Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/10/11
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Latvian lats copyrighted. See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Currency#Latvia --Manu (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Abigor: Non free currency per Commons:Currency
This is dated to January 1983 and should be copyrighted Leoboudv (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete Unless someone can determine that there was no copyright notice. --Simonxag (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete Appears to be from , uploaders userpage User:Polartron states "Polatron was published in Hot Rod magazine’s tool crib in May 1982"; their website [1] does not appear to have online archives, but I think it is extremely unlikely that this user is the copyright holder. Chzz ► 13:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a screenshot of text. Unless there is something striking about the format of the text, which isn't clear from the description, it should be deleted. -SCEhardT 18:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Note: Duplicate image here. I tend to concur with the suggested deletion and recommend both be removed. Powers (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete this should be typed text instead. ZooFari 04:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete A few words of plain text, mostly white space. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: This deletion request has been relisted, as it was not transcluded to DR back in June. ZooFari 04:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unused [2], serves no useful purpose (and not at all likely to do so) Chzz ► 13:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
This is NOT Mangifera indica. This is Manilkara zapota or Manilkara achras whose common English name is Sapodilla. In Bengali language, Sofeda Fol means Sapodilla Fruit. 24.170.130.22 06:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep Not a reason to delete; you can correct the description. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment And you can order a rename using {{rename|newname.ext|reason}} on the image description page. --Martin H. (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)- Keep Keep and fix; that's what 'edit' is for Chzz ► 13:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Published work, published c. 1965, it not fulfills any of the requirements in Template talk:PD-Chile. Furthermore no author is named, only the IADB as source, so absolutely no evidence is given that Chile is the country of origin. Martin H. (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete Per nom Chzz ► 13:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The file on Flickr and on Commons is clearly by the same editor [IE: Flickrwashing] (only difference in the end parts of the username [Flickr has a "y" rather then the "is"]). Only way to save this image from deletion is an OTRS email from ks-ass.co.uk or the person in question (Ellis Jones). Bidgee (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete It is the *only* image in the Flickr photostream, and a copy from elsewhere on the web. Blatant Flickrwash. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. –Tryphon☂ 19:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Clear copy Chzz ► 13:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
For me it doesn't look like made in 2007. Maybe it's PD-old, but we don't have an evidence. Herr Kriss (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Use not stated, low quality, orphaned, Possible copyvio. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Blurry, unidentifiable, unusable. Lycaon (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Low quality, blurry, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per above Chzz ► 13:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 11:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic SpaceFlight89 (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Low quality, blurry, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Per Fastily. Chzz ► 13:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
No FOP for modern buildings in France. De Minimis can't apply here. Leoboudv (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 10:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for modern buildings in France. De Minimis / COM:DM cannot apply here since the building is the most prominent structure in the photo. Leoboudv (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Clearly not the uploader's own work, no source provided. No way of verifying that this image is in the public domain. J Milburn (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment I've just put a notification on the original uploader's talk page. However I do suspect they are not the original photographer. --Simonxag (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 10:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Highly doubtful that this image is "own work". Most likely copyright violation 132.199.211.12 17:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted - as copyvio from [3] --Dferg (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Bad licence description. Also there was a request on polish Wikipedia ([4]) by an anonymous user claiming that original uploader doesn't have exclusive rights to the image and can't release it as PD.Plushy (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Unless someone can prove that the image was published without a clear copyright notice before 1994 so that it would qualify as {{PD-Polish}} - Delete per above (no consent of the economic copyright holder). --Botev (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment See also talk page (in Polish). Could be {{Anonymous-EU}}. --Botev (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete for sure its description is false, stating that Reytan is its author and only brief information that "copyrights were granted by the owner" is provided. Second, it doesn't provide any information who is its original author and when and where it was created, therefore, basing on lack of any informations about it, I'd recommend to delete it. Masur (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment We do know when it was created - the description says 1920. It may be {{PD-Polish}} as there is no copyright notice on the image itself, so the picture was not protected by the Copyright Act of 1926 (I don't know anything about earlier laws). Consequently, it was not protected by the law of 1952 and is not protected today. But then, of course, you will again claim that we don't know if it was altered or not, etc. etc. --Botev (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Excactly, cos it simply doesnt look like a "first hand" scan. Low resolution, small etc, therefore doubts concerning its reproductions are excused, I think Masur (talk) 07:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am in contact (via OTRS) with a person claiming to have rights to this image. I will update the description as soon as I establish what is going on. For the time being please do not delete. --Zureks (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- It has been confirmed we do not have permission to use the image. To be deleted then immediately. --Zureks (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Herr Kriss: Missing essential information: source and/or license
By far this photograph fails the requirements of Template talk:PD-Chile. However, it is uploaded as own work, so maybe {{PD-self}} was intended? I will not guess here, the image is missing a proper license tag. Martin H. (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Own work is unlikely here, a quick google search for Jorge Arrate brings a lot of hits for this images and some of them are most likely not images taken from Commons. So a permission would be a second requirement. --Martin H. (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Missing essential information: source and/or license: since December 13, 2009
Also File:Bin Laden Poster.jpeg and File:Bin Laden Poster2.jpeg.
Derivative work. There is no evidence the poster was designed in Afghanistan, that the photo of bin Laden was taken there and the twin towers photo in the background certainly wasn't taken there. --Liftarn (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep — I suspect the contributor who nominated this image means that the Navy photographer who took this snapshot of a poster of Osama bin Laden is violating Osama bin Laden's intellectual property rights. I am not sure I fully understand the rules on "derivative works". But I have participated in over a dozen discussions of the copyright status of images from Afghanistan. All these discussions have reached a consensus that images from Afghanistan are not protected by copyright. This comes up often enough that I have started suggesting the wikimedia foundation get an intellectual property lawyer to offer a professional opinion on this question. If images made in Afghanistan are not protected by copyright no one's intellectual property rights are being tread upon by this image. Geo Swan (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- There are many issues here. The person who took the photo of UBL has a copyright on it. Then there is the background photo that someone has a copyright to. Then there is the various small images, but they look like clipart so that's probably not an issue. Then the person designing the poster has a copyright on it. That the photo was taken in Afghanistan does not reqire that the poster was designed or published there. // Liftarn (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- The person who took the photo was a GI -- an employee of the US Federal Government, who took the photo in performance of his or her duties. Such photos are always in the public domain. Geo Swan (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- There are many issues here. The person who took the photo of UBL has a copyright on it. Then there is the background photo that someone has a copyright to. Then there is the various small images, but they look like clipart so that's probably not an issue. Then the person designing the poster has a copyright on it. That the photo was taken in Afghanistan does not reqire that the poster was designed or published there. // Liftarn (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The photo is public domain. But it is still a derivative work of the poster (which is clearly the subject of the picture). Even if we can be sure that is in the public domain it is itself a derivative work of the photo of Osama (and there's no reason to suspect that's anything other than copyrighted). Does anyone want to claim that the picture of bin Laden is de minimis in this final photograph? (That's not a rhetorical question). --Simonxag (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- The photo may be PD, but it's a derivative work of the poster. The poster may be under copyright. And also the poster consist of elements that also may be copyrighted. // Liftarn (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment A better version is now available File:Bin Laden Poster.jpeg 92.227.2.47 17:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, and File:Bin Laden Poster2.jpeg so I included them as well. // Liftarn (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I don't know about the technical legal jargon, but as this image is admitted to be clearly in the public domain both in the US and the country of origin for our purposes, I don't understand the fuss. I don't particularly care whether Al Qaeda infringed the original photographer's copyright (assuming he had one, since the picture was clearly taken in Afghanistan), or whether the US Navy infringed Al Qaeda's. RayAYang (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Last time I checked the WTC towers were in New York, not Afghanistan. Do you have information about the country of origin? It might very well be designed and printed in Pakistan for instance. We can't just ignore copyright because you don't like the person in the photo. // Liftarn (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oh. I thought you were referring to the image of Bin Laden, which is clearly the most prominent portion of the poster. I'm completely prepared to say that the picture of the twin towers, being as it is to the side and mixed in with a cartoon drawing, is not terribly significant to the main creative message of this piece of propaganda. Certainty as to country of design and printing is kinda irrelevant here - as of the best of our information, it was published and distributed in Afghanistan, and that is the context in which it was found. RayAYang (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would say the country of origin is quite important. Otherwise you could just take any copyrighted image to Afghanistan, make a copy of it and claim it to be public domain. // Liftarn (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Only if you could plausibly claim it hadn't appeared elsewhere. I think you're asking for a level of proof that's not going to be possible to provide. The photo is Public Domain in the US, in Afghanistan (the apparent country of origin), and there appear for all practical purposes to be no legal impediment to its retention on Commons. If Al Qaeda chooses to file suit against Wikimedia, then we can revisit. RayAYang (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- The work of the photographer is PD. but since it's a derivative work it may very well not be public domain. // Liftarn (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Only if you could plausibly claim it hadn't appeared elsewhere. I think you're asking for a level of proof that's not going to be possible to provide. The photo is Public Domain in the US, in Afghanistan (the apparent country of origin), and there appear for all practical purposes to be no legal impediment to its retention on Commons. If Al Qaeda chooses to file suit against Wikimedia, then we can revisit. RayAYang (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would say the country of origin is quite important. Otherwise you could just take any copyrighted image to Afghanistan, make a copy of it and claim it to be public domain. // Liftarn (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oh. I thought you were referring to the image of Bin Laden, which is clearly the most prominent portion of the poster. I'm completely prepared to say that the picture of the twin towers, being as it is to the side and mixed in with a cartoon drawing, is not terribly significant to the main creative message of this piece of propaganda. Certainty as to country of design and printing is kinda irrelevant here - as of the best of our information, it was published and distributed in Afghanistan, and that is the context in which it was found. RayAYang (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Last time I checked the WTC towers were in New York, not Afghanistan. Do you have information about the country of origin? It might very well be designed and printed in Pakistan for instance. We can't just ignore copyright because you don't like the person in the photo. // Liftarn (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep – It would work better in the Osama bin Laden article than the entire poster. It is more concise than the entire poster. —Siddharth Patil (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep – I also don't understand the fuss. The U.S. government states where this image is from (see link), so why is there a reason to question the licensing. Isn't the US government the one who decided copyright law? Even if the Twin towers are shown, the government has stated that the work is from Afghanistan. The submitter describes where the image came from, how it was found and why it is public domain. I think it is more descriptive than a lot of images on Wikipedia that no one seems to think should be deleted. It contains all needed information and in some ways far exceeds the needed information and therefore qualifies under the current Afghanistan licensing and even other US government licensing that is not shown here. I have yet to read a reason that I agree with here as to why it shouldn’t be kept. ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, let me reiterate and sum up the issue here. This picture has multiple layers of copyright issues.
- The copyright of the photo. Taken by a US GI ao it's PD. No problem there.
- The copyright of the poster. Unknown creator, may be under copyright.
- The copyright of the bin Laden photo. Unknown creator, probably under copyright.
- The copyright of the twin towers. Unknown creator, may be under copyright.
- The plane images. Look like clipart. Probably not under copyright.
// Liftarn (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Shizhao: Dupe of Image:US Navy 020114-N-8242C-006 U.S. Navy SEALs find valuable intelligence in Afghanistan.jpg
Copyright violation of writing.
Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan.--KENPEI (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Pruneautalk 16:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Because it is the old version of SCMO_logo.jpg Bozo888 (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate of File:SCMO Logo 80x78pix.jpg. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no source that can verify this image being published under a free licence 132.199.211.12 18:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, source was en:File:GAZ5903 Vetluga.jpg, which was under a different license (PD at en.wikipedia and Cc-sa-1.0 here). En.wikipedia's source was this no longer available website, which gives no sign of being PD or CC-sa-1.0. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Images by User:Corvettec6r
[edit]All images uploaded by this user seem to be copyvios. I have been aware of this for a short time now, but I have given the uploader the benefit of the doubt. Many of his/her uploads have already been deleted, and I have no doubt the others are invalid too. I can safely say this as this user has uploaded images of cars photographed in South Korea, China, Australia, various parts of Europe and many other countries suggesting these all come of the internet. Unless this user is extremely well travelled, I don't believe that these images are valid. The mostly web resolution sizes do not help the uploader's case either. OSX (talk • contributions) 16:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yep , seems that all are copied from different websites, could someone delete these --Typ932 (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader in question has as agreed for most to be deleted however the uploader's history and what has been discussed on the talk pages of OSX, Corvettec6r and Typ932, some images will be kept and those listed in a gallery on the uploader's talk page will be deleted. Bidgee (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Flags of Hokkaido
[edit]Original source of following files has copyright (detail is User:Knua/Japanese municipal flags#北海道, Hokkaido). Some file License is {{PD-Japan-exempt}}. But according to ja:Wikipedia:井戸端/subj/都道府県旗のアップロード and Commons:井戸端/過去ログ3#都道府県旗及び都道府県章のアップロードは問題ないか, "Article 13" applies only texts of government law, and doesn't apply contents (emblem, flag, song, etc). Community of Japanese Wikipedia warns about the danger of applying "PD-Japan-exempt" and deleted files in jawp. Please judge the deletion and copyrightable.
- File:Flag of Hokkaido.png
- File:Flag of Abashiri, Hokkaido.png
- File:Flag of Abashiri, Hokkaido.svg
- File:Flag of Biei, Hokkaido.png
- File:Flag of Biei, Hokkaido.svg
- File:Flag of Ebetsu, Hokkaido.png
- File:Flag of Ebetsu, Hokkaido.svg
- File:Flag of Esashi, Hokkaido (Hiyama).png
- File:Flag of Esashi, Hokkaido (Hiyama).svg
- File:Flag of Hakodate, Hokkaido.png
- File:Flag of Hakodate, Hokkaido.svg
- File:Flag of Kutchan, Hokkaido.png
- File:Flag of Kutchan, Hokkaido.svg
- File:Flag of Nayoro, Hokkaido.png
- File:Flag of Nayoro, Hokkaido.svg
- File:Flag of Niseko, Hokkaido.png
- File:Flag of Niseko, Hokkaido.svg
- File:Flag of Okushiri, Hokkaido.png
- File:Flag of Okushiri, Hokkaido.svg
- File:Flag of Rebun, Hokkaido.png
- File:Flag of Rebun, Hokkaido.svg
- File:Flag of Rishiri, Hokkaido.png
- File:Flag of Rishiri, Hokkaido.svg
- File:Flag of Rishirifuji, Hokkaido.png
- File:Flag of Rishirifuji, Hokkaido.svg
- File:Flag of Rumoi, Hokkaido.png
- File:Flag of Rumoi, Hokkaido.svg
- File:Flag of Sapporo.png
- File:Flag of Sapporo.svg
- File:Flag of Setana, Hokkaido.png
- File:Flag of Setana, Hokkaido.svg
- File:Flag of Shinhidaka, Hokkaido.png
- File:Flag of Shinhidaka, Hokkaido.svg
- File:Symbol of Assabu, Hokkaido.svg
See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Kyoto Prefecture.svg and Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-07. The flags of Hokkaido is requested from the beginning of a series of deletion (1/47).--Knua (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. per the law and the old DR Huib talk 11:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
image was obviously downloaded from "autowp.ru". There is no verification for the image being in the public domain 132.199.211.12 18:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Image focused on the fotographed person doesn´t have a copyright.--Modzzak (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Image focused on the fotographed person doesn´t have a copyright.--Modzzak (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Image focused on the fotographed person doesn´t have a copyright.--Modzzak (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The image is not covered by the selected license tag Template:PD-Chile, maybe Template:PD-self is the license of choice here, but I would not guess this. Martin H. (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
According to the image description This image is a reconstruction of a work currently in the public domain according to the Chilean law. The image not fulfills, given the date it cant even fulfill, any of the requirements in Template talk:PD-Chile, so it can not be public domain according to the Chilean law. The selected license is invalid, also the PD source image is not mentioned. Martin H. (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Very strange, the Spanish text does act of homage, but that doesn't make sense, this is just a photo of a woman, how could it be a re-creation of anything? In any case, if it is an original photograph, I don't think the fact that it's a re-creation could make it a derivative work, there's nothing inherently notable here. But is it an original photograph? -Nard the Bard 12:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
This is the cover of a book published in 1973--presumably copyrighted. Prezbo (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not a book, an "Agitationsschrift" (en:agitprop). that is: the copyright holder wants it to be copied. Copyright is the right to tell when the object may be copied. Unless you made the cover, your claim seems to be more infringing than publishing the cover. Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- How ironic. My guess is that having "Agitationsschrift" on the cover doesn't alter its copyright status, but maybe I'm wrong.Prezbo (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Cover shows a photograph, which was not made by user:H.-P.Haack. He already gave his ok für this deletion. --Paulae (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- And it of course was a book, from Trikont (Trikont-Texte series), Munich, 1972.--Radh (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Cover shows a photograph, which was not made by user:H.-P.Haack. He already gave his ok für this deletion. --Paulae (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- How ironic. My guess is that having "Agitationsschrift" on the cover doesn't alter its copyright status, but maybe I'm wrong.Prezbo (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The image fails all requirements written in Template talk:PD-Chile. Martin H. (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work: Fan art representation of a copyrighted character Belgrano (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Covered by FOP in Spain. Also, as luck would have it, en:Iron Man originated in Tales of Suspense in the March 1963 issue, obtaining his gold and red colorings in the December issue. U.S. copyrights from before January 1, 1964 that have not been renewed are public domain. Tales of Suspense has not been renewed[5] -Nard the Bard 19:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I find that hard to believe... considering I have a modern comic book that includes Iron Man with this same appearence, and credits say "The characters included in this issue, NEW AVENGERS, and the distinctive likeness thereof are properties of Marvel Characters, Inc. All rights reserved.". And even more, I do have as well "Biblioteca Marvel: Iron Man", reprints in Spain of this early issues you talk about, and have similar credits: "Copyright © 1968/1969 Marvel Characters Inc. Copyright © 2005 Panini España S.A. The characters included in this issue, (Tales of Suspense) and the distinctive likeness thereof are properties of Marvel Characters, Inc. All rights reserved.". Belgrano (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- 1963<1968. They can claim later copyright all they want, the original issues from 1963 are public domain now. -Nard the Bard 21:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Let's put it this way: Iron Man is a character of Marvel Comics, and both ones (the company and the publication and active commercial use of the character) have been steadily taking place from that date to this day. Any comic book you can take with Iron Man as a character of it will have a disclaimer like the ones provided, or other in the same lines. To justify the statement that the character is in the public domain (wich is a high statement), you would need more than just a webpage where "Tales of Suspense" is not listed (see the disclaimers in the top: there may be omisions). Better than that, I would like a source that explicitly states that. Belgrano (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- 1963<1968. They can claim later copyright all they want, the original issues from 1963 are public domain now. -Nard the Bard 21:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I find that hard to believe... considering I have a modern comic book that includes Iron Man with this same appearence, and credits say "The characters included in this issue, NEW AVENGERS, and the distinctive likeness thereof are properties of Marvel Characters, Inc. All rights reserved.". And even more, I do have as well "Biblioteca Marvel: Iron Man", reprints in Spain of this early issues you talk about, and have similar credits: "Copyright © 1968/1969 Marvel Characters Inc. Copyright © 2005 Panini España S.A. The characters included in this issue, (Tales of Suspense) and the distinctive likeness thereof are properties of Marvel Characters, Inc. All rights reserved.". Belgrano (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete The picture was created under Freedom of Panorama which is fine. The statue, being fan art was not created with permission and (if Iron Man is copyrighted) that makes this a copyright violation and probably makes the picture a copyright violation too. I'd say that to keep the picture we need to establish as a fact (that would stand up in the US courts) that Iron Man is public domain. Isn't it odd that other publishers have never tried to cash in on this character if it's free for all to use. --Simonxag (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment I don't believe that Iron Man or Tales of Suspense have ever fallen into the public domain, so the point would be moot, but if that was the case, this, this or this would be much more better options to use than a fan-made statue Belgrano (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, this file looks as it has been inspired by the film. The original Iron Man comics would indeed seem PD-US-not-renewed. Kameraad Pjotr 15:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Template talk:PD-Chile makes it required that the author of the photograph died before September 16, 1962. This photographs was taken in May 1962, an author is not acknowledged. It is extremely unlikely that the photographer died within 4 month after he made this photo. Martin H. (talk) 07:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- {{PD-Chile}} says that, when the author is unknownn or not acnowledged, the picture is in the public domain if the picture was published befkre Sept 1962. And that's the case. The picture comes from a magazine (Revista Gol a Gol), published in August 1962 to be exact [6]. --B1mbo (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Question If you know such a good source - Is there any reason you left your upload totaly unsourced? Question2: What efforts did you do to find out the author? "Anonymous" means that the author never disclosed his identity. It not means that only one source not knows or not documented the author. Did someone ask that newspaper or magazine or that archive e.g.? Thats a required effort to determine the copyright status. --Martin H. (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- To the first question, it was three years ago when there wasn't all the current regulations and templates that are today here in Commons. Besides, I wasn't an expert about it... certainly, it wasn't because I was trying intentionally to left totally unsourced the image. About the second question, the image isn't "anonymous"... it's just that its author is not acknowledge; probably, the rights of the image belong to the magazine and not to the photographer, and in that case it's used the limit of 1962. But, asking to a disappeared magazine about one of their photographers is something I would say it's quite difficult. --B1mbo (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, unless evidence can be given that the author is mentioned nowhere in the magazine, it remains a copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 15:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Not simple enough as PD Liangent (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Would be fine according to German standards - I do not know about Taiwan. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, precautionary principle, probably to "creative" for PD-textlogo. Kameraad Pjotr 15:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Invalid license. -Nard the Bard 19:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- What's invalid about it? Stifle (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is a photograph of a third party work. We need proof this design is in the public domain. PD-self does not cover it. -Nard the Bard 19:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work. Kameraad Pjotr 15:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Not sure this is actually copyright free. -Nard the Bard 19:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
possible original image has license CCSA-3.0 - Comment The German text claims that it was derived from one of the images on de:Rot-Grün-Sehschwäche. The uploader there was de:Benutzer:Bautsch. There, there are similar images, with the German license tag de:Vorlage:Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe which claims "Diese Datei erreicht nicht die für einen urheberrechtlichen Schutz nötige Schöpfungshöhe." (the linked English en:Template:PD-ineligible is not an exact translation but has "This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore is in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship.") They also have a warning that this may not be compatible with Commons policies: "Diese Datei ist möglicherweise nicht mit den Richtlinien von Wikimedia Commons kompatibel." -84user (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
![[2]](http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=Ant%C3%B3nio_C%C3%A2ndido_Teixeira_e_Costa.JPG&w=_100000#end){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted, not PD-simple. Kameraad Pjotr 15:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
What date was this flag first used? Copyright does not belong to the uploader- it either belongs to the original copyright holder, or it is in the public domain. J Milburn (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- This says 1982. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- So have we any reason to believe this is PD? J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- The shield is from the 1880s, but this flag pattern (maple leaves around the shield) is used for nearly all governor general flags. However, I am not sure when those were adopted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- This standardized design for provincial LT. Governor's was adopted in the 80s Fry1989 (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- The shield is from the 1880s, but this flag pattern (maple leaves around the shield) is used for nearly all governor general flags. However, I am not sure when those were adopted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- So have we any reason to believe this is PD? J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyhow, I say Don't Delete Fry1989 (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, not PD/lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 15:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Kolokol unified discussion
[edit]The following deletion requests all relate to a non-notable organization Колокол (Kolokol). An article about them was deleted from the Russian Wikipedia. The question is whether any of these images may have value independent of whether that organization is notable. Andrei Romanenko has proposed deleting them all; I think most are potentially useful for some educational purpose or will be of historical interest (even given that the organization is not, itself, notable). After some discussion with him (on his talk page) I've created this page so that there is a place to comment on them collectively, since the issues are generally the same. - Jmabel ! talk 05:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
no notability; an article in ru.wiki is deleted Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The source site doesn't give any proof that the file is free. Huib talk 11:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
no notability; an article in ru.wiki is deleted Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I can't easily tell from just looking, but I assume this is some Russian equivalent of a "model congress" for youth? If so, seems within scope. - Jmabel ! talk 04:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The source site doesn't give any proof that the file is free. Huib talk 11:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
no notability; an article in ru.wiki is deleted Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Two young men cleaning up an Odessa cemetery. Seems within scope of Commons to me. - Jmabel ! talk 04:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The source site doesn't give any proof that the file is free. Huib talk 11:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
no notability; an article in ru.wiki is deleted Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Appears to be an ecological protest/demonstration. Pictures of demos are generally in scope for Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 04:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The source site doesn't give any proof that the file is free. Huib talk 11:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
no notability; an article in ru.wiki is deleted Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Appears to be an ecological protest/demonstration. Pictures of demos are generally in scope for Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 04:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The source site doesn't give any proof that the file is free. Huib talk 11:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
no notability; an article in ru.wiki is deleted Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Appears to be an ecological protest/demonstration. Pictures of demos are generally in scope for Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 04:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 15:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
no notability; an article in ru.wiki is deleted Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Political celebration of Victory Day, a onetime Soviet holiday. Seems to me to be in scope for Commons, and interesting that some young people would be celebrating it in 2009 and waving a Soviet flag. - Jmabel ! talk 04:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The source site doesn't give any proof that the file is free. Huib talk 10:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
no notability; an article in ru.wiki is deleted Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Political celebration of Victory Day, a onetime Soviet holiday. Seems to me to be in scope for Commons, and interesting that some young people would be celebrating it in 2009. - Jmabel ! talk 04:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The source site doesn't give any proof that the file is free. Huib talk 10:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
no notability; an article in ru.wiki is deleted Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Assuming there is no rights issue, I can't think of a reason to delete this. I wouldn't normally expect a photo exhibition (or really any one exhibition or performance) to be of encyclopedic notability, but in general if we can have posters for such things that don't have rights issues, they would seem to me to fall within Commons' scope. - Jmabel ! talk 04:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The source site doesn't give any proof that the file is free. Huib talk 10:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
no notability; an article in ru.wiki is deleted Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Youth newspaper press conference; individuals in photo are not ID'd. It's kind of interesting to me just for what this looks like in a particular place & time, not sure why we'd want to delete it. - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The source site doesn't give any proof that the file is free. Huib talk 10:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
All deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 15:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
