 of October, 2007,with the same wording except in a file where it says "You are permitted to change the file for your purposes, but please acknowledge the source.". Maybe if someone contacts them through OTRS, they might license their materials as CC-BY-SA or CC-BY. Tm (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept as {{PD-text}}. –Tryphon☂ 07:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Questionable claims of authorship. Can be found online in higher resolution, for example here and here. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
My apologies, unfortunately i thought that ancient busts and statues as well as public journalist pictures and company logos could be used by anyone. I understand now, that it is not so on Wikipedia. I will not upload any more pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustus emp (talk • contribs) 10:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Right, the problem in this case is that although the sculpture itself might no longer be protected by copyright, photographing it involves creative decision-making with respect to angle and lighting for example, so unless it is your own work (meaning unless you are the photographer), you cannot issue a valid license for the work. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not own work and no permission. –Tryphon☂ 13:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
We've had problems with users persistently Flickrwashing of Angel Locsin images in the past, and this Flickr uploader has plenty of uploads which clearly are not their own (different cameras, very varying quality, some still have bylines or watermarks). —LX (talk, contribs) 16:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just to be clear: I don't think the Commons uploader is a sockpuppet of previous Flickrwashers. The usage patterns are pretty different. I think in this case, the Commons uploader got tricked by a Flickr account that's not a good source, that's all. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Untrusted flickr user, web resolution image... likely a copyright violation. –Tryphon☂ 13:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
does not seem to meet any of the criteria on the PD-Russia tag that would make it PD 24.61.11.153 17:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete I can not judge validity of PD-Russia but it is a low quality copy of File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-121-0011A-22, Polen, Siegesparade, Guderian, Kriwoschein.jpg and should be deleted as a duplicate. --Jarekt (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Tentative support provided all instances of use are replaced. Preferably we should created a cropped version of the BB picture to replace this one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete Not puvlic domain 79.103.27.251 18:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. I re-uploaded a crop from File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-121-0011A-22, Polen, Siegesparade, Guderian, Kriwoschein.jpg and changed the license to {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-de}}. –Tryphon☂ 14:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Trademark Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Published without copyright notice. See alse discussion page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept per Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:CGConn Logo.JPG (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
No FOP for artworks in the US. –Tryphon☂ 07:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: when was this "sculpture" erected? According to Christina VanGinkel, she grew up, cycling past Big John often in her youth. That would hint of a 20+-year existence. If the sculpture bears a copyright notice (and if necessary was renewed), then this would be a copyright violation (no FoP). If not, "Big John" is in public domain and FoP would not matter... Jappalang (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought there could be some reason for the sculpture to be PD, that's why I did a DR rather than a speedy deletion. It would be nice to have more information about when and by whom the sign was built. –Tryphon☂ 09:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I found its mention (and a photo) in American Motorcyclist (Feb 1992), so at least we know it is definitely erected before this date. If it was up before March 1989, it needs a copyright notice to ensure protection. If later than that, it is automatically copyrighted. Jappalang (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note that according to this page the sign dates from the early 1960s. Given that the same page states it's been repainted many times, it is unlikely that any original (c) notice still exists. Peripitus (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I found its mention (and a photo) in American Motorcyclist (Feb 1992), so at least we know it is definitely erected before this date. If it was up before March 1989, it needs a copyright notice to ensure protection. If later than that, it is automatically copyrighted. Jappalang (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought there could be some reason for the sculpture to be PD, that's why I did a DR rather than a speedy deletion. It would be nice to have more information about when and by whom the sign was built. –Tryphon☂ 09:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete the photographer did not issue a statement saying that he carefully watched the bottom of the statue to make sure that there is no copyright notice engraved or painted on it. Teofilo (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept - erected in the early 1960's, no sign of any copyright notice (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The source literally gives a question mark for the source of the photo. While it is probable that it was published before 1923 (it was taken on 18 September 1908), there is no publication history and another photo of the launch can be found here. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep http://www.naval.com.br/NGB/M/M064/M064-f18.htm says that it was published 1908. --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Mbdortmund's link, the author is question mark. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - actually, no it does not say that it was published on 10 September 1908. It says that the ship was launched on that date. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also, Jappalang on the actual image page wrote "the source, Ponder Naval Online, does not know details of this photo (author, publishing, etc), hence it might not be public domain, 70 years past author's death or published before 1923". —Ed (talk • contribs) 01:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Well, the original source link is now a dead link, but archive.org has the text of that page here: [1]. Killiondude (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The page just said when the ship was launched. We need to have a lot more info than that so we can host the image, such as the photographer's name, date of publication, etc. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
This screenshot is CC-BY-SA on Flickr. But what's the background photo source? Are all the logo, icons de minimis? Dereckson (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I see no problem whatsoever. Why are you suspecting http://www.jolicloud.com/ of copyright infringement? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept - everything should be ok (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
No indication in original submission (en.wp) that its PD, and site states copyright clearly. ian13 (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- If stock market data is PD, then I guess this image is PD too (there is no originality in creating such a graph given the data). –Tryphon☂ 14:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep the template {{PD-ineligible}} applies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept - ineligible for copyright (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Can't find indication of CC-BY-SA release on source listed Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence of permission. --Martin H. (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
1922 is not PD in UK Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - well... yes and no. If it was published in 1922, then yes, it's PD. If it was published before 1939, or the author died before 1939, then yes, it's PD. However, proof would be nice... -mattbuck (Talk) 00:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: to qualify for Commons, it has to be PD in US and UK, since the country of origin would very likely be UK if this photo was published. If the author is known, he has to have died before 1926; if unknown, the photo must be published before 1926 (or remain unpublished until 1993).[2] This is to comply with the URAA (UK's 70-year limits must expire before 1 Jan 1996). As Hitchcock was likely not yet a "big-shot" film maker in 1922, this photo would likely not be published. The quality of the image suggests it is scanned from a book, likely a recent publication that dug up those old photos from archives. Unless information is forthcoming to comply with those conditions, delete. Jappalang (talk) 08:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Found that the photo here is uploaded from http://labyrinth.net.au/~muffin/news-home_c.html. This site was given the photo by Ray Ridley as early as 23 September 2006. Even its text is blatantly copied for the description here. Therefore, the earliest known publishing of this photo is 7 December 1949 in The Cinema Studio, which would mean copyprotection until 2019 in UK. Jappalang (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Look here: Hitchcock / by Francois Truffaut; with the collaboration of Helen G. Scott. Rev. ed. New York: Simon and Schuster, c1984. UCB Main PN1998.A3 H5731 1984, UCB Morrison PN1998.A3 H5731 1984 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.232.169 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are trying to say. If you mean that the book states Hitchcock was filming Number Thirteen in 1922, that is a given and moot point to make. The issue is when was this photograph published and who took it, not over the plausibility of the photo. Jappalang (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Photo from 1922, publication rights have expired, {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept with {{PD-UK-unknown}} (non-admin closure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me unlikely that this drawing was made solely for the purpose of using it in Wikipedia. If the uploader made this as part of his job, we need the permission from his employer. If it was already published, we need to be sure that the book publisher is not already enjoying exclusive publishing rights. Teofilo (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment The user has uploaded 2 pictures, this and a photo of a similar subject. They need to say who they are and how they came to hold the copyright on this material. Otherwise "own work" just sounds like naiveté from a new user. --Simonxag (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I doubt "own work" of all of his images. --High Contrast (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Interior design - FOP only applies to buildings Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Has the depicted object character of creative work, which can be copyrighted? FOP refers to copyrights of art or similar creative work, not to industrial rights etc. --ŠJů (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- From the look of the image, it's a 'themed' design.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nom withdrawn, Misunderstanding of US FOP. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- This does not seem very educationally useful, but it is in use, so Keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per Sfan00 IMG. Kameraad Pjotr 20:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
No evidence given to support no-notice claim Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- So why did you transfer it to commons? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Possibly Derivative of Warhol artwork... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't think its possible to claim rights on a style, I made images like that also years ago, so it could be a derivative work of my old work also. I don't see the problem with this image. Huib talk 19:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- "Inspired in style by" doesn't make it a copyright violation. On the other hand, I'm not sure if this original art by a presumably non-notable artist is actually in scope for Commons. --Latebird (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- When I checked it, it was in use on 3 wiki's. Huib talk 13:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree ideas cannot be copyrighted, but I wonder about scope, too. Huib, can you remember how it was used? I can only see it on a talk page on en: now. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete of course! --Guil2027 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of Project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of claims - Toy design Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. This seems to be another of the frivolous claims by Sfan00 IMG, who specialises in this sort of thing. While apparently acting in good faith, he/she is a frustrated copyright lawyer, whose hobby is to look for problems where none previously existed. A sad use of a person's time on Wikipedia.--62.31.150.109 19:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete.--Guil2027 (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Reinstate at local project: Get this restored locally on enwiki, where the original uploader has suggested it may be fair-use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Copyrighted toy design. One of the few cases where Sfan00 IMG actually turns out to be right, so the personall attack further above is entirely uncalled for. --Latebird (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Obviously protected by copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation (fair use). Kameraad Pjotr 20:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that this photo is a {{Derivative}} work of a poster of Subterráneos de Buenos Aires Sociedad del Estado (SBASE). Hence, it is copyrighted. ALE! ¿…? 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work / copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Windows screenshot. Background from unknown source. Dereckson (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Are you worrying about those stars?? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, windows screenshots. Kameraad Pjotr 20:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept, PD-textlogo. Kameraad Pjotr 20:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States - FOP not applicable to artworks Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I think murals and graffiti should normaly be no problem for our project. Who should claim copyrights for illegal actions? They should be accepted as a kind of decoration which can be found everywhere on trains, buildings ... And the authors intention is to publish his work and release it in a kind of PD. He could never reach a kind of ownership, IMO. If the owner of the decorated object tolerates Graffiti as a kind of decoration it should be accepted as a part of the architecture, too. --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The work is signed "BD" (see flickr) and dated, but here the photographer cropped out the artist's signature and licensing it as own work. Apalling. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, clear copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States - FOP not applicable to artworks Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation of artistic work by Tania Esmeralda and Emily Butterfly; compare http://www.flickr.com/photos/phunk/2674609552/ /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, clear copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Possibly copyvio if from source given - http://www.gla.ac.uk/legal/copyright/ Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete In use only on a user page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, clear copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Images by 64andy
[edit]Out of project scope (COM:SCOPE, COM:NUDITY), no realistic educational value except the first one, and Commons has plenty of those already.
- File:Erect 1.JPG (naked)
- File:Exhibitionism.jpg (uploader, clothed, in the woods, with penis sticking out the fly)
- File:Und 10.JPG (uploader in women's underwear)
Wikignome0529 (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Scope.
- File:Erect 1.JPG (naked) - clear picture showing all key features -much better quality than most.
- File:Exhibitionism.jpg (uploader, clothed, in the woods, with penis sticking out the fly)- this is classic UK exhibitionism for a male, showing his penis without removing clothing.
- File:Und 10.JPG (uploader in women's underwear) - first photo of Male in Female underwear, no other entry available.
64andy (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Try flickr. -- smial (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete no sense for the project --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Exhibitionism in car.jpg (new upload by same uploader) Wikignome0529 (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Strong keep of the flashing pictures. We don't have any other images of this act. Simple nudity is already well represented so that could be deleted. The Commons is not censored, we only delete penis pictures because we have too many already. --Simonxag (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - No apparent value for the project -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 21:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The Flickr uploader http://www.flickr.com/people/parnes/ does not mention any connection he might have with the music publisher. Therefore I believe this is a copyright violation. Teofilo (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- delete as album covers--Motopark (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 07:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Creative design on a banner in the United States. There is no freedom of panorama in the United States. see COM:FOP#United States. Teofilo (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Do NOT delete this image!
[edit]
This is an Australian photograph of an Australian banner, created by an Australian, for an Australian group, operating exclusively in Australia. The image is recognised by the English College of Heralds (the body controlling Australian Heraldry) as an example of assumed arms. A similar piece may be being used by someone in the U.S. however this is an entirely seperate and unrelated example.
- oops sorry. When I read "New England" in the Wikipedia article, I thought it was American. I think it would be better if the Wikipedia article said from the start that this group is Australian. It would be good too if the description page of the picture contained information on the location of the picture. Anyway, Australian law requires that the artwork is "permanently located", and I am not sure this is the case. Do you have connections with the artist who made this banner ? If so it would be better to ask him for a formal permission (to be sent by E-mail to the address mentioned on COM:OTRS). Teofilo (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Um... yeah, I'm the artist. I designed the arms, and embroidered the banner. The individual arms of senior members on the banner come from a range of sources, but all the pertinent owners consent to their use.
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Images of Nikita-lug
[edit]Very possible copyright violatoin. Copyright holder of this images is designer of this books
- File:Тарас Шевченко — крестный отец украинского национализма.jpg
- File:Эпоха мертворожденных.jpg
- File:Солдатская сага.jpg
--Butko (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Book covers. No permission for free use stated since July 2009. High Contrast (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ian Cox in not a real person, he was born in the mind of a Hungarian marketing specialist. He played key role in the advertising campaign of a Hungarian mobilphone company Pannon GSM. The Ian Cox article was deleted from the Hungarian Wikipedia. This picture is part of a "mediahack". --Beroesz (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation: [3]. –Tryphon☂ 13:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Images of Ahjwiki
[edit]- File:Andrew Jones.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Andrew Jones LAX.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Error message.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Given that this user uploaded the Google logo with a public domain license, I do not trust the licenses given for these images either. - Simeon87 (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Considering the license of File:Error message.jpg, I agree.
Speedily deleteFile:Error message.jpg, delete the other two. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)- I deleted the first two, but what is there to copyright in File:Error message.jpg? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- The two crosses on a red background, the general appearance of a window under Windows, the number chosen for the error &c. Not much, but enough to make it copyrightable and, AFAIK, Microsoft isn't easy about copyrights. Erik Warmelink (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- I deleted the first two, but what is there to copyright in File:Error message.jpg? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep File:Error message.jpg, very unlikely that it passes the threshold of originality. –Tryphon☂ 13:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the law doesn't mention "originality" (we wouldn't have ":", "/" and "\" in filenames if originality mattered) . Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sure it does; see § 102 and § 1302 of the US copyright law. –Tryphon☂ 19:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oops. Yes, you are right.
- In that case, would a screencapture be more original than the two icons and the code to layout the error message? Triggering the error isn't terribly originl either.
- On the third paw, that is a problem for far more pictures which depict something which itself was human made. In such a case both the picture and the pictured object could be copyrighted. I already made an error, so I will leave this in more experienced hands. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sure it does; see § 102 and § 1302 of the US copyright law. –Tryphon☂ 19:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the law doesn't mention "originality" (we wouldn't have ":", "/" and "\" in filenames if originality mattered) . Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say to delete File:Error message.jpg, it has been improperly tagged as the author's work for a while now. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - File:Error message.jpg is not in use and does not seem very useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. File:Error message.jpg is not in use anymore (the wikipedia article has been deleted as out of scope). –Tryphon☂ 08:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Electrical Lighting design, FOP only applies to buildings? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep What is copyrighted here; just some parade. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Because this "artwork" isn't permanently situated in the ground, I don't think this is copyright-able. Killiondude (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Contemporary glass artwork. No freedom of panorama in Italy. See COM:FOP#Italy Teofilo (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment Sorry, as the uploader, if this is a copyright violation, but i thought that a w:light fixture, which this bottle is, as an utilitarian object could bee freely photographed. If this is not it might ok, it could also be useful to see this file from the same author. Tm (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Link to policy taken from another comment made by Teofilo on another DR. Could´t this Commons:applied arts#cars & chairs be applied in this case? Tm (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have any information tending to prove that this light bottle is being used to provide actual lighting in the dark, rather than as a decorative object displayed as a work of art, as part of an art exhibition ? Teofilo (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should have a look at the Italian law and see what the Italian law says about this sort of works (it is difficult to kwow if the artist is Italian, or if the picture was taken in Italy, but considering this work as an italian work is the best guess we can do).
No I don’t have any definitive evidence only conjectural evidence and suppositions. The flickr page doesn’t provide a lot of information except a tag "light" and a album called lightning that have some light fixtures next to this one. The exif shows (don’t know why I doesn’t appear on commons) that this photo was taken in spot metering mode, that measures a exposure value taking into account only a small percentage what the sensor "sees", and with a d90 that as 11 exposure and focusing areas to select, and with a 200 ISO and an aperture of f/5.6 and without flash, this was taken at a slow speed and probably with some support (do to being sharp, with a tripod, steady hand or stabilized lens) and that might exclude an art gallery or a museum.
Also the areas that are overexposure seem that are coming from inside the bottle and that might indicate the presence of a light bulb, despite no electric cord visible. Despite this there is no context of where this was taken. It might be taken in Italy as this user only as an image taken in Germany, and be an Italian product. The question remains if this product is purely a utilitarian object or if this is a work of art, as this one’s. So I think that it might be prudent to view the Italian law about this. Tm (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- If we use what is written in Commons:applied arts#cars & chairs, I think it is probable that the product is copyrighted, because sculptural features that can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspect are copyrighted. A lamp needs a lampshade or something to diffuse the light in order to provide lighting, without dazzling people's eyes. But there is no functional need to give it a bottle-shape. This bottle shape is the expression of the artist's aesthetic views. For example, a light could have a light diffuser with the shape of Mickey-mouse, and Mickey mouse would still remain copyrighted by Disney. (Unless scientists can prove that bottle-shaped lamps consume less energy, or help people with stress recover from stress, which would give it a utilitarian energy-saving or medical purpose) Teofilo (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
If this as to be deleted, so be it to be on the safe side of Italian copyright law. I remember that once I so a light fixture, made by a designer, that was made inside a chicken ration dispenser, so that shape and format was "expression of the artist's aesthetic views" with no underlying utilitarian aspect (at least at first sight), so this might be the same case, and so as to be deleted. Tm (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment The question that must be answered is What is this object?. If it's a lighting fixture, then it can be photographed without permission. If it is a piece of sculpture then it cannot. Unfortunately, just looking at the picture doesn't give enough information you to tell. --Simonxag (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I´ve uploaded a higher resolution file from the same source, and that higher resolution might answer some the doubts. Tm (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep level of creativity seems to be to low to me to talk of a sculpture --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep seems like a mass-produced lamp to me, you can buy a hundred at your nearest home depot or any similar store. Level of artistic expression I think is to low to qualify as original. Mass produced housewares don't hold same copyright status as an indivudal artwork, no evidence this isn't mass-produced. — raeky (talk | edits) 08:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Ordinary lighting fixture. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept--Trixt (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
