Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/09/30
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
CC3 licensed image of same specimen available on commons file:Cimolichthys nepaholica DMNHS54M 01.jpg --Kevmin (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep- Its the ambiguity of the release at creationism.org that concerns me. Here is the text from the site:
- "And most of these images are FREE for you to share with friends, co-workers & classmates and to be used for any educational purpose. (See the respective information on each page.) Do USE & SHARE these images! But please don't take advantage of our willingness to share them. Give proper credit, e.g. "Photo by ------" or "Courtesy of: www.creationism.org" as appropriate, and please ask before using images in any commercial for-profit publication of any kind"
- I'm not sure if the wording of this release is translatable to a CC license or not, plus the availability of a CC3 image on commons, means that this image should not be used and possibly it should not have been uploaded at all. It should be also noted that the image on that site from the Smithsonian include images which are of copyrighted materials such as paintings and dioramas. --Kevmin (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Its the ambiguity of the release at creationism.org that concerns me. Here is the text from the site:
- (ec) Seems like the license in incorrect. From the link provided as permission: And most of these images are FREE for you to share with friends, co-workers & classmates and to be used for any educational purpose. [...] But please don't take advantage of our willingness to share them. Give proper credit, [...] and please ask before using images in any commercial for-profit publication of any kind. So it's a non-commercial license, and it says nothing about derivative works.
Delete. –Tryphon☂ 06:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Seems like the license in incorrect. From the link provided as permission: And most of these images are FREE for you to share with friends, co-workers & classmates and to be used for any educational purpose. [...] But please don't take advantage of our willingness to share them. Give proper credit, [...] and please ask before using images in any commercial for-profit publication of any kind. So it's a non-commercial license, and it says nothing about derivative works.
- And "most images" does not guarantee anything. Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- And "most images" does not guarantee anything.
Deleted. Was a bit inexperienced with copyright back when I uploaded it. Also deleted the other images[1][2] I uploaded from there. FunkMonk (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:DMNS34L_GiantSpiderVsMyPen.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:LizardHypsognathus.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- File:Bambi-karlsruhe rework.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
No Freedom of Panorama indoors (this is a German television award). Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- You missed File:Bambi-karlsruhe rework2.jpg. -- smial (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Done --anro (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by AnRo0002: Copyright violation
No source, don't know if it is free game or no? ■ MMXXtalk 05:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment According to wikipedia, the game is licensed under the GPL. –Tryphon☂ 06:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)- It doesn't seem to be a self-made screenshot though [3], so it might well be a copyright violation. –Tryphon☂ 08:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The game is a freeware game available for download at http://atomius.110MB.com/atocity.htm, i put a source link at the Wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Atomius (talk • contribs) 18:07, 2009 October 3 (UTC)
Kept as the game is released under GPL. Not own work though. |EPO| da: 08:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion)
Reason for deletion: No source. Author and Initiator of deletion: 21:34, 25. Sep. 2009 BruceIsmay --Fixing request --El-Bardo (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete At the request of author --El-Bardo (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No source etc. Uploader requested. MGA73 (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
A better version (Medals icon.svg) was uploaded. Mwaldeck msg 01:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, unused, and very unlikely to be used since an SVG version exists now. –Tryphon☂ 06:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Deletedue the reason that a svg version exists. Barras (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted --Dferg (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Logotipo de una empresa autopromocional --Superzerocool (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, but shouldn't we encourage them to use Commons release their logo under cc-by? Not sure I see the problem with this sort of thing. - Jmabel ! talk 07:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete It says "Derechos reservados" (All rights reserved) everywhere in the information, I don't think the uploader fully understand CC-BY-3.0 --Ianezz (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Dferg (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure we should accept "own work" here without OTRS from Phase to Phase. Identical image to the one on http://www.phasetophase.nl/en_contact/contact.html, no EXIF data here, and user's sole contribution. Jmabel ! talk 06:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete needs OTRS --Simonxag (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Dferg (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
[4] gives a different licence under the header 'Paris selon Gregoire: Auteursfoto' license there is (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/nl/deed.en_US) JZ85 (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Go right ahead. The article it was used in has been removed anyway and if sharing an image by the author isn't appreciated, I see no value in keeping it here. Emile 12:02, 02 October 2009 (CET)
Delete Unused personal image --Simonxag (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Dferg (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I forgot include this file in Commons:Deletion requests/File:A Floresta.jpg. The reasons are the same. Filipe Ribeiro Msg 13:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Dferg (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion)
Reason maybe: No source. Deletion nominated from Author: 21:30, 25. Sep. 2009 BruceIsmay -Fixing request --El-Bardo (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Respect the request of author --El-Bardo (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Dferg (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion)
reason for deletion: Maybe no source. Author and Initiator of deletion: 21:43, 25. Sep. 2009 BruceIsmay --Fixing request--El-Bardo (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Respect the request of author --El-Bardo (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Dferg (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion)
Reason for deletion: No source. Author and Initiator of deletion: 21:25, 25. Sep. 2009 BruceIsmay --Fixing request --El-Bardo (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Respect the request of author --El-Bardo (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Dferg (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion)
reason for deletion: No source. Author and Initiator of deletion: 21:24, 25. Sep. 2009 BruceIsmay --Fixing request--El-Bardo (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Respect the request of author --El-Bardo (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete It looks like uploader realised he cannot actually upload the images here, and now wants them deleted. Delete on all of these by User:BruceIsmay. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Dferg (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion)
Reason for deletion: No source. Author and Initiator of deletion: 21:26, 25. Sep. 2009 BruceIsmay --Fixing request --El-Bardo (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Respect the request of author--El-Bardo (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Dferg (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion)
Reason for deletion: No source. Author and Initiator of deletion: 21:36, 25. Sep. 2009 BruceIsmay --Fixing request --El-Bardo (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Respect the request of author --El-Bardo (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Dferg (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion)
Reason for deletion: No permission. Author and Initiator of deletion: 21:34, 25. Sep. 2009 BruceIsmay --Fixing request --El-Bardo (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Missing permission --El-Bardo (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Dferg (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work. This sculpture is a derivative of the USS Enterprise A from Star Trek, which is copyrighted. Vulcan, Alberta has a licensing agreement with CBS for anything they use that is Trek related. Nv8200p (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:FOP#Canada (if this is permanently located). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep They seem pretty permanently located to me. But I don't know about COM:FOP#Canada. It seems rather unlikely that because the city of Vulcan, Alberta has a licensing agreement, national law doesn't apply anymore. But I could be mistaken. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Dferg (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Inappropriately tagged with author's credit. Mbinebri (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep No reason to delete --Simonxag (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Wiki policy specifically says watermarks and on-image credits are inappropriate, as they hamper free-use. Mbinebri (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Which is why we remove watermarks from images. We don't delete the whole image. --Simonxag (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I uploaded a new version with the watermark photoshopped out. Amalthea (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Which is why we remove watermarks from images. We don't delete the whole image. --Simonxag (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ahhh, okay. I withdrew the nom then. Mbinebri (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Dferg (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Gordon Henry is still alive. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Derivative of a copyrighted work of sculpture. This nomination is a test case for all of the images in Category:Tree of Life (Disney). Powers (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete all Disney artwork in the US or France: there is no Freedom of Panorama. --Simonxag (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Derivative of horse sculpture and accompanying artwork. Powers (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete And the others too. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete C21 statue. No FOP in the US. --Simonxag (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- What does "C21" mean? Powers (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, twenty first century. --Simonxag (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- What does "C21" mean? Powers (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Dferg (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Derivative of horse sculpture and accompanying artwork. Powers (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete C21 statue. No FOP in the US. --Simonxag (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Derivative of horse sculpture and accompanying artwork. Powers (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete C21 statue. No FOP in the US. --Simonxag (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Advertising and/or self-promotion. ■ MMXXtalk 05:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Advertising. --Alpertron (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Advertising and/or self-promotion. ■ MMXXtalk 05:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Promotional brochure. --Alpertron (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Advertising and/or self-promotion ■ MMXXtalk 06:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Promotional brochure. --Alpertron (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a file from Category:Flickr images not found-old, it was deleted from Flickr before FlickreviewR could verify its license. Several attempts were made to contact the author Flickr mail with no success. The photo was taken on 2006-04-7 and uploaded to Commons on 2007-08-15. There are no public visible photos on the Flickr author's photostream. There are no [5] archives of the Flickr authors page. There are no [6] archives of the Flickr authors page. There are no [7] other files on Commons from this Flickr author nemanja82_bg. The uploader Pablo 6213 has uploaded 163 files, 28 uploads were Flickr images that passed Flickr review. A review of deleted contributions show four Flickr uploaded deleted as Incorrect Flickr licenses. The image is used on two pages. Captain-tucker (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete In this case, the best option is delete since the license could not be confirmed despite the captain's efforts. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Delete it! -Nard the Bard 01:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 07:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Image based on a sattelite image of the earth. No source given for the image - we don't know if it can be released into PD -- Deadstar (msg) 11:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. PD-self User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
sadova
Misty reason for del. Sadova = Königgräz: City in Romania (Battle of Königgrätz)"Fixing request"
--El-Bardo (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Waiting for better reason --El-Bardo (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned image which is blurry to the point of being useless. It's actually giving me a headache and making me cross-eyed. Nothing is identifiable. Wknight94 talk 13:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete agreed. Out of scope. It could be anyone on stage. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Sure, the image is blurry and not clear, so it is not suitable as photograph of Radiohead.
- But, I think this photograph is still important, because the instrument he played is historically important, and the replacement is hard to find (especially under GFDL license).
- IMO, this photograph should be replaced when more clear photograph was available. --Shoulder-synth (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- How can you tell it's historically significant? For all I can tell, he's using a typewriter. And your updated version still makes me cross-eyed. Wknight94 talk 17:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- The historically importance of the instruments:
- Ondes Martenot is historically important because it is one of the world first electronic musical instrument with musical keyboard and ribbon controller, and many composers use this instrument. In the study or research of early history of electronic music, this instruments is not ignorable. For more details, please check Ondes Martenot.
- In recent, production of Ondes Martenot have been stopped. So, peoples who want to play the instrument need to find vintage one or some replacement.
- Analogue Systems French Connection, the Ondes Martenot controller for synthesizer used by Radiohead, is one of such replacement. This controller is historically important because it is hybrid of Ondes Martenot and analogue synthesizers.
- If you can't understand my explanation, further discussion may be waste of time. --Shoulder-synth (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- No what I meant is that we can't even be sure that the object in the picture is the same as what you are describing. It's useless to have a photograph of a rare and significant object if that object is unidentifiable because the photo is so blurry. Wknight94 talk 18:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- The historically importance of the instruments:
Wknight94, your question is very ambiguous.
In previous question, you said
- "How can you tell it's historically significant ?".
This question was good question, because it quantify importance of the instrument on the image, so I explained about historical significance of the instrument.
But, your personal point of view is not significant. On commons, there is no rule for deleting blur images. Such image may be replaced when more clear image was available. --Shoulder-synth (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
new version File:Milonice mapa 1.png
Initiator of deletion: 13:45, 21. Sep. 2009 Pernak1--Fixing request--El-Bardo (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete New version available --El-Bardo (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am the author of this picture. It was taken along with a lot of others at a national party convention, and then uploaded in the belief that most of the people present would be Wiki material. AA has now asked me to delete the picture. There is no article about her on any wiki, but one article about her first name, where this picture is used as illustration.
I ask that the picture is deleted to comply with her request. --GAD (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep In use - is there any reason to doubt the license? --Simonxag (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- As said, I have taken the photo, and I have licensed it as free. So there is no reason to doubt the license. But according to Norwegian law a person "owns" his or her picture, and it cannot be used without his/her permission. An exception being where the public interest may override the privacy rule. As there are no articles about AA on any wikipedia I cannot see that there is any general interest in the portrait. The only article using the photo is an article about the woman's first name. This surely does not need her picture as illustration. So please, delete. Regards, --GAD (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:PS#File_not_legitimately_in_use; Non-notable subject, not in use, no realistic educational value. Deletion requested by the uploader and the depicted. --Kjetil_r 12:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Kjetil r: Out of project scope: See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anine Andresen.jpg
Derivative work of File:VulcanAlbertaEnterpriseReplica.jpg, which is itself a derivative work. This sculpture is a derivative of the USS Enterprise A from Star Trek, which is copyrighted. Vulcan, Alberta has a licensing agreement with CBS for anything they use that is Trek related. Nv8200p (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - seems ok under COM:FOP#Canada. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - it seems directly related to Commons:Deletion requests/File:VulcanAlbertaEnterpriseReplica.jpg, and I suspect those two shouldn't have been separated. Can you put those two deletion requests together? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- The original File:VulcanAlbertaEnterpriseReplica.jpg here on Commons this image is derived of is kept. See here -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept - derivative of a free image (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Converted from a speedy deletion request by uploader with the following rationale:
"I created this image, derived it from Image:VulcanAlbertaEnterpriseReplica.jpg. But new insights have made me believe this could be considered a copy-vio. To stay on the save side, I would like to have this image deleted. I no longer want to be held responsable the opload and use of this image. This thing is that:
- Recent events have made me realize this image is created in Holland and should follow Dutch law.
- The original image Image:VulcanAlbertaEnterpriseReplica.jpg in Holland is free because of the so called "freedom of panorama"
- Now in the derrived work I made, the panorama is removed, and only the copyrighted object is left. This is not acceptable according to Dutch law.
So I would like this image removed as soon as possible." -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Sv1xv (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. As far as I know, this isn't really how "freedom of panorama" works, in Holland or elsewhere. It isn't like de minimis where the context is what makes it free; what makes it free is the manner in which it was exhibited. Any sort of derivative work should be permitted. I understand the uploader's concern, but there really should be nothing to worry about in this case. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, according to Canadian law regarding FOP. Dutch law is not in use here, everybody here can repeat this derivative job again in Holland, Poland, Greenland or wherever, but the only important matter is the source, which is in Canada. Julo (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Julo. There is a thing I don't understand. I have created this derrived work and published it on internet through Wikimedia commons. I can be held responsable for any copyright violantions and if so, I have to answer to a Dutch court and to Dutch law. I have serious doubts that this kind of derrived work is acceptable according to Dutch law.
- Now I have no problem if somebody else recreates this image and publishes it again. I do have a problem with this image beeing published under my name. Isn't there the rule that the national law of the creator should be taken in consideration. Isn't there a basic principle, that Wikicommons tries to avoid that people get legal problems? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why would a Dutch court of (civil) law deal with a FOP issue for an object of art located in Canada, especially if this object was not created in The Netherlands? Sv1xv (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I don't understand the question. But I give it a try.
- We are are talking here about the derrived work, I made, and not the art-object located in Canada.
- I can personally be hold responsable for the creation, upload and publication of this work on Wikicommons
- And if so, I will have to defend myself in a Dutch court...
- ...were the question will be if I upholded Dutch law or not...
- ...because I am a Dutch citizen, and created, uploaded and published this work from Ducth soil
- Maybe I don't understand the question. But I give it a try.
- As far a I understand now, Wikicommons is not taking over any of these responabilities. -- Mdd (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why would a Dutch court of (civil) law deal with a FOP issue for an object of art located in Canada, especially if this object was not created in The Netherlands? Sv1xv (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand this matter. I uploaded new version - derivative work of File:VulcanAlbertaEnterpriseReplica.jpg originally uploaded by User:JamesTeterenko, recreated personally by myself) using GIMP. The spaceship flies from right to left and letters FX-1995-A on its body are not mirrored any more. Dutch law has nothing to do with my work, so problem is solved as far as I know. It was twenty minutes of work only. Julo (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept again Julo (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
not used, commons is not a personal photo gallery Oliver Kurmis (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Useful illustration --Simonxag (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio --Simonxag (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Bad quality shot of chainmail. I doubt it can illustrate anything. ---- Deadstar (msg) 14:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep In use on user page --Simonxag (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept - no reason to delete, in use on an interesting user page (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
not used, no description Oliver Kurmis (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Lean toward keep. Seems potentially useful. Well composed, and given the title, it is presumably someone being formally awarded a fifth-dan rank in some martial art. Why delete it? - Jmabel ! talk 07:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was very new on en. wiki when I uploaded the image and I am embarrassed to say It was not ..er..my own work. I would prefer it to be deleted.--Charlesdrakew (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, a copyvio is a different matter, but lacking description is not a valid reason for deletion. // Liftarn (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Per uploader. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The original uploader did not own the rights to this image. –Tryphon☂ 13:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work. This sculpture is a derivative of the USS Enterprise A from Star Trek, which is copyrighted. Vulcan, Alberta has a licensing agreement with CBS for anything they use that is Trek related. Nv8200p (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - is fine according to COM:FOP#Canada. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept - per COM:FOP#Canada (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. Image of non-notable musicians. Multixfer (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. –Tryphon☂ 06:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Assuming this is The Drips, the en-wiki article survived AfD, so what is the basis to say they are non-notable? - Jmabel ! talk 07:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hard to say; the link to their homepage on wikipedia is in fact a coffee company. –Tryphon☂ 07:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- There's no verification that this is even them. Multixfer (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hard to say; the link to their homepage on wikipedia is in fact a coffee company. –Tryphon☂ 07:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Watermarked, looks like it's taken from the internet. No description. feydey (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Watermarked. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion)
Reason for deletion: Permission? Author and Initiator of deletion: 21:38, 25. Sep. 2009 BruceIsmay --Fixing request --El-Bardo (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Permission added: 21:18, 28. Sep. 2009 BruceIsmay --El-Bardo (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: no permission
Derivative work. The Enterprise A is a copyrighted work. Nv8200p (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep As the uploader of the file, this work was publicly presented.
The picture is also low resolution and useless for any other violate use.--Bonnifac (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep Only biological photos doesn´t consist copyrightet items. Everythig other are made by someone who keep rights --El Carlos (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete COM:DW. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by High Contrast: Derivative of non-free content
Looks awfully like an official squad. High quality, low rez image without adequate source info --Ytoyoda (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Original and not scaled-down image was taken from here, inserted {{Copyvio}}. --Simo82 (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Kameraad Pjotr: Copyright violation: http://www.sslazio.it/systemImages/cms/304_attach1_img_721995_Copia%20di%20Meghni.jpg
Not permanently situated; also: the name of the artist (Doris Bühler) is not mentioned. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The depicted person looks to me like 40 or 50 years, that means the image has been created in the 1940s oder 50s. Cannot be PR-Russia-2008 unless someone finds a creator or a date. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's from official page of Ministry of Railroad --Arachn0 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Anatomically incorrect and crudely drawn, out of scope. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- OK, no problem. I admit, it's a old stupid drawn. I had made it to fill the space of illustration of the french article. However, i will replace it by a better work (;. Sorry of my bad english. --Naliju (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Would have been deleted if it wasn't used. Rocket000 (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
This image is almost completely inaccurate, stylistically to crude to correct, and other better images (eg. File:Avimimus mmartyniuk wiki.png, File:Avimimus ( feathers ).JPG) can be used instead. This image is therefore out of scope as it has no educational useage. IJReid (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Delted per discussion. --Krd 09:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to get en:2009 UEFA Champions League Final to FA status, but a question has been raised at the article's peer review about the copyright status of this image. There is a suggestion that the image may be classed as a derivative work, and therefore covered by the copyright of the works it is derivative of. If deleted, this article will be re-uploaded at Wikipedia under a Fair Use claim. PeeJay2K3 (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Request withdrawn - Since there have been no comments on this image, I assume that there is no copyright issue here. This discussion should be closed now. PeeJay2K3 (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:FOP#Italy User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Modern sculpture; no FOP indoors. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - for copyrights; hint: copy of a sculpture of Hubertus von Pilgrim, see File:Denkmal für Todesmärsche in Fürstenfeldbruck.jpg - so very similar photos exist Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The Evil IP address (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
COM:DW; contrary to what it says in the description, there is no FOP (Straßenbildfreiheit) inside buildings. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The Evil IP address (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Photo of a recent sculpture. Freedom of Panorama is not applicable. ALE! ¿…? 07:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not permanently situated. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- The owner, "Made in Scotland", is the company that organizes the Dutch Challenge Open of the European Challenge Tour. This 'sculpture' is the trophy of that tournament, they took it outside for the prize giving ceremony. They put it down on the grass so I and several other photographers could take the picture. I cannot reach them until next week, I will ask their explicit permission if needed, but I guess it is just a replica bought in a shop. Pvt pauline (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also the replica is a derivative work and your photo is a derivative of the derivative and without permission of the artist a copyright violation. --ALE! ¿…? 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Would this mean that you can never take a picture of a pricegiving ....as all prices are made by someone, usually anonymous Pvt pauline (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, this will be the case for many awards and prizes. See for example Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Oscar statuettes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Toch moet dit onzin zijn, want van iedere prijsuitreiking worden foto's gemaakt en door de pers gepubliceerd, in alle sporten. Pvt pauline (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to complain, could you please do this in English so everybody can follow your argument? --ALE! ¿…? 12:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not permanently placed Justass (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Anatomically incorrect, out of scope. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please provide evidence of that? –Juliancolton | Talk 14:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Er, I can explain what's wrong with it. It has no feathers, the limb proportions do not match any skeleton, the eyes are more than twice too large, the muscles are not arranged properly. FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 10:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The image is not under Crown copyright, created sometimes in 1954 to 1956 and Canadian PD works must be older than 1949. Not PD in US either as such. feydey (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Canadian photographs need not necessarily be older than 1949 to be public domain - the 50 years p.m.a. rule also applies. However, here we do not know the author of the photograph, so it is impossible to know if the image is public domain in Canada or not. Not sure what crown copyright has to do with this. An additional problem is its status in the U.S. - as a post 1945 image, it isn't treated as PD in the States per URAA, and without knowing the author, we have to assume that it is still copyrighted.
I originally uploaded this image to Wikipedia some time ago, scanning it from a book published in 2000 by the Ottawa Citizen - I don't have it handy at the moment, but it was a compilation of historic photos of Ottawa (as it was one of my first uploads, I wasn't bright enough to reference the book in the image description - although I did manage to mention the archival source). The book, IIRC, dated the photograph to the early 1940s (which, in retrospect, was incorrect). Since then, an eagle-eyed editor has noticed that the film advertised on the marquee in the image dates to the 1950s (as do the models of vehicles in the images). As a 1950s Canadian image with an unknown author, we don't know if it was public domain in Canada on the URAA date (January 1, 1996), and therefore need to presume that it is still copyrighted in the U.S. In light of the information about the movie and the vehicles, I would support the proposed deletion. --skeezix1000 (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Canadian photographs need not necessarily be older than 1949 to be public domain - the 50 years p.m.a. rule also applies. However, here we do not know the author of the photograph, so it is impossible to know if the image is public domain in Canada or not. Not sure what crown copyright has to do with this. An additional problem is its status in the U.S. - as a post 1945 image, it isn't treated as PD in the States per URAA, and without knowing the author, we have to assume that it is still copyrighted.
- I was the one who added the most recent deletion request. Not sure why my name is not associated to it, but that's not really important...just curious. Anyways, I work down the hall from the Ottawa Archives, from which that photo was extracted. They have it, in their records, as 1940. I worked with a woman from there, and she agrees that it is much later than 1940 and she will investigate. She doesn't believe there is a photographer's name associated to it, so am not sure how this affects copyright laws. Ccrashh (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that the Ottawa Archives has misdated it explains why the Ottawa Citizen did the same. If the photo truly were from 1940, the lack of photographer information would not be an issue. But since the Cdn. copyright status of post-1948 images is based on the death of the author, plus 50 years, we really need to know the photographer (and date of death, assuming there is one) to be comfortable that the image is PD in Canada. In the end, however, it doesn't matter much because it also needs to be PD in the U.S. to be hosted on the Commons, and would therefore need to be a pre-1946 image to have any shot at public domain status in the States. Basically, the fact that we now know that the images dates to 1954-6 means that it no longer qualifies as PD. --skeezix1000 (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ccrashh, I think you may have nominated it for deletion on Wikipedia, not here. I deleted your insertion of your name in the author field on the image description page -- that pertains to the photographer who took the photo, not the person who nominated it for deletion. --skeezix1000 (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah. That explains it :) New to this Wikipedia Commons thing. Thanks. Ccrashh (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ccrashh, I think you may have nominated it for deletion on Wikipedia, not here. I deleted your insertion of your name in the author field on the image description page -- that pertains to the photographer who took the photo, not the person who nominated it for deletion. --skeezix1000 (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that the Ottawa Archives has misdated it explains why the Ottawa Citizen did the same. If the photo truly were from 1940, the lack of photographer information would not be an issue. But since the Cdn. copyright status of post-1948 images is based on the death of the author, plus 50 years, we really need to know the photographer (and date of death, assuming there is one) to be comfortable that the image is PD in Canada. In the end, however, it doesn't matter much because it also needs to be PD in the U.S. to be hosted on the Commons, and would therefore need to be a pre-1946 image to have any shot at public domain status in the States. Basically, the fact that we now know that the images dates to 1954-6 means that it no longer qualifies as PD. --skeezix1000 (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The first premise of this discussion is incorrect. The Copyright Act provides that "where the identity of the author of a work is unknown, copyright in the work shall subsist for a term consisting of the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year. Therefore, to come within the public domain, anonymous Canadian works or photographic works would need only be older than 1958, not 1949, as stated.
The Copyright Act also provides that "where the owner [of a photograph] is a corporation, the term for which copyright subsists in a photograph shall be the remainder of the year of the making of the initial negative or plate from which the photograph was derived or, if there is no negative or plate, of the initial photograph, plus a period of fifty years.
"Black Pirates", the movie shown playing at the theatre in the photograph, was apparently first distributed in 1954. We can assume this photo was taken in 1954 or 1955.
In either case, assuming that the photograph had been published on or about 1954, the photograph is now in the public domain. The photograph has already been published in a book by the Ottawa Citizen. Obviously, they either cleared the copyright or made the same assumptions. If the copyright was cleared, it should have been attributed. My understanding is that it was not attributed and so we can assume that the photographer is unknown and that the photograph is now PD.
I don't know what the URAA has to do with this. If the image is PD in Canada, as the place of first publication, it is PD in every Berne signatory, including the US. --canuckIPlawyer 12:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, CanuckIPLawyer, that I ought to have considered the fact that if the author were truly unknown, as seems to be the case from the post by Ccrashh above, copyright would have expired in Canada in 2004. Not sure that I would place any reliance on the Ottawa Citizen's publication of the image, however, since they appear to have published it under the false assumption it dated to the early 1940s. But for the reasons you have outlined, I am not sure that the Ottawa Citizen is particularly relevant.
As for URAA, I would be delighted if you were correct (fingers crossed). But that is not the position that has been adopted here or on any of the Wikimedia sites (see, for example, this template - {{PD-1996}} - which we use to tag the relevant images). The relevant discussions would be at w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights - let me know if you decide to challenge the accepted orthodoxy on the talk page over there.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, CanuckIPLawyer, that I ought to have considered the fact that if the author were truly unknown, as seems to be the case from the post by Ccrashh above, copyright would have expired in Canada in 2004. Not sure that I would place any reliance on the Ottawa Citizen's publication of the image, however, since they appear to have published it under the false assumption it dated to the early 1940s. But for the reasons you have outlined, I am not sure that the Ottawa Citizen is particularly relevant.
- Note: Could anyone find out when the image was first published?. feydey (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept, picture from 1954 - 1955 makes it PD in Canada. Kameraad Pjotr 10:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Renominating. The date of this photo has been very precisely determined to be 1954-1955 based on evidence in the image itself. Canadian photos published 1946 or later like this one were in copyright on the 1996 URAA date in Canada, and so it remains copyrighted in the US until 2051. The claims by CanuckIPLawyer in the previous nomination were incorrect - the US does not observe the rule of the shorter term and there are many foreign works in copyright in the US but not elsewhere. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would have to agree. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Any files listed here that were deleted and which are in the public domain in New Zealand have been reuploaded under their original filenames at Wikilivres, a New Zealand wiki unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation.
|
Martin Dibelius lived from 1883-1947, this is a contemporary photograph. Unfortunately, it does not give a photographer, but it could be that this is not in the PD yet. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, unknown author, not PD. Kameraad Pjotr 10:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Meteo and navigation charts
[edit]A number of meteo and navigation charts issued by the french and italian state authorities were speedied yesterday. I combined them in a regular DR.
- File:Area SAR IT.JPG
- File:052002RSX 96 1 A2.JPG
- File:052002RSX 96 1 M2.JPG
- File:SMDSM 1999 europe.JPG
Sv1xv (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, per COM:CB#Maps & satellite imagery. –Tryphon☂ 06:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I believe the first three charts could be easily recreated using some free/public domain map background. The limits and names of the weather/SAR areas are simple facts and not copyrightable. Sv1xv (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe, but these particular representations remain copyrighted. If someone drew a map based on the public domain data, and ended up with a similar result, it wouldn't be considered a derivative work of these maps. But if they take the map as is, or modify it, then it's a copyright violation. –Tryphon☂ 11:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Guide page 22 to 25 The limits of zones are not to trace random. The limits of zones are traced on the co-ordinates of longitudes and the latitudes. The scale: 1 minute of latitude is 1852 meters. The charts without longitudes and latitudes are dumb and thus with false locations. Commons is not to give errors. Example of error on the same chart a chart with longitude latitude the other chart without the error is obvious Image:Zones SMDSM.png , File:SMDSM 1999 europe.JPG . --F1jmm (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe, but these particular representations remain copyrighted. If someone drew a map based on the public domain data, and ended up with a similar result, it wouldn't be considered a derivative work of these maps. But if they take the map as is, or modify it, then it's a copyright violation. –Tryphon☂ 11:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep The images do not contain any original authorship. You don't have any freedom where to draw the lines. The only freedom you have is the choice of colors. If you would redraw them from public available data you could not tell them apart from derivative work of the images above. Thus copyright of these images is copyfraud and should not be supported. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, source of the maps? Kameraad Pjotr 10:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Not free enough, users says that you need permission to use this file, not sure if the users understand the free license terms. Huib talk 17:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Just my words... This one too File:CelicaST185GT4APuenteHills.jpg --MGA73 (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep user released this image under a free license 3 years ago at enwp. Multichill (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It was uploaded by the author under a free license, but it is a very grainy picture. // Liftarn (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept, free licenses are non-revokable. Kameraad Pjotr 10:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
