Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/09/26

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

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

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive September 26th, 2009
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Le_voir_3.jpg

[edit]

Probable copyright violation. Likely scanned from a newspaper article. –blurpeace (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Nothing to support the claim of "libre de droit". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Heaven_Shall_Burn.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyright violation (see www.heavenshallburn.com). Cannibaloki (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete No free license on the source site. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jesus Bethany.jpg

[edit]

No source is given. It suspiciously claims to be a 20th century icon whose author has been dead for over 70 years. It may be a copy of http://www.atelier-st-andre.net/htresol/onction_bethanie.html or a related file. --Texas Whitt (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Anonymous undated work, but these are the authors, still alive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Per Kuiper. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:---File---L.O.S(t).jpg

[edit]

Outside of project scope, contains personal information, not used anywhere.   ■ MMXXtalk  05:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Out of scope -- Deadstar (msg) 15:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete, obviously outside of project scope. It has no foreseeable educational purpose, and we are not a personal host for people's files. –blurpeace (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PikiWiki_Israel_4624_Yuval_and_the_sailor.JPG

[edit]

Derivative of a work by Rami Meiri; the combination is a personal photo out of project scope. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Moomin_and_Hemulen_figures.jpg

[edit]

COM:DW - the flickr photographer did not make these. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schoolgirl_Walks_Past_Cartoon_Mural_-_La_Cumbre_-_Argentina.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Walibi_Belgium_Bob_l'Éponge_4D.jpg

[edit]

No COM:FOP#Belgium. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Berlin_musee_juif_feuilles.JPG

[edit]

Derivative work. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see here Commons:Freedom of panorama: "It is possible by § 59 of the Urheberrechtsgesetz (the most comprehensive German copyright law act) to take pictures of works that are permanently located on public ways, streets or places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. For works of architecture, this provision is applicable only to the external appearance". A museum in Germany is a public place. This is one of many unjustified haracement of Pieter Kuiper. Deror avi (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is yet another example of Deror avi's inability to understand a law text (and he says he is a lawyer, with professional knowledge of copyright). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two things are unclear to me. First, is it a permanent exhibition? If not, then clearly FOP doesn't apply. And second, from reading the German law (Werke, die sich bleibend an öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen oder Plätzen befinden), it seems to me that öffentliche Plätze is to be understood as public square rather than any public location. I'd be interested to hear from a native German speaker, but the enumeration Wege, Straßen oder Plätze really makes it sound like that. –Tryphon☂ 22:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is also obvious from: "For works of architecture, this provision is applicable only to the external appearance" - although these works have permanent addresses on public roads, streets, and squares, only the external appearance is exempted from copyright protection. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a permanent exhibition at a public museum - therefore free under german Law. Pieter - I know you can't read Hebrew, apperantly you don't understand English either. Deror avi (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of this description (in German) it seems to be a permanent installation. However, as of the same description the room seems (never been there) to be clearly inside the building. Thereby, as of this FOP explaination this photo of Kadishman's work likely isn't covered by FOP of Germany. As w:Menashe Kadishman isn't that old, couldn't the photographer try to contact him and ask for approval of some of his images from the "memory void"? --Túrelio (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC) --Túrelio (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, as this is clearly inside a building. German FOP clearly does not cover this. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To make it simple: "German law allows photographers to take pictures that are visible from publicly accessible places. This includes private ways and parks with common access. ... The picture must be taken from a publicly accessible point. ...The German law allows photography of both buildings and sculptures."Commons:Freedom of panorama ([1])
This picture is from a museum ( and permenantly displayed there) - it is a "publicly accessible point" in Germany and therefore, photography is allowed. Deror avi (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You usually dismiss the opinion of people who discuss Israeli law but don't speak Hebrew, and here you don't even take into account the opinion and links provided by native German speakers. From Túrelio's link: Bei Innenaufnahmen oder Aufnahmen von Gegenständen wie Skulpturen im Gebäudeinneren bedarf es der Zustimmung des Urhebers oder des Rechteinhabers, sowie des Inhabers des Hausrechts, bei solchen Aufnahmen kann man sich also nicht auf die Panoramafreiheit berufen. Which roughly means that pictures of sculptures inside buildings are not covered by FOP. You also conviniently omit from your quote this important part: However, it does not include railway station buildings or platforms. Which again suggests that only outdoors public places are covered by German FOP (a railway station building is publicly accessible, but it's indoors). –Tryphon☂ 11:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that I am well familiar with Israeli Law and not German Law. But - as Pieter Kuiper said - can you provide with a Court rulling or a textbook which states that museums are not public grounds according to the copyright Law in Germany? (I can't read German, so preferably a link to a translation in English). Deror avi (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the law text itself is not clear enough, I am afraid that the Hundertwasserhaus case is not going to convince Deror avi either. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find anything in English (except wikipedia), but this site has some information: http://www.fotorecht.de/publikationen/gebaeude.html. Here are the relevant parts: Für Innenaufnahmen gibt es eine derartige gesetzliche Erlaubnis nicht. Which means that for interior shots, there is no such authorization (no freedom of panorama). And it goes on explaining that this is also true for public buildings such as museums: Dies gilt auch für Gebäude, die bestimmungsgemäß der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich sind, wie etwa Museen, Kirchen, Schlösser, Konzerthallen etc.
Maybe someone with better German skills can provide you with a more complete and precise translation, but you get the just of it. –Tryphon☂ 19:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The w:Public_space article says "Government buildings, such as public libraries and many other similar buildings are also public space". So ChrisiPK, on what basis do you say "German FOP clearly does not cover this"? This needs to be clarified prior to any deletion! --Elvey (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I sent the quote Tryphon provided to babelfish; it did seem to cover this at first. But it seems to be just a paraphrase of a quote from de., not a quote from German law.--Elvey (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep --Elvey (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Because http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/UrhG.htm (linked from Freedom_of_panorama#Germany) says:[reply]
Article 59 Works in Public Places 
(1) It shall be permissible to reproduce, by painting, drawing, photography or 
cinematography, works which are permanently located on public ways, streets or 
places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies.
Guys, Tryphons sounds very convinsing, but I think this is a major issue that is relevant to many many pictures and must be cleared first. what is this page? a blog? it does not look like a court decision or a text book, and I am not certain who wrote it, and what are his basis for this opinon nor is the writer an expert on the issue. Is there a German Lawyer who can shed light on the issue? Deror avi (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The person who wrote the comment on www.fotorecht.de is a lawyer himself (RA David Seiler; RA means Rechtsanwalt, lawyer) and claims to have written a book on internet-law. In addition, his comment on fotorecht.de had been published in Visuell magazine already in 2001. --Túrelio (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.com/books?q=panoramafreiheit gives as its first result a book by Henrik Lehment. On page 85 he writes about "not indoors" (with a bunch of scholarly references): Ebenfalls nicht priviligiert sind Aufnahmen von Werken die sich im Inneren eines Gebäudes befinden. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete FOP only applies to freely accessible, permanent installations outside of buildings. That's a fact and covered by german law. So if no permission from the copyright holder is given or the creator is not dead for more than 70 years then these images have to be deleted. --Denniss (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dieterich_1979_NCSU.jpg

[edit]

And...

Doesn't look like self-made. Uploader's other uploads are questionable as well. Rocket000 (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo333.jpg

[edit]

logo --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More explanations: I tagged the file with the correspondent {{logo}} template, but after a comment of the uploader in my talk page, I changed it to {{delete|logo}}, so as to know other people's opinion. The uploader says that the theather paid for the design of the logo, but I think that's not enough. I think that we do need the authorization of the designer.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 11:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LA_ROCHETTE_enneigé.jpg

[edit]

likely a copyvio as painter Jean Nury died only in 2007 (as of http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Nury). Túrelio (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Martín_Rodriguez.JPG

[edit]

Probable copyright violation. In this edit the user states that permission is not given for use. Lacks metadata as well. –blurpeace (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thora.png

[edit]

Unless the game is under a free license (of which there is no evidence here), this is presumably a copyrighted screenshot. Drilnoth (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is copyrighted and used WITH permission by me, Steve09424, do not delete.

Please read Commons:Licensing. For an image to be acceptable on Wikimedia Commons, it must be available under a free license. Simply having permission yourself to use the image isn't enough; there needs to be evidence that the copyright holder allows anyone to use the image for any purpose. Drilnoth (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gopalbrand5.jpeg

[edit]

Source is not specific, and the State of MN is not part of the Federal Government malo (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that license existed. I have changed the license on the image. I withdraw the deletion request for this image. Thanks, Nard. -- malo (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept (non-admin closure). –blurpeace (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gujarati_people_Montage.png

[edit]

one image is tagged with "All rights reserved" at Flickr - see http://www.flickr.com/photos/23523403@N03/2245424714/ Denniss (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Louvre_inside_pyramides.jpg

[edit]

No FOP in France Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete We can keep pictures where the new architecture is an incidental feature, but not where it's the subject of the photo. --Simonxag (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Upyachka.gif

[edit]

I don't believe that animation (and even image itself) is trivial VasilievVV (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, delete this and this images. I believe that animation is a modificated verson of File:Upyachka.gif (the same stickman's head and body). I don't believe that the stickman is copyrighted, so I absolutely discordant with VasilievVV. — Al3xil ✉ 20:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image is very trivial indeed. Anybody drew such stickmen even at childhood. Animation is also simple. --RedAndr (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The stickman is a generic figure which has been around a long time and would be rather difficult to claim copyright on. However, this animation is new, and if it comes from the stated source without permission it's a copyright violation. --Simonxag (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as fair use. --Gruznov (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Gruznov: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Upyachka.gif: I don't believe that animation (and even image itself) is trivial

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

File:EstherBaxterHeadShot.jpg

[edit]

strong doubts that this typical promo shot was really taken by uploader --Túrelio (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The picture was taken here in Atlanta two years ago in March of 2007. It shouldn't be considered for deletion and other than Túrelio opinion there is no other reason or basis for deletion. --Sixman (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sixman, if that's your work, I'm guessing you are a professional photographer. Could you either clarify your identity (on your user page) or send an OTRS notice with that clarification? The latter would let you keep your name confidential from the general run of users, if you choose. - Jmabel ! talk 02:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be glad if shown wrong. As of its somewhat EXIF data, it was taken with a "Cannon" (sic) on June 26, 2007, but saved only at Sept 15, 2009. And your deletion log suggests that this image was already deleted once, as was this File:EstherbaxterBodyShot.jpg one. --Túrelio (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Wknight94 talk 21:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Artcarfest_in_San_Francisco.jpg

[edit]

Is this Mila's car? Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - from my own commons experience, decorated cars are not considered derivative works, even if they're copies of disney creations. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Question Hey,pieter, how come you've never nominated for deletion File:Car with guano.JPG? It meets all the criterias for your nomination: It was taken and uploded by me, and I assure you it is derivative work. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I think we will not risk too much if we keep this picture --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well some company sees this image and decides to make a poster of this for an advertising campaign (like Virgin Mobile did). The artist sees posters of his car all over town, hires a lawyer and makes a claim of royalties and damages to the company because he never gave permission. What would happen? I do not believe that this is a free image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think Pieter Kuiper has a point. But, it would seem to apply to Category:Art cars, not merely this picture. I would be inclined to support deletion of all pictures in the category that are not Commons:De minimis, and are creative works (see en:Threshold of originality), if the consent of the artist is not obtained. I would be interested in learning more of mattbuck's argument to the contrary.
It seems to me that it may not be practical on Commons to attempt to distinguish between creative works by "serious artists" (those with credentials, shows, sales, etc., who might be inclined to assert copyright protection) and those who merely decorate their cars (non-creative works, and hence, not protected by copyright; more like the one that I uploaded).
COM:FOP does not apply to art cars that can be driven, even in those counties that recognize it, because FOP generally applies to permanent installations in public spaces.
A discussion concerning an image with some of the same issues is occurring at Commons:Deletion requests/File:BallonKathedrale01.JPG. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as this artwork in this particular case cannot exist independently from the utiliarian object, i.e. the car. Please take a look at this section that cites the relevant excemption from copyright law:

the design of a useful article [...] shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independ­ently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.

--AFBorchert (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rongorongo_B-v_Aruku-Kurenga.jpg

[edit]

No permission from photographer to publish the picture Teofilo (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Anonymous work ("Photograph from the Trocadero museum") published in 1935. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean anything more than the Trocadero museum is the owner of at least one copy of this photograph. That does not mean that the photographer gave the permission to use the work anonymously at anytime. Where is the negative of the photograph ? We don't know. Teofilo (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this means that the Trocadero museum holds the artefact, and that they supplied a photo for the 1935 book. Why do you keep concentrating on such old photographs anyway? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concentrate on this one because I dislike the copyright claim by people not connected with the photographer. It is possible that the 1935 publication was made under some "fair use" kind of thinking, not caring to seek the photographer's consent. If the photographer was an employee of the (government owned) museum, the new French copyright law says that he remains the copyright owner of his work whenever the work is used outside government purposes. Teofilo (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also I plan to work on the Easter Island categories, perhaps improving the categorization scheme, and adding new pictures from Flickr. Teofilo (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assume some good faith. The book published the photo with proper attribution to the source. When illustrations are needed for a book, one orders photos from museums. Maybe they have an old photo, maybe they make a new one, but it is quite likely that the name of the photographer gets never transmitted to the author or the publisher. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under French law, good faith is an excuse in penal law only (that means that good faith can help you avoid going to prison) but good faith has no value in civil law (even if you are in good faith, you must pay a compensation to the copyright holder if evidence shows that you commited copyright infringement). Teofilo (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you noticed the OTRS notice? The heirs of the author released all photos for public use. This was verified by the WM team. (Nonsense like this is why I seldom upload anything to Commons anymore--I could upload my own photos and they'd be tagged for deletion.) Kwamikagami (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Per Stifle; valid OTRS ticket. –Tryphon☂ 15:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opened, per this request on my talk page. I think Teofilo has a point. Are we sure Easter Island Foundation has the right to license this image? –Tryphon☂ 09:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}, no license necessary. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The description clearly says the image is about 150 years ago, why is there even a discussion of copyright at this point? Raeky (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This date of "<1860" is not written on source website, and we have no hint whether it refers to the photograph or to the carving. Teofilo (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course "<1860" refers to the tablet. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously talking about the photograph date NOT the carving date, the civilization on easter island dates about 700-800 CE so their carvings also would be arround that, it's ANCIENT. The writing and look of the photograph clearly dates it in the 1800's. Raeky (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After doing some more digging the dates of these texts is put somewhere arround 1600-1700, the 1860 date seems to be the date collected according to the providence section on it's wikipedia article. By 1870 expeditions almost noone on the island could read it and no other examples of it was found. The photograph of it though is in my opinion clearly from the 1800's. Raeky (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also the description text must be deleted, because we have no permission to publish this text, which was written by Chauvet. Even if we are allowed to publish the English version (Could someone see if the OTRS ticket says anything about the text?) we don't have the permission to translate it back into French. So this text is unfree. Teofilo (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, per Raeky, but removed the description. Kameraad Pjotr 19:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Guido_De_Giorgio.jpg

[edit]

Licensed with PD-old but author unknown and image of 1939... That makes it wrong licensed in many countries (January 1 following 70 years after the authors dead = not PD untill 2010) and it is extremly unlikely that the unknown author died directly after he made this photo. The image is missing an authors name and a proper licensing. Martin H. (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as per nom, not enough informations to determine the copyright status. Available on it.wiki as it:File:GuidoDeGiorgio.jpg under {{PD-Italy}}.--Trixt (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Szkic Stopiątki.JPG

[edit]

A very loosely made drawing of Konstal 105Na tramway --Delta 51 (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Is this a reason for deletion? It might be of scope anyhow. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The drawing does not correspond anyhow with the actual look of the vehicle. No proportions have been used by its author, eg. in real, height-to-length ratio of this tram is about 1:4,5, on the picture it's 1:2,5 (almost 2x shorter). Proper drawing of this vehicle can be seen here here. Delta 51 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Uploader not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader has been notified on September 26th, on his discussion site on the Polish Wikipedia (pl:Dyskusja Wikipedysty:Szczecinolog#Grafiki na Commons), since Wikipedia is his main place of contribution. Delta 51 (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Masur (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Serbia territorial pretensions.png

[edit]

This image shows fictional territorial claims by Bulgarian and Romanian nationalists that cannot be documented from objective sources, such as English Wikipedia's List of irredentist claims or disputes --Luci Sandor (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References and sources for this image are listed in "References" section on image page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Serbia_territorial_pretensions.png#References As for "English Wikipedia's List of irredentist claims or disputes", if it does not mention these territorial pretensions then the list obviously should be updated, i.e. that mean that list is wrong, not this image. As for other sources that confirm this, this map show clear Romanian territorial pretensions towrds Serbian territory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RomanianTerritories.png and this one show Bulgarian ones: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Serbia_%26_Pomoravie.jpg PANONIAN (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The file RomanianTerritories.png is not a proof of your claims. For once, the map does not show "Romanian Territories" with the meaning "Territories that I, the contributor, or some other lunatic, would like to add to contemporary Romania". Its summary elaborates that these are "Territories with historic significance for Romania", that is, lands that were, at any time in history, inhabited by Romanians, not necessarily forming a majority, or having any sovereignty on those lands. More specifically, the longer description of the map says about Serbian Banat that "was part of Banat Republic which held a Romanian majority." This is not a territorial claim. Also, the description maintains about Craina and Vidin that they "held and still hold a lot of ethnic Romanians/Vlachs". This is not a territorial claim either.
Sorry, but title of that map - "Romanian Territories" exactly imply that those are territories that somebody "would like to add to contemporary Romania", no matter of explanation provided later that aimed to hide a true mening of the map title. For me, and certainly for many other who see that map, the territorial pretensions in that map are clear since this map does not show any historical period when these territories might be significant for Romanians, but it show present situation claiming that these territories are Romanian. If you want to present territories with "historic significance" then you should draw a historic map that reflect such historic period, not a map that reflect modern times (it is a basic difference between history and historicism, and historicism is nothing else but something that want to justify territorial claims and pretensions). PANONIAN (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, one of the books that I listed in map references (Naša razgraničenja sa susedima 1919-1920) mention clear Romanian territorial pretensions to Banat and Timočka Krajina in 1919 peace conference and this exactly match with "Romanian Territories" map. If anything, I can improve description on my map reflecting that it show territorial pretensions from 1918/1919 to this day. PANONIAN (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I changed the map and now it had description that it show territorial pretensions towards Serbian territory from 1919 to 2009. I hope you will not deny that Romanian state had these pretensions in 1919. PANONIAN (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the most of it, Banat is part of Romania. Thus you cannot say "Romania has irredentist (or other kind of) claims on Banat".
Banat is divided region, so Romania cannot have irredentist to its own part of Banat, but it can have such claims to Serbian part (please do not try twisted-logic games here). PANONIAN (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you refer to the defunct Republic of Banat, it is true in 1919 that Romania made a claim on the whole of it, at the time when it was a single entity, based on the fact that Romanians were an unrepresented majority there. (That, and the fact that the whole of it was promised to Romania by the secret treaty of 1916 that pulled Romania into war. In 1916, those lands were Austro-Hungarian lands.) As soon as the Hungarian-Austrian disturbance was eliminated (at least on the Romanian side), Romanians and Serbs splitted Banat on the most advantageous border for both nations, given the massive population mix.
Banat Republic was a political entity dominated by Germans, so which base Romania used to claim whole Banat is irrelevant - the important thing is that such claims existed (thank you for confirm that) and it is all what my map show - the existence of such claims. PANONIAN (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I said: Banat Republic is indeed the only part of current Serbia claimed by Romania, but it was not claimed from Serbia. At the time, Serbia had no de facto control and only a low chance of de jure control. The claim was against the Austrian-Hungarian element, and was due specifically to the Hungarian and Austrian presence. Were these Serbian lands, they would not have been claimed for by Romania. One year later, Hungarian danger defeated, Romania has no claim over the Serbian part of Banat Republic.--Luci Sandor (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply not correct. Banat Republic existed for only few days, and after Serbian army entered Banat, Serbia controled western and central Banat, so Romania actualy raised its claims to western Banat in the time when it was controled by Serbia, not by Banat Republic, Austria-Hungary or what ever. And also this is what one of the published sources listed in map "references" section claim: "In this time (March, 1919), Romania conducted an intense campain against SCS Kingdom (i.e. Yugoslavia), asking for itself whole Banat and Timok Vlachs." (Milojko Brusin, Naša razgraničenja sa susedima 1919-1920, Novi Sad, 1998.) - this is a quotation from mentioned source, so, no matter what your opinion about that quotation might be, part of the map that show Romanian claims is sourced. PANONIAN (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At no time did Romanians try to move into the autonomous Banat-Bačka-Baranja, corresponding to today's Serbian Banat, even though they were able. It seems you miss the difference between negotiation and conflict. If you want an example, conflict is how Romania settled its border with Hungary at the same time, when Romanian troops did the hard work to make sure Vojvodina is not Hungarian. Despite having the upper hand, Romanians did not turn to the Serbs next. That was because they were allies, and because Romanians had no claim to more Serbian lands.
My map do not show conflicts, but territorial claims - most territorial claims in the World are made in peaceful times and conflicts are usually consequence of such claims, not otherwise. PANONIAN (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Timok, all I could find is http://www.tkinter.smig.net/Romania/PleaForRoumania1919/index.htm, a pamphlet written in New York by an American in 1919. It says "Moreover by giving the whole of the Banat to Roumania you give as frontiers the rivers Tisza and Danube which supply natural boundaries. Any other frontier would be highly artificial and be the cause of endless disputes. It is true that there are some 200,000 Serbs in the Torontal district, but as Roumania makes no claim to the valleys of the Timok and Morava on the South side of the Danube where dwell 300,000 Roumanians, the Serbs could well afford to give over 200,000 of their people in Torontal to Roumania." Note the fact that the territorial claim is made by a New-yorker and that the objective affirmation there is "Romania has no claims over Timok in 1919". --Luci Sandor (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In one part of negotiations Romania did not had such claims, but my source claim that during Paris Peace conference Romania raised claims to Timok region. PANONIAN (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same goes with the Bulgarian-labelled map. Despite my lack of understanding of Bulgarian, it seems to me that it is merely a map of Serbia with historical provinces delimited. The region that you claim is claimed by Bulgarians is labelled "Западни покрайнини". This does not prove any territorial claim, as it doesn't say "Bulgarian lands that evil Serbs took from us and which we'll recover in a holy war", but only a traditional Bulgarian name for the region.
Actually, that Bulgarian map does not show any historical provinces since such provinces never existed - it show fictional "Bulgarian provinces", i.e. parts of Serbia claimed by Bulgarian nationalists as their. PANONIAN (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I showed that map only as example of Bulgarian territorial claims but you can see that "References" section of my map contain several published sources. For example, one of the books listed in these references (Dr Tomislav Bogavac, Nestajanje Srba, Niš, 1994.) have a detailed description of Bulgarian territorial claims towards Serbia and such description match with a Bulgarian map that I presented here. PANONIAN (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without making a fuss out of the Bulgarian map that I hardly knew anything prior to yesterday. You say "it shows fictional Bulgarian provinces". I say, let's read the labels. They say Vojvodina, Central Serbia, Timoshko, Kosovo, Gora, Pomoravie and the Western Outlands. Are you implying that all of these are Bulgarian provinces claimed by the author of the map? Or only some of them? And how did you guess which ones are claimed?--Luci Sandor (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My sources claim that all these lands shown on Bulgarian map (excluding Vojvodina and Central Serbia, of course) are claimed by Greater Bulgarian irredentists - why else would I present such map as example of these claims when map do not openly state territorial claims but do show areas that are part of such claims, according to other sources. PANONIAN (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This map is all about victimization, about how everybody in the world is getting poor Serbia. If not today, then at some time in the past. If not by a war, then by an unused map hidden in Wikimedia, where Serbian regions are drawn in an irregular fashion. With the self-pitying question mark in the area "not claimed by anyone" (shouldn't it say "not claimed by anyone between 1919 and 2009"?) and the extension of claims over a century (why not a millennium?), this image qualifies as unusable anywhere in any Wikipedia.--Luci Sandor (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Victimization? How so? The map only show data that could be interesting to those that are interested in subjects related to irredentism (and irredentism is an encyclopaedic subject for research and presentation). As I already pointed out, these Romanian and Bulgarian maps that I presented were not main sources for my map - I mostly used several published sources that are all listed in "References" section on map page, and I showed these two other maps just as illustration of the subject available on Internet. I will try to find more Iternet sources to present them to you, but, you also confirmed that data from published sources that I presented is correct (i.e. the data about Romanian claims to whole Banat in 1919). As for area "not claimed by anyone", that area could be also claimed by Greater Bosnia (see this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Bosnia ), but since I did not found confirmation of such Greater Bosnian claims in other sources, I did not used that info in my map. As for the question why I used year 1919 as a starting point in my map, the answer is very simple: it was in 1919 when Serbia gained all territories that it curently controls, so irredentist claims to current territory of Serbia could be tracked from 1919. There are also maps that present Serbian territorial claims to neighbouring countries, for example this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Homogena_Srbija.gif - so, if we use your logic we can say that this map is also an example of victimization where neighboring peoples are presented as victims of "evil Serbs". Of course, we will not use your logic, and we will regard all these maps only as scientific presentation of irredentist claims and nothing more or less from that. PANONIAN (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - and now, since my map show territorial claims from 1919 to 2009 and since questions are raised about data regarding Romanian and Bulgarian territorial claims in this time period, I will present here several Internet sources that confirm such claims: PANONIAN (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. http://vukajlija.com/attached_images/0007/0380/san_stefano_bg.gif - map showing Greater Bulgarian territorial claims ("б?лграско земли?е" - Bulgarian lands). PANONIAN (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. http://anamnesis.info/resources/WWI_BG_MAP.jpg - WWI map of Bulgaria showing even larger pretensions. PANONIAN (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. http://www.blogkiado.hu/images/35-Z.htm - Romanian claims in Banat in 1919. PANONIAN (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. http://arhiva.glas-javnosti.rs/arhiva/2005/03/28/pisma/srpski/pisma.shtml - newspaper article from 2003. that mention Romanian territorial claims to Timok ("Ne radi se o tome da li se neki delovi karpatskog planinskog sistema iz Rumunije mogu odseći i preneti južno od Dunava na prostor severoistočne Srbije, u užem smislu, ili obrnuto da se taj deo Srbije prenese u Rumuniju, već o teritorijalno-političkim pretenzijama i na taj srpski prostor, sa ciljem da se Srbi pritesne na što je moguće uži prostor.") PANONIAN (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Map no. 1 shows Bulgaria today, after San Stefano treaty, and something labelled "Bulgarian lands during 19h century". The first two are objective descriptions of Bulgaria, and they cannot be territorial claims. The third, labelled "Bulgarian lands during 19th Century", is yet another objective description of the status quo in terms of population density, as shown in this independent, 1860 map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Ethnographic_Map_of_Turkey_in_Europe.jpg . Thus, this can't be a territorial claim either.
Actually, map 1 have a big title "Bulgarian lands" with no time specified, only in legend there is a "19th century" description. So, this map might be or might not be seen as ilustration of Greater Bulgarian claims, but here is quotation from a published source about this issue: "Bulgarian nationalists would not be satisfied only with those parts of Serbia that they gained from Germans in 1941. Their pretensions are going beyond that. Besides Macedonia, they tend to control main Balkanic communication line: Morava - Vardar valley...this area would include 1.000.000 Macedonians, 400.000 Albanians and 1.500.000 Serbs...it would include Pomoravlje and Stig...Niš, Leskovac, Vranje...and also area from the point where Yugoslav border reach Danube (in Banat) to the east..." (Dr Tomislav Bogavac, Nestajanje Srba, Niš, 1994.) So, all these maps that I showed to you are something that correspond very well with Greater Bulgarian pretensions described in this book. The book, of course, is the main source here, so part of my map that ilustrate Greater Bulgarian claims is sourced, no matter how would we describe this map from external link. PANONIAN (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Map no. 2 is exactly what you say: the map of Bulgaria during the war. I translated through Google the text in German, it says: "The Bulgarian border before the war is called pink, the boundary of the occupied areas during the war includes purple." Those are basically front lines during WWI, and not territorial claims.
I would not agree that this map does not represent territorial claims - just look at Dobruja area that was not under Bulgarian control in this time. PANONIAN (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article no. 4 was translated witg=h Gogle. It says as a fact "The addition of the Minister of the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine, was also attended by the then Minister for Environment of the Republic of Serbia. On that occasion, signed the so-called Karpatska konvencija. Time and Serbia became part of the Carpathian region. According to the above Convention, part of northeastern Serbia (Negotinska and Timočka Giulia) is defined as the Carpathian Serbia." Then the article speculates: "And it's not about whether some parts of the Carpathian mountain system from Romania can cut and transferred to the south of the Danube in the northeast area of Serbia, in the narrow sense, or vice versa to the Serbian part of the transfer to Romania, but on the territorial and political claims and the Serbian area, aiming to the Serbs pritesne the possible narrower space." This speculation is hardly a source.
Well, it is speculation, I agree, but since my map show territorial pretensions from 1919 to this day, there is no need that we prove Romanian pretensions to Timok region in 21st century since I quoted a source that mention these pretensions in 1919. PANONIAN (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about the map no.3 It might be genuine. However, the map is dated February 1919. According to English Wikipedia, "The national councils were dismantled by the Serbian forces on 21 February 1919." That is, at the time Romania supposedly claimed it, it was under de facto German-ethnic rule.
It was not under de facto German rule. From November 1918 to March 1919, western and central Banat were controled by ethnic Serb national council and national administration from Novi Sad. So, these local ethnic Serb administrations were dismantled by the Yugoslav government, not German ones (the German ones were dismantled in november 1918). PANONIAN (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. In use on en:Irredentism, which means at least one fellow Wikimedia project wants it, so it's within our project scope. Rocket000 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Map_of_USA_presidential_elections_1948.PNG

[edit]

As annotated, this image is inaccurate. Tennessee should be grey (there was one faithless elector there but the rest went to Truman), and Alaska and Hawaii should not be included at all since they were not states at the time. Wknight94 talk 20:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Incorrect, makes it out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not anymore. Wknight94 talk 22:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to change the caption. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Wknight94 talk 01:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Not a reason I normally delete stuff for (incorrectness) but I don't think this one's wanted anymore. Rocket000 (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paul_Kirk_(sénateur_du_Massachusetts).jpg

[edit]

Duplicate of PaulGKirkJr.jpg, which was deleted as copyvio. Hekerui (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per en:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 September 24#File:PaulGKirkJr.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MelyssaFordHeadShot.jpg

[edit]

strong doubts that this typical promo shot with a professional camera was taken by uploader --Túrelio (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The shot was taken three years ago at a event here in Atlanta by me. Why do you doubt that? --Sixman (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be glad if shown wrong. However, the image was already deleted once. As of its EXIF data, it was taken with a professional NIKON D2X. But at the same time, it has only 233 × 350 Pixels, as if taken from a website. --Túrelio (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No reasonable explanation has been provided for the use of such a low-res image from a camera having 12.4mpx capacity. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Theah_seen_by_Theus.jpg

[edit]

I think that this is a derivative work of the 7th Sea RPG; even if this particular map was created by the uploader, it is based on an official one and is therefore a derivative work. If it is not based on the original map, then if fails Commons:Scope. Drilnoth (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The Evil IP address (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images of 7th Sea coats of arms

[edit]

I believe that this image are probably all copyright violations. Even if these specific images were created by the uploader, they are still derivative works of the 7th Sea roleplaying game and are, therefore, unfree. If, on the other hand, they were just created by the uploader to represent the different nations, and aren't based on the actual nation coats of arms, then I can't see how they can be of any educational value as is required by Commons:Scope. Drilnoth (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can submit any coat of arms to copyright, even fictional ones. The only thing that can be copyrighted is the picture itself. And as you said, these are derivated from the original work. The only common thing between the original work and my work is the heraldry description, the blasonnement. It's the small text that describes in specific terms what is to be represented on each shield. And since several families and cities used Coat of Arms absolutely identical, it had been decided that these blasonnements couldn't be submitted to any copyright. The picture made out of the text is just the personal interpretation of the herald. As long as the drawing is not exactly the same as the one used by the owner of 7th Sea, my work can still be released into the public domain. --Syryatsu (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So does that mean that there aren't any images of the coats of arms in the roleplaying game book(s) themselves? If they are only described briefly in text, then I could see that these are original works which could be within Commons:Scope. Did you just base the images on text, or on text and other images? Drilnoth (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. The thing is there is no law saying you can't make and use your own version of a coat of arms. Or else I could say 'alright, from now on the coat of arms of my family will be the one Ireland uses (blue field with a golden harp)' and prohibit anyone to use any version of a coat of arms featuring such a design. Therefore, when I drawn my version of the 7th Sea cot of arms, I'm not abusing any artist rights or anything.
--92.43.66.7 16:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, unless the author explicitly states the images ware drawn using a description and not actual images, the files are copyright violations. Kameraad Pjotr 19:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2009/09/26&oldid=43202033"