Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/10/05
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.JPG){kind=link}
No evidence this was actually created by NASA. FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Nasa and the author both call it PD-NASA-art on their webpages. keep! sугсго 11:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Whoops, didn't see that, thanks for bringing it up! FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be copyrighted by NATO. Rastrojo (D•ES) 21:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of NATO.svg. Kwj2772 (msg) 13:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This has previously been deleted multiple times, and I can find deletion discussions if necessary. The design is complex enough to be copyrightable, and NATO has NOT released it into the public domain. J Milburn (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep - {{PD-shape}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)- Keep Category:PD shape contains many works of even higher originality. We have generally treated works containing only simple geometric shapes, such as most flags and text logos, as PD (see Political flags for many examples of more complex flags). Sandstein (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep A star (even if not a traditional 5-pointed star), a circle and a few lines, to me, do not meet the threshold of originality. Julián (reply) 22:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- Sozi (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Per Julián
Delete NATO claim ownership of content per http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/68162.htm, which renders the image unfree for Commons. — Andrwsc (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Claiming copyright does not make copyright. Claiming copyright on works that are not copyrightable is a common practice, see en:copyfraud. We need to decide whether this work is original enough to be copyrightable, and according to our usual practice it is not. (And actually that webpage makes no copyright claim to the flag at all.) Sandstein (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Geometric work. Very useful file in many wikipedias. Mboro (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not elegible for copyright. Flávio "Maddox" go! 18:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
no notability. the article about this person is deleted from ru.wiki Andrei Romanenko (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. in category no permission Huib talk 18:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
(Some revision has taken place already rendering the texts shown in the image as inconsistent anymore to the most recent discovered facts about the history of Inopacan, Leyte. I am the author and uploader of this article and I demand that the image be removed from Wikipedia to avoid further misinformation about the topic of my article. I filed this request by logging in the account Emenard Nasan, which is actually my pseudonym. Thank you. - Edgie Polistico. email me at: edgiepolistico_009@yahoo.com. ) --Emenard Nasan (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete ignoring most of the above, this is out of project scope and spammish.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Abigor: In category Other speedy deletions; not edited for 0 days
This file was in the Speedy delete cat, I changed it in a DR because I'm wondering if the logo's for Abobe or IE are the minumus or if it would be okay to blur them away Huib talk 17:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- i replaced the file with a free version. Hidro (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I was just about to suggest the "hey maybe we should have just used a 'base' desktop here by default from the beginning" idea. :) ViperSnake151 (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I was trying to find a user also that uses this for a free screenshot, solving this would be more easy that deleting :) I guess it can be closed now. Huib talk 16:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I was just about to suggest the "hey maybe we should have just used a 'base' desktop here by default from the beginning" idea. :) ViperSnake151 (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- The logos for Adobe and IE are in fact, de minimus and perfectly allowable in a screenshot of a desktop. But whatever. Bastique demandez 16:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Low quality map, not used anywhere. There are two better locator maps of Harare even in Category:Harare, not to mention blank maps with geo locations. Martin H. (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, mostly white. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Superseded by File:LocationSouthAfrica.svg - not mention that this file is a bad quality derivative of it without even naming it as source and without any attribution to the author as required by the licenses. I cant imagine any encyclopedic use for this small jpg, a quick search and Category:Blank maps of South Africa brings more, much better maps to use. Martin H. (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not in use, not useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Probably copyrighted, taken from: http://www.lex18.com/news/nancy-cox-lex-18-news-anchor/reporter/ Stout256 (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Clear copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom unless permission is shown. Other uploads by this user should be looked over as well. Infrogmation (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. Personal photo of non-notable people. Multixfer (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep w:Ken Davitian uses it. While it may not have been in use when you posted this (since that's less then an hour after it was uploaded, it seems a bit hasty for an innocent "personal photo of non-notable people"), it still behooves you to check to see that Ken Davitian is non-notable, and a simple Google search would have revealed his IMDB page and en.wiki page of long standing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, in scope and used. Endorse speedy keep. Infrogmation (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Image painted in 1919, painter died 1976. Not self made, not PD-Art. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also anything else in Category:Maurice Carlier. Uploader put "no" at all questions, including Permission="no". -- Deadstar (msg) 13:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete all of it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. Kenmayer (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep Clearly intended as part of Wikipedia's barnstar awards culture. The Commons does host these images, though their use is not in a narrow sense "educational". We should not try to limit our definitions of usefulness: if we do, we limit the resources made available to wiki editors. --Simonxag (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Sculptor (Lauri Leppänen) died in 1977; statue not in Public Domain yet. FOP in Finland only for buildings. Apalsola t • c 14:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Then out it goes! Thanks. Wilson44691 (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Better Version File:Thw.logo.svg --Thiemo Schuff (schuff.eu) (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose no such rule. --Mattes (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure). Please use {{Vector version available}}. –blurpeace (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Modern building, no FOP in France. –Tryphon☂ 15:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. Also goes for these two images of the same restoration: [1][2]FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eyzies-mus%C3%A9e-ours3.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eyzies-mus%C3%A9e-ours2.jpg){kind=link}
- No, this is an artistic reconstruction of a cave bear. They went extinct during the ice age, and only bones are preserved today. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, probably a "work" then - Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, probably a "work" then -
- No, this is an artistic reconstruction of a cave bear. They went extinct during the ice age, and only bones are preserved today. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Hi, I am the author of the picture. This a scientific reconstruction exposed in an archaeological museum... Best regards, 120 (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Made by an artist, and photographed in France. And thus it is not permitted that you release the picture as your own. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. – per the nominator. No FOP in France, and this is undoubtedly a work. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This file was nominated for speedy deletion with the reason: Derivative work I changed it in a normal DR Huib talk 17:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Hi, I'm the uploader. On reading the template on my talk page to voice my opinion here, here it is:- This is a photo of an information board and I can see that it contains photos of unknown origin and therefore would qualify as a derivative work from potentially copyrighted works. These two uploaded images inadvertantly slipped through as I was doing a commonist bulk upload of an entire folder and I was not planning to use them myself. So, if the consensus is there to delete them then please do so. I'm still relatively new to commons and therefore no expert on what's the right thing to do in this case. To me, deletion seems perfectly sensible though! Regards, Benkid77 (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No COM:FOP#United Kingdom for photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This file was nominated for speedy deletion with the reason: Derivative work I changed it in a normal DR Huib talk 17:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Hi, I'm the uploader. On reading the template on my talk page to voice my opinion here, here it is:- This is a photo of an information board and I can see that it contains photos of unknown origin and therefore would qualify as a derivative work from potentially copyrighted works. These two uploaded images inadvertantly slipped through as I was doing a commonist bulk upload of an entire folder and I was not planning to use them myself. So, if the consensus is there to delete them then please do so. I'm still relatively new to commons and therefore no expert on what's the right thing to do in this case. To me, deletion seems perfectly sensible though! Regards, Benkid77 (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No COM:FOP#United Kingdom for photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. Photo of non-notable band. Multixfer (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Open your eyes or are you blind? The image is NOT used. Tarek,21:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment Wrong insult - you should have said: "Are you on mushrooms? You are imagining things." Anyway, it is gone now, en:Jon and the Jams was deleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete currently not in use and (were the band notable) a poor quality illustration of it's subject. --Simonxag (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope, unused. Abujoy (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Dferg (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
unused Thiemo Schuff (schuff.eu) (Diskussion) 14:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC) --Thiemo Schuff (schuff.eu) (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Underground-Railway-in-China-icon.png has been deleted (In category Images with unknown source as of 7 June 2006) --Common Good (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Image was deleted from enwiki for having questionable copyright status, and reuploaded here. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, no evidence of permission. Tagged for speedy. Nyttend (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
No source and no author information Rockfang (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Give me some time and I will find the info on the photo. It was originally posted by someone else and then somebody removed it for no reason. I will do some research and get the info. This photo has been there for many years.207.137.2.162 17:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I too will look around to find the source of the photo. I don't believe it should be deleted if at all possible. However, considering the image has no author, I'm not confident we'll be able to find the author/source. Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 03:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't how the Commons works. If you took a photo yourself, and 100% own the copyright to it, you can upload it and license it freely as you please. Additionally, if you find photos on the internet that are 100% unambiguously licensed with a compatible free license, you can upload those, stating the source and such. You cannot simply upload whatever you want, and hope that it may be licensed freely. You need to do the legwork first, and file it with OTRS (via e-mail). You cannot upload content that you don't have permission to upload before hand.-Andrew c (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. -Andrew c (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
No source and no author Rockfang (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
These photos are all in the public domain. How can I prove this. As far as I know a photo where an author is unknown can be posted on Wikipedia, correct?Sbs108 (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete According to COM:L#India. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. -Andrew c (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
(el articulo fue rechazado y la imagen ya no se va a utilizar) --Nelidaguibert (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Translation: The article was rejected and the image is not going to be used. —translated by Dferg.
Copied from the imagepage:
- No source: see File:Mario Guibert.jpg - duplicate uploaded by someone else? So who created it or where does it come from.
- MOTIVO porque el articulo fue rechazado y la imagen ya no se va a utilizar
- ARGUMENTOS (si el solicitante considera necesario argumentarlo)--201.251.0.253 14:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't read the text not in English. --MGA73 (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- The main idea is that Nélida uploaded the picture for a Wikipedia in Spanish article that was finally erased (it was considered a promotional article about this civil engineer). Now she wants to erase the picture as well because it is not used in any project. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
If source mentioned is http://www.sathyasai.org/ then there is no proof that the current license applies Rockfang (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted -Andrew c (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Andrew c: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission
- File:New WWE Champ Edge With Vickie.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:New WWE Champ Edge With Vickie 2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Derivative work of a WWE broadcast. Oakster 12:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Extremely hard to believe that this homepage: http://members.chello.nl/wiers/bijlmer that was stated as source is the copyrightholder of this image. Most likely copyright violation. 132.199.211.6 21:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I see no good reason to doubt that Jos Wiersema made these photos, see the list, where he distinguishes between his own photos and a photo from a newspaper. This one here is photo #6. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept - no reason for doubt (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted toy. FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, take it off already. Kampy (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't look self made. Maybe self-made into a gif, but that's about it. Uploader's only contribution. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Totally replaced by SVG file in all wikis, as suggested by the ›Create SVG‹ template --Frakturfreund (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Superseded is not a reason for deletion. Nilfanion (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Better Version File:THW-Jugend Logo.svg --Thiemo Schuff (schuff.eu) (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
kept Commons does not delete superseded images. --GeorgHH • talk 09:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Better Version: File:Albrecht Broemme retouched.jpg --Thiemo Schuff (schuff.eu) (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept It´s in use. --GeorgHH • talk 09:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
no licensing info, author info 81.187.223.119 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- delete. Seems very clear-cut.Prezbo (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Since this apparently never appeared in the deletion log (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2009/06) I'm listing it here. Apologies if that's the wrong procedure.Prezbo (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No proof of license. No author information. Kwj2772 (msg) 09:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Wrong colors --Thiemo Schuff (schuff.eu) (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused, redundant to File:THW.svg. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Low quality map, there might be better locator maps showing the position of Zimbabwe in Africa. Martin H. (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Photograph taken on private property. Subject has expressed strong objection. Krivuk (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment File no longer used. Another image of Dilip Hiro is available and now used on en: wiki. I doubt this image is just a photograph however, see the white line around the subject's shoulders? Is this a composite? If it is, and the parts are not all self made, then it might be a copyvio anyways. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per Deadstar and out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia. FunkMonk (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Sculptor (Kalervo Kallio) died in 1969; statue not in Public Domain yet. No FOP in Finland. Apalsola t • c 11:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please then delete. Thanks. Wilson44691 (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 19:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
PD-Art isn't a valid license. No date to verify it is PD-Old. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. Kenmayer (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - it is a double Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use AND Advertising or self-promotion AND fake--does not portray what it claims Kenmayer (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. Kenmayer (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
very similar as File:Antialias presentation powerpoint.PNG Thiemo Schuff (schuff.eu) (Diskussion) 14:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC) --Thiemo Schuff (schuff.eu) (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - It seems obvious to me, judging by the description, that this image and the one it looks like are intended to be used together to demonstrate the difference in anti-aliasing between OpenOffice en Microsoft Office, so either delete both, or keep both... Neutral with regards to how useful these images are, but let's at least delete them for the proper reasons. Kander (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept, within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
If the video was created by a German Reporter (indeed, the language is german) it would enjoy german copyright as the german copyright law explicitely says (Deutsche Staatsangehörige genießen den urheberrechtlichen Schutz für alle ihre Werke, gleichviel, ob und wo die Werke erschienen sind. Ist ein Werk von Miturhebern (§ 8) geschaffen, so genügt es, wenn ein Miturheber deutscher Staatsangehöriger ist). As the language of the video is german it was unlikely first published in Iran. The country of origin is Germany, the upload is a copyright violation of both creators: 1) The group of creators of the video, 2) the speaker. Martin H. (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- The video was produced by National Iranian TV (NITV) on behalf of the German TV in Tehran, Iran. The language of the interview is French and German. The voice over is German. (Ein Miturheber, der deutscher Staatsangehöriger ist, aber für das NITV arbeitet, erwirbt keine Rechte an der Produktion!) The country of origin is definitly not Germany. Therefore the upload does not violate German copyright laws. Incorported in the video is the logo of NITV (upper right corner), which means that the uploaded copy is a copy of the NITV published in Iran. --Wvk (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, nice claim, but where is the evidence? Kameraad Pjotr 19:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Very small image, as though it was taken from a website. Licensed with PD-Self, but in author it states "anonymous"? -- Deadstar (msg) 14:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, probable copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 19:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Sculptor (Matti Haupt) died in 1999; statue not in Public Domain yet. FOP in Finland only for buildings. Apalsola t • c 14:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please then delete. Thanks. Wilson44691 (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The statue is located in the autonomous province of Åland. Åland has some legistlation of its own. I don't know if the Finnish Copyright Act applies there, and if not, if Åland's own copyright act has FOP or not. --Apalsola t • c 14:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I cannot imagine that copyright would be different on Åland. Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I cannot imagine that copyright would be different on Åland.
- Comment I find it slightly confusing, when most pictures on finnish statues get deleted from commons, referring to this rule, whereas in the Finnish Wikipedia pictures of statues are gladly used and even encouraged. Personally I think it is total BS, to not even allow a photographic image of the copyrighted item in question, but I follow the rules anyhow. -Islander (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that commons only allows images that also can be used by commercial postcard publishers. Did the Finnish wikipedia keep the possibility of local uploads? In that case, the image maybe can be transferred there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, these images can be uploaded to the Finnish Wikipedia but they can only be used in certain articles there. I have already uploaded this image to the Finnish Wikipedia (see fi:Tiedosto:Havets Folk.jpg). --Apalsola t • c 07:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that commons only allows images that also can be used by commercial postcard publishers. Did the Finnish wikipedia keep the possibility of local uploads? In that case, the image maybe can be transferred there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 19:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Sculptor (Alpo Sailo) died in 1969; statue not in Public Domain yet. No FOP in Finland. Apalsola t • c 15:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- This one too! Please delete. Wilson44691 (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 19:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Better Version: File:2006-07-15 tatra815 1.jpg --Thiemo Schuff (schuff.eu) (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Unergründlich sind die Wege des HErrn. -- smial (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No deletion of superseeded images, besides it´s a file of German Wikipedia Bilderwerkstatt (Graphic Lab) and have to keep for history reasons (before/after.) --GeorgHH • talk 10:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per GeorgHH. Kameraad Pjotr 19:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- This also applies to File:Pluto artistimpression.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
According to http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/graphics.html it seems as though this image wasn't created by NASA but was taken from The Young Oxford Book of Astronomy by Simon and Jacqueline Mitton, Oxford University Press, 1995. Lokal_Profil 16:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks like it was made with tracing paper, and the uploader states it was "based" on a copyrighted image[3] FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't to verify the license in the source website. --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC) --Huib talk 17:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Copyright Information -- Common Good (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, to interprete and summarize: The image was placed here by the copyright holder, the weblink is some promotion, http://www.cirrusimage.com/copyright.htm mentions "[...]Our images on Wikipedia[...]" under cc-by-3.0, this is one of this images. --Martin H. (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Martin H. Kameraad Pjotr 20:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Was willst Du mir damit sagen? Abgeleitete Arbeit? --Richard Huber (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Genau das. Du hast ein Foto von einer kleinen Statue gemacht; das heißt, dass du zur Veröffentlichung des Fotos unter einer freien Lizenz die Genehmigung des Schöpfers der Statue einholen musst. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, dieses Produkt der Massenfertigung befindet sich auf dem Dach meines Hauses. Bist Du sicher, dass man sich davon eine Genehmigung des Schöpfers einholen muss? --Richard Huber (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Das muss man für jedes Werk, unabhängig von der Stückzahl. Nimm zum Beispiel eine CD: Die werden in Stückzahlen von Millionen hergestellt, aber du darfst trotzdem keine Kopie des Werks machen. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Naja, bei einer Audio-CD geht es ja letztlich um einen (als Kopie) verwendbaren Datenträger. Das Bild von einem Dachziegel-Schmuck wird sich ja keiner auf's Dach legen? Aber ich frag mal die Urheberrechtsfachleute.--Richard Huber (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Das muss man für jedes Werk, unabhängig von der Stückzahl. Nimm zum Beispiel eine CD: Die werden in Stückzahlen von Millionen hergestellt, aber du darfst trotzdem keine Kopie des Werks machen. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, dieses Produkt der Massenfertigung befindet sich auf dem Dach meines Hauses. Bist Du sicher, dass man sich davon eine Genehmigung des Schöpfers einholen muss? --Richard Huber (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Genau das. Du hast ein Foto von einer kleinen Statue gemacht; das heißt, dass du zur Veröffentlichung des Fotos unter einer freien Lizenz die Genehmigung des Schöpfers der Statue einholen musst. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Und was ist mit der Panoramafreiheit? Die gilt in Deutschland (in den USA wohl nur für Architektur). Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Das Objekt ist aus dem Winkel offensichtlich nicht von der Straße aus fotografiert worden, wenn es sich auf dem Dach befindet. Ergo greift hier Panoramafreiheit nicht. --Paulae (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, DW. Kameraad Pjotr 20:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
old category new category is Category:Ottoman mosques --Alexandre Vallaury (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per naming conventions --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, and deleted the new one, per naming conventions. Kameraad Pjotr 20:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
old category new category is Category:Ottoman bridges --Alexandre Vallaury (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per naming conventions --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, and deleted the new one, per naming conventions. Kameraad Pjotr 20:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
old category new category is Category:Ottoman bazars --Alexandre Vallaury (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per naming conventions --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, and deleted the new one, per naming conventions. Kameraad Pjotr 20:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Still copyrighted in the USA. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep PD- Australia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's PD-Australia, but it's not PD in the USA. The copyright term for photographs taken in Australia before 1 May 1969 was 50 years from the end of the year in which they were taken. This image was therefore still in copyright in Australia on 1 May 1996, and the URAA extended its US copyright duration to the end of 2053. Per Commons:Copyright tags#Non-U.S._works, "All works hosted at the Commons must be legal to publish in the United States. For non-U.S. "public domain" works, this means they must be in the public domain in both the non-U.S. source country and in the U.S., or there must be an explicit release of the work for the U.S. under a free license." Stifle (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- If this interpretation is really correct, URAA must be one of the weirdest treaties ever concluded. It does not make sense. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- The weirdness of a law does not affect its validity. It's actually not that weird; the US has not and never has had the law of the shorter term. For years prior to 1989, when the US signed the Berne Convention, there was a number of rules by which works, especially foreign works, fell into the public domain if they weren't filed or didn't have the right copyright notice or weren't published in the US (in some cases). In 1996, the US agreed to restore copyright, but only to those works that were in copyright in their home country. I'm not sure if the URAA is even relevant here, that it ever lost copyright under US law. If it was first published in 2006, the URAA is irrelevant; like any US photo taken in c. 1958 and first published in 2006, it's copyrighted for life of author plus 70 years.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- If this interpretation is really correct, URAA must be one of the weirdest treaties ever concluded. It does not make sense. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's PD-Australia, but it's not PD in the USA. The copyright term for photographs taken in Australia before 1 May 1969 was 50 years from the end of the year in which they were taken. This image was therefore still in copyright in Australia on 1 May 1996, and the URAA extended its US copyright duration to the end of 2053. Per Commons:Copyright tags#Non-U.S._works, "All works hosted at the Commons must be legal to publish in the United States. For non-U.S. "public domain" works, this means they must be in the public domain in both the non-U.S. source country and in the U.S., or there must be an explicit release of the work for the U.S. under a free license." Stifle (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Still copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Stifle, if we can hold on this for a bit, I'm investigating if I can prise a GNU free licence permission out of the copyright holder, which I guess would preferable to a fair use rationale. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, first published in 2006. Kameraad Pjotr 09:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Viktor Popkov
[edit]- File:Шинель_отца.jpg
- File:Хороший человек была бабка Анисья.jpg
- File:Северная песня. Ой как всех мужей побрали на войну.jpg
- File:Мой день.jpg
- File:Воспоминания. Вдовы.jpg
- File:Двое.jpg
- File:Строители Брастка.jpg
Viktor Popkov died 1971; see http://www.liveinternet.ru/community/1726655/post71651940/ . Too late for PD-Russia. Uploder isn't author. Same with File:Виктор Попков.jpg --sугсго 08:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. – wrong permission. Appears artist is too recent for PD-Russia. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
All images of User:Milongero
[edit]IMHO, all images of User Milongero are out of the scope of the Commons project. --ALE! ¿…? 12:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- List of files
- File:Misioneros.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bolivar fest.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Animadores3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Animadores2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:ANIMADORES 1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Deleted - files are clearly out of the project scope. Commons is not a personal webhost. --Dferg (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- File:BallonKathedrale01 edit.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:BallonKathedrale02.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
COM:DW; this would require permission by the artists; see http://www.jankaeser.ch/index.php?id=31 /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I see no reason for a cancellation. The camera location was on public property in Switzerland, and the balloon was in the Austrian airspace. The artist obviously puts emphasis on publication, otherwise he would not allow his work to fly through the air. --Böhringer (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Copyright protection is for works that people have access to; art that remains locked up in the artist's studio does not need it. This work does not fall in the exceptions for works "permanently situated". Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Copyright protection is for works that people have access to; art that remains locked up in the artist's studio does not need it. This work does not fall in the exceptions for works "permanently situated".
- Delete, per nom. –Tryphon☂ 21:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Böhringer.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Since when does publication mean that you can do whatever you want with the work? That would basically mean all published works are public domain, no copyrights whatsoever. –Tryphon☂ 22:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the image was not nominated for speedy deletion, which to me means that deletion of the image is not given, and there's something to discuss and to vote "for" or "against", so I voted to keep the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hum, yes, but I guess your vote was not random, was it? As you said, there is something to discuss, and I'm trying to figure out what makes you (and Böhringer) think that just because it's published, it's free. Understanding opposite arguments is the key to building a consensus and reaching an enlightened conclusion. –Tryphon☂ 09:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I read the arguments that the image's creator Böhringer has provided and agreed with him.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hum, yes, but I guess your vote was not random, was it? As you said, there is something to discuss, and I'm trying to figure out what makes you (and Böhringer) think that just because it's published, it's free. Understanding opposite arguments is the key to building a consensus and reaching an enlightened conclusion. –Tryphon☂ 09:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the image was not nominated for speedy deletion, which to me means that deletion of the image is not given, and there's something to discuss and to vote "for" or "against", so I voted to keep the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. FOP in Switzerland. Yann (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- File:BallonKathedrale01 edit.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:BallonKathedrale02.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Renominating, as COM:FOP#Switzerland only applies to works of art that are permanently situated. The law text even says that it must be on the ground, on the soil: (German: "Ein Werk, das sich bleibend an oder auf allgemein zugänglichem Grund befindet...", Italian: "un’opera che, in modo permanente, sia situata o si affacci su suolo accessibile al pubblico...") - not in the air. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Not only permanently situated, but also on the ground: Il est licite de reproduire des oeuvres se trouvant à demeure sur une voie ou une place accessible au public [4]; which means It is legal to reproduce works permanently situated on a publicly accessible way or place. Delete. –Tryphon☂ 18:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Now we have the three national languages covered... –Tryphon☂ 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as not permanently situated as required by COM:FOP#Switzerland. If, as has been suggested, the balloon was actually in Austrian airspace at the time then COM:FOP#Austria is probably relevant but that doesn't seem to permit this either. The previous arguments to keep this image seem limited to the "artist obviously puts emphasis on publication, otherwise he would not allow his work to fly through the air" but that is less than convincing. Adambro (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- What about asking the artist for permission? His mail address is readily available. I like the photograph and I hope the artist agrees with keeping it on Commons. --Iotatau (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea, Iotatau--Mbz1 (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, definitely not permanently situated. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Are we sure this is an artwork not an oddly shaped flying machine? --Simonxag (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Jan Kaeser describes himself as "Kunstschaffender" - producer of art, artist. On the page that I linked to in the first DR he states: "alle auf diesen Seiten gezeigten Werke und Fotografien sind urheberrechtlich geschützt" - all works shown on the page are protected by copyright. He signed this appeal against copyright infringement on the internet. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I believe Simonxag meant w:UFO
--Mbz1 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, in that case we would need to know about copyright on the alien planet. ;) Seriously though, this has not much similarity to a usual balloon, thus I think sufficient originality has been reached to warrant protection. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- OK, if the creator styles himself an artist, then in the world of en:An Oak Tree it must be art. So Delete. --Simonxag (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- OK, if the creator styles himself an artist, then in the world of en:An Oak Tree it must be art. So
- Well, in that case we would need to know about copyright on the alien planet. ;) Seriously though, this has not much similarity to a usual balloon, thus I think sufficient originality has been reached to warrant protection. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I believe Simonxag meant w:UFO
- Jan Kaeser describes himself as "Kunstschaffender" - producer of art, artist. On the page that I linked to in the first DR he states: "alle auf diesen Seiten gezeigten Werke und Fotografien sind urheberrechtlich geschützt" - all works shown on the page are protected by copyright. He signed this appeal against copyright infringement on the internet. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I usually go to visit an art exhibition. They do not fly over my head and in different countries. Therefore, I see neither a permanent nor any other installation. The balloon flies in other countries. Is copyright the same everywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Böhringer (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2009 October 9 (UTC) *** sorry --Böhringer (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Has anyone gone ahead and requested permission from the artist? This artwork would be a shame to destroy, especially since he might allow us to keep it. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment That could still take Pieter Kuiper, instead of delete --Böhringer (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'll email the artist.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Info I emailed the artist and got his response (his phone numbers, address and emai address removed by me to post here):
- Dear Mila
- It's OK! Thank you.
- Jan
__________________________________________________________
- Jan Kaeser
- Harfenbergstrasse **
- CH-**** St.Gallen
- Schweiz
- T/F **** ** *** ** **
- M **** ** *** ** **
- E-Mail **** at ********* dot ch
- Web http://www.jankaeser.ch
Am 12.10.2009 17:53 Uhr schrieb "Mila Zinkova" unter
- Dear Jan,
- an image of your balloon was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons:
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BallonKathedrale01.JPG
- The image was nominated for the deletion because the image has
- a free creative Commons license, while your balloon is copyrighted.
- Here's the link to the description of the license:
- http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/
- Please email me, if it is OK with you to keep the image on Commons.
- Thank you for your time.
- Mila.
- IMO that excange should be enough to issue the ticket and keep the images.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Info I just got another emial from Jan. Here it is:
- "Dear Mila
- The question of copyright arises here only for the photo. The copyright must
- be obtained from the photographer of this picture, in a lengthy publication.
- the copyright of the balloon itself is with us. For example, it prohibits
- one Dublikation.
- Regards Jan"
- Now I am not sure , if it is OK to keep the image or it is not.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment January wrote:
The copyright of the image remains with the photographer. The copyright of the balloon stays with Jan He has given no objection to Veröffentlichnug of the photo. For me, this heiist, which may in photo equipment in different WIKIMEDIA!
Many, Many thanks to the work of Mila --Böhringer (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No obvious reason to delete this image. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The artist seems not to claim copyright for the photo of his artwork. The work in itself can still be copyrighted. I have no idea what Böhringer tries to say above though... Maybe this deletion request can be closed now. /grillo (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- The photographer needs to explicitly agree to the release of the image under a free license. This has not happened so far. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No work of art in its stricter meaning, "just" a work of applied art. No reason to delete at all. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Made by professional artist. No real application for transport. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would agree with you if this was just a simple balloon, but this is way more creative than the average and thus IMHO definitely reaches the threshold of originality. Just because it still flies, doesn't mean it is only applied art and not copyrightable. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: "it prohibits one Dublikation" (from Mila's e-mail above) sounds to me that no derivative works are allowed. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I interpret that letter in the following sense: while photographs are permitted, no one can build a similar balloon. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- So wouldn't that be an unfree license condition? While derivative photographs might not be forbidden, your interpretation does seem to restrict some derivative works (i.e. those in the form of a ballon). --Avenue (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- it is --Böhringer (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Have you forwarded that mail to the OTRS team? The image can only stay here in Commons by adding the OTRS ticket number. --Alpertron (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- it is --Böhringer (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- The e-mail has Mbz1 --Böhringer (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. I did not read Mbz1's signature just before the mail contents so I found yours. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I've just started a new attempt to get a permission from the artists (OTRS ticket 2010051610007873) and ask to postpone the closure of this DR until this has been resolved. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Info The DR tag was removed from the file page at 2010-05-26, 09:56:35 because OTRS permission was received. --Saibo (Δ) 19:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept thanks to the permission granted by the two artists, Jan Kaeser and Martin Zimmermann. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Converted from a speedy by uploader User:GabrielVelasquez for "Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. " to rfd by me. --Túrelio (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Actually, I don't even own a camera, I borrowed this image which really belongs to ELIZABETH RYCKACZESKI and according to her is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I assured her I would have them removed, and she doesn't have to call her lawyer brother. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not in use, private artwork, not in COM:PS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Ricardo P. (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. –Tryphon☂ 16:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy. FunkMonk (talk) 10:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
This is not a panorama picture, the picture has been made where has been made all the pictures belong to this Category:Museo civico di storia naturale (Milan) --Bramfab (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- See this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Proto_rico.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I repeat this is not a matter of freedom of panorama, in case of other discussion looking for other reason to delete I can say that I don't see any reason why this photo should be different from this showing manual reproduction of dino's skeletons duplicated and displayed in this exhibit File:Juvenile Maiasauras.jpg, and the artistic reproduction of the nest!--Bramfab (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- In that case, those are just casts, nothing original is added as far as I know, and are comparable to taxidermy. Even the nests are known from fossils and can be duplicated by casting. It's an entirely different matter when muscles, skin, shape and colour is added, all that is unknown, and up to an artist. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is an industrial cast, having the same artistic values as this or this. In addition referring to this photo File:Juvenile Maiasauras.jpg I strongly doubt that one full skeleton has been recovered, usually every dino skeleton contains artificial bones replacing missing bone, so also in those items there are objects coming from human "brain", i.e their should considered as resulting from of artistic activities. Also because the bones has been not recovered in life position as displayed, and the whole scenography, including the reciprocal position of skeletons and each attitude of heads, harms and legs comes definitively from an artistic vision! Plus can you prove that the nest has been cast from the original one?--Bramfab (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- That is a false comparison, since again, everything in your example is designed, it has been sculpted and painted by hand, whereas there is nothing original in the skeleton cast, it is simply an exact duplication of the remains of a dead animal. Maiasaura is known from hundreds of specimens, so filling the gaps in the cast of one skeleton with casts of the missing parts of another is no problem at all. As for the posture, taxidermy specimens are not considered copyright violations either. The nests are also known from many specimens, so why scientists should sculpt them from scratch instead of simply casting them does not make sense to me. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also the nest of maiasaura has been painted by hand. May I request the citation proving that this specific reconstruction (Copenaghen exibit, incidentally where the freedom of panorama does not extend to the works of art that are located in public places see this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Denmark) of nest comes from a casting of an original nest? It looks too much neat to be a cast from paleontological escavation. I know that it is not a problem filling gap of missing bones, but you miss the point: this filling operation ask for a creativity so it is a sort of artistic work, (artistic work does not mean just painting, but use the brain, otherwise all the pictures made by monkeys would be art) with sometimes some mistakes. You should know the reconstruction of apatosaurus with a wrong head! In-fact fossil reconstruction is not taxidermy!--Bramfab (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss another photo, start a deletion request for that one, it is not appropriate here. FunkMonk (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also the nest of maiasaura has been painted by hand. May I request the citation proving that this specific reconstruction (Copenaghen exibit, incidentally where the freedom of panorama does not extend to the works of art that are located in public places see this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Denmark) of nest comes from a casting of an original nest? It looks too much neat to be a cast from paleontological escavation. I know that it is not a problem filling gap of missing bones, but you miss the point: this filling operation ask for a creativity so it is a sort of artistic work, (artistic work does not mean just painting, but use the brain, otherwise all the pictures made by monkeys would be art) with sometimes some mistakes. You should know the reconstruction of apatosaurus with a wrong head! In-fact fossil reconstruction is not taxidermy!--Bramfab (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- That is a false comparison, since again, everything in your example is designed, it has been sculpted and painted by hand, whereas there is nothing original in the skeleton cast, it is simply an exact duplication of the remains of a dead animal. Maiasaura is known from hundreds of specimens, so filling the gaps in the cast of one skeleton with casts of the missing parts of another is no problem at all. As for the posture, taxidermy specimens are not considered copyright violations either. The nests are also known from many specimens, so why scientists should sculpt them from scratch instead of simply casting them does not make sense to me. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is an industrial cast, having the same artistic values as this or this. In addition referring to this photo File:Juvenile Maiasauras.jpg I strongly doubt that one full skeleton has been recovered, usually every dino skeleton contains artificial bones replacing missing bone, so also in those items there are objects coming from human "brain", i.e their should considered as resulting from of artistic activities. Also because the bones has been not recovered in life position as displayed, and the whole scenography, including the reciprocal position of skeletons and each attitude of heads, harms and legs comes definitively from an artistic vision! Plus can you prove that the nest has been cast from the original one?--Bramfab (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- In that case, those are just casts, nothing original is added as far as I know, and are comparable to taxidermy. Even the nests are known from fossils and can be duplicated by casting. It's an entirely different matter when muscles, skin, shape and colour is added, all that is unknown, and up to an artist. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yet no proof about assertion that museum reconstruction should be an artistic sculpture. This request start with two erroneous indications: teh first about supposed infringement of no freedom of panorama in Italy, when indicated that this pictures is belong to a series of pictures of Category:Museo civico di storia naturale (Milan) and its manufacture has basically the same features of those of soldier toys the fact has been not rejected or disputed. The second erroneous connection with a picture from completely different place. Now the proponent ask to no discuss here another photo, correct, but why he was the first introducing another (and in addition wrong) picture in this discussion? It is time to close this "strange" request unless we decide to evaluate one by one all the pictures about items from the natural history museums of the world judging which of those comes from artist works (nothing to share with panorama freedom) and which are displayed as nature did.--Bramfab (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC).
- What you said at the end is exactly what we have to do here on Commons, evaluate every single image individually. And in the case of this image, it is a copyright infringement according to Italian law. FunkMonk (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
What I said is that there is not infringement at all, this picture is not an infringement to the specific Italian law. The only connection is that the picture has been taken in Italy. I have to say that you didn't prove your assertions, after I remarked your errors, but you boldly back at begin (errors included). It is an easy way to escape from any constructive discussion. It is obvious that in case of deletion this would put a lot of photos under a different light, photo that obviously will be evaluated individually, not lumped together as you did--Bramfab (talk) 11:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- What has been lumped? This is a copyvio, not much to add. FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
lumped. Again a mistake? This is not a copyviol and there are no serious objections to my explanations and comments, just boldly back at begin (errors included)--Bramfab (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work, no freedom of panorama and no permission. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy. FunkMonk (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
This is not panorama picture, the photo has been made in a private park where there is a full freedom to take picture and use them, for people accepting to pay ticket and then to go inside ! --Bramfab (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if it is a private park, the artist who made the sculptures owns the copyright to the sculpture, so you can not take a picture of the sculpture and then determine what license you want to release them under, only the artist can do that when there is no "freedom of panorama" in the country. See this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Cannot be kept without permission by the artist. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is not an artist's sculture, it is an object from a serial cast of plastic reproduction of this animal here some other items that you can find in several educations and amusement parks (at least in Italy) everywhere there is a dino's corner. This photo is like as teh photo of a car or a chocolates box or as the dino's skeletons duplicated and displayed in this exhibit File:Juvenile Maiasauras.jpg, (without discussing about the right of the artist who did the nest!). --Bramfab (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Again, the models were made by an artist, who thus holds the copyright, and the skeleton casts are just that, casts of skeletons that no one can copyright. FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Again: It is an industrial cast, having the same artistic values as this or this. In addition referring to this photo File:Juvenile Maiasauras.jpg I strongly doubt that one full skeleton has been recovered, usually every dino skeleton contains artificial bones replacing missing bone, so also in those items there are objects coming from human "brain", i.e their should considered as resulting from of artistic activities. Also because the bones has been not recovered in life position as displayed, and the whole scenography, including the reciprocal position of skeletons and each attitude of heads, harms and legs comes definitively from an artistic vision! Plus can you prove that nest has been cast from the original one? --Bramfab (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Let's keep the discussion here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pteranodon_rico.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Don't mess! Lets keep on the subject. The subjects come from different origins, This reconstruction comes from a park and it is a result from industrial manufacturing (yet specialized and I have already above indicated the manufacturing) the other photo comes from a museum and it is a reconstruction made by paleontologists having the same value of File:Juvenile Maiasauras.jpg reconstruction. And I repeat my request: can you prove that nest has been cast from the original one? --Bramfab (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Let's keep the discussion here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pteranodon_rico.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Again: It is an industrial cast, having the same artistic values as this or this. In addition referring to this photo File:Juvenile Maiasauras.jpg I strongly doubt that one full skeleton has been recovered, usually every dino skeleton contains artificial bones replacing missing bone, so also in those items there are objects coming from human "brain", i.e their should considered as resulting from of artistic activities. Also because the bones has been not recovered in life position as displayed, and the whole scenography, including the reciprocal position of skeletons and each attitude of heads, harms and legs comes definitively from an artistic vision! Plus can you prove that nest has been cast from the original one? --Bramfab (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Again, the models were made by an artist, who thus holds the copyright, and the skeleton casts are just that, casts of skeletons that no one can copyright. FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is not an artist's sculture, it is an object from a serial cast of plastic reproduction of this animal here some other items that you can find in several educations and amusement parks (at least in Italy) everywhere there is a dino's corner. This photo is like as teh photo of a car or a chocolates box or as the dino's skeletons duplicated and displayed in this exhibit File:Juvenile Maiasauras.jpg, (without discussing about the right of the artist who did the nest!). --Bramfab (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work, no freedom of panorama and no permission by the artist. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
According to FAQ, photos there are not copyrighted unless noted otherwise. Photo is noted as "Courtesy Democratic People's Republic of Korea Mission to the United Nations" at the source page. Source: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/kptoc.html, chapter 4, section 1. Martin H. (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Whatever the copyright status of this photo, the current tag that it is a work of the U.S. Federal Government seems highly dubious. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- This DR should include this derivative file too. –Tryphon☂ 12:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: According to the Copyright Law of the DPRK, Articles 12 and 32, this image is exempt from copyright. As this image was created within the DPRK, DPRK policy applies. Refer to the following:
{{PD-DPRKGov}} {{CopyrightedFreeUse-DPRK}} Regards, -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 09:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-DPRK. –Tryphon☂ 05:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
not documents of State management 221.127.248.237 15:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is the same photo deleted in August. The current copyright tag says "The documents of State management such as ordinance, decision or directive, current news and bulletins shall not be the object of copyright.", which does not seem to me to apply to photographs. Unless it can be shown that this photo falls under the provisions of that license or is free licensed for some other reason, Delete Infrogmation (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)