Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/09/17
 |
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}
Jeita.JPG){kind=link}
Possibly not simple enough for PD-textlogo, as it has some artistic creativity. However, this seems a bit grey, so opening a deletion request, rather than marking as a copyvio. --Inductiveload (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've just noticed that the [User talk:Master4o|uploader's talk page]] is full of old deleted WWE logo notifications. Maybe this should be speedied instead? And perhaps a block for the user? Inductiveload (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Definitely more intricate than what PD-textlogo allows. Additionally, the upload is missing a source and the author is stated as "Unknown". In short, if this isn't a copyvio, I'd be damned surprised. Additionally, the uploader gets an "end of copyvios" warning. Tabercil (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
better version: File:Cpslogocolor.png --Gamsbart (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. CC-BY-ND is not an acceptable license on Commons. Mormegil (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Logo of the Grapevine High School. No source with permission given (trademarked though), no evidence of permission. Hekerui (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
אישור 94.159.160.2 16:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
closed non-sense. Huib talk 16:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. Has a watermark from rallyes.com. I can't read spanish and couldn't find the policy page, but most likely this is from a media organisation anyway, so cannot be own work, and is very unlikely to be freely licenced. --Inductiveload (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
{{PD-textlogo}} does not apply (it does not consist only of simple geometric shapes). No OTRS permission from http://www.newenglandfootballleague.com --Samucon (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. wrong license, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Appears to be a scan, unlikely "own work" by uploader. Martin H. (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Agree, seems a scan. Dferg (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. per above. Yann (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be copyvio, no appropriate source given (just official website homepage) --Blacklake (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- The same problem is with File:UriahHeepDecember2007.JPG (the image seems to be copyvio, the given link is dead, while the photo is said to be taken from the official website). --Blacklake (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The photo is describes as taken in the 1920s but the exact year is not known. Consequently it cannot be stated that the photo was taken before 1923 and it is not known if the copyright has expired. Teahot (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep The Bain collection has no known copyright restrictions, http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/274_bain.html /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's true but on the detailed page regarding usage (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/195_copr.html) it states "In all cases, it is the researcher's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in the Library's collections." and unfortunately when examining the records on their site for this photograph there is no information which makes Fair Use (or Public Domain due to publication before 1923) a justification for inclusion on the Commons. At a minimum, the current inclusion is based on the wrong license.—Ash (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- So I changed it to {{PD-Bain}} now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I wasn't aware of that template.—Ash (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- So I changed it to {{PD-Bain}} now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's true but on the detailed page regarding usage (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/195_copr.html) it states "In all cases, it is the researcher's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in the Library's collections." and unfortunately when examining the records on their site for this photograph there is no information which makes Fair Use (or Public Domain due to publication before 1923) a justification for inclusion on the Commons. At a minimum, the current inclusion is based on the wrong license.—Ash (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. {{PD-Bain}} Yann (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Fails Freedom of panorama, even though the photograph is freely licensed, unless proof can be made that the statue falls into PD, the image must be deleted. Admrboltz (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Installed 1887. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- That information would need to be sourced in the image page. --Admrboltz (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- The year is written on the front side. Satisfied? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Can you note both images with {{FoP-US}}, link the rear shot with the front shot, put on both that it was erected in 1887? --Admrboltz (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, of course not. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why? --Admrboltz (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, of course not. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Can you note both images with {{FoP-US}}, link the rear shot with the front shot, put on both that it was erected in 1887? --Admrboltz (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- The year is written on the front side. Satisfied? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- That information would need to be sourced in the image page. --Admrboltz (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per P. Kuiper. Yann (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope Jarekt (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No educational purpose. Hekerui (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not used. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No educational value. --Beroesz (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete no permission --kaʁstn 16:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete "Source: web" /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
(By accident the uploaded file (target file) received the name of the file on my HD, which was not a good name for the file being located on the commons. When the mistake was discovered, a new file was uploaded to a page with a more suitable name. This has now been done, and it is therefore appropriate to delete this file, which is stored here on the Commons with an unsuitable, wrong and unintended name) --888n8 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate of File:Sacrobosco - De Arte Numerandi - Errata.pdf -- Deadstar (msg) 20:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Duplicate. Yann (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Dubious claim of ownership CarbonX (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not PD -- Deadstar (msg) 20:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope personal artwork. Not useful to the project. Inductiveload (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Incorrect use of SVG: image contains a bitmap. Extracted bitmap image available as File:Fort Gibson 1875.jpg. Quibik (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Wrong file format. Yann (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Not in use, no identification of who the subject of the photo is so educational use is improbable Tabercil (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Unused personal image --Simonxag (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Not in use and use on Wikipedia seems improbable Tabercil (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. --Beroesz (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unused personal image --Simonxag (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Missing: Description, Permission, unused --El-Bardo (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Missing: Description, Permission, unused--El-Bardo (Diskussion) 14:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC) --El-Bardo (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Dferg (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a file from Category:Flickr images not found-old, it was hidden by the Flickr owner 4ntraveler before FlickreviewR could verify its license. The photo was uploaded to Commons on 2006-05-15. There are no web.archive.org archvies of the Flickr authors page. There are no other files on Commons from the Flickr author 4ntraveler. According to User:Para flickr license page this file was licensed as CC-BY-NC-ND as of 2006-10-02. The uploader of this file Deeptrivia has uploaded 10 other images that passed Flickreview but has one image File:Rumi museum.jpg in Category:Possibly unfree Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR. Looking at Deeptrivia's deleted contributions there are 9 other images that were deleted as unfree Flickr images. The image is used on 9 pages. Captain-tucker (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Why hasn't this been deleted already? No verifiable license. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 04:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a file from Category:Flickr images not found-old, it was deleted from Flickr before FlickreviewR could verify its license and the Flickr account has been deleted. There are no web.archive.org archives of the Flickr authors page. There is one other file on Commons from the Flickr author up4 that passed Flickrreview, uploaded 10 months earlier. The uploader Alex537 was blocked twice in 2008 for uploading copyright violations. It is used on one en-wiki user subpage. Captain-tucker (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- strong delete in this case. No proof license was free. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 04:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Bad sharpness, no description, undersize.--El-Bardo (Diskussion) 15:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC) --El-Bardo (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It's unique in its category, and quality is not so bad it's unusable. -- Deadstar (msg) 20:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: duplicate or a scaled down version of File:Mhawkcolor.jpg
The concert was on September 9, 2008, not February as claimed by the uploader, and the photo looks like it was taken by Pat Tyson: http://www.daytrippin.com/georgeharrison.htm Hekerui (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. Logo of non-notable website only used for spamming on en-wiki. Multixfer (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, orphaned and out of scope. –blurpeace (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: Out of project scope
Jeita.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Jeita.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Depicts copyrighted artwork; no FOP in the Lebanon. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Jeita.JPG){kind=link}
- I had a suspicion, but didn't know when the statue was built. It might be PD Lebanon, but probably isn't. I'll ask around. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- delete as per Stifle Elie plus (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- There's still the author though, did we find out if he's dead or not, and if, when? For outsiders, this was discussed here too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FunkMonk#Absurd.21.21.21.21.21 FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- keep, the law in Lebanon grant the freedom required if the picture was taken in public places, which is the case for this picture. --Banzoo (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- It only grants it to the media, which we are not. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I still don't understand how Commons work! We find many pictures in Commons that include architectural works, yet from countries with laws much more strict than in Lebanon. Would anyone help to explain? From my 'shallow' reading of the law in question, I think it grants enough rights to publish the work anywhere, but I cannot find the original law as approved in Arabic (The translation didn't provide any definition about what does media stand for). --Banzoo (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, you'll find that the pictures are from countries with less strict laws. I invite you to read Commons:Freedom of panorama, which outlines, at great length, the countries where it's legal to publish photos of architectural works and 3D artworks without permission from the creator. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I still don't understand how Commons work! We find many pictures in Commons that include architectural works, yet from countries with laws much more strict than in Lebanon. Would anyone help to explain? From my 'shallow' reading of the law in question, I think it grants enough rights to publish the work anywhere, but I cannot find the original law as approved in Arabic (The translation didn't provide any definition about what does media stand for). --Banzoo (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- It only grants it to the media, which we are not. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
@FunkMonk, what did you mean by the entry "Source: Photo."? Did you take the original photo or did you reproduce an existing photo? As the uploaded photo seems to be a digital photo, could you re-upload it with intact EXIF data (currently missing)? Is the sculptor known? When was this statue built? --Túrelio (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Jeita.JPG){kind=link}
- It's an early upload of mine, so the info (including filename) is horrible. But yes, it's just a digital photo I took back in 2005, don't kow about EXIF data, since that is the unedited original (it was rescued from a damaged memory card though, don't know if that could had done anything). We have not been able to determine who made the sculpture or when, but on the sculpture itself, the name "Tony"-something can be seen. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Could you ever find in the literature (for example at photos of it in books or newspapers) any information about the time of installation? As you have been there, what was your own impression about its age? --Túrelio (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't managed to find anything out other than that it exists. And my own impression of age was that it was pretty timeless, doesn't seem particularly modern. FunkMonk (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- A Google search led me to [1], where the statue is credited to Lebanese artist Tony Farah and the image used in this article is actually a crop of yours and is used under fair use, something that is not allowed on Commons. Of course, the fair use rationale on :en might be unnecessary, but for that it had to be proven that Farah is dead since 70/50 years. And in this article from 2005 a living Lebanese sculptor Toni Farah is mentioned ("She lives with her husband, the well known Lebanese sculptor, Toni Farah,..."). --Túrelio (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- If that's him, he's alive of course. By the way, why does Wikimedia Commons not count as part of "the media" (whatever that refers to)? FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Media are newspapers, magazines, TV and broadcasting, but not encyclopedias. For more see: en:News media. --Túrelio (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- And even if Wikimedia Commons were "the media", we still wouldn't accept it as images here need to be free for everyone to use. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Media are newspapers, magazines, TV and broadcasting, but not encyclopedias. For more see: en:News media. --Túrelio (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- If that's him, he's alive of course. By the way, why does Wikimedia Commons not count as part of "the media" (whatever that refers to)? FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- A Google search led me to [1], where the statue is credited to Lebanese artist Tony Farah and the image used in this article is actually a crop of yours and is used under fair use, something that is not allowed on Commons. Of course, the fair use rationale on :en might be unnecessary, but for that it had to be proven that Farah is dead since 70/50 years. And in this article from 2005 a living Lebanese sculptor Toni Farah is mentioned ("She lives with her husband, the well known Lebanese sculptor, Toni Farah,..."). --Túrelio (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't managed to find anything out other than that it exists. And my own impression of age was that it was pretty timeless, doesn't seem particularly modern. FunkMonk (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Could you ever find in the literature (for example at photos of it in books or newspapers) any information about the time of installation? As you have been there, what was your own impression about its age? --Túrelio (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the nominator then. Tony Farah appears to be alive, if it is the same person. FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Jeita.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete unfortunately. It's a recent statue and the Lebanese copyright law is quite clear. I have a couple of nice photos of it as well....just have to wait about 100 years - Peripitus (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as obvious original artist still living and no Commons-usable freedom of panorama in source country. --Túrelio (talk) 11:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Jeita.JPG){kind=link}
No date ; no name of museum ; no EXIF ; I don't believe it is own work. It looks like a scan from an old black and white book. Teofilo (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- And the Geman Wikipedia says that there is no user named de:Benutzer:Markus_SchweiÃ. Teofilo (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep de:User:Markus Schweiß, I see no evidence of a raster, and on the left there seems to be a museum sign. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Same as Pieter Kuiper. Gridge (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC).
Kept - object is in Rheinisches Landesmuseum, Bonn (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "own work" as it can be found on a number of other websites - for instance: http://www.aviationexplorer.com/md-12_facts.htm Tabercil (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Well, based on this page, I believed the original uploader and assumed good faith. The page link by Tabercil is with lower definition. - Zil (d) 00:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh? As I said, it can be found at a number of sites. This one has it at the exact same size as what got uploaded, and what about here? Tabercil (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Computer graphics by User:Anynobody. http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/573703 is obviously a copy of the enwiki page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This is both awesome and sad, one of my images gets used on some external sites (that's the awesome part) and someone wants to delete it (that's sad). Tabercil, the file you're proposing for deletion is the first study of this image: File:Md-12-2.png, check out the file history if you don't believe me :) Anynobody (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Artwork in USA. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP for artwork in the US, unlike Canada. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Leoboudv -- Deadstar (msg) 19:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as there is no freedom of panorama for artwork in the US. --Túrelio (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Bad sharpness, no description, no permission.--El-Bardo (Diskussion) 15:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC) --El-Bardo (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I've seen worse quality, and it seems to be the only one of it, looking at the Altitude signs cat. So if we could get a description for it, we'd be sorted. -- Deadstar (msg) 19:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unused and without any information that might show how it could be used - and rather blurry. --Simonxag (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 21:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
FOP in the USA is for architectural works only; someone should upload a picture taken in Canada or some other country with full FOP. --Stifle (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Even a FOP picture (at least on taken in Sweden) would count as copyvio if the logo is the main subject of the image (afaik). //Sertiont|c 10:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- In Ireland it would not, per s93 Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000. So I suppose I need to go find a drive-in McDonald's around here :) Stifle (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- In Sweden there would be no problem. I do not really see a problem in the USA either. Keep /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleteper nom and subsequent discussion --Simonxag (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 19:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Newer version exists (with updated data and in vector format): File:OPEC declared reserves 1980-now EIA.svg --Iorsh (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment Not in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
This is not only PD-textlogo in my point of view. --- Zil (d) 11:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Hardly a standard font --Simonxag (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I do not see anything copyrightable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio (not PD-textlogo). Kameraad Pjotr 19:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Possible copyvio, falsification of source and licensing information SpaceFlight89 (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is the property of the City of Bakersfield, is for public display, is NOT copyrighted, and should not be deleted. Looks like someone has nothing better to do than fool with WIKI accounts...maybe no fires in Randsburg?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.46.226.5 (talk • contribs)
- Being on public display doesn't mean the image "is not copyrighted". If the image is public domain then you are welcome to provide evidence of that. File:BFDbillboard.JPG, uploaded by the same user who uploaded this image has been deleted as a copyright violation, and I suspect the user has falsified the source of this image too. SpaceFlight89 (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 19:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
No real evidence that it is a picture from a US federal service (or any US military corps). The quoted notice (which I could not find on the website anymore) is not permissive enough for Commons Eusebius (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- here1. This World Wide Web (WWW) site is provided as a public service by the Force Health Protection & Readiness Policy and Programs.2. Information presented on this WWW site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. --221.127.248.236 11:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is a different website, so I'm a bit puzzled;
- The notice you are quoting is not free enough for Commons (although the federal nature of the organization should be further examined, it could lead to plain PD for the works they have created themselves, not the works they publish);
- On the source web page, no credit/source is given, for any of the pictures (which are about Russian vehicles, which makes a US-DoD source very unlikely). --Eusebius (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- im not sure, may be you can call them http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/contact.jsp--221.127.124.132 13:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is primarily the responsibility of the uploader to provide evidence that Commons is allowed to republish a file under a given license. No, I will not call them. --Eusebius (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/info_paper.jsp belongs to the same website; this could very well be a US army photo, maybe made in Iraq. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Bad specualtion, Pieter: This system has never seen iraqi soils. --High Contrast (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is primarily the responsibility of the uploader to provide evidence that Commons is allowed to republish a file under a given license. No, I will not call them. --Eusebius (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 19:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
blurry unused uncategorized out-of-scope image Jarekt (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete D´accord --El-Bardo (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The pyramid is an architectural work (c) of Pei - No FoP in France. Esby (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete no FOP in France ! (echo) cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 18:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Esby... What´s your problem?!? You didn´t read the description as i put in this photo..?! To delete this image, i suggest to delete ALL Pyramide Louvre photos in Wikicommons...
YOU FAILED!!! --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
DELETE ALL please... Including the feature photo... be my guest...
I used the same license with this one... Tell me boy... What is your problem?!? Bad day..?! --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please read COM:DM#An_example_under_Civil_Law. Esby (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- This ain't a licence issue, but a de minimis issue: If the pyramide is the main subject or taking the biggest part, the photograph can't be simply kept, unless you are willing to pay the Louvre Society which is exploiting the Pyramid Image... :/ Esby (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
It´s possible to change the license..?!? It´s unfair delete this one... as i told, to delete this one, is better to delete ALL. --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of licence, but a matter of DeMinimis and main picture subject, the waterfall could be considered the main subject, but still, the pyramid presence is highly doubtful here. The only thing you could do is to crop the Pyramid ouf of the picture, partially or fully. Esby (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
It´s not the entire Pyramide..and you know that... but if it an excuse to delete the image... delete it. I have more. :-) This is the proof we live in an society with NO FREEDON of speech (Nazi Germany Twinlight zone)... and i feel like in trial (judgment) a cause of this picture...(is not the first time...) SAD!!! --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
WHY you deleted the exemples images here?!? --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by exemples images. how hard is it to read the text at the start of Category:Louvre Pyramid ?
- I am quoting the important part... Pictures of the Louvre pyramid are only acceptable if they are minor part of the image.
- Esby (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, ok... now i understand... I would just like to ask you a favor... This image request to be deleted, is use now in the portuguese article that I created myself, the Wikipedia in Portuguese don´t have yet the policy to use The Fair use images, however, the decision to vote on it over on September the 5th, now, the persons responsable for that, are presently organized themselves for this. Please, don´t delete this image untill this... Thank you. --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- You could just use another image that shows a part of the structure while being DeMinimis... eg; [[Image:Louvre 08.jpg]] or [[Image:Louvre Paris Panorama.JPG]] Esby (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP. -Nard the Bard 03:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No COM:FOP in France. So modern works of art and modern buildings in France (or Belgium) cannot be placed on Wikicommons except in cases of De Minimis where the object is only a small part of the picture like this: File:Louvre at night centered.jpg FOP does not apply to landscapes or people. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete With all respect, it has to be deleted; may be we should outlaw {{FoP-France}} template.--Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Imo, FOP france should be transformed in to a De Minimis information template. Images that uses this template and that are not DM should be deleted anyway. Esby (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
You guys are very friendly, no doubt... a part of the administrator, others, instead of helping or encouraging people to save this image and giving help, prefer only to make their vote in this sentence (like a criminal). I´am not profissional here and i don´t know how works this De Minimis... i don´t spend every day to stay here or stay on internet. About the image, in case if it will be deleted, make sure that you delete all images and MARK as well the TAG to be deleted at all images, according with No FOP [1], because there are no freedom of Panorama or notable buildings in France.[2][3] The case here, is not be radical... It´s justice, because if a rule works in one picture, then it is for all the pictures and without exception. And yes, i´am a very directly person...May be i can lose this image, but i will don´t lose the case. Until the end. Yaroslav Blanter, you have my respect too, also respecting your vote. And Esby, don´t forget my favor like I asked. Thank you. --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
References
[edit]
- ↑ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:FoP-France
- ↑ The Louvre Pyramids are copyrighted object because of French law. See Commons:Licensing#Works_of_arts.2C_including_architecture.2C_exhibited_in_public_spaces. Pictures of the Louvre pyramid are only acceptable if they are minor part of the image. So this category should not contain any images; they will be considered for deletion. / Fred Chess 10:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- ↑ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Louvre_Pyramid
Deleted. This is not about being friendly: unfortunately, as Esby as said before, we can only keep pictures where the Pyramid is but a small part. You can use File:Louvre 2007 02 24 c.jpg, for instance, in you article on pt: . Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Images of Grande Arche
[edit]no freedom of panorama in France --Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- File:Aufzug Grande Arche.jpg
- File:Defense arco sotto.jpg
- File:Grand Arche.JPG
- File:Grande Arche 1989.jpg
- File:Grande Arche de La Défense et fontaine.jpg, Picture of the Year 2007, DR kept January 2008
- File:Grande Arche de la Defense Paris.JPG
- File:Grande arche de la defense.jpg
- File:GrandeArche-LaDéfense-SE.JPG
- File:LaDefense.JPG
- File:Parijs 2006 134.jpg
- File:Paris Grande Arche closeup.jpg
- File:Paris Grande Arche La Defense.jpg
- Grande Arche - does not make any sense if all files have been removed; kept January 2008
There is no freedom of panorama in France, and Grande Arche is copyrighted. Note that I marked for deletion only images which clearly display Grande Arche as the main object of the picture.--Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Grande Arche de La Défense et fontaine.jpg. --Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 08:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Just to comment: The usual objection "The servers are in the US, we do not care about French laws" does not seem to be accepted now: Images from Russia, which has the same laws as in France, get routinely deleted from Commons. Let us finally decide: Either we do not care about fop and restore everything, from all countries, deleted from Commons for this reason, or we delete everything. I realize that it is a pity to delete a featured image, but let us obey the rules, or then change the rules. --Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- If the decision is to delete the images, I request some grace period (several days) to move them to the projects as fairuse.--Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am an author of one of these images and - to be honest - did not realize about such law in France. Therefore maybe they should be really deleted. But I have some idea - is there any chance to ask copyright holder od Grande Arche for any (even restricted) permission before deleting? That would be analogous case to the Atomium in Belgium (afaik the personal photos can be published for noncommercial purposes for a period of a year). Lukke (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I doubt DeMinimis can apply to any of these images. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom unfortunately. --Simonxag (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Has anything changed since Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Grande Arche de La Défense et fontaine.jpg? Or since January 2008 when these images were kept after a deletion request? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- May be just we decided to stick to the rules?--Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- According to Anne-Laure Stérin's legal guide, there was a court decision about unauthorized postcards in 1990 - Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- According to Anne-Laure Stérin's legal guide, there was a court decision about unauthorized postcards in 1990 -
- May be just we decided to stick to the rules?--Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, FOP in France and all the noms have it as the primary subject. Also File:Grande Arche.jpg and File:La grande arche.jpg belong to this group. Suggest moving the Picture of the Year 2007 (File:Grande Arche de La Défense et fontaine.jpg) to other wikipedias that have the fair use options available. feydey (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No FoP in France; as Pieter mentioned, a court decision condemned postcard editors for a picture representing the Grande Arche "in a panorama of which it stands as the main feature or, at least, as an important feature" (TGI Paris 12th July 1990). I will leave the 2007 PotY a few more days so that people move it to local Wikipedias accepting Fair Use. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Wrong use of SVG: used for storing a bitmap image. The bitmap extracted from the image is available as File:Wild rice harvesting 19th century.jpg. Quibik (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
A low resolution image of a part of File:William McKinley Assassinat.jpg, the latter also have a cropped version File:McKinleyAssassination.jpg. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not in use, no reason to keep this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Derivative of a copyrighted, non-free lottery ticket design. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The image is intended to mimic the flag of the en:Irish Rugby Football Union, with the center image representing the IRFU logo as seen on http://www.irishrugby.ie/. Therefore, this is a derivative of a copyrighted work. Andrwsc (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Also see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Irelands Rugby Flag.svg for links to a similar previous version. Andrwsc (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. PeeJay2K3 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - How is this discussion still going? Just delete the file already! PeeJay2K3 (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This is the flag used to represent the all-Ireland rugby union team IJA (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- How is that a valid argument to keep? The question at hand is if the image is free or not. — Andrwsc (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Image may not be free but its appropriate. All Ireland rugby related articles are in a shamble because of the flag issue. Wikipedia should NOT be involved in such politics as we are trying to provide free knowledge and we should NOT be bias. Till the ireland flag issue is sorted out, let this image remain and its use be minimal and only if the owner of the flag complains via OTRS and only then should it be deleted....--Warpath (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. The only thing that matters is if the image is free or not, and it isn't. — Andrwsc (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- This image is a logo of a Hungarian motorcycle factory. A logo is tipicaly not a free licensed picture.
- The image was uploaded to the Hungarian Wikipedia too, but not under free license. See: Fájl:D-Csepel logo.svg!
- The uploader sent few days later a permission for the Hungarian OTRS-team, but the e-mail gave no permission to using this logo under CC-BY-SA-3.0.
I think this logo was published by mistake in the Wikimedia Commons. --Beroesz (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: no permission
1940 photo; not clear why it would be in the Public Domain. Google translates the reason as "Photo copyright beyond life." Maybe the uploader or someone who understands Chinese can shed some light on this? Pruneautalk 16:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- photo become public domain after 50 years in China--221.127.124.24 12:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- According to Commons:Licensing#China, copyright expires 50 years after the death of the author. We don't know who the author is. Pruneautalk 18:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- copyright of photo is different,no need to wait after the author death -221.127.140.136 05:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I somehow missed that. I've added the appropriate licence tag ({{PD-China}}) to the file. Copyright expires 50 years after publication; do you know when this image was first published? Pruneautalk 11:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- i dont know--221.127.142.41 15:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- will the photo delete if no published day?--221.127.124.132 13:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I somehow missed that. I've added the appropriate licence tag ({{PD-China}}) to the file. Copyright expires 50 years after publication; do you know when this image was first published? Pruneautalk 11:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- copyright of photo is different,no need to wait after the author death -221.127.140.136 05:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- According to Commons:Licensing#China, copyright expires 50 years after the death of the author. We don't know who the author is. Pruneautalk 18:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted: insufficient information to determine copyright A.J. (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
providing a blank invalid source and also wikipedia is not a source for photos such as for Mohamed Ibrahim Warsame 'Hadrawi' so i believe it's a copyright infringement. --Antime • (My Talk) 01:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per copy vio. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep At the time of the collage's creation the Hadrawi image was considered a legitimate free image hence why it was included, a replacement of that particular image will be sufficient. Wholesale deletion is over the top. --Scoobycentric (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Scoobycentric. The Hadrawi image was indeed cleared at the time the collage was updated by myself. If there's a problem with this one image, that is no reason to attempt to delete the collage wholesale when another could easily replace it. Middayexpress (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- For some reason I believe that after removing the image , you should revise most of ur contributions due to providing severals invalid links in the description pages as you did here as well as here too . --Antime • (My Talk) 14:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I did not "provide invalid links". As clearly indicated above, these images were very much cleared when I transfered them to Wiki from their original upload place on English Wiki. But if you want to be picky about things, then I think it's my turn to point out to you that per Wiki policy, you should have at least contacted me on my talk page & alerted me of this deletion request instead of trying to discreetly get rid of these images. My post above still stands. And I assure you that should this image get deleted, there's another collage just like it with a perfectly legitimate image ready to take the Hadrawi image's place. The latter only serves to further underline the utter pointlessness of this deletion request. Middayexpress (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- For some reason I believe that after removing the image , you should revise most of ur contributions due to providing severals invalid links in the description pages as you did here as well as here too . --Antime • (My Talk) 14:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. The copyrighted part is not showing any longer.
Comment: this is a good faith derived work by a Commons user. Therefore, if a picture of this collage later appears to be copyrighted, then fix the collage or ask the creators to fix it. Just deleting this image would be harsh and disrespectful of the work of Middayexpress and Scoobycentric. — Xavier, 00:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Some images of this collage have been deleted. By now some of those deleted ones still appear in this collage. Either the get removed or the whole collage must get deleted High Contrast (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete -- Per the above, I created a new collage here; so file is now also redundant. Middayexpress (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Statues at Texas Tech University
[edit]- File:Masked Rider Statue 1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:SEAL.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Masked Rider Statue 3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Wrstatue.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:TTUwillrogers.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (OTRS ticket relates only to the image)
- File:Will Rogers & Soapsuds.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (OTRS ticket relates only to the image)
- File:Bisonantiquus.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I nominate the above images for deletion as they depict copyrighted artworks. Freedom of panorama in the USA applies only to works of architecture.
The university was founded in 1923, so {{PD-1923}} will not apply. It may be possible to apply {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-US-no notice}} to some of them, but I do not know when any were erected. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - unless evidence is found and presented showing these to be in the public domain via some vehicle. The first of these, the masked rider, was unveiled in 2000. I haven't investigated the others, but they are clearly works of 3D art and freedom of panorama does not exist for such works in the United States. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is a deletion debate on Commons. We do not accept non-free imagery here. The tag you want to use is usable on en.wikipedia, but not here. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, my mistake. I wasn't aware of the finer distinctions between Commons and Wikipedia. It looks like at least some of these pictures were originally uploaded to Wikipedia, and then a bot transferred them to Commons. What is that appropriate means of moving this picture to Wikipedia, removing it from the Commons, making sure it will not be automatically returned to the Commons, and tagging it correctly? -- 75.148.152.138
- Comment Some of these may be {{PD-US-1978-89}}; needs some research to keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Could new pictures be taken and uploaded to Wikipedia with the Fair Use tags? 173.71.28.53 02:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It's amazing to me how long deletion discussions stay open on Commons. 3 months??? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I've uploaded a SVG version called "Flag_of_Zarzal.svg" --Zlapper (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
png not in use Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
the source is wikipedia it self & the link is error & blank. Antime • (My Talk) 09:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The source is not "wikipedia it self". That is an untruth. The image's description page quite clearly indicates that the image was originally uploaded as a public domain file by Wiki user Turdho way back on December 28, 2006. This same editor indicated that the image was his own work and offered it to the public for free use. This is what the uncomplicated phrase "This image has been (or is hereby) released into the public domain by its author, Turdho at the English Wikipedia project" means. Middayexpress (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep There is nothing wrong with the image, it was released to the Public Domain by user Turdho on December 28, 2006 ---Scoobycentric (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Would you please verify your claim that User_Turdho who is inactive for about 2 years now is the original author of the image with a valid link , because The source in the description page is invalid.--Antime • (My Talk) 14:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly. The original file was titled "Cadow-pr2.gif" and User_Turdho first added it to the gentleman in question's article (he is a politician in Somalia, much like your friend Sharif Ahmed) in an edit on December 28, 2006 at 20:36. This can be easily verified by anyone by looking through Turdho's contributions (on English Wikipedia, that is, since that is where he/she originally uploaded the file to, not to Wiki Commons as you have linked to in your post above). It's true that the image was deleted from English Wikipedia, which is why no trace of it appear in Turdho's contributions (when an image is deleted, so are all difs that originally linked to it, including contributions). However, the only reason it was deleted was because I had already transferred a copy of that same image to Wiki Commons on August 20, 2008 20:30 or, in the words of the deleting administrator himself, "An identical copy exists on Wikimedia Commons (Commons:Image:Somali man in fez.gif)". If you weren't so busy trying to get rid of pefectly legitimate Somali-related images you don't happen to like, you'd already have been aware of the utter foolishness of this deletion request. Middayexpress (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Would you please verify your claim that User_Turdho who is inactive for about 2 years now is the original author of the image with a valid link , because The source in the description page is invalid.--Antime • (My Talk) 14:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Copyright violation of a picture of en:Abdullahi Ahmed Addou. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/somali/news/story/2008/05/080530_adow.shtml Of course it is highly unlikely that the BBC stole this picture on Commons. This picture must belong to some kind of bank of photos used by the press and nothing leads us to assume that it is public domain. — Xavier, 02:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Somali man in fez.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xhienne (talk • contribs)
- As has already been pointed out, your argument that this file is 'stolen' is highly unlikely given the fact that this picture was already uploaded to Wikipedia specifically as a public domain file a good two years before that BBC article was ever published. The sizes don't match either. If the image belonged to a 'bank of photos' used by the press, as you also claim (without proof), we'd expect to see this image on more press websites; but yet we don't. We only see a smaller version of the image on one BBC article published a whole two years after the image was first offered as a public domain file on Wikipedia. More probably, the BBC writer simply took the public domain file from Wikipedia, as this image was also featured for a long time on the gentleman's Wikipedia article. The BBC is known to use Wikipedia content, so that's in all likelihood the case here. Middayexpress (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your thorough investigation Middayexpress, you make some good points here. However, I don't buy your scenario. You are still basing your support on 1. the BBC had to borrow an image from Wikipedia without proper attribution and 2. the original uploader is the copyright owner of the photograph.
- First, if you knew how press agencies work, you would know that they have huge banks of photos at their disposal to illustrate their articles. I acknowledge that, for financial reasons, some borrow images here, but, as you can see in the link you give, they give credit to Wikipedia.
- Second, you seem to consider Turdho as a trustworthy user. Apparently, you have decided to ignore that their contributions are highly suspicious and that they have a history of copyvios:
- All the pictures they uploaded are web-sized, thumbnail-style pictures, if not tiny. If they really had scanned pictures like File:General Daauud.gif, why is it so small and in a GIF format? No scanner or camera would yield such an image.
- Cadow-pr2.gif is also a GIF which is very uncommon for a photo you have taken yourself ("pr" might well mean "Press Relation")
- They uploaded File:HajiFarah.jpg twice and it was deleted twice, then they uploaded the same photo with the name File:HajiFarahAli.jpg and noone noticed.
- They uploaded File:Abdullahi isse1 (2).jpg which was also deleted. This is the same photo as File:Cabdulllahi Ciise.jpg : no source, no date, no author, no license.
- They uploaded File:General Daauud.gif which is a clear copyvio of http://www.kubadda.com/News-08/images2/jun/120.jpg and http://www.xamardaye.com/images/Gen%20Daauud.jpg
- So on one hand, we have the BBC, which is a respectable press agency and which has access to huge banks of press photos. On the other hand, we have a user that claim ownership of very disparate, low-quality, thumbnail-size, seemingly official pictures of several government personalities, photographs which have been taken across a big period of time (1950-2000), some of which being proven copyvios. And now, just because Turdho put a ready-made Public Domain template stating "I, the copyright owner...", you chose to ignore all these evidences and claim that this user is trustworthy, that they do own the copyright of those pictures, and that this is rather the BBC that borrowed one of our images? You are not serious. — Xavier, 17:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, no sufficient source information given, same as in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Somali man in fez.jpg. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The page supposedly authorizing reuse is no longer available, but here's an archived version. Paragraph 3 states that "Not all images are in the public domain; some images may be protected by the U.S. Copyright Law". Pruneautalk 16:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Same thing applies to:
- File:Bill law Index.gif
- File:Bill law begin.gif
- File:Bill law committee.gif
- File:Bill law consider.gif
- File:Bill law enrolled.gif
- File:Bill law introduce.gif
- File:Bill law law.gif
- File:Bill law overridden.gif
- File:Bill law propose.gif
- File:Bill law refer.gif
- File:Bill law report.gif
- File:Bill law subcommittee.gif
- File:Bill law veto.gif
- File:Bill law vote.gif
Pruneautalk 16:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think they would have paid an outside source for such cheesy graphics. -Nard the Bard 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am not an expert in copyright laws, but I think you have to ask the "office of the clerks" for the status. Scope: you can only use it in an article for kids. Until now they are only used in an disputed site for a school project Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Uncertain status - possibility of copyright exists and is plausible - given that site has moved on, difficult to comfirm. This, that and the other (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, precautionary principle: probably copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 11:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
