Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/09/19
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
-Lavandulol.png){kind=link}
Unlikely that the fkickr user Mattsip is the copyright holder of this image. I assume flickr washing. High Contrast (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Im so sorry for troubles, im rookie on wikipedia. --Esc.eliska (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Taken at the Beltring War and Peace show. I will add categories. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Beltring War and Peace show. Event in 2009. High Contrast (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Unlikely that the fkickr user Mattsip is the copyright holder of this image. I assume flickr washing. High Contrast (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Beltring War and Peace show. Event in 2009. High Contrast (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
copyvio source Kwj2772 (msg) 08:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per copyvio. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. shizhao (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
-Lavandulol.png){kind=link}
-Lavandulol.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Poor quality, orphan, uploaded long time ago. German Wikipedia uses File:Lavandulol Enantiomers Structural Formulae.png instead. OsamaK 13:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
-Lavandulol.png){kind=link}
- Keep The quality is not good, but not that bad either. File:Lavandulol Enantiomers Structural Formulae.png is not an equivalent substitute. --NEUROtiker ⇌ 18:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As NEUROTiker says, the two files cannot be used in place of each other - they have different chemical meanings. I've uploaded a higher resolution version to address the quality issue. Edgar181 (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
-Lavandulol.png){kind=link}
The "G" is not just a plain text symbol, but it's the logo of former "Generale Bank" (nl:Generale Bank), now part of Fortis. Therefore this is a copyright violation. Erik1980 (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, too simple to copyright. Might mark as trademark or logo. - Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep G is {{PD-textlogo}} anyway --Justass (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure). –blurpeace (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The "G" is not just a plain text symbol, but it's the logo of former "Generale Bank" (nl:Generale Bank), now part of Fortis. Therefore this is a copyright violation. Erik1980 (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Just a G. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure). –blurpeace (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
small orphan non-encyclopedic image. OsamaK 13:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I do not understand what it is. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- In fact, all of his images are nonsense and orphan. To be deleted.--OsamaK 14:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Dferg (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
not self-made. this is a microsoft graphic, copyrighted (non-free) by microsoft. --Ysangkok (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep You must be kidding? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Keep, clearly too simple an image to copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 16:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment When I uploaded this file, I did not know neither the whole license thing nor picture editing software very well. If I had to upload this picture today, I would create my own checkbox with Inkscape (or another SVG-capable open-source software). Furthermore, the quality of this one is really bad (I just made a screenshot and kept the check zone). When I have time for this, I can maybe design new and better-quality pictures, but if at the end of the vote, the decision is made to delete the file, I will have no objection to it.- I also have to say I made many of this kind of screenshots in Category:Visual Basic. In this category, some pictures may also be requested to deletion for copyright problems, as I don't really know what is copyrighted or not in the use of VisualBasic. Xzapro4 (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure). –blurpeace (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
request by the subject (the man in the photo) --Tired time (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A politician, free game. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep If he wants a better portrait he should supply us with one. --Simonxag (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure). –blurpeace (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems unlikely to be own work, especially with the large chunk of text in the middle of it Tabercil (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Its a copyvio. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - copyvio. --Dferg (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. no permission. Yann (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Non educational personal image Backslash Forwardslash (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - page is out of the project scope, unused. Dferg (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
corrupted orphan image OsamaK 13:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Just one pixel - speedy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - corrupted image, should be speedied. Dferg (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. as per above. Yann (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Orphan, very small, no source, wrong license. OsamaK 17:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Super small metadata. Likely copyvio. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. as per above. Yann (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Orphan, small, old, un-encyclopedic image. OsamaK 17:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Orphan, old, small, un-encyclopedic image. OsamaK 18:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Orphan, old, small, un-encyclopedic image. OsamaK 17:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
At this place, photography is permitted only by personal use. so we cannot use this under GFDL or CC-by-2.x licenses.--Kentin (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:FOP#Japan. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I kind of fail to understand how this fits our Scope, it is more something like a article for Wikipedia or Wikisource than it is a gallery. Commons host galleries full of content, no articles. --Huib talk 14:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It is not an article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- CommentUser:Abigor/temp is a plain copy&paste of the alleged out of scope gallery. Note that User:Abigor signs as "--Huib talk" Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I had it moved to the /temp to show it to a non admin while it was delete, I have blanked the page. Huib talk 14:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I see now that User:Herbythyme had deleted it, difficult to understand why. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, the poster is so to say "famous" at least in germany, a gallery of RAF wanted posters is in scope imo. Collecting all the cropped small files is a good idea and it is something a gallery or a category can do. Besides I have some doubt regarding the copyright, it is not in line with Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hundertwasserentscheidung.jpg where we talked about files that are not official works extracted from an official work. --Martin H. (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- You may be right about the cropped images, and if they are deleted, the page will not have much use. But, that would be a reason to delete those cropped images, not a reason to speedily delete the gallery while keeping the cropped images. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment How long should I wait before I may edit the page? And, if I may edit, what is wrong? Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
If the file is kept and the discussion is closed, then please remove the deletion marker, too.
The photos on this poster aren't German amtliche Werke, but works by others, which were used by the German police. (see § 24 KUG Für Zwecke der Rechtspflege und der öffentlichen Sicherheit dürfen von den Behörden Bildnisse ohne Einwilligung des Berechtigten sowie des Abgebildeten oder seiner Angehörigen vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden.) The photos are still copyrighted by their authors. sугсго 14:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- File:Fahndungsplakat2.jpg
- File:Fahndungsplakat.jpg
- File:Rafplakat.JPG
- File:Fahndungsplakat3.jpg
- File:Ulrike Meinhof 2.jpg
- File:Andreas Bernd Baader 2.jpg
- File:Gudrun Ensslin 2.jpg
- File:Holger Klaus Meins 2.jpg
- File:Jan-Carl Raspe 2.jpg
- File:Ilse Stachowiak 2.jpg
- File:Klaus Jünschke 2.jpg
- File:Ronald Augustin 2.jpg
- File:Bernhard Braun 2.jpg
- File:Ralf Reinders 2.jpg
- File:Ingeborg Barz 2.jpg
- File:Irmgard Möller 2.jpg
- File:Brigitte Mohnhaupt 2.jpg
- File:Axel Achterath 2.jpg
- File:Katharina Hammerschmidt 2.jpg
- File:Rosemarie Keser 2.jpg
- File:Siegfried Hausner 2.jpg
- File:Heinz Brockmann 2.jpg
- File:Albert Fichter 2.jpg
--sугсго 14:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per previous DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rafplakat.JPG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter. Derivatives of official works are allowed. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is not a real official work. According to $ 24 KUG it is only allowed to use the photos on the poster for judicature or public security uses. That is not free use. sугсго 18:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The above was about the gallery page RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972 and SCOPE, not about the possible copyright issue. Just because a work that is not an official work is shown in an official work does not make it free of copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment If those 23 images are deleted, we should also delete:
- File:Ulrike Meinhof.jpg
- File:Andreas Bernd Baader.jpg
- File:Gudrun Ensslin.jpg
- File:Holger Klaus Meins.jpg
- File:Jan-Carl Raspe.jpg
- File:Ilse Stachowiak.jpg
- File:Klaus Jünschke.jpg
- File:Ronald Augustin.jpg
- File:Bernhard Braun.jpg
- File:Ralf Reinders.jpg
- File:Ingeborg Barz.jpg
- File:Irmgard Möller.jpg
- File:Brigitte Mohnhaupt.jpg
- File:Axel Achterath.jpg
- File:Katharina Hammerschmidt.jpg
- File:Rosemarie Keser.jpg
- File:Siegfried Hausner.jpg
- File:Heinz Brockmann.jpg
- File:Albert Fichter.jpg
- Erik Warmelink (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep per previous DR. What a waste of time... 201.17.85.216 08:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment (again) The above deletion request was about SCOPE and the gallery, not about the file and not about copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. It's been open now since last May (!) and there doesn't seem to be any consensus.--DieBuche (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
reopened according to http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Forum&oldid=45130076#L.C3.B6schregelfrage and de:Bildrechte#Fahndungsfotos Isderion (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep according to § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG. --Eva K. is evil 14:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Info Note, that Pictures belong to § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG prohibited derivation (and must have an source given) - so this isn't free as here "free" is defined. --Quedel (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC); Additionally, the license template is only for works according to § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG, not for works according to Abs. 2. --Quedel (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The images cannot possibly be kept under German copyright law. First, they are obviously not protected under § 5 (1) UrhG which protects "Laws, ordinances, official decrees and notices as also decisions and official grounds of decisions" (translation from [1]). Second, as Quedel pointed out, it is irrelevant if they enjoy protection under § 5 (2) UrhG as this would mean that they are subject to § 62 (1) and thus not freely usable anyway (c.f. [2]). As to the rest, see sугсго's comments in this matter. —Pill (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course, this also applies to the extracted images. Given their licensing status, they would probably even be a violation of § 62 (1) (see Dreier in Dreier/Schulze UrhG, § 62, recital 16), so even if, much to my surprise, non-free images were accepted here and for some reason § 5 (2) was applicable to the wanted posters as suggested by EvaK, these images would have to be deleted. —Pill (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - invalid DR - Jcb (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Reopened. 1) its not an invalid DR, it is allowed to appeal. 2) if the full procedure was not followed it is not a reason to simply quash valid arguments with an unfounded "kept" and declaring the request as "invalid" (and thererfore judging that the arguments are wrong and that the copyright status is correct). Simply fix the problems or ask the requesting user to fix it! --Martin H. (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- (EC)The nominator is responsible for a correct DR. If a DR has been kept already for two times and the new nominator fails to make a valid DR (it *was* an invalid DR), I don't see a valid reason against a keep closure. DRs like this are always at watch lists, so nominator will notice what happened and will be able to try again to follow the procedure. The fact that the uploaders have not been notified about the deletion request is sufficient for a keep closure for the moment. Jcb (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- For arguments you may also read the previous requests. The last one has been closed for procedural reasons, not judging yet the arguments. Jcb (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Please don't forget to add the DR to the today deletion request log, for now it's only present in archived logs. Jcb (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- We only have 2 requests here. 1st about the Gallerie page RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972 and if this gallerie is in scope or not, the 2nd is about copyright. The 2nd request was started by Sycro, closed by DieBuche, reopened by Isderion, closed by you). The copyright arguments have never been judged correctly, Sycro made an appropriate request, tagged all files and informed the uplaoder, this request was closed 1) for beeing open a long time by DieBuche 2) for procedural reasons by you. Damn, Sycro informed the uploaders, tagged all files, added a list, arguments are provided, the copyright concern is serios and this arguments are simply squashed with a "kept" because in the meantime the deletion tags have been removed? Thats inappropriate. Even if the uploaders were not informed: Inform them! but not simply use a procedural mistake to overrule valid legal concerns with such wikilawering. And remember please that a copyright infringement is a copyright infringement, no matter the uploader was informed or not. And now remove this {{Delh}} tags, the discussion is not for the archive. --Martin H. (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I will copy the comments below. This is a new DR, so my keep closure remains and your new request starts today. Jcb (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is NOT a new request, I dont request something, I only fix the inapropriate dealing with other users requests. If you ask me we would reset the request to the version before your closure. The initial request was made by Sycro and was never correctly handled. --Martin H. (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you're that concerned with this DR, why didn't you process it in the past three months? You also still failed to list this DR to the today deletion request log. Please tell my if this comment is Chinese to you and I will take some time to explain you how it works. Jcb (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Because im not sure to make a decision. For the second question: {{Sofixit}}. --Martin H. (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not going to do that, but as long as nobody does, nobody will be allowed to close this request. Jcb (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Because im not sure to make a decision. For the second question: {{Sofixit}}. --Martin H. (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you're that concerned with this DR, why didn't you process it in the past three months? You also still failed to list this DR to the today deletion request log. Please tell my if this comment is Chinese to you and I will take some time to explain you how it works. Jcb (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is NOT a new request, I dont request something, I only fix the inapropriate dealing with other users requests. If you ask me we would reset the request to the version before your closure. The initial request was made by Sycro and was never correctly handled. --Martin H. (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I will copy the comments below. This is a new DR, so my keep closure remains and your new request starts today. Jcb (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- We only have 2 requests here. 1st about the Gallerie page RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972 and if this gallerie is in scope or not, the 2nd is about copyright. The 2nd request was started by Sycro, closed by DieBuche, reopened by Isderion, closed by you). The copyright arguments have never been judged correctly, Sycro made an appropriate request, tagged all files and informed the uplaoder, this request was closed 1) for beeing open a long time by DieBuche 2) for procedural reasons by you. Damn, Sycro informed the uploaders, tagged all files, added a list, arguments are provided, the copyright concern is serios and this arguments are simply squashed with a "kept" because in the meantime the deletion tags have been removed? Thats inappropriate. Even if the uploaders were not informed: Inform them! but not simply use a procedural mistake to overrule valid legal concerns with such wikilawering. And remember please that a copyright infringement is a copyright infringement, no matter the uploader was informed or not. And now remove this {{Delh}} tags, the discussion is not for the archive. --Martin H. (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
<quote>
- Keep according to § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG. --Eva K. is evil 14:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Info Note, that Pictures belong to § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG prohibited derivation (and must have an source given) - so this isn't free as here "free" is defined. --Quedel (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC); Additionally, the license template is only for works according to § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG, not for works according to Abs. 2. --Quedel (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The images cannot possibly be kept under German copyright law. First, they are obviously not protected under § 5 (1) UrhG which protects "Laws, ordinances, official decrees and notices as also decisions and official grounds of decisions" (translation from [3]). Second, as Quedel pointed out, it is irrelevant if they enjoy protection under § 5 (2) UrhG as this would mean that they are subject to § 62 (1) and thus not freely usable anyway (c.f. [4]). As to the rest, see sугсго's comments in this matter. —Pill (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course, this also applies to the extracted images. Given their licensing status, they would probably even be a violation of § 62 (1) (see Dreier in Dreier/Schulze UrhG, § 62, recital 16), so even if, much to my surprise, non-free images were accepted here and for some reason § 5 (2) was applicable to the wanted posters as suggested by EvaK, these images would have to be deleted. —Pill (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
</quote>
- This request is about copyrights, if the files are a violation of COM:L we cant keep them, no matter if they are linked somewhere or not, this is entirely meaningles and nothing but stupid wikilawering. The lists are however provided by Special:WhatLinksHere and above by Sycro and theu uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The first DR and the last DR just mentioned the gallery in it. It was an honest mistake. And making it very clear what is to be deleted is a very important thing in DRs, and this page is a mess.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- This request is about copyrights, if the files are a violation of COM:L we cant keep them, no matter if they are linked somewhere or not, this is entirely meaningles and nothing but stupid wikilawering. The lists are however provided by Special:WhatLinksHere and above by Sycro and theu uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The files are all listed above and in Category:Deletion requests May 2010. Teofilo (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete There are two aspects concerning the photographies:
- Right of the own image of the photographed people: They are not neccessarily famous people in public. The were just searched by the police for some time. They are unguilty, arrested, or free again. Keeping the pictures in public is a damage to their personal rights.
- Copyright of the photographers. It is not given for further use than the police search.
So there is not a legal base for keeping it. On the other hand, these papers are indeed part of the german history. -- Simplicius (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- For the first one; I don't think we worry about Germany conceptions of personal rights. The English Wikipedia has an article on a German murderer who won cases in Germany about the violation of his personal rights, and threatened the WMF with legal action. You join a terrorist group, earn some notoriety, you've bought yourself a place in the public record.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is law. Simplicius (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Works under the terms of § 5 II dUrhG are not compatible with the conditions of free contents. Free content require the right for derivations, but these works doesn't allow this, so §§ 5 II, 62 I - III dUrhG.
- Werke gem. § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG sind nicht mit den Bedingungen der freien Inhalte kompatibel. Nur solche Werke, welche eine freie Bearbeitung zulassen, entsprechen den freien Inhalten. Dies trifft jedoch im Gegensatz zu Abs. 1 explizit nicht zu.
- --Suhadi Sadono (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- PS: See also this Discussion. --Suhadi Sadono (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete Das Fahnundungsplakat und alle daraus entnommenen Lichtbilder müssen leider gelöscht werden. Der § 5 aus dem Urheberrecht kann in diesem Falle nicht angewendet werden. Da der § 24 KunstUrhG (Gesetz betreffend das Urheberrecht an Werken der bildenden Künste und der Photographie) für Wikipedia / Wikicommons nicht gelten kann.
- Zitat:
- Für Zwecke der Rechtspflege und der öffentlichen Sicherheit dürfen von den Behörden Bildnisse ohne Einwilligung des Berechtigten sowie des Abgebildeten oder seiner Angehörigen vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden.
Von daher leider leider löschen kandschwar (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Wikimedia Commons ist keine Behoerde. Jeder Kriminelle sollten sich den entsprechenden Paragraphen allerdings merken, falls sein Bildnis einmal ohne dessen Einwilligung von den Behoerden oeffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden sollte. --Janericloebe (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Du verdrehst da glaube ich was. Behörden dürfen ohne Einwilligung des Berechtigten (Berechtigter=Inhaber der Nutzungsrechte), andere Stellen dürfen nicht. Wikimedia Commons darf also nicht. --Martin H. (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Die Abgebildeten sind ggf. unschuldig, oder verurteilt, inhaftiert oder bereits entlassen. Damit ist der Drops gelutscht. Rechtspflege greift nicht mehr.- Simplicius (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I changed my mind on this one; the license does not apply. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. User:Pill's analysis is persuasive, and others seem largely in accord. I'm not concerned about protecting these people's privacy in this case, only that the law in question does not permit derivative works, and so does not comply with Commons:Licensing. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
there is no freedom of Panorama in France --84.61.214.43 14:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Nominator is right unfortunately No COM:FOP in France/Belgium for modern works of art except when the author has been dead for more than 70 years. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- File:Locmariaquer 2008 PD 09.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Locmariaquer 2008 PD 08.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Locmariaquer 2008 PD 10.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Locmariaquer 2008 PD 11.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Locmariaquer 2008 PD 12.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Locmariaquer 2008 PD 13.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Locmariaquer 2008 PD 14.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Locmariaquer 2008 PD 46.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Locmariaquer 2008 PD 47.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
No COM:FOP#France. Why do people worry about old office buildings when stuff like this is left with {{Disputed}}? Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP in France. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Likely copyvio. Mugshots are not public domain unless stated or property of the US Government. Maday was held in state prisons. Source given is a newspaper. Multixfer (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: http://www.dailyherald.com/story/image/?id=322767&image=192445. up for deletion since September 19
likely source: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/photos/2009/09/robert-maday-before-the-standoff.html or http://www.robertm
Per COM:FOP#France no freedom of panorama in France, architectural work by Le Corbusier (1887-1965) D4m1en (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: No freedom of panorama in the source country: Copyright violation: Architectural work by Le Corbusier (1887-1965) not yet in public domain, per COM:FOP#France no freedom of panorama in France
There are several replacement images for this pier here on Commons. Image is of low quality and failed flickrreview. Leoboudv (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. License on Flickr now Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic. MGA73 (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what's purpose of this old orphan small image, but it seems like an old template image. Cannot be used for encyclopedic purposes anymore. OsamaK 13:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please see also File:-20C.png, File:-19C.png, File:-18C.png, File:-17C.png, File:-16C.png, File:-14C.png, File:-13C.png, File:-12C.png, File:-11C.png, File:-10C.png, File:-9C.png, File:-8C.png, File:-7C.png, File:-6C.png, File:-5C.png, File:-4C.png, File:-3C.png, File:-2C.png, File:-1C.png, File:0C.png, File:1C.png, File:2C.png, File:3C.png, File:4C.png, File:5C.png, File:6C.png, File:7C.png, File:8C.png, File:9C.png, File:10C.png, File:11C.png, File:12C.png, File:13C.png, File:14C.png, File:15C.png, File:16C.png, File:17C.png, File:18C.png, File:19C.png, File:20C.png, File:21C.png, File:22C.png, File:23C.png, File:24C.png, File:25C.png, File:26C.png, File:27C.png, File:28C.png, File:29C.png, File:30C.png, File:31C.png, File:32C.png, File:33C.png, File:34C.png, File:35C.png, File:36C.png, File:37C.png, File:38C.png, File:39C.png, File:40C.png, File:41C.png, File:42C.png, File:43C.png, File:44C.png, File:45C.png, File:46C.png, File:47C.png, File:48C.png, File:49C.png and File:50C.png.--OsamaK 16:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, outside of project scope. –blurpeace (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Small, orphan, non-encyclopedic image. OsamaK 17:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not in use, difficult to see that it is a red pen. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Small, orphan, bad JPG, un-encyclopedic, old image. OsamaK 17:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Images of Krlzh
[edit]- File:Brenner meeting.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Benito Mussolini vs League of Nations.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
It seems unlikely to me that those images are screenshots plus there is not author given so we can't verify that this is, in fact, true. Author has been warned in the past not to upload copyright violations. Dferg (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Source says "taken from Salvat encyclopaedia". KveD (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Old, orphan, small image with replacements. OsamaK 19:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope. Personal image being used as a myspace and promotion for music career. Complete with youtube links and lyrics! Blargh29 (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Lyrics clearly out of scope. I don't see anything wrong with images of minor musicians, though. - Jmabel ! talk 16:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete What is this non-notable artist artist's name? (Image is in use in an article about a church in the Tagalog wikipedia; seems inappropriate.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy, architect died just in 1990, no PD. 93.42.93.188 06:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately there are no exceptions in Italy [5] --The daydreamer (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
changing speedy in normal deletion request, original reason given: This file is a copyright violation because it is from http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/update/project_detail.cfm/pb_id=747 (says "Credit: Office of Governor Kenny Guinn") Huib talk 14:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. No metadata & low resolution. — df| 14:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The artist Геннадий Абрамов (Gennadiy Abramov) is probably still alive. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is essentially the same image as File:Sarmatian clothes.jpg, so both images should be discussed. — Monedula (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted at enwiki (see discussion) for having no proof of GFDL release. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
copyvio of nl:NRC Handelsblad and http://beautifulagony.com/public/main.php --86.94.36.240 16:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted A.J. (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Files from J929
[edit]In the description, we've got author unknown and the card doesn't look like old enough to be PD. Or the Author is J929 and the work is to photograph an existing picture. --- Zil (d) 09:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- File:Sai Symbol 768.jpg
- File:Sai Ping Pong.jpg
- File:Sai Baba Vibhutti.jpg
- File:Sai Baba 19273.jpg
- File:Sai Baba BW.jpg
- File:Sai Baba 7454.jpg
- File:Sai Baba 986.jpg
- File:Sai Baba 477.jpg
- File:Sai Baba 23.jpg
- File:Sai and Geeta.jpg
- File:Sai Baba9.jpg
- File:Sai 99.jpg
- File:SAI 1.jpg
I believe this should be kept :
- Zil (d) 09:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The Sai Baba photos lack permision by the copyright holders. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
hi, most of the photos are of postcards purchased by me or sent to me by friends. None have any copyright information on the postcards themselves (most have three line and a square for a postage stamp on the reverse side). If any one has been to India, such cards are purchased anywhere for pennies a piece. The remaining cards are "Holy Cards" with a photo on the front and prayers or a calendar on the reverse side, again no copyright information is given. Most were purchased over 10 years ago, and considering the way these postcards and cards are made, most are a photograph, of a photograph, from a photograph etc... and considering Sai Baba's age, 82, and most of these photos are from his 40-50s, the photos (and replications)themselves are over 30 years old.
i took the pictues of the cards. as can be seen in the Metadata section. Each card is from India, none has any copyright info and was purchased for about 10 cents a piece, form a street vendor.
Thanks!
J929 (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Many people use these photos and cards for worship, ie File:Ancestor worship004.jpg if i were to crop this photo and extract just the Buddha pictures, is that a copyright infringement? if there is an altar to Sai Baba and i take a photgraph of it and post it, is that a copyright infringement on the photos on the altar? If it is not then i can go to a local Sai Baba center and take photos of the pictures on the altar and walls (as they are there for worship) and post those pictures. is that correct?
Thanks!
J929 (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- As long as you are doing a picture based on someone else picture it is a Derivated. Please check : COM:DW - Zil (d) 00:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
i would have to get permission for the Sai Trust in order to post them in commons? how about taking a picture of an altar ie, Sai Baba center, and posting that such as File:Ancestor worship004.jpg how is that affected by copyright?
J929 (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- We need to get permission from the copyright owner. That mean the photograph that take the original picture. If you could get such permission. look here for the process : COM:OTRS. - Zil (d) 15:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
a question of concern, i had already mentioned that these photographs can up to 4-5 generations form the original.
Sai Baba had an 'official' photographer but am unsure what links to him as some photos seem like they were taken 'live' ie not in a photoshoot, and he was dismiised after some years. i have talked to some photo store owners who say the same thing, they simply take a photo of an existing photo and then sell them. J929 (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
is it better to ask an OTRS volunteer or try myself? thanks. J929 (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
i'm getting in touch with the Sai Trust now and a local Sai Center where the leaflets are from... thanks!
J929 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
No word from the Sai trust, i will contact a wiki volunteer to help. Thanks!!
J929 (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
sent requests for assistance to three wiki volunteers... waiting for responses in how to proceed...
J929 (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No progress for 5 months. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Files by User:Universal Hero
[edit]After File:Shriya Saran.jpg - the uploader prefered removal of the warning on en.wp instead of answering to it, so I dont have his honest statement on this - I think all self created files by w:en:User:Universal Hero are falsely claimed own work and taken from various websites. On Commons this are 3 files listed below. --Martin H. (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia-only permission. No evidence that the copyright holder approved the stated licenses. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Permission Bonjour, Oui, bien sur, vous pouvez utiliser nos photos pour WIKIPEDIA, simplement mentionnez la source des photos : www.bourlingueurs.com Merci par avance. Bien cordialement
Marc THIEBAUT
voir http://www.bourlingueurs.com/australie/tasmanie/index.htm qui donne le droit libre de reproduction
Berichard (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Again, that statement only says that one can use the images on Wikipedia. This is problematic for several reasons:
- The image is not hosted on Wikipedia, but on Wikimedia Commons, so the e-mail statement is not applicable.
- Images on Commons must be free for anyone to use in any context, not just on Wikipedia, as the e-mail implies.
- There must be explicit permission to publish derivative works, which is not given in the e-mail nor on the web site.
- You claimed that the copyright holder (we'll ignore, for the moment, that you also claimed to be the copyright holder by using the {{Self}} tag without the author parameter) published the file under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. I see no evidence of that. You can't just infer a legally valid license from a vague statement like that.
- To avoid problems like this, always follow the procedure on COM:OTRS to ensure that you obtain a valid and complete permission. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Non l'image est libre de droit du moment qu'on cite l'auteur comme indiqué sur le site de l'auteur indiqué ~en haut Berichard (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no sufficient permission for Commons. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
